The Black Jesus, the Mestizo Jesus, and the Historical Jesus
In: Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Wongi Park in
Current site
Google Scholar
This paper identifies a modern racial ideology prevalent not only in U.S. society and culture at large, but also one to which historical Jesus studies is susceptible: the ideology of white invisibility. In fact, so pervasive is this ideology that it can be detected even in the most constructive efforts to diversify contemporary biblical scholarship. My point of departure for this critique is an important essay published in Biblical Interpretation by Jeffrey Siker: “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus: Case Studies in the ‘Black Christ,’ the ‘Mestizo Christ,’ and White Critique” (2007). My aim is to show how the logic of white invisibility functions implicitly in the locations and relations of the four Jesuses invoked by Siker’s essay – namely, the black, mestizo, white, and historical Jesuses. Although I am critical of Siker’s analysis, my ultimate aim, like his, is to move the conversation forward in a constructive manner. Indeed, I have chosen to engage his essay because I believe it is a valuable contribution that helpfully frames the thorny problematic of competing representations of the white, black, brown, red, and yellow Jesuses. Identifying the strengths and limitations of Siker’s analysis, then, not only renders visible the ideology of white invisibility, but also points to ways of moving beyond the impasse of competing representations.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
Jeffrey Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus: Case Studies in the ‘Black Christ,’ the ‘Mestizo Christ,’ and White Critique,” BibInt 15 (2007), pp. 26-53.
-
4
Shawn Kelley, Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology, and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship (New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 220.
-
6
James H. Cone, God of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury, 1975), p. 115; cited in Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus,” p. 31.
-
7
Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus,” p. 32, emphasis original.
-
10
Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus,” p. 33, emphasis original.
-
13
Virgilio P. Elizondo, The Future Is Mestizo: Life Where Cultures Meet (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2000), p. 79; cited in Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus,” pp. 36, 38.
-
19
Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? Judaism as a Source of Christian Self-Understanding (New York: Paulist, 2000), pp. 314-15.
-
20
Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Readings from the Edges: The Bible and People on the Move (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2011), pp. 13-23. For a rebuttal, see Michael Lee, “The Galilean Jesus as Faithful Dissenter: Latino/a Christology and the Dynamics of Exclusion,” in Harold J. Recinos and Hugo Magallanes (eds.), Jesus in the Hispanic Community: Images of Christ from Theology to Popular Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), pp. 16-37.
-
21
Siker, “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus,” p. 51, emphasis mine.
-
26
Bailey, Liew, and Segovia, “Toward Minority Biblical Criticism,” pp. 6, 11-13. The model of minoritization that they develop dovetails with Foucault’s notion of biopower (Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976 [trans. David Macey; London: Penguin, 2003], pp. 254-55). See further Ellen K. Feder, “Of Monkeys and Men: Disciplinary Power and the Reproduction of Race,” Family Bonds: Genealogies of Race and Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 69-85.
-
28
Bailey, Liew, and Segovia, “Toward Minority Biblical Criticism,” pp. 9-13.
-
40
Mark A. Powell, Jesus As a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), p. 77.
-
46
Bailey, Liew, and Segovia, “Toward Minority Biblical Criticism,” p. 13 n. 7.
-
48
Bailey, Liew, and Segovia, “Toward Minority Biblical Criticism,” p. 14.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1584 | 193 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 287 | 26 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 471 | 54 | 6 |
The Black Jesus, the Mestizo Jesus, and the Historical Jesus
In: Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Wongi Park in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This paper identifies a modern racial ideology prevalent not only in U.S. society and culture at large, but also one to which historical Jesus studies is susceptible: the ideology of white invisibility. In fact, so pervasive is this ideology that it can be detected even in the most constructive efforts to diversify contemporary biblical scholarship. My point of departure for this critique is an important essay published in Biblical Interpretation by Jeffrey Siker: “Historicizing a Racialized Jesus: Case Studies in the ‘Black Christ,’ the ‘Mestizo Christ,’ and White Critique” (2007). My aim is to show how the logic of white invisibility functions implicitly in the locations and relations of the four Jesuses invoked by Siker’s essay – namely, the black, mestizo, white, and historical Jesuses. Although I am critical of Siker’s analysis, my ultimate aim, like his, is to move the conversation forward in a constructive manner. Indeed, I have chosen to engage his essay because I believe it is a valuable contribution that helpfully frames the thorny problematic of competing representations of the white, black, brown, red, and yellow Jesuses. Identifying the strengths and limitations of Siker’s analysis, then, not only renders visible the ideology of white invisibility, but also points to ways of moving beyond the impasse of competing representations.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1584 | 193 | 20 |
| Full Text Views | 287 | 26 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 471 | 54 | 6 |