Popular (Mis)depictions of Biblical Stories thread

[Matariel]

1.) While Dr. Pierre Barbet had suggested that the victims were nailed through the wrists and that the cause of death in crucifixion was asphyxiation, Dr. Frederick Zugibe recently questioned this and proved that the victim could be safely hung on the cross through the palms and that the cause of death is more due to shock. (WARNING: Graphic photographs present in the link; discretion advised)

Well, the holy Shroud, which I believe is authentic (please read the book,* The Ressurection of the Shroud* if you have time-- highly interesting) shows the nail woulds in the lower palm, almost on the wrist, but piercing the central nerve of the arms, thus causing tremendous pain… those Romans knew how to cause maximum pain, sadly…

…so that both are pierced by a single nail, thus striving to annul or render doubtful men’s faith in the Holy Cross and the traditions of the sainted Fathers.

" Even so, the three nails began to supplant the four nails depiction in the West and became the standard, with a few exceptions cropping up every now and then.

I guess it doesn’t really matter. I have crucifixes which show it one way and the other, even western crucifixes which show the holy Feet of Jesus nailed separately. They were probably nailed separate in real life, but who knows? It may have been with the three nails.

 

[patrick457]

Well, the holy Shroud, which I believe is authentic (please read the book,* The Ressurection of the Shroud* if you have time-- highly interesting) shows the nail woulds in the lower palm, almost on the wrist, but piercing the central nerve of the arms, thus causing tremendous pain… those Romans knew how to cause maximum pain, sadly…

That’s what Dr. Zugibe is addressing. We only have the image of where the nail went out, not where the nail entered – he proposes that the nail was driven at the upper part of the palm, but because the hand was at an angle, the nail went out at the wrist region.

His conclusions are:

1.) Destot’s space does not conform to the hand image on the Shroud of Turin. The hand wound image on the Shroud, is on the radial (thumb) side of the wrist while Destot’s space is on the ulnar (little finger) side of the Wrist.
2.) Moreover the trunk of the median nerve could not be severed if a nail passed through Destot’s space because the median nerve is not present in the area of Destot’s space but instead runs along the opposite side (radial) of the wrist in the thenar furrow into the Palm.
3.) The Shroud of Turin only shows the site of the nail’s exit and not where the nail entered. There are only two possibilities as to where the nail entered: through the radial side of the wrist or through the upper part of the palm angled toward the wrist.
4.) The most plausable region for the nail entry site in the case of Jesus is the upper part of the palm since this area can easily support the weight of the body, assures no bones are broken, marks the location where most people believed it to be, accounts for where most of the stigmatists have displayed their wounds and it is where artists through the centuries have designated it and lastly it explains the apparent lengthening of the fingers of the hand because of nail compression.
5.) The missing thumb on the Shroud image was not due to injury to the median nerve by the passage of the nail. Injury to the median nerve would not cause permanent flexion (bending of thumb into palm). Moreover, the median nerve is not located in the area of Destot’s space where Barbet drove his nails.
6.) The thumbs are missing from the Shroud image because the natural position both in death and in the living person is in front of and slightly to the side of the index finger.
7.) The asphyxiation theory is completely untenable.
8.) The cause of death in crucifixion is a consequence of shock.

 

[Matariel]

That’s what Dr. Zugibe is addressing. We only have the image of where the nail went out, not where the nail entered – he proposes that the nail was driven at the upper part of the palm, but because the hand was at an angle, the nail went out at the wrist region.

His conclusions are:

1.) Destot’s space does not conform to the hand image on the Shroud of Turin. The hand wound image on the Shroud, is on the radial (thumb) side of the wrist while Destot’s space is on the ulnar (little finger) side of the Wrist.
2.) Moreover the trunk of the median nerve could not be severed if a nail passed through Destot’s space because the median nerve is not present in the area of Destot’s space but instead runs along the opposite side (radial) of the wrist in the thenar furrow into the Palm.
3.) The Shroud of Turin only shows the site of the nail’s exit and not where the nail entered. There are only two possibilities as to where the nail entered: through the radial side of the wrist or through the upper part of the palm angled toward the wrist.
4.) The most plausable region for the nail entry site in the case of Jesus is the upper part of the palm since this area can easily support the weight of the body, assures no bones are broken, marks the location where most people believed it to be, accounts for where most of the stigmatists have displayed their wounds and it is where artists through the centuries have designated it and lastly it explains the apparent lengthening of the fingers of the hand because of nail compression.
5.) The missing thumb on the Shroud image was not due to injury to the median nerve by the passage of the nail. Injury to the median nerve would not cause permanent flexion (bending of thumb into palm). Moreover, the median nerve is not located in the area of Destot’s space where Barbet drove his nails.
6.) The thumbs are missing from the Shroud image because the natural position both in death and in the living person is in front of and slightly to the side of the index finger.
7.) The asphyxiation theory is completely untenable.
8.) The cause of death in crucifixion is a consequence of shock.

Oh, so the artists were right all along, eh? Hmm… interesting.

I wonder why the asphyxiation is untenable? I wish he explained that more fully.

 

[patrick457]

Oh, so the artists were right all along, eh? Hmm… interesting.

I wonder why the asphyxiation is untenable? I wish he explained that more fully.

When the hands and arms are raised above the head to support the weight of the body, it is an entirely different situation than that of a person suspended at an angle of 60-70 degrees with the stipes (the upright post). If Jesus was suspended with His hands directly above his head (say, like how the Jehovah’s Witnesses depict Jesus being nailed on the “torture stake”), then indeed there would be a chance that He would have difficulty breathing. However, if the victim is suspended with his arms spread apart to create an angle of 65 to 70 degrees (like how Jesus is traditionally shown on the cross), then there is no danger of such happening – the victim would only experience rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain. Even Pierre Barbet concluded that Jesus was suspended at an angle of about 70 degrees.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6536/333pxjustuslipsiuscruxsur2.jpg

Barbet interpreted the bifurcation pattern corresponding to the image of the wound on the back of the hand as representing two positions assumed by Jesus on the cross in order to breathe out. He postulated that Jesus was unable to breathe in the lower position and had to push up with His feet in order to expel the air from His lungs. However, the image we have is the back of the hand – not the front. The back of the hand is pressed against the patibulum of the cross by the nailing. The heart is beating and is constantly pumping blood through the wound; this would create a large smudge pf blood all over the hand, wrist and down the arm. Every movement on the cross would result in episodes of oozing and over several hours there would be a substantial blood collection.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5776/blueap29yh6.jpg

Another important point that militates against the two positions causing a “double flow of blood” is the fact that the wrist does not change its angle even if the victim had to raise himself in order to breathe, because the arms bend at the elbows and not at the wrists. Zugibe thus that the breaking of the crucified condemned’s legs to hasten death (John 19:31-32) was administered as a coup de grâce, causing severe traumatic shock or hastening death by fat embolism, instead of Barbet’s claim that the crucifragium was done in order to asphyxiate the victim.

 

[patrick457]

I guess it doesn’t really matter. I have crucifixes which show it one way and the other, even western crucifixes which show the holy Feet of Jesus nailed separately. They were probably nailed separate in real life, but who knows? It may have been with the three nails.

Yep; even with three nails, the suffering would still be totally dreadful. Various early Church figures are quite divided on the issue. While St. Gregory Nazianzen (329-389), Socrates Scholasticus (c. 380-??), or Nonnus of Panopolis (early 5th century) appear to speak of three nails only, Sts. Cyprian (??-258), Augustine (354-430), and Gregory of Tours (c. 538-594), Rufinus, Theodoret (c. 393-c. 457), Aelfric (c. 955-c. 1010), and Pope Innocent III (1160/1161-1216) speak of four.

However, personally I just think that the “four nails” depiction is just more plausible since the early artworks (the ones I linked to; a majority of them are made by non/anti-Christians and date somewhere before the 5th century – one or two are even made at a time when crucifixions were still being carried out!) and just about the majority of pre-13th century art depict the feet as separate from each other, kind of like an “iconographic testimony.”

 

[patrick457]

So, any more ideas, everyone?

 

[patrick457]

Now, I’ll state a very obvious misconception (which should be obvious to everyone ). Jesus was most certainly NOT a blue-eyed, blond-haired, fair-skinned Nordic man who spoke in Elizabethan English.



While we don’t know Jesus’ actual appearance (He probably looked similar to the average Jew/Galilean of the time), we do know that He spoke with a strong and rough accent. Galilean dialect was broader and rougher than that of Judea, and in fact the Judeans (those from the region of Judea) made fun of the speech of the ‘ruder’ provincials. Galilean pronunciation of the gutturals is said not to have been so smooth as that of the Judeans.

 

[Matariel]

Though I have to say, depictions like that (what I call, “Jesus Light” ) are fortunately not that common, though one does occasionally see blue eyes-- which is highly unlikely for a zero-ith-century Jew. Most depictions He has darker hair and skin, which is the way He would’ve been on real life.

However, we do have two images of Him-- The Holy Shroud and the original Divine Mercy image (Which, strangely enough, was tested and matches the Shroud perfectly). Unfortunately, the original Divine Mercy image is less popular than later images of the Divine Mercy which one sees, and show Christ’s face at a wierd angle.

 

[patrick457]

Though I have to say, depictions like that (what I call, “Jesus Light” ) are fortunately not that common, though one does occasionally see blue eyes-- which is highly unlikely for a zero-ith-century Jew. Most depictions He has darker hair and skin, which is the way He would’ve been on real life.

Yep, truly fortunate. I don’t know why, but I have a pet peeve against those ultra-Nordic, almost effeminate renditions of Jesus (of course, this is all trivial in a sense, but still). Thankfully they’re not aplenty, as you mentioned. Of course, I have nothing with depicting Jesus as someone similar to one’s culture, but these keep sending the wrong ideas to many people who do not know better…

However, we do have two images of Him-- The Holy Shroud and the original Divine Mercy image (Which, strangely enough, was tested and matches the Shroud perfectly). Unfortunately, the original Divine Mercy image is less popular than later images of the Divine Mercy which one sees, and show Christ’s face at a wierd angle.

This is it, right?

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/558/divinemercyimageab8.gif

So it seems that the rendition by Adolf Hyla is the more popular over there, eh? By contrast, in the Philippines (this is based on personal experience) it seems that the depiction by Robert Skemp is the more prevalent image of the Divine Mercy:

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

 

[cthulhubryan]

Does this qualify?:

Find the 3 wise men in the Bible… you can’t. The number is not actually stated.

Tradition tells us that there were three. I’ve been to and prayed at the Shrine of the Three Kings in the Kolner Dom.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yep, truly fortunate. I don’t know why, but I have a pet peeve against those ultra-Nordic, almost effeminate renditions of Jesus (of course, this is all trivial in a sense, but still). Thankfully they’re not aplenty, as you mentioned. Of course, I have nothing with depicting Jesus as someone similar to one’s culture, but these keep sending the wrong ideas to many people who do not know better…

This is it, right?

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/558/divinemercyimageab8.gif

So it seems that the rendition by Adolf Hyla is the more popular over there, eh? By contrast, in the Philippines (this is based on personal experience) it seems that the depiction by Robert Skemp is the more prevalent image of the Divine Mercy:

http://www.divinemercysunday.com/skemp2.jpg

Following on from this - another iconographical complaint: the picturing of angels as chubby little boys with wings ​

This - apparently - has two sources:

• “cherub” was understood as meaning “like a boy” - it is probably to connected with Akkadian karabum, “to bless”)
• and classical Cupids/Erotes seem to have supplied the artistic inspiration
  Ashur-nasir-pal II of Assyria with “cherub” - & compare Ezekiel 28:

http://hoodmuseum.dartmouth.edu/images/collections/S85632big.jpg

The same, with “cherub” & apkallu (AKA (wrongly)
“Dagon”)

http://yeoldartshoppe.com/catalog/images/ATM-3110606.jpg

 

[Matariel]

Following on from this - another iconographical complaint: the picturing of angels as chubby little boys with wings ​

This - apparently - has two sources:

• “cherub” was understood as meaning “like a boy” - it is probably to connected with Akkadian karabum, “to bless”)
• and classical Cupids/Erotes seem to have supplied the artistic inspiration
  Ashur-nasir-pal II of Assyria with “cherub” - & compare Ezekiel 28:

Actually, the Putti (rotund, winged children) were originally symbols of God’s omniscience. Later, in English-speaking countries, they were mistakenly refered to as “cherubs”, which is doubly wrong, since they simply aren’t cherubim, and because the plural for is cherubim, not “cherubs”. Unfortunately, one still ocassionally hears of them being mistakenly referred to as “cherubs”.

If you go back in the thread, Patrick and I were talking of them before, and there are pictures of the forms of the cherubim, seraphim, and ophanim-- posted by Patrick.

 

[patrick457]

Following on from this - another iconographical complaint: the picturing of angels as chubby little boys with wings ​

This - apparently - has two sources:

• “cherub” was understood as meaning “like a boy” - it is probably to connected with Akkadian karabum, “to bless”)
• and classical Cupids/Erotes seem to have supplied the artistic inspiration
  Ashur-nasir-pal II of Assyria with “cherub”

That reminds me. Some have said that how the cherubim of the Bible are originally imaged are closer to the winged humans/winged bulls/winged lions depicted in Near Eastern artforms (such as the ones you posted).

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8610/602pxhumanheadedwingedbok8.jpg

There’s even a suggestion that the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant were quite similar to the winged lion thrones of the Ancient Near East and on the portable thrones on which Egyptian gods and Pharaohs are usually depicted as sitting on (with the idea that the Ark is God’s “portable throne”):

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

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

 

[patrick457]

Let’s revive this one, just for the fun of it.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Number of animals in the Noah’s Ark. It wasn’t really two by two. The number depended on whether the animal was clean or not.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[patrick457]

Number of animals in the Noah’s Ark. It wasn’t really two by two. The number depended on whether the animal was clean or not.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Correct. The “two by two” assumption mostly came from two verses (Genesis 6:19-20):

From all life, from all flesh, two from all you must bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female: of the birds after their kind, and of the beasts after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

The next chapter, meanwhile, says thus (7:1-4):

Then the LORD said to Noah: “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for you alone in this age have I found to be truly just. Of every clean animal, take with you seven pairs, a male and its mate; and of the unclean animals, one pair, a male and its mate; likewise, of every clean bird of the air, seven pairs, a male and a female, and of all the unclean birds, one pair, a male and a female. Thus you will keep their issue alive over all the earth. Seven days from now I will bring rain down on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and so I will wipe out from the surface of the earth every moving creature that I have made.”

 

[st_julie]

How about…Abraham had Isaac and Ishmael

Gal 4:22 Abraham had two sons

Gen 25 Abraham took another wife whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan,Midian,MedannIshbak and Surah

 

[Sir_Anthony]

The depiction of Mary Magadalene as a prostitute and the woman who annoited Jesus’ feet. Of course this idea was popularized (probably not created) by Pope Gregory the Great who probably thought it made sense. The bible just tells us really a few things about her, one that Jesus cast seven demons from her, and that she was there at the cruxification and when the disciple all gather in the house in Acts and followed Jesus on most of his trips. (my unfounded idea is that she was probably a wealthy widow as that would definitely help with the travelling and the various expenses that they would incur. As I am sure Jesus didn’t make coins pop out of fish mouths all the time).

It is interesting though the Protestant Charismatic Church I used to attend before I came home, used to really put Mary Magadalene on a pedastal (like she was Mary, Theotokos), and used all the traditional interpretation of her, which made me always wonder if they knew where those traditions came from? I thought they were supposedly Sola Scriptura, but whatever, sorry I just had to vent that.

 

[Sir_Anthony]

How about…Abraham had Isaac and Ishmael

Gal 4:22 Abraham had two sons

Gen 25 Abraham took another wife whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan,Midian,MedannIshbak and Surah

The issue this time is a three-way affair:

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. - Genesis 25:1-2
Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman. - Galatians 4:22
By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac… his only begotten son. - Hebrews 11:17
So how many kids for Abe – 8 (per Genesis), 2 (per Galatians) or 1 (per Hebrews)?

Galatians isn’t too hard to deal with, since it isn’t saying that Abe had only two kids – it’s just picking two out of the lot (the two most important for the context) and using them as examples. Only our modern obssesion with details requires the added thought, “He had six others by another women, but that doesn’t come into this story.”

That leaves Hebrews (which should not mention the other 6, which were born after the time described) – did the writer of Hebrews forget Ishmael? Hebrews is here making use of the LXX version of Genesis 22:2, with one exception: where Hebrews says “only begotten” the LXX says “beloved.” On the other hand, a variant tradition of the LXX, used by Aquila and Josephus, also says “only begotten.” Why? Both words derive from the Hebrew yahid, which can carry both meanings. This is the sense in which “only begotten” should be understood.

BTW a lot of rabbinical scholars have long thought that Keturah and Hagar are the same woman, that after Sarah died, Abraham pursued her.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Moses parted the Red Sea.

False. He parted Lake Timsah, the “Reed Sea,” and even then, it can hardly be called a miracle because this lake can dry up, but can drown a group of people if the waters were stirred up enough.

(In all honesty, the plagues could be proved scientifically. It still can be considered a miracle, even if it’s a scientific phenomenon.)

Ironically Yours.