I have recently watched two videos on Youtube. One argues that Jesus was a white European gentile rather than a Jew. The other argues that Jesus was black. I do not find either of them convincing.
The first argues that Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his life, was inhabited by white Europeans. There may well be some truth in that. Consider for example, the story of the demon-possessed man in Luke 8 (similar accounts in Mark 5 and Matthew 8). The presence of a herd of pigs on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee indicates that a gentile community lived there at the time. Also, Jesus mentioned pigs during the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:6), and so clearly the Jews of Galilee at this time were familiar with pigs even though they did not eat pork themselves.
Nevertheless, Joseph was descended from King David, and I think Mary was as well. Also, Joseph was born in Bethlehem, and was therefore not from Galilee. Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), who was the wife of a priest, and the Jews had strict laws about who a priest could or could not marry.
The second video claims that Jesus was known in ancient times as the "beardless prophet", and yet the word beard is not found at all in the New Testament. Also, whether or not Jesus had a beard does not indicate his skin colour. The video cites two piece of evidence. One is the fact that Revelation says that Jesus has feet like brass, but brass can take many forms depending upon the exact metallic content; and different types of brass have different colours, not all of them dark.
The other piece of evidence is what the video claims is the oldest surviving painting of Jesus, which shows him as dark-skinned. There are two problems here though. The first is that the colour of paint can change over the course of many years. Although I cannot claim to be an expert, I wonder if it is possible that the paint used to depict Jesus may have darkened over time. The other problem is that even if this painting is the earliest known depiction of Jesus, then it does not necessarily make it accurate. Was it painted by someone who actually saw Jesus?
The first argues that Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his life, was inhabited by white Europeans. There may well be some truth in that. Consider for example, the story of the demon-possessed man in Luke 8 (similar accounts in Mark 5 and Matthew 8). The presence of a herd of pigs on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee indicates that a gentile community lived there at the time. Also, Jesus mentioned pigs during the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:6), and so clearly the Jews of Galilee at this time were familiar with pigs even though they did not eat pork themselves.
Nevertheless, Joseph was descended from King David, and I think Mary was as well. Also, Joseph was born in Bethlehem, and was therefore not from Galilee. Mary was related to Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), who was the wife of a priest, and the Jews had strict laws about who a priest could or could not marry.
The second video claims that Jesus was known in ancient times as the "beardless prophet", and yet the word beard is not found at all in the New Testament. Also, whether or not Jesus had a beard does not indicate his skin colour. The video cites two piece of evidence. One is the fact that Revelation says that Jesus has feet like brass, but brass can take many forms depending upon the exact metallic content; and different types of brass have different colours, not all of them dark.
The other piece of evidence is what the video claims is the oldest surviving painting of Jesus, which shows him as dark-skinned. There are two problems here though. The first is that the colour of paint can change over the course of many years. Although I cannot claim to be an expert, I wonder if it is possible that the paint used to depict Jesus may have darkened over time. The other problem is that even if this painting is the earliest known depiction of Jesus, then it does not necessarily make it accurate. Was it painted by someone who actually saw Jesus?
