Do we know what Jesus actually looks like?

[theCardinalbird]

Do we have an accurate picture of Jesus? Do we have any historical images of what he looked like?

 

[Maryanna]

[No message]

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

The Shroud of Turn is about the closest you will get.

There were no cameras in 33 AD

 

[Teek]

That is my favorite post reply of all time on any forum, ever!!

 

[ErraticFaith]

Ah the shroud. Far too much evidence against it, for it to really be entertained as genuine.

I won’t take up space by posting endless articles (so many available online) but the general concensus is; that it’s a extremely well produced fake. One that has proved difficult to manage, because of its exposure to various different extremes/elements across its life time. The thing is essentially a ‘dirty cloth’ as you might expect - and that picks up a lot of foreign material over time.

This all making it hard to date appropriately. As research techniques have improved further study was conducted on the base minerals (that it’s made from) and hardly anyone thinks that it was ever actually in the vicinity of Israel at any point during its life time.

It’s very likely, as many speculated, a medieval forgery put together at the height of the medieval period - where artistic skill and forgery were at their prime.

In short, I wouldn’t take it seriously. It’s far too close a likeness to the various other ‘artistically doctored’ representations of Christ that have appeared over the years. Ones that were only popularised after the passage of the Roman Empire. And that is FAR too convenient. As those representations were taken from other popular figures (ones who may, or may not have, actually created the ideal image of Christ that is so popular today).

Again it’s a broad subject; so if the shroud takes your fancy, read the research material and science and make up your own mind.

The Jewish and Catholic research groups sit at a 80% of it being fake at this moment in time. It’s going to be ongoing until all sides are happy with the scientific evidence however.

 

[FrDavid96]

Ah the shroud. Far too much evidence against it, for it to really be entertained as genuine.

I find it fascinating exactly because it cannot be dis-proven.

We have ways of dating objects, and ways of testing authenticity that medieval people could never have imagined in their wildest dreams. Yet, despite all that, it cannot actually be proven inauthentic.

For all our scientific methods, no one even knows how the image got onto (or into) the cloth.

The Church neither authenticates it nor dismisses it.

That’s what makes it so fascinating: the mystery.

 

[ErraticFaith]

The trouble being that with it being of limited access (to avoid damage) having been repaired several times across history (supposed original cause of the carbon dating error) as well as a need to further refine dating techniques on the microscopic level (may lead to geographical data that finally excludes it as being genuine);

The process is rather tedious.

Rather than intentionally ‘blindly’ refuting what you are saying, I’ve Ofcourse studied the for and against.

Yet on the angle of ‘faith’ here, I have a sincere feeling it isn’t genuine. I try not to allow that to cloud my judgement/create bias - however unlikely that may seem to a reader!; yet for some reason, my gut tells me it’s a fake. That however is not admissible evidence, nor do I claim it to be!

I keep an eye on the subject. I’m a big fan of letting science do its thing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do we have an accurate picture of Jesus? Do we have any historical images of what he looked like?

No. Nothing.

We know that he was a first century Palestinian Jew. That says more than people often want to admit.

The Jewish people have a long history of not inter-marrying (not very much anyway).

Dangerous stereotypes aside (where know where such things lead) he would have looked…well…for lack of a better way to put it…Jewish and middle-eastern, so that means darker skin (not pale like some modern Russian Jews), black or brown hair, caucasian, shorter than modern men of his age. He would certainly have kept a beard (only the Egyptians and sometimes the Roman men shaved at that time).

 

[FrDavid96]

Do we have an accurate picture of Jesus? Do we have any historical images of what he looked like?

There is a thread about favorite images of Christ.

This is a BBC computer-generated image of what Jesus would have looked like given his Jewish/Middle Eastern roots and the era in which he was born. It’s not quite as northern-European as some of the other images.

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

I’m going to assume that the scientific part of the project was legitimate. Meaning that I don’t know it myself firsthand, but for the sake of discussion, I’ll accept it was done using legitimate sources. Geneticists can actually trace backwards and know which bloodlines came from what places and times. Take known features of today and project them backwards to get a reasonable idea.

This one looks reasonable to me.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I have seen it before and the short hair throws me. I always thought more Dustin Hoffman than Robert Powell or Jim Caviezel

 

[FrDavid96]

I have seen it before and the short hair throws me. I always thought more Dustin Hoffman than Robert Powell or Jim Caviezel

Hair and bear styles are actually something that historians can sometimes learn.

We know the Egyptians shaved their beards and heads. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

What about Jerusalem in AD 33? There might be ways of telling based on things like surviving artwork of the time or contemporary writings. Sometimes hair styles indicated a certain status.

Given the climate, short hair seems more likely. But I would defer to historical evidence in favor of “seems like.”

 

[ErraticFaith]

Considering the Greco-Roman and Egyptian influence in that region at the time, I’m inclined to agree with the short hair prediction.

The style of popular ‘jesus’ imagery is drawn from much later works. From a much later time period.

If we are going to tie it up as;

Exodus (Jews influenced by Egyptians), movement to Canaan/Israel (Again Greco/Egyptian influence). Then I wouldn’t expect much deviation from ‘short’ that was culturally common.

 

[2towers]

Enter Saint Faustina. I have posted the two images commissioned at the behest of Sister Faustina. The first one was disappointing to her, the second one, also the one being carried by the crowd met with Sisters approval as a more accurate image of Christ. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[FrDavid96]

Enter Saint Faustina. I have posted the two images commissioned at the behest of Sister Faustina. The first one was disappointing to her, the second one, also the one being carried by the crowd met with Sisters approval as a more accurate image of Christ.

I think that’s exactly what the OP did not mean.

I took the question to mean what did He actually look like when He walked the earth.

 

[2towers]

So did I father. I have no idea if Sister’s visions match those of our Lord or not, but I thought this angle bore mentioning. Science can be amazingly accurate about many things. It is interesting to see what they came up with. I have often thought that Jesus would have to have a middle eastern skin tone.

If it was really important to our Lord for us to know what he looked like, we would know for sure. In all fairness though to St Faustina [hence my “plug” for her] She seemed to think it was important.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

 

[FrDavid96]

So did I father. I have no idea if Sister’s visions match those of our Lord or not, but I thought this angle bore mentioning. Science can be amazingly accurate about many things. It is interesting to see what they came up with. I have often thought that Jesus would have to have a middle eastern skin tone.

If it was really important to our Lord for us to know what he looked like, we would know for sure. In all fairness though to St Faustina [hence my “plug” for her] She seemed to think it was important.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.

In a certain way, it is important.

Christ was a certain person who actually existed in a given time and place, and had a certain general ancestry—ie Jewish.

If we deny those facts, then Christ is no longer a real person but a mythical one. He actually had a body. One body.

No 33 year old (for discussion sake, let’s say at the time of the Passion) human being changes appearance to match that of other people with whom he interacts.

Artistically speaking, people tend to portray Christ according to their own ethnic comfort zone. In art, that’s fine.

However, in the realm of theology, it is absolutely essential that we affirm that Christ was a real human being (insert hypostatic union). He did not come to earth as a vision or a mythical creature that changes appearance.

Some people like to say that Christ’s earthly body might be anything that makes one comfortable. While we can express that idea in art, we must understand that this notion does not carry-over into the actual physical historic Christ.

We do not know exactly what He looked like, but we do know He appeared only one way.

We cannot deny His Jewish identity, and that means Jewish genetics and appearance. We cannot deny that His physical appearance was that of a first century Palestinian Jew; because any denial of that necessarily leads to a denial of the Incarnation.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Christ was a certain person who actually existed in a given time and place, and had a certain general ancestry—ie Jewish.

If we deny those facts, then Christ is no longer a real person but a mythical one. He actually had a body. One body.

How true. And I think we are often in danger of creating our own mythical Jesus.

 

[FrDavid96]

How true. And I think we are often in danger of creating our own mythical Jesus.

In art, that’s fine.

But we have to separate art from reality.

When people say that he “did not look any particular way” (whatever that means) then that denies the reality of the Incarnation. He only had/has one human body.

 

[Athanasiy]

People on different continents can paint the picture of Jesus in the most appropriate way for their perception, maybe for someone Jesus looks like the Negroid type, or the Semitic type, for others Jesus looks like a Scandinavian or Slavic type.
Also the name of Jesus sounds in different languages in different ways.
You know, I study languages, when I opened the Bible in Turkish , from the first page of the Gospel reading about the the genealogy mentioned by the Evangelist Matthew, I found out that in Turkish , Abraham means Ibrahim, and Solomon means - Suleyman. Shepherd has a wider meaning - choban(teacher,pastor) so that’s most important, - the Jesus as the shepherd, teacher, pastor, saviour of my life. This is primary thing of his appearance in my life.

 

[Athanasiy]

The pictures (icons,statues) of German/Scandinavian appearance of blue-eyed Christ is very important for some types of ultra-nationalists, with a firm racist beliefs. In the past, there were the whole theories about the importance to represent Christ precisely in this external way of outward appearance, but I think that even if the Savior is presented in pictures as a Negroid type, in the countries where starvation, where people die from lack of water,lack of food, dying from epidemics, I think that the Savior is much closer to these people than to anyone, and I think that they imagine Christ correctly, because the Savior where martyrs, where the sufferers where heavy burdened by the trials and heavy examens of life, he is closer to these peoplе with His comfort and compassion.