But these same people who insist Jesus is a fictional character, want to insist on a dark-skinned Middle Eastern picture of him. My Reply: Fine, if you're depicting the historical Jesus the Man. But when it comes to the Jesus Of Faith, and you think that one is "fictional", then why can't he be a blonde, blue-eyed clean-looking hippie type?
Contemporary accounts of Jesus (from outside the Bible since the Bible doesn't usefully describe Jesus) describe him as fair skinned and having chestnut hair. Now whether fair skinned in first century Judea comports with what an American would call fair skinned today, I dunno. It seems to belie the claims that he was black or extremely swarthy as some 'historical' depictions have claimed.
Yeah and I'm not one to get into a fight over whether Meds are white or not, but I well know how much they can tan -- see them after their 6 weeks of paid vacation. So Jesus can probably be almost whatever shade makes you feel best between lily white and Guatemalan, lol
Color is one of the most difficult things to interpret from ancient written sources. Historians write whole treatises on the use of color in ancient texts. The description of color is entirely dependent on the viewer and shifts over time.
Though I've seen people assume that the term "wine-dark sea" indicated that Homer had a problem seeing colour, I don't think so. I think he only had more or less clear water, and opaque wine, for to choose from for a description of how, well, dark the sea was that he was trying to describe (rather than its actual apparent colour). And it's usually that dark when a storm is brewing, I would imagine, compared to when it's calm and you can wade and see the bottom.
I’ve never seen critics twist themselves into knots so much as when they tried to justify that garbage show. Someone actually said it wasn’t the same thing when I said a white guy should play Malcolm X then.
But these same people who insist Jesus is a fictional character, want to insist on a dark-skinned Middle Eastern picture of him. My Reply: Fine, if you're depicting the historical Jesus the Man. But when it comes to the Jesus Of Faith, and you think that one is "fictional", then why can't he be a blonde, blue-eyed clean-looking hippie type?
Contemporary accounts of Jesus (from outside the Bible since the Bible doesn't usefully describe Jesus) describe him as fair skinned and having chestnut hair. Now whether fair skinned in first century Judea comports with what an American would call fair skinned today, I dunno. It seems to belie the claims that he was black or extremely swarthy as some 'historical' depictions have claimed.
I always figured maybe "olive-skinned", as we used to call it. Or "well-tanned".
Yeah and I'm not one to get into a fight over whether Meds are white or not, but I well know how much they can tan -- see them after their 6 weeks of paid vacation. So Jesus can probably be almost whatever shade makes you feel best between lily white and Guatemalan, lol
Color is one of the most difficult things to interpret from ancient written sources. Historians write whole treatises on the use of color in ancient texts. The description of color is entirely dependent on the viewer and shifts over time.
Mm, and the writer might have been colour-blind.
Though I've seen people assume that the term "wine-dark sea" indicated that Homer had a problem seeing colour, I don't think so. I think he only had more or less clear water, and opaque wine, for to choose from for a description of how, well, dark the sea was that he was trying to describe (rather than its actual apparent colour). And it's usually that dark when a storm is brewing, I would imagine, compared to when it's calm and you can wade and see the bottom.
I’ve never seen critics twist themselves into knots so much as when they tried to justify that garbage show. Someone actually said it wasn’t the same thing when I said a white guy should play Malcolm X then.
Yep. They use that line all the time