Different Image of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComplineSanFran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Is this our Prince Charles 😮
 
That image has never looked much like the shroud to me.

Edit: like tisbear said below, it’s largely the nose that is problematic for me. The shroud image looks more Middle Eastern Jewish to me while picture 3 looks European.
 
Last edited:
Jesus appears to have had a nose job between Photo 1 and Photo 3.

I’ve always thought the Shroud face looked very Jewish. Like Adrien Brody.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
I just wondered why he was so angry at that image of Jesus. And was so much happier with the “European Jesus”. It didn’t make me feel great.
Click to expand...
I can relate to your reaction. For those of us who are non-European and who may have dearly loved relatives that resemble the BBC picture, his reaction feels like a personal affront…
 
This is specifically to show her as a personification of the Church–that’s why she seems more “militant.” She wears the “whole armor of God” (cf. Eph. 6:10)

See also the antiphon for the Catena Legionis of the Legion of Mary for similar imagery. There she is described as “terrible as an army set in battle array” (which is a line from the Song of Songs, more commonly applied to the Church).
 
Last edited:
ComplineSanFran said:
It’s 9th century Carolingian.
Click to expand...
Well, there you go.

European Christian art in the Early Middle ages tended to be rather more stark than the embellishments and decoration of the High Middle Ages, although, if you look closely, there are elements of more ornate 3rd-6th century motifs. The finials at the top are of two separate motifs. The two on the corners are the recognizable Lamb of God, a symbol which is quite common in woodwork of from the royal branches of the Carolingian dynasty of the time. Between them, however seems to be a somewhat rarer depiction of the Tree of Life. Usually, this is found in Italian and Byzantine mosaics as opposed to work commissioned by the Carolingian court. Perhaps the artist was a student of a graduate of the Italian or Byzantine schools, for if it was the graduate himself, Mary’s dress would be formed differently. Next, we have the two peacocks on the arch symbolizing the glory of God above the arch representing the firmament of heaven, as denoted by the inset palm leaves: palm trees being yet another Italian representation of paradise/heaven. We have Mary in a Carolingian style dress of the time holding a crossed staff in one hand and household implements in the other: a wooden spoon and a hand spindle representing her position of matriarch within Christ’s household, a not uncommon theme in Early Middle Age depictions of Mary.

Really, up until the Early Renaissance, almost every detail in an icon or piece of religious artwork was meant to contribute something to the meaning or story. If you know what to look for, you can read a painting, carving or mosaic like a book.
 
Last edited:
I can’t remember if that image was from a documentary years ago which I’ve watched, but that face/expression was just a result of them reconstructing it on a program. I don’t think the expression was intentional or anything like that, it wasn’t meant to be a painting/look aesthetically pleasing. It was just a plain reconstruction of features.
Mark121359 said:
But without a doubt, that has to be one of the most hideous looking images I’ve ever seen. That reminds me of a liberal, politically correct inspired image of Jesus. No thanks
Click to expand...
That being said I don’t see how this image is a liberal image at all. I also don’t get how this is hideous as I’ve literally seen people that look exactly like this before.
 
I actually enjoy depictions of Mary that doesn’t portray her as conventionally beautiful. I can’t really explain why because I don’t know myself, but I think it’s because a part of me feels a lot of people value her for her beauty and that when an artist recreates her looking differently, I can see a more genuine admiration?
 
Ever read Isaiah 53. “There was no comeliness that we would desire Him, or appearance that would attract us to Him.”
 
ComplineSanFran said:
40.png
Hereiam:
We have a tendency to view Christ as having fair skin, euro features, and light skin when more than likely he was very middle eastern looking.
Click to expand...
Yes, the image Westerners have created of Jesus is not quite the real thing. A couple of years ago, this image was created by British scientists as what Jesus would have looked like. It startled quite a few people, especially those of us who are used to seeing his image as European blonde/blue eyed.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with this is that they so presume to tell us this is what Jesus looked like when they don’t have his skull.

And given that most Jews are pretty much white, I fail to see why a “European”-looking Jesus would even be an issue. He could have looked a lot like Adam Sandler or Benjamin Netanyahu, who are, well, white. Jews are Semites, who come in all sorts of shades, just like Arabs. There are white Arabs and there are dark Arabs. There are white Jews, and there are dark Jews.

And even if Jesus was Jew of the olive-skinned type, there’s no reason to believe he didn’t wear his hair shoulder-length, as was common during those days.

But the arrogance that Jesus “had to” look like this. Without his skull, this is as speculative as the white Jesus that offends so many these days.
 
Last edited:
I’m somewhat partial to this particular image of Jesus.–Not European by a long shot.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
That’s a good one.

Considering that Jews had diverse appearances by all accounts, I prefer an imagine that looks vaguely Jewish, but basically racially ambiguous.
 
And yet Caviezel is of Swiss-Romansh-Irish heritage, the very definition of white.

And still, makeup notwithstanding, that face is very much Jew-looking despite the white actor behind it.

So again, I find it inexplicable that people are so offended by the idea that Jesus could have been white, since white Jews aren’t that unusual at all.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
And given that most Jews are pretty much white, I fail to see why a “European”-looking Jesus would even be an issue. He could have looked a lot like Adam Sandler or Benjamin Netanyahu, who are, well, white. Jews are Semites, who come in all sorts of shades, just like Arabs. There are white Arabs and there are dark Arabs. There are white Jews, and there are dark Jews.

And even if Jesus was Jew of the olive-skinned type, there’s no reason to believe he didn’t wear his hair shoulder-length, as was common during those days.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, they used the shroud and descriptions of Jesus to produce the image.

I imagine that the hair and skin color are taken from the Revelations description of Jesus (hair of wool and skin of burnished bronze). It’s likely that description is purely symbolic, but still I wouldn’t be so quick to declare this version a presumptuous failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top