Jesus tends to look like the ethnicity of whomever painted him. People didn't travel as much in the old days.

I have light olive skin and dark brown hair, my colouring is called "noiraud", or blacky.

Another part they get wrong is the weiner. He was circumcised (no flame war intended...)

"They completely changed his race to make him more aesthetically pleasing for white people," he told The Post."

Are you suing the painters or the Met?

It's just a lawsuit. The odds of it going anywhere are minuscule. However, as usual a person or organisation will have to defend themselves against vexatious litigation.

Yet another reason the black brand is dead.

who the man claims had "black hair like wool and skin of bronze color."

Someone should hire this dickhead in a history department - he knows stuff no one else knows for sure!

Here's my opinion on that, and it is only an opinion. Black hair like wool sounds very unlikely in a Palestine that pre-dated major influxes of Africans and Arabs. In fact, given the Roman domination at the time, I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few sandy haired people around.

I don't doubt that Jesus almost certainly looked a lot more Caucasian (in the real sense of the word, not meaning white) than he is generally depicted in the West. Somewhat darker and swarthier, fine. Maybe. But this level of certainty is just scary.

@NicoleK: Jesus tends to look like the ethnicity of whomever painted him. People didn't travel as much in the old days.

True enough, and I suspect most people would be willing to accept that. Given that, here is a collection of 20 depictions of Jesus from around the world. Some of them are distinctly European. Others, like the Filipino work on Slide 6, carry a definite European influence, while still others reflect more closely the cultures of the artists that produced them. It would have been nice if the ages of the works were included, but sadly, they're not.

Does the Metropolitan Museum of Art actually have to spend money to defend this, or will it never actually make it to court?

What's the basis for the lawsuit? Can you really sue for anything? I mean literally anything.

JFP, yes the MMA does have to defend itself otherwise a default judgment can be entered. Once a lawsuit is filed and served the clock starts running and the lawyer bills start coming. To even get to the stage where the lawsuit can be thrown out because it has no merit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the end, most of these cases will be settled for the "nuisance value."

When I encounter people who have a bug about the appearance of Jesus I just tell them he probably looked like Yaser Arafat's first cousin and watch their heads explode.

Soooo . . . he has a problem with the color of the baby but no issues with birdman on the left?

Like "Always" pantiliners, the guy on the left has...wings!

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

Reminds me of the whole Black Jesus nonsense.

People, it's okay to have heroes of another race.

Here's my opinion on that, and it is only an opinion. Black hair like wool sounds very unlikely in a Palestine that pre-dated major influxes of Africans and Arabs. In fact, given the Roman domination at the time, I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few sandy haired people around.

I don't doubt that Jesus almost certainly looked a lot more Caucasian (in the real sense of the word, not meaning white) than he is generally depicted in the West. Somewhat darker and swarthier, fine. Maybe. But this level of certainty is just scary.

Posted by: Ltw at December 9, 2015 3:59 AM

Considering that Palestine at that time was the crossroads of the world, it is possible (unlikely, but possible) that Jesus looked like the hippie Jesus he's usually portrayed as.

Cleopatra was Greek (a direct descendant of Ptolemy), ruling culturally diverse Egypt, yet PC revisionists insist that she can only be portrayed as black (ala equatorial African). Although Greek, I doubt she looked like much like Elizabeth Taylor. And I doubt Moses looked like Charlton Heston; nor Ramses like Yul Brynner.

These are portrayals. When Denzel Washington played Hamlet (in a play), no one fretted that a Danish prince was being portrayed by a black man. They watched the show and were happy to have such a big name actor in the production.

"They completely changed his race to make him more aesthetically pleasing for white people," he told The Post."

'cause the Met painted over the swarthy, olive-skinned baby in the original.

To even get to the stage where the lawsuit can be thrown out because it has no merit can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Probably not. The Met has lawyers on retainer, or perhaps pro bono, or they know one who'll do it for free just because it's the Met and they're a supporter. Or stupid lawsuit piss them off.

They'll reply and say the suit has no basis in fact or law, and that the plaintiff has no standing. Odds are the judge will agree and dismiss the case.

The plaintiff will have an opportunity to "fix" the suit, but if he has no standing that won't matter.

What Sara said. This is basically extortion: "pay me to go away, or I'll cost you tens of thousands in legal fees." Consider: the taxpayer or donor money that the Met will have to spend on this could have gone to acquiring new artworks, or on maintenance of artworks they already have, or on upkeep of the facilities. Instead it will be spent on an activity that, for everyone other than the lawyers involved, is totally free of usefulness.

In my fantasy world, all civil lawsuits would begin with the judge summoning the plaintiff to a show-cause hearing, at which the plaintiff would be required to spell out in detail the bases in fact and law for their action. The defendant's presence would not be required. If the presentation was insufficient, the judge would dismiss the action. The defendant would be notified by the court that an action had been filed and when the hearing would take place, so they could sit in and listen if desired. The defendant could not be served with papers until after this hearing.

(In real life, with the cohort we have today, this would not work. Judges would routinely rubber-stamp actions at the hearing; almost never would any action be dismissed at this stage, no matter how ridiculous or exploitative.)

IRA, in reality the MMA has turned this lawsuit over to their insurance company to defend or to attorneys they have retained - either way the MMA is paying for the defense, either directly or in increased premiums. There is a lot that happens in the legal arena before you can even get to a judge on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication where the judge gets to determine whether the case is in fact BS or has merit. We all know this case has zero merit, but instead of racking up thousands of dollars in legal bills to even get to the summary judgment/adjudication, the case will settle. Here's how the math goes - let's see if we can make this guy go away for $5-10k, before we drop $100k getting the case thrown out. I work on cases that settle this way every.damn.day. We represent a large home improvement company and one of the most recent examples I can give you is this: Guy buys carpet from our guys and has it installed. He goes back three years later and buys more of the same carpet, of course now it's from a different dye lot and is tufted years later, so naturally it doesn't match and he sues for "defective carpet and installation." So after our client has hired experts to tell the guy he's a moron, and spending several thousands litigating - i.e. going through the discovery process - he gets $10k for his troubles. That's how civil litigation works.

Those in the painting most likely looked like one of 3 people.
1. The family of the one paying the artist. Hey Mary looks a bit like my sister here's an extra 100.
2. The models the artist hired to pose.
3. Least likely, completely out of his imagination.

Yep, folks tend to make Jesus look like the locals. This way they can related to him better.

Go to some Christian churches in northern India and Nepal; they look like Himalayan Buddhist temples. The paintings on the walls look like Buddhas - when in reality they represent Jesus and other figures from the bible.

Also, if someone is upset over the color of the baby Jesus' skin for not being realistic; how about what look like glasses on the fellow on the right? Just who in the bible wore bifocals?

Good catch Charles. Glasses were invented in 1286. So those don't even have to be bifocals which were invented some time after 1785. Which is after the painting was painted.

Interesting factoid, angels as humans with wings are non-biblical. They are part of Christian pop culture but very much not part of the bible. Same with the giant ship filled with lions and tigers and bears (oh my) for Noah. No different than 'Any time a bell rings an Angel gets it's wings'.

"The paintings on the walls look like Buddhas - when in reality they represent Jesus and other figures from the bible."

Man creates God in his own image.

angels as humans with wings are non-biblical. They are part of Christian pop culture but very much not part of the bible.
____________________________________

Also: They are not spirits of the dead, as many assume.

It's odd, though, how often even religious families don't know that!

From "On the Banks of Plum Creek" (Laura's family went to the Congregational Church and Laura also went to Methodist Sunday School as a child):

"Laura saw Nellie Oleson showing off her fur cape. She remembered what Nellie had said about Pa, and she burned hot inside. She knew that hot feeling was wicked. She knew she must forgive Nellie, or she would never be an angel. She thought hard about the pictures of beautiful angels in the big paper-covered Bible at home. But they wore long white nightgowns. Not one of them wore a fur cape."

"They completely changed his race to make him more aesthetically pleasing for white people,"

Moron. The concept of "white people" didn't even exist when those paintings were painted.

I don't suppose he is equally exercised about the way Jesus is depicted in Ethiopian liturgical art.

Honestly Lenona that is a bit debatable. Angel is a job description not a species. Angel is a blend of old English and old French but both come from the Latin angelus which is the same as the Greek ángelos. In both the Latin and Greek the correct English translation is messenger. This matches the old testament Hebrew mal’ākh, which is the original (and also translates at messenger). So even a live human who is a messenger from god is an angel.

What is kind of humorous about the passage you quote, the bible is clear that humans are higher on the celestial pecking order than angels. So becoming an angel when you die is actually a demotion. Not quite how the pop culture views things :->.

As you say, it is amazing how many people can read and reread their holy texts and never actually take in what the texts say.

"Moron. The concept of 'white people' didn't even exist when those paintings were painted."

This. The concept of "white" as an ethnicity is a late-20th-century pretension. It's not hard to look back into American history and find times when people of certain European origins, who would today be described as white, were discriminated against by other people of European origins, who would also be described as white. "No Irish need apply", Italians labeled as "wops", and so on. Polish jokes were still a thing when I was a child. And of course, if you looked back at Europe before about 1970, absolutely nobody there thought of themselves as "white"; they were English, Scottish, French, Danish, Hungarian, Austrian, etc. And to a considerable extent, in Europe that's still the case. Not being too concerned about (or even aware of) one's ethnic background is pretty specifically an American thing.

So even a live human who is a messenger from god is an angel.
____________________________________

Does that mean that any minister, priest, or nun is an angel?

I admit, my assumption was based on what TIME magazine said early on in their cover story on angels, years ago. They certainly didn't make it sound as if an angel can also be a human with no supernatural powers.

No Lenona, your local priest probably doesn't count. Think personal secretary rather than some sclub in advertising and marketing. Just like a CEO's personal secretary doesn't have much personal authority but instead their power is derived by speaking for the CEO an angel doesn't have power outside of acting as God's representative. The common term for an angel (as a job) who is a live human is prophet.