Images of christ: does accuracy matter?

[whitecrayon]

given that christ was a jew who lived in the palestine area over 2000 years ago, he did not look like popular artwork has depicted him for centuries. what do any readers of this thread think that has meant to christianity in general? have we christians become more ethnocentric because of the erroneous depictions? have tall guys with long hair who resemble the erroneous depictions been selected for evolutionarily? etc…

 

[whitecrayon]

i forgot to include with the post above the following question, which is the most important one i believe: does accuracy in images of christ matter? and why? and how can we depict him accurately, given that no image records of him exist?

 

[FreeSpirit1]

We have a hint of what Jesus looked like from the imprint found on the Shroud of Turin, Italy.

With imagery technology developed by NASA, scientists applied it to the image found on the shroud, and were able to present a 3-d image of the face of a crucified.

Morever, ‘popular artwork’ over the centuries is found to resemble that 3-d image.

Also, representations of Jesus drasticaly changed before and after 6th century, a time when the first public showings of the shroud are believed to have occured.
I say ‘drasticaly’ because before 6th century, the representations of Jesus is without beard. After, it is with a beard.

Any good video of the shroud will show you that ‘popular artwork’ is not that far off.

 

[FreeSpirit1]

This is a 3-d image of the face shown on the Shroud of Turin, Italy:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/album.php?albumid=1541&pictureid=10287

 

[thistle]

i forgot to include with the post above the following question, which is the most important one i believe: does accuracy in images of christ matter? and why? and how can we depict him accurately, given that no image records of him exist?

First there is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible so we don’t know what he looked like, and second it does not matter what he looked like anyway.

Don’t be mislead by references to the Shroud. That is not evidence or hints about anything.

 

[Biedrik]

Well we can know that he had a beard because Jewish custom required it of all men. That’s at least one thing that we can know for certain.

 

[FreeSpirit1]

First there is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible so we don’t know what he looked like, and second it does not matter what he looked like anyway.

Don’t be mislead by references to the Shroud. That is not evidence or hints about anything.

If the Shroud is not evidence, then why does a 6th century icon show stiking resemblences to the face on the Shroud?

The similarities between the Pantocrator icon and the image on the Shroud of Turin are startling. It is too significant to be coincidental. The location of facial features including eyes, nose and mouth are astounding. When a transparency of the Shroud face is placed over a photograph of the icon, they align perfectly. The **hair on the left side **(our right when looking at the pictures) falls to the shoulder and curls outward while the hair on the other side of the face is shorter. The **eyes **are very large. The face is gaunt and the nose is especially thin and long. The neck also is particularly long. There is a clear gap in the beard below below the lower lip.

source: greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pre-944AD/pantocrator.html

 

[FreeSpirit1]

given that christ was a jew who lived in the palestine area over 2000 years ago, he did not look like popular artwork has depicted him for centuries. what do any readers of this thread think that has meant to christianity in general? have we christians become more ethnocentric because of the erroneous depictions? have tall guys with long hair who resemble the erroneous depictions been selected for evolutionarily? etc…

Dear whitecrayon,

I encourage you to study this page, which shows a 6th century icon, the Pantocrator, and a negative (reversed image) of the Shroud:

greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/Pre-944AD/pantocrator.html

Since the 6th century, most have tried to stick to this kind of image of Christ. It seems that they were NOT misleading thousands and thousands of believers all through the ages.
We have a good God.

 

[Darran]

There was a thread recently discussing this very well but I can’t find it, if I remember right it might have been in the ask an apologist section.

We do, however, have quite a good idea of what He looked like indeed. That is basing it off the very numerous apparitions and visions that have been given to people throughout centuries, with only minor differences, mostly only in the colour of the hair.

All of them mention the same features of incredible divine handsomeness with a long, straight nose, a high forehead, a soft, trimmed beard and sapphire blue eyes that look so kind as to be almost unbearable. The hair colour only changes slightly, mostly a sandy, fair colour, visions of the Gospel often mention it being lightened by the sun. Sometimes the hair is slightly darker fair, such as the image of the Divine Mercy to St. Faustina.

Despite the controversy of the Turin Shroud (which should be expected with something of the calibre of the Shroud, as anything that is truely good will be attacked by the world in every possible way) it also complies with all of these features as well as the fair hair. Some of the mystics also mention the shroud, which is food for thought.

In any case, it would take more than a million years for His Church to forget the face of our God! The Jesus you see in paintings are mostly the Jesus we have always known.

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-con...ww.shroudofturin4journalists.com/descri12.jpg

 

[Flyingg]

We have a hint of what Jesus looked like from the imprint found on the Shroud of Turin, Italy.

With imagery technology developed by NASA, scientists applied it to the image found on the shroud, and were able to present a 3-d image of the face of a crucified.

Morever, ‘popular artwork’ over the centuries is found to resemble that 3-d image.

Also, representations of Jesus drasticaly changed before and after 6th century, a time when the first public showings of the shroud are believed to have occured.
I say ‘drasticaly’ because before 6th century, the representations of Jesus is without beard. After, it is with a beard.

Any good video of the shroud will show you that ‘popular artwork’ is not that far off.

Is the shroud of Turin considered officialy by the Church to be the one of Jesus? Because the signs of crucifixion in the shroud of Turin were on the wrists while saints received their stigmata on their hands not wrists.

I once asked a catholic about it, he told me that the shroud of Turin is not official to be for Jesus, was he right?

 

[JReducation]

Is the shroud of Turin considered officialy by the Church to be the one of Jesus? Because the signs of crucifixion in the shroud of Turin were on the wrists while saints received their stigmata on their hands not wrists.

I once asked a catholic about it, he told me that the shroud of Turin is not official to be for Jesus, was he right?

There jury is still out. However, it seems more likely that it is. Different tests that came back with different dates were later found to be flawed. The results were invalidated. Whereas those tests that place the shroud in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion seem to be reliable, not because they tell us what we want to hear, but because the test and the equipment is reliable.

As to what Jesus looked lke . . . I’ve often thought about this, not enough to write a theological treatise on it.

I was born Jewish. My experience growing up Jewish is that my Israeli relatives don’t look like the European side of my family. They almost look Hispanic or Arabic. They have dark wavy hair and olive complexion. The men range from 5’ 8” to 6’. This side of the family never intermarried with Europeans. They are really Semites. I’ve often wondered if any of my relatives look like the historical Jesus.

His hair was probably shorter than what is portrayed in art. It was not the custom to wear one’s hair longer than shoulder length. However, in Leviticus and Ezekiel we find laws that prohibit the shaving of the head or doing harm to the corners of the beard. He probably had hair down to his collar, just touching his shoulders and a beard.

I think that Christian art is very ethnic. There are some beautiful statues and paintings from different cultures that are very different, such as Asia and Africa. Also, if you look at Eastern icons, Jesus is not Arian looking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Monica4316]

Regarding the Shroud, I believe it is real… I read about it a while ago, apparently the carbon dating test was questionable because the Shroud might have been repaired in the Middle Ages so they dated it based on that. But the Shroud itself is older. I saw an interview on youtube with a textile expert who said that the particular weave of the Shroud was only used for burial cloths in Israel at that particular time!

i think that the idea we have of Jesus is not perfectly accurate of course but it’s not far off… Because based on private revelations, He looks similar as we typically see Him in art. I don’t think it’s possible to capture Him perfectly in drawings and there are mistakes I’m sure. But I can picture Him with a beard and hair up to the shoulders. We can also see a similarity in Eastern and Western art.

God bless!

 

[thistle]

Is the shroud of Turin considered officialy by the Church to be the one of Jesus? Because the signs of crucifixion in the shroud of Turin were on the wrists while saints received their stigmata on their hands not wrists.

I once asked a catholic about it, he told me that the shroud of Turin is not official to be for Jesus, was he right?

The Church has NOT declared the Shroud to be genuine. Catholics are free to believe or not believe.
For me its a middle ages hoax produced by a camera obscura, a technology hundreds of years old before da vinci. Absolutely everything required to produce the shroud was known and available to leonardo.

 

[JReducation]

The Church has NOT declared the Shroud to be genuine. Catholics are free to believe or not believe.
For me its a middle ages hoax produced by a camera obscura, a technology hundreds of years old before da vinci. Absolutely everything required to produce the shroud was known and available to leonardo.

What gain is there in such a hoax?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[whitecrayon]

about the shroud of turin: i saw on a television program many, many years ago (like back in my 20s, and i am now 42) that the us congress, off all peoples, had paid for a world-class microscopic analysis expert, whose last name i remember was mccrone, to analyze it for authenticity, and that mccrone had determined scientifically that the shroud was a fake. has anyone heard about any of this?

whitecrayon

 

[thistle]

What gain is there in such a hoax?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What difference does it make. It was made by Leonardo whether as a hoax or just simply to make something. It was made using technology available to him. I have watched a documentary showing how it was done. The camera obscura was known to him and all other materials needed were also avialable to him.
The Church has not and will never declare the Shroud to be genuine.
Science has so far failed to proved its older than the Middles Ages.

Frankly I fail to understand why some people get so hung up on the Shroud. If it being genuine is so important to them their faith must be pretty weak.
I don’t need relics, apparitions etc.

 

[JReducation]

about the shroud of turin: i saw on a television program many, many years ago (like back in my 20s, and i am now 42) that the us congress, off all peoples, had paid for a world-class microscopic analysis expert, whose last name i remember was mccrone, to analyze it for authenticity, and that mccrone had determined scientifically that the shroud was a fake. has anyone heard about any of this?

whitecrayon

No. But as recently as May 2010, a group of scientists studied the studies that had originally said that the Shroud was from the 13th century and concluded that there was too much hetergeneity to make them reliable.

There were several problems with the studies.

First, the first piece that they studied in the 1970s did not match the rest of the Shroud. This piece seems to be part of a reconstruction that may have taken place after a fire in the 1500s. It was later found that the same piece, under a different study, was a blend of two fabrics, one that dated back to the first century and one that dated back to the later Middle Ages. This is something that you have have when you darn an old sock.

The other problem was that the method itself was found to be faulty. This discredits the relliability of these studies and the data is not useful.

Every attempt to produce another such Shroud has met with failure. This raises questions in the scientific community. If this were of human creation, we should be able to duplicate it with a very small margin of error. Thus far, no one has been able to do so. The camera obscura theory was rejected as recent as 2010.

acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf

Whether it is the shroud of Christ or not, is still in question. But there is no reliable proof that it was a product of 13th century art or a hoax.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

What difference does it make. It was made by Leonardo whether as a hoax or just simply to make something. It was made using technology available to him. I have watched a documentary showing how it was done. The camera obscura was known to him and all other materials needed were also avialable to him.
The Church has not and will never declare the Shroud to be genuine.
Science has so far failed to proved its older than the Middles Ages.

Frankly I fail to understand why some people get so hung up on the Shroud. If it being genuine is so important to them their faith must be pretty weak.
I don’t need relics, apparitions etc.

These things are important to the Church, not because her faith is weak, but because of justice. In justice, people deserve to know the truth.

In justice, God deserves the glory and praise for any miracle that he performs.

Do we need miracles? For some things we do, for example a canonization. Unless the pope bypasses the requirement, you need at least two miracles.

Do we need relics? Yes. They are part of the Catholic tradtion dating back to the Apostles. In fact, the Church considers them so important that the mass has always been celebrated over a relic.

If you watch a beatification, there is always a relic presented to the pope and acknowledged by him as authentic. It’s part of the ritual. The Church does not casually include things into ritual.

Is the Shroud going to change the resurrection story? No. That cannot happen. In that regard, the proof positive is a nice thing to have, but not essential to the dogma of the Resurrection.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Is the shroud of Turin considered officialy by the Church to be the one of Jesus? Because the signs of crucifixion in the shroud of Turin were on the wrists while saints received their stigmata on their hands not wrists.

I once asked a catholic about it, he told me that the shroud of Turin is not official to be for Jesus, was he right?

Flyingg:

Romans crucified their victims by nailing them through their wrists - Here’s an opinion from a Medical Doctor (Jesus Suffering and Crucifixion from a Medical Point of View). If you’ve ever experienced any form of neuralgia, you’ll understand our Lord’s Mercy in allowing Stigmatists to have the Stigmata on the Palms of their Hands rather than on their wrists by the Medial Nerve of the Carpal Tunnel - Insults to that nerve can be compared to crucifixion itself. I’ve had Spinal Headaches (after a Craniatomy in Nov., 1994), which are also extremely painful.
Another Link on this -
shroudofturin4journalists.com/pathology.htm

The oldest known Icon is Christ the Savior (Pantokrator) a 6th Century encaustic icon at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg
shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm
Forensic Examiners have stated there are over 1,000 points of “concurrence” between this particular Christ Pantokrator and the Shroud of Turin - 100 has been normally sufficient for Facial Recognition in courtrooms from CCTV during the past decade…

You might want to look at the latest on the Carbon Dating - I’m appalled scientists wuld deliberately choose their “samples” from a section of the shroud they knew had been repaired, and would, therefore, not provide an accurate result:
The Story behind the Shroud of Turin and the Carbon Dating Debacle
shroud2000.com/CarbonDatingNews.html
The Shroud of Turin: Facts & Fiction
factsplusfacts.com/

The Pastor in my former parish was a member of Shroud of Turin Research Research Project, and is one of the leading authorities on the Shroud of Turin living in this area. The Catholic Church has not declared that one must believe in the Shroud of Turin - Holy Mother Church actually does that with very few things. OTOH, Holy Mother Church has done nothing to discourage the belief that this is the burial shroud of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ. Holy Mother Church has not said the Shroud of Turin isn’t the burial cloth of our Lord Jesus - On the contrary, it has called it a good and pious devotion. Remember, this is evidence of our Lord’s Resurrection, and of our own as well - See 1 Cor 15:12-58. Recall the scene in John 20:1-9. Ask yourself what they saw in verse 8 that caused them to believe, and then recall the Divine injunction against making any images of anything in the sky above, on the earth or the sea below…

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

given that christ was a jew who lived in the palestine area over 2000 years ago, he did not look like popular artwork has depicted him for centuries. what do any readers of this thread think that has meant to christianity in general? have we christians become more ethnocentric because of the erroneous depictions? have tall guys with long hair who resemble the erroneous depictions been selected for evolutionarily? etc…

White Crayon:

Most Jews during the time of Christ had long hair & beards - That was esp. common among those who were took “Nazarite (or Nazirite) Vows” (Numbers 6). While most of the Western half of the Roman Empire tended to keep their hair cut fairly short and to be clean-shaved, most of the men in the Eastern half of the Empire grew their hair long and kept their beards, esp. those who were Jewish…

The way the Roman soldiers and others treated Jesus when they took him prisoner and on Good Friday suggest that those who had him in chains still saw him as a threat. They wouldn’t have done so if he’d have been the same size as everyone else (5’- 5’-4", 100 - 130 lbs.) or even the same size as most of them (5’-5" - 5’-8", 135 - 155 lbs.). The type of beating our Lord Jesus received at their hands suggests they saw him as a physical threat (5’10" - 6’-1", 175 - 190 lbs.) - This means Jesus was at least 3-4" taller & 25 lbs heavier than most of those who were doing the “beat-down”. And, That’s the man we see on the Shroud of Turin.

FYI, the Shroud of Turin has 100’s of “Points of Agreement” with many of the Early Icons, and even with some of the 6th and 7th Century Byzantine Coins. The Shroud does not provide skin or eye color. We can assume the Icon of Christ Pantokrator (Christ the Savior) at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt is the most accurate depiction of our Lord). The Icon has over 1,000 “Points of Agreement” with the Shroud of Turin - A court of Law will usually accept a photograph for “Positive ID” if it has 100+ “Points of Agreement” with a given person’s face, neck & upper torso/shoulders.
Go to full Resolution in the first one from Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg
katapi.org.uk/Art/Icon-ChristPantocrator.html
prayerfoundation.org/christ_pantocrator_sinai_icon.htm
shroudofturin4journalists.com/pantocrator.htm

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael