Shroud of Turn
Holy Face of Vienna
Christ Pantocrator
4th century catacomb
Posted on 03/04/2011 6:27:07 AM PST by dangus
It is commonly claimed that we have little idea what Jesus looked like. Some have even gone to such despicable extremes as to describe traditional depictions of Jesus as looking like an "effeminate hippy." The truth is that although some images of Jesus have made him look overly European, we do have a good sense of what he looked like.
Jesus had a beard. To shave off one's beard was a great dishonor (see 1 Sam 21, 2 Sam 10:4, Isaiah 50:6). One particular humiliation the Messiah withstood was that the centurions plucked out his beard (Isaiah 50:6); certainly they were grabbing significant portions, not just a few day's growth.
Jesus probably did have long hair. The Gospel of Matthew states that the birth of Jesus "fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene (2:23)." In context, Matthew is obviously making a play on the fact that Jesus was born in Nazareth, but prophesy isn't dismissed by a pun, and the prophecy plainly referred to the a Nazarite.
Nazarites were people who atoned for the sins of the people by making sacrifices of their bodies. (Sound familiar?) They abstained from strong drink and grape products. Since Jesus didn't do this, one might suppose that he was not a Nazarite. (Actually, as Luke 5:33 records it, his disciples didn't abstain from drink, there's no reason to suppose Jesus drank apart from ritual.) On the other hand, it confounded people that he didn't do this, which suggests he may have been regarded as a Nazarite, or appeared to be one. So how does one appear to be a Nazarite?
Nazarites didn't cut or groom their hair. As such, they were considered offensive and humiliated in Jewish culture, which began to assume that they were atoning for their own sins, even though this was in opposition to scripture! (See Lam. 4:7, Amos 2:11). The fact that long hair was considered shameful (1 Cor 11:14), thus, shouldn't be considered evidence that Jesus didn't have long hair, since Jesus bore our shame (Isaiah 53:4).
Jesus was fairly ordinary looking, for his time and place. Isaiah 52:14 notes that "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him." But this doesn't mean he looked perfectly typical. The Talmud depicts Adam as a majestic and beautiful giant; one might have expected the Messiah to look like a Son of God. (The Sons of God were a race of giants, see Gen. 6:2.) We shouldn't discount the possibility that he was rather tall, or forget that recent growth in mankind's average height is a result of better diet, not genetic change. Contrary to the recent assertions of the History channel, There is no reason to believe Jesus was rather short.
He was, however, gaunt. As a carpenter, he probably had been fairly muscular, since carpentry involved real labor. But the bible tells of frequent fasting, including one fast of forty days with no food at all (Mat 4:2). By the time he was crucified, he was so thin, you could count all his bones (Psalm 22:17).
Lastly, it's not necessarily true that we have no record of his appearance. Eastern Christian tradition, not infallible, but not baseless, either, asserts that the evangelist Luke was a physician and a painter, and that although Luke's images are lost, the iconic images of Christ Pantocrator are based on them. Christ Pantocrator is consistent with scripture: Bearded, slender, long-haired.. and very Jewish looking. It's also consistent with the numerous supposedly miraculous images of Christ, such as Veronica's veil and the Shroud of Turin. Among scripture and these images, we have a very good sense of what Jesus looked like, indeed.
Shroud of Turn
Holy Face of Vienna
Christ Pantocrator
4th century catacomb
I don't have to have it tucked away in my pocket - the answer to your question is basically right there, in the text of the commandment itself.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..." (Exodus 20:4-5)
The command pretty explicitly says that violation comes with making images of these things so as to worship them.
(You don't happen to have such a command, do you? Tucked away somewhere, that you'd be willing to share with us ignorant peasants? We'd like to be able to read it for ourselves, so we can obey God too, y'know?)
"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:11-14)
Actually, now that you mention it, there's a huge chunk of his beard missing in the middle of his chin. I think I always took it for visual noise, and/or a severe dimple. Indeed, many paintings seem to interpret this as a severe dimple.
The shroud. Notice the way the white parts of negative form sort of an "n" shape around a dark center of his chin? That must have hurt!
Much later painting, showing a deeply cleft beard, which is typical in paintings of Jesus.
Maybe so.
But the real question “Is this important?” Very interesting? Yes. But not something I would loose a lot of sleep over either way.
Yes, St. Luke painted. I referred to that in the original article, in fact. Although no paintings survive, the Eastern “Christ Pantocrator” icons are supposedly based on his painting.
Very important? I suppose not. I’ll settle for very interesting. :^D
The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments? [Ecumenical]
Was it the rev Jackson who said Jesus was black?.
bfl
>> The same thing applies. Nobody would have *thought* he was one, either. In fact, if it were thought He were a Nazarite, then why would they have said he was “a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners...”? <<
Did the Pharisees drink wine? Yes. So why be scandalized that a man drink wine? Because he was thought to be a Nazarite. Was he really a glutton? He’d fast 40 days at a time. He was so thin, that when stretched out on the cross, you could count all his bones. So why did they accuse him of gluttony? Because he was thought to be a Nazarite.
Methinks the image on the shroud of Turin was created by somebody using their own medieval contemporary ideas of what Jesus looked like - drawn, most likely, from the "much later paintings" for which you have provided us an example.
They go together. Either one cannot be taken by itself.
In fact, the question at issue is of the making of images, not of bowing down before them or worshipping them. I'm sure you and I are in perfect agreement that those who actually bow down before and worship images of Jesus are plainly guilty of idolatry. But that's not the question here.
Agree completely.
>> Uh, no. When people back then plucked a beard to humiliate someone, they pulled it out. They didn’t just give the guy a French Fork. <<
Now you’re just being silly. You really think the soldiers stood there and pulled out the entire beard? They were showing contempt, not grooming him.
No.....
As the context of the passage indicates, they were scandalised because He was a "friend of publicans and sinners." The Pharisees thought that no true Rabbi, no truly upright and religious person, would even hang out with the lowest members of society. Granted, the charge that He was gluttonous and a winebibber (i.e. a drunkard) was contrived, but the Pharisees didn't assume that He was a Nazarite. In fact, it's almost guaranteed that if they had thought He'd broken a Nazarite vow, they would have specifically said so, instead of being roundabout about it. Remember, they had no problem outrightly accusing Him of being both a blasphemer, and of being demon possessed.
Actually, yes, they would have removed all, or at least most of, the beard. Not just a little "n" on the chin that requires a lot of imagination to even see in the first place....
“Discuss the issues of this article on this thread” (from the RM)
It says don't make a graven image. Then it says don't bow down nor worship/serve graven images. Nowhere does it say, "Don't make a graven image that you plan to bow down and worship."
If you're driving down the road and see sign that says "Speed Limit 55" and underneath it says "No U-Turn", do you conclude that means you're not to make a U-turn going 55mph? That would be silly, wouldn't it?
No sillier, though, than saying, "Well it's okay to violate Part A of this commandment as long as you keep Part B."
Quite obviously your interpretation is simply wrong, since just a few chapters later, God commanded Israel to make a number of graven images, including two cherubim. Are you accusing God of being schizophrenic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.