Pope Alexander vi The Theory that a Modern Image of Jesus was Based on a Pope’s Son.

When you’re looking for a real-life model for Jesus Christ, you’d be hard pushed to think of a less appropriate stand-in for the Prince of Peace than Cesare Borgia.

"Historically, white Jesus has been used to oppress and erase the histories of people of color..."

Thanks to his father – who became Pope Alexander VI in 1471 – Cesare was made a bishop at the age of 15 and a cardinal at the age of 18. At this point in history the Pope directly ruled over a kingdom that dominated central Italy from its capital of Rome.

One of the most notorious members of Renaissance Italy’s most notorious dynasties, the cruel Cesare was thought to be the inspiration for Niccolo Machiavelli’s satirical handbook for would-be tyrants, The Prince

Pope Alexander VI, also known as Rodrigo Borgia, was a controversial figure in history. Let’s delve into some intriguing aspects of his life and the connection to depictions of Jesus:

Cesare Borgia: The Unlikely Model for Jesus.

Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI, was a notorious member of the Borgia family during the Renaissance. His reputation was far from saintly.

Despite being a rising star in the church, Cesare fancied himself a military man. His father had initially chosen a military career for Cesare’s older brother, Giovanni.

When Giovanni was found dead in the River Tiber, Cesare inherited his brother’s role, titles, and wealth. He became the Duke of Valentinois.

Cesare was ruthless, both in the church and on the battlefield. He eliminated anyone who stood in his way, including family members and friends.

The family drama escalated when both Cesare and Giovanni shared a mistress, Sancha of Aragon.

Cesare fathered 11 known illegitimate children and played a central role in the power struggles of Renaissance Italy.

The Curious Theory: Cesare Borgia as the Model for Jesus
Alexandre Dumas, the renowned novelist, proposed an intriguing idea: Jesus was originally depicted as appearing non-European because he was Jewish. However, this portrayal did not sit well with Pope Alexander VI.

To create a more “European-looking” Jesus, the pope allegedly commissioned new paintings of Jesus using his illegitimate son Cesare as the model.

Furthermore, it is claimed that Pope Alexander VI “ordered the destruction of all art depicting a Semitic Jesus,” thereby popularizing one of the enduring images of Jesus we have today .

The portrayal of Jesus as a white, European man has a long and complex history. While the historical Jesus likely had the brown eyes and skin typical of first-century Jews from Galilee, there are no known images of him from his lifetime. The earliest depictions of Jesus emerged in the first through third centuries A.D., and they were less about capturing his actual appearance and more about clarifying his roles as a ruler or savior. These early Christian artists often combined visual formats from other cultures to convey these roles.

Legacy and Controversy.

Pope Alexander VI’s reign was checkered, and his actions contributed to the backlash that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

His decisions, such as issuing the papal bull “Inter Caetera” that authorized colonization and enslavement, remain points of historical debate .

While he claimed to be Jesus’s vicar, his actions often contradicted the teachings of compassion and humility associated with Christ .

The connection between Pope Alexander VI and depictions of Jesus is a fascinating blend of historical intrigue, family drama, and artistic influence.

As Christians worldwide celebrate Jesus today, The story points toward an uncomfortable truth: The true face of the historical Jesus looks nothing like the one many still see in their church’s stained-glass windows, in Hollywood movies, or in the image many carry in their minds.

Many scholars and archeologists now agree that Jesus was most likely a brown-skinned, brown-eyed man — more akin to a “Middle Eastern Jewish” or an Arab man. A commentator once said that if Jesus was taking a flight today “he might be profiled for additional security screening” by the TSA.

Who can forget when the former Fox News host Megyn Kelly declared in 2013 that Jesus, like Santa Claus, “was a White man, too,” and “that’s a verifiable fact,” a remark she later said was meant in jest.

But the question over the color of Jesus’ skin is a serious one this , for two reasons.

First, while the classic Nordic Jesus remains a popular image today in some churches, a movement to replace the White Jesus has long taken root in America. In many Christian circles — progressive mainline churches, churches of color shaped by “liberation theology,” and among Biblical scholars — conspicuous displays of the White Jesus are considered outdated, and to some, offensive.

This tradition of white Europeans creating and disseminating images of Christ in their own image has persisted over time, shaping how many people envision Jesus today. It’s essential to recognize this historical context and engage in critical discussions about how artistic representations impact our understanding of religious figures and their cultural significance.

As we engage in introspection over the legacy of racism, it’s crucial to critically examine how Jesus has been depicted and consider the impact of these portrayals on notions of white supremacy and identity.

The traditional image of Jesus as a blue-eyed, blonde-haired white man is historically inaccurate.

Point it isn't that Christianity is bad because it's been misused to oppress. But rather that white power structures excluded images of Jesus with a darker complexion to spread racial bias.

"While a black Jesus might be historically accurate -- just like a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is not -- people of color have the right to see themselves in their religion, especially after centuries of being taught and forced to worship a God that doesn't look like them."

While Jesus' true facial features may remain a mystery, it should be obvious that using religion to covertly justify discrimination is fundamentally hypocritical.