How do you think the Apostles looked like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yehuda_Dion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yehuda_Dion

Guest
A speculative thread, but one I think belongs in this subforum. If you were commissioned by a church to draw a picture of the Apostles, how would you draw them? Here’s my list (not complete, as I don’t know some of the lesser-known Apostles that well):

Peter, the Rock
Peter I’ve imagined to be of medium height, inclining towards the short, but with a muscular upper body. Fine, rather than thick, but beautifully shaped slanting eyebrows and large deep-set eyes, a strong straight nose set on a narrow face with full lips and a thin mustache. Hair is scarce inclining towards balding at the front, but thick at the sides and back.

Andrew, the Manly
Andrew is big and muscular, with very strong legs and a somewhat hunched back, and is quite tall, about half a head taller than Peter. Thick, long eyebrows set above large, searching eyes with a rounded but not fat nose, set on a long but wide face with narrow lips adorned by a lush but short beard. Hair is long, wavy, and thick.

James, the Son of Thunder
I imagine James to have wild hair that is shiny but not very thick. Thin, but taller than Peter and with a well-formed upper body. Very bushy eyebrows which slant heavily, giving him the appearance of a hawk, with dark heavy lidded eyes. Narrow face but with a strong jaw and a beautiful beard.

John, the Beloved Disciple
John is thin but muscular, almost the same height but a little shorter than Peter. Long, well-formed face with rosy skin. Thick but not overly thick eyebrows set above shy but animated eyes. Rather small but long nose set above narrow lips. His hair is a bit wavy, thick and reaches his shoulders. Has a nice smile.

Bartholomew, the True Israelite
Bartholomew has large, clear, penetrating but kind eyes that remind me of Dumbledore’s from Harry Potter. He is tall and muscular with wide shoulders. Sparse but very fine eyebrows that stand upwards. Very straight nose above a twitchy mouth that often moves to form a smile. Has a thin but long mustache and a short neat beard.

Matthew, the Former Tax Collector
Matthew has wide, deep set, heavy lidded, studious, kind eyes set on a long, intelligent face. He is of medium height, and not muscular. His hair is very fine, but not very thick. His nose is medium sized. Has a beautifully shaped mustache, and a beautiful long beard.

Thomas, the Doubter
Thomas has kind but shy eyes that often look downwards below a large but well-formed forehead. He is short but not extremely so. Very prominent thick eyebrows, with a very small nose and narrow lips. Not unhandsome, but quite forbidding. Rarely smiles but when he does it lights up his eyes.
 
Why speculate on something like this. Personally, I think its a waste of time. What difference does it make what they looked like? None!
 
thistle said:
Why speculate on something like this. Personally, I think its a waste of time. What difference does it make what they looked like? None!
Click to expand...
Why exercise the imagination? Are you serious? Is it a gift of God, or not? Personally, I think speculating on how the apostles may have looked like brings us to a closer appreciation of them. I certainly have gained as much.
 
Yehuda_Dion said:
Why exercise the imagination? Are you serious? Is it a gift of God, or not? Personally, I think speculating on how the apostles may have looked like brings us to a closer appreciation of them. I certainly have gained as much.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit tired and am about to go to bed, but I will join in tomorrow. Looks like a fun thread!
 
thistle said:
Why speculate on something like this. Personally, I think its a waste of time. What difference does it make what they looked like? None!
Click to expand...
The question should be “Why NOT speculate”. It’s a good exercise for the mind and can help in examining your faith. The great artists of the past certainly speculated on this kind of thing—imagine Da Vinci’s last supper if he had not speculated. Why shouldn’t people of our era do the same thing?

Putting yourself “into the story” is a good exercise in helping you understand your own relationship with Christ. There is nothing wrong with this–and much to be gained. It can be a very fine tool to help one focus in prayer and Christian meditation.
 
thistle said:
Why speculate on something like this. Personally, I think its a waste of time. What difference does it make what they looked like? None!
Click to expand...
Why the negativity? I doubt this is something that offends God, and I agree with Operalan, placing yourself in the middle of what was happening, “seeing” what is around you and being a part of it is a great way to deepen your understanding and your love of Christ.
Looking forward to the description of the other apostles, great images so far! 👍
 
I have no idea. The History Channel did run a very interesting program about what Jesus looked like. Through the Shroud of Turin they were able to create a face.

I believe it was called the real face of Jesus.

If you ever get a chance to watch it please do.
 
To be very honest with you, Eastern iconography - and up until a certain point, Western iconography - have very coherent guidelines for how each saint is to be drawn. Try this test. In Google images, type in any of the apostles names followed by “icon.” Then do the same without “icon” and compare with some of the earlier looking Western images and maybe even some of the later Western images may still continue the same tradition.

Now, I’m not necessarily saying that these images are exactly how they may have looked like. But consider this… Since the Scriptures did not exist in written form for quite a while and since the vast majority of Christians were illiterate anyway, much of our Scriptures were actually at that point still Tradition. Passing on stories and tales of Jesus and his apostles and the stories of martyrs and saints to each generation from the cradle to the grave. You can imagine the first Christian parents being bothered by their kids, “Mommy! What did the great apostle Peter look like?” Now as you know, Christians have been making art and depicting their faith since probably the age right after the Apostles. We have evidence of this in catacombs and in the archaeological sites of the first Christian house churches. This question that you pose is not new at all though we Christians 2,000 years later can only point to our great iconographic traditions.

In fact, so coherent is the iconographic traditions in the East that any Eastern Christian growing up surrounded by these icons can easily point out which saint is which - the major ones, anyway - by a glance, without necessarily even having to look at the name. That is to say, they’ve become “fluent” in “reading” the icons. This may or may not also happen among Western Christians and if it does definitely not to such a startling degree, but, in my case anyway, I can almost always tell whether it’s Peter or Paul or Jude even if they’re not holding their traditional symbols.
 
thistle said:
Why speculate on something like this. Personally, I think its a waste of time. What difference does it make what they looked like? None!
Click to expand...
How do you think we Catholics go about make sacred images and holy cards and holy icons? Our senses and our imagination can be put to use in growing in our faith. You do know that we believe in offering relative veneration to images, right?
 
They looked like Jewish men, probably young-ish, as 40+ years old would have been ancient in that time, in terms of physical health.
 
I think they looked like men in Jerusalem as they look like now…
 
Yehuda_Dion said:
Peter, the Rock
Peter I’ve imagined to be of medium height, inclining towards the short, but with a muscular upper body. Fine, rather than thick, but beautifully shaped slanting eyebrows and large deep-set eyes, a strong straight nose set on a narrow face with full lips and a thin mustache. Hair is scarce inclining towards balding at the front, but thick at the sides and back.

Andrew, the Manly
Andrew is big and muscular, with very strong legs and a somewhat hunched back, and is quite tall, about half a head taller than Peter. Thick, long eyebrows set above large, searching eyes with a rounded but not fat nose, set on a long but wide face with narrow lips adorned by a lush but short beard. Hair is long, wavy, and thick.

James, the Son of Thunder
I imagine James to have wild hair that is shiny but not very thick. Thin, but taller than Peter and with a well-formed upper body. Very bushy eyebrows which slant heavily, giving him the appearance of a hawk, with dark heavy lidded eyes. Narrow face but with a strong jaw and a beautiful beard.

John, the Beloved Disciple
John is thin but muscular, almost the same height but a little shorter than Peter. Long, well-formed face with rosy skin. Thick but not overly thick eyebrows set above shy but animated eyes. Rather small but long nose set above narrow lips. His hair is a bit wavy, thick and reaches his shoulders. Has a nice smile.

Bartholomew, the True Israelite
Bartholomew has large, clear, penetrating but kind eyes that remind me of Dumbledore’s from Harry Potter. He is tall and muscular with wide shoulders. Sparse but very fine eyebrows that stand upwards. Very straight nose above a twitchy mouth that often moves to form a smile. Has a thin but long mustache and a short neat beard.

Matthew, the Former Tax Collector
Matthew has wide, deep set, heavy lidded, studious, kind eyes set on a long, intelligent face. He is of medium height, and not muscular. His hair is very fine, but not very thick. His nose is medium sized. Has a beautifully shaped mustache, and a beautiful long beard.

Thomas, the Doubter
Thomas has kind but shy eyes that often look downwards below a large but well-formed forehead. He is short but not extremely so. Very prominent thick eyebrows, with a very small nose and narrow lips. Not unhandsome, but quite forbidding. Rarely smiles but when he does it lights up his eyes.
Click to expand...
This was fun to read! What I like most about your descriptions is that each of them point to an approachable person, which is what I have always though the Apostles were.
 
Operalan said:
The question should be “Why NOT speculate”. It’s a good exercise for the mind and can help in examining your faith. The great artists of the past certainly speculated on this kind of thing—imagine Da Vinci’s last supper if he had not speculated. Why shouldn’t people of our era do the same thing?

Putting yourself “into the story” is a good exercise in helping you understand your own relationship with Christ. There is nothing wrong with this–and much to be gained. It can be a very fine tool to help one focus in prayer and Christian meditation.
Click to expand...
Is that a joke? What on earth does speculating about what the Apostles looked like have to do with examining your faith. Nothing! Give me a break!!
 
thistle said:
Is that a joke? What on earth does speculating about what the Apostles looked like have to do with examining your faith. Nothing! Give me a break!!
Click to expand...
Wow… that’s a bit harsh, isn’t it? If you don’t like the thread, just don’t post. If other people do enjoy this type of thread, why not let them, instead of spoiling the fun?
 
Snugglebugmom said:
Wow… that’s a bit harsh, isn’t it? If you don’t like the thread, just don’t post. If other people do enjoy this type of thread, why not let them, instead of spoiling the fun?
Click to expand...
I’m trying to make the point that if a person’s faith may be affected by the way they think an Apostle looked then there is something wrong with their faith!
 
thistle said:
I’m trying to make the point that if a person’s faith may be affected by the way they think an Apostle looked then there is something wrong with their faith!
Click to expand...
There was no suggestion in the OP or otherwise, except from your comments, that a person’s faith might be affected by their perception of the physical appearance of the Apostles.

In fairness, the early Church struggled with the subject of portrayals of Christ and holy figures. The controversy over veneration of icons (and the very usage of religious imagery) was settled in the second council of Nicea by our Church fathers.

While in Eastern Christian tradition largely dictates the specifics of portrayals of certain saints, as well as Christ and the Theotokos (which accounts for the commonality of their appearance even across various icon writers), we in Eastern Tradition hold that these images are instructive and add to the depth of our faith. We refer to icons being “written” for that reason, as they are wrought with symbolism.

Even in non-iconic religious imagery, widely used in Western tradition, the artist must make certain assumptions in order to portray a biblically sound and appropriately reverent message. By what means did Michelangelo decide how to portray the figures in his work on the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel (there are some interesting legends in some cases)?

Being an Eastern Christian, I prefer to think of the Apostles as they are typically portrayed in the icon of the feast of Pentecost:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top