I have great respect for the science of anthropology but recently I came across two representations which made me question both motives and the qualifications of those anthropologists who were involved. First, there was a documentary concerning the Taino Indians of the Caribbean. I began watching the show with great interest when suddenly I noticed that most of the Tainos were represented as Black Africans. This of course distracted me considerably since it's common knowledge that the Tainos were of Asiatic origin.

Again, just recently, I was watching another show concerning Jesus' family members. Here we had Joseph and Mary some of Jesus brothers and one of his sisters represented as black Africans. Again a distraction and an inaccuracy. Now please understand that if this was true, I wouldn't mind. But it isn't anthropologically accurate. Why do these scientists choose to do this?

CaptainForest

I agree.

But when it comes to Hollywood, sometimes its easier to bend the truth to make a film work.

But overall I agree with you in that not representing history correctly is a bad thing.

Starman

Yes, I understand about film salability. But these were educational anthropological documentaries. So that should make a world of a difference. Imagine if I made a documentary about Shaka the Zulu and used someone like Bruce Lee. Or if I used some Nordic Type person to represent Martin Luther King. What happens is that the scientist involved loses credibility and comes under suspicion of giving unjustifiable priority to non-scientific agendas.

Xrayman

mmmm we Know for sure that shaka zulu would have been black, we know that MLK was black. presently there is conjecture as to the skin/anthropometric variation of Jesus. However it does seem a stretch to show history this way.

was this an attenpt to be non-racist? or as you say PC?

cheers

Starman

It's not a matter of being politically correct or being politically incorrect. It's a matter of biblical and historically accuracy. The Bible tells us that the so-called black race are descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons. The Jews of Jesus day were descended from Shem, another of Noah's sons.

Matthew 1:1-17


If Jesus had been of the negroid race or if his apperance had been Chinese then his lineage from Shem would have come into question and by extension his Messiahship as well.

Conversely, if the Messiah had been prophesied to come through Ham, then it would have been consistent with prophecy that he be of the black race and his Messiahship would have come into question if he had appeared otherwise.

One thing to keep in mind however, is that Jesus was born of holy Spirit so his appearance was not totally determined by earthly genetics. Also, since the Bible calls him the second Adam to which it tells us he was equivalent, then one might suppose that his appearance would not have reflected any of the physical extremes brought about via geographical isolations caused by the rebellion at the Tower of Babel.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam (Jesus), a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

Physical Description of Jesus

Xrayman

It's not a matter of being politically correct or being politically incorrect. It's a matter of biblical and historically accuracy. The Bible tells us that the so-called black race are descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons. The Jews of Jesus day were descended from Shem, another of Noah's sons.

Matthew 1:1-17

Starman: thanks for your input.

may I just point out, that the question was not whether the BIBLE agreed or disagreed with the body/skin type, it was whether Anthropology had any ideas on the subject. Do you have any other source apart from the Bible on this?

kind regards,

Starman

I don't but your search engine will provide you perhaps with the info you seek.


BTW
Recently on the Discovery Channel anthropologists used Northern Europeans types to represent Asiatic Huns. Not the Huns which reached Europe and intermingled later with the European populations--but the original Huns in their Mongolian homeland. That included Attilla himself whom they represented as Aryan. Being anthropologists I guess they consider that to be poetic license. Or is that political correctness again?

Xrayman

here is some data (after a search-as sugested by Starman) as to where this story/idea came from.
BBC NEWS | Magazine | So what colour was Jesus?

have a read, it casts some information, but it still states that No One Actually Knows!

Starman

That Jesus could have had any physical appearance imaginable isn't scriptural. Jesus was a perfect man equivalent to Adam and being physically perfect he could NOT have displayed the effects of sin. Otherwise his sacrifice would have been defective and unacceptable. This doesn't mean that he had to be Aryan. It merely means that physically he could not have shown the effects of the rebellion and dispersal that took place at Babel which resulted in the physical extremes we see today. Neither could he have shown physically that he wasn't of Semitic descent because Semitic descent was required of the Christ. Casting doubt on that descent by making Jesus appear other than Semitic is nonsensical because it would have hurt his claim to being the Messiah. That's basic theology buttressed by common sense.


Neither is it anthropologically correct to say that the Jews all had a uniform appearance. King David who was one of Jesus' ancestors was Nordic in appearance as are thousands of other Jews today. So that kind of stereotyping is based on ignorance.

Actually, Jesus' contemporaries who saw him personally didn't describe him in the way that your article does.


The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar

This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

TO TIBERIUS CAESAR:

A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said, we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God.

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate
================================================== =====


BTW
If asked, evolutionist anthropologists, the majority, will tell you that Jesus' ultimate ancestor was a fish. Not to mention his other ancestors who were amphibians and reptiles. Since this is so, I see no reason to take anything they say about Jesus that contradicts the Bible seriously.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you." (Luke 1:34,35). Joseph, likewise was told, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20).

Xrayman

The letter you describe is quite impressive and I must say I like the fact that you showed me this! thanks.

Obviously it would have had to have been converted to english-I wonder what the real roman version would have said is it an accurate translation? I would genuinely love to know.

once again-thanks!

P.S.
One thing, it wasn't my article-it was someone elses-I just referenced it. If it were mine I would have researched it much further, as I am a non-fiction writer and pride myself on accuracy.

cheers.