Rendering biblical figures oriental is relative, not inherently disparaging

Evidence

A different message is encoded in the medieval example from the Limbourg Brothers’ Très Riches Heures, where Joseph is first shown with a peaked turban in the Nativity (fig. 4), but then bears a head of long, golden Nordic hair in the Adoration of the Magi (fig. 10). Here the intent is not to represent a religious conversion, but more simply a contrast. Joseph belonged to the generation before Christ, and in contrast to Christ remained a representative of the Old Testament. Church exegesis traditionally points out that he was extremely faithful to Jewish law, following its commandments meticulously. Indeed, in the case of the redemption of the newborn, a ritual act that could be satisfied by presenting a priest with the means to offer a sacrifice, Joseph went beyond the call of duty and presented the baby Jesus to the high priest at the Temple. His role in the New Testament narrative is that of forging a link between the Old Testament and the New. That he, the paragon of religious responsibility, can be pictured as an oriental (indeed, medieval art often pictures him with a “Jewish hat”) proves that it is a mistake to equate oriental representation with a disparaging attitude on the part of the artist: Joseph was, in Christian terms, definitely a “good guy.” What we see here, rather, is evidence that oriental representation was relative. In the case of Doré’s Bible the disciples are shown as no longer oriental when they are filled with the Holy Spirit. In the case of the Limbourg Brothers’ manuscript, Joseph, standing for the Old Testament, is shown as oriental in contrast with Christ, but he is shown as occidental in contrast to the Magi and their retinue. His golden locks contrast with the turbans of the visitors from the East. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 221 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The formula is a hierarchy, in which each category to the left is more oriental (that is, more likely to be pictured in oriental attire) than any of the categories to the right. The formula is implicational for the following reason: If any of the categories is represented as oriental, then all the categories to its left must be represented as oriental as well. In other words, choosing to mark any of the categories as oriental implies that all the others to the left are marked oriental as well. The implicational hierarchy predicts that if a “Christian” Jew is orientalized (for at no time were artists obliged to represent any Israelites as oriental) then so will be any personages that may be present from the categories to the left: “Judaic” Jews or gentile orientals. If “Judaic” Jews are orientalized, then so will be any Gentile orientals present. Another way to look at the hierarchy is that it prohibits representations that mark a category as oriental without so marking the categories to its left. We do not have any examples of “Christian” Jews (such as the disciples of Christ) shown with a kaffiyeh while the Pharisees or the skeptical crowd wear exclusively Western attire. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 226 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Christian art orientalized Israelites but never Jesus; Hollywood and Jewish illustrators adopted orientalist biblical costuming; Pseudo-Arabic script on figures marked them as oriental, not fashion-forward (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Oriental visual representation in Christian art was relational, not inherently disparaging #corroborates (0.98) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 221
• Orientalizing one biblical figure forces all more-oriental figures to be orientalized too. #complicates (0.78) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 226