If you sample the historical artwork in Europe and the Americas one can quickly notice that the Jesus character has a tendency to be depicted with the same skin tones, facial features and hair as the locals in which the art work was made.

It's a bit absurd to say that man is created in God's image when God doesn't in fact have an image.

This ignores those passages in the bible where God's backside is seen, for which I'm told that the appropriate response is simply to double down on God's invisibility.

Psychology of Religion and Spirituality published the original. It's part of the American Psychological Association.  

https://psycnet.apa.org/PsycARTICLES/journal/rel/12/4

After reading the abstracts, methinks these folks may have an agenda (bias) in addition to the psychology.

(March 12, 2021 at 5:47 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not sure why a skin-colour qualifier is needed in the title. 'Belief in Jesus linked to racism' seems sufficient.

Boru

To be fair, belief in jeebus is linked to a lot of bigotry, not just racism.

(March 12, 2021 at 12:14 pm)brewer Wrote: Psychology of Religion and Spirituality published the original. It's part of the American Psychological Association.  

https://psycnet.apa.org/PsycARTICLES/journal/rel/12/4

After reading the abstracts, methinks these folks may have an agenda (bias) in addition to the psychology.

Most psychology is like this. Look up successful replication rates of psychological studies. Social psychology is the worst, only an estimated 20% of studies can be replicated. The rest is bunk.

Psychology has become a haven for sloppy research & frauds. They actively shun & discourage scientific rigour in favour of agenda-driven bunk. They run from the field's most empirically validated findings, like IQ. That kind of thing might produce results that the journals & the unis & their corporate sponsors don't like. That won't advance their careers. Many research psychologists are determined to keep it this way, either because they themselves are guilty or because they fear the inevitable loss of credibility that the entire field would have to bear from exposing and rooting out the frauds & sloppy careerist researchers.

(March 13, 2021 at 1:52 pm)Seax Wrote: Most psychology is like this. Look up successful replication rates of psychological studies.

Science has a replication problem—psychology is just the only one looking. Perhaps this is unsurprising given that psychologists study human behavior and cognition. They are more aware of issues like hindsight bias which tampers with predictability. The Center for Open Science was born out of psychology; and rest assured the crisis is coming to a field near you lol.

(March 12, 2021 at 9:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: If you sample the historical artwork in Europe and the Americas one can quickly notice that the Jesus character has a tendency to be depicted with the same skin tones, facial features and hair as the locals in which the art work was made.

This was intentional. The artists and patrons had reasons for this.

As time went on, people of first century Palestine grew more remote from people in Europe. It was hard to picture what Jesus and the other characters looked like. But the historical accuracy was less important to them than the moral message. It wasn't "what did he really wear" but "how closely can I embody his example." 

So the artists decided to put Bible stories in settings that would be familiar to the locals. The most famous of these are the Flemish paintings by Robert Campin, van Eyck, etc. Everybody knew that Mary wouldn't wear the same styles as 15th century Flemish people or live in the same kind of living room, but the goal was to provoke the locals to put themselves in her place. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mérode_Altarpiece 

Similarly, St. Theresa of Avila said that "Christ has no body now but yours." They cared less about his historical flesh and more about whether they were Christ-like.

(March 14, 2021 at 5:24 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 12, 2021 at 9:58 am)Brian37 Wrote: If you sample the historical artwork in Europe and the Americas one can quickly notice that the Jesus character has a tendency to be depicted with the same skin tones, facial features and hair as the locals in which the art work was made.

This was intentional. The artists and patrons had reasons for this.

As time went on, people of first century Palestine grew more remote from people in Europe. It was hard to picture what Jesus and the other characters looked like. But the historical accuracy was less important to them than the moral message. It wasn't "what did he really wear" but "how closely can I embody his example." 

So the artists decided to put Bible stories in settings that would be familiar to the locals. The most famous of these are the Flemish paintings by Robert Campin, van Eyck, etc. Everybody knew that Mary wouldn't wear the same styles as 15th century Flemish people or live in the same kind of living room, but the goal was to provoke the locals to put themselves in her place. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mérode_Altarpiece 

Similarly, St. Theresa of Avila said that "Christ has no body now but yours." They cared less about his historical flesh and more about whether they were Christ-like.

Images are information. Text is information. Blueprints are pieces of information. Information is everywhere.
So if someone says "This bit of information is not important and starts painting something inaccurate", I'm going to have to question the entire thing.
Perhaps someone 1900 y ago decided the actual events surrounding Jesus is not important and started to take an artistic license and did some creative writing.

Who in this world wants false information?
Should I paint Jesus flying a jet fighter and blowing up romans and should I rewrite the Bible to match it because I'm a guy in the 20 th century?

"Similarly, St. Theresa of Avila said that "Christ has no body now but yours." They cared less about his historical flesh and more about whether they were Christ-like."

==Different people have different needs.
St. Theresa of Avila does not need accuracy.
I need accuracy.

--Ferrocyanide

In commemoration of my suddenly stumbling upon this thread and deciding to check whether or not I could find any clips of that Boondocks episode where Ruckus creates an entire church devoted to White Jesus that didn’t feature the N-word and actually finding one, I figured I’ll leave this here:



And the scene of Ruckus meeting Ronald Reagan in White Heaven missed out by one N-bomb. Oh, well, at least there’s one clip that doesn’t violate the rules. And it’s a pretty apt depiction of the intersection between white depictions of Jesus and racism, even if it is a clear satire with one of the most brain-breakingly absurd depictions of a white supremacist in fiction.

(March 19, 2021 at 1:02 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: So if someone says "This bit of information is not important and starts painting something inaccurate", I'm going to have to question the entire thing.

They modernized the appearance because the information they want to convey is very important. 

You have to decide what the message is and what meaning you want to get across. Is the historical accuracy of the clothing and hairstyles important to the message, or is the role of the characters in the moral story? Is Mary's hairstyle important, or her narrative role as a poor but worthy young woman?

As a non-religious example, think of the Tale of Genji. The author of that book makes it clear that Genji is the best-looking man of his generation. He's irresistible to women. But we know from documentary evidence that tastes have changed, and Genji probably looked a lot like Kim Jong Un. That is, he would not be attractive in the least to modern Japanese women. 

So if you're making a movie, you have to decide what message is important. Do you go with historical accuracy, and show Genji as a round little grotesque? Do you show the beautiful ladies of court with plucked-out eyebrows and big artificial ones painted high on their foreheads, so that they look ridiculous to modern audiences? (I think a modern audience would react by wondering "who in their right mind would fall for him?") Or do you get the best-looking actor you can, so that modern people react to him in the way that 11th century people reacted to Genji? If you're making a work of art with an emotional message, I think the latter is better. 

The devotio moderna movement thought that the important part was what role the characters played in their society, and that historically accurate visuals would not convey that emotionally to contemporary people. 

I think there are cases where modernization doesn't work. Recently Stephen Fry did a Picture of Dorian Gray set in our own time, with Dorian as an Instagram star. In my opinion this doesn't make Wilde's meaning more accessible to modern people, but less. The Dorian Gray of the novel was not a self-publicist, so I think Fry has completely changed the story's message. Giving Jesus a jet fighter would obviously change the meaning, as well.