V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Yeah if he looked like Thor, they wouldn’t have had much trouble tracking him down.
- Status
C
chosen_people
Guest
Would I be correct in presuming, that the relevance of the physical appearance of Jesus derives from the need of (some?) Christians to picture their god in human form when praying?
P
patrick457
Guest
During the Byzantine period, there was a trend of portraying Jesus with stereotypical ‘Semitic’ features: short, curly (almost frizzy) hair and a matching beard. This was one main iconographic variation that existed alongside the ‘short/long-haired beardless young man’ form and the ‘long-haired bearded man’ (i.e. the way we often depict Jesus today) version.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4467/solidusjustinianiichris.jpg
This depiction of a shorter-haired Jesus also enjoyed the support of some personages, such as Theodorus Lector in the early 6th centuy, who once recorded the story of a certain painter who painted an icon of Christ “in the likeness of Zeus” (tou en taxei Dios) for a pagan (‘Hellene’) patron in Constantinople, whereupon his hands withered. It wasn’t until Gennadius I (Patriarch of Constantinople 458-471) prayed for the painter that his punishment was relieved. St. John of Damascus quotes this story, and adds the description: “the hair on the head was painted as dividing on either side so that the eyes were not hidden. For in such manner, the Greeks painted their Zeus.” He goes further: “The historian says that the other type of the Savior, the curly and short-haired (to oulon kai oligotrichon), is more truthful.”
This has led some writers to opine that one possible root of the longer-haired Jesus in iconography is the portraiture of Zeus (the statue of Zeus at Olympia was believed by some to be at Constantinople during the earlier half of the 5th century, where it was destroyed in the great fire of the Lauseion in 475), but it cannot have been convincingly solely derived only from there, since the exact iconography of Christ’s long hair seems to deviate from that of Zeus as well. This issue is also brought up in a text attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, which also complains about depictions of Jesus with long hair - based on what the author believes to be an illogical opinion: that since Christ was called a Nazarene, He ought to have long hair (cf. Nazarite). Another theory is that the (other) source for the long-haired depictions of Jesus is the Mandylion of Edessa - sometimes connected with the Shroud of Turin.
Some iconophile writers during the 9th century even go on to describe that in paintings and mosaics in the Holy Land Constantine the Great depicted our Lord “as the ancients described, with eyebrows that joined+, fine eyes, a long nose, frizzy hair, flesh tones like His Mother’s, the color of wheat.” This description eventually became more detailed as time went on, as we can see from (Epiphanius the Monk’s description of Jesus: a handsome man, six feet tall with not-too thick blondish lightly waved hair and beard, clear and beautiful eyes, a long nose, black eyebrows, a slightly-bent neck, and a face pointed towards the chin).
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4467/solidusjustinianiichris.jpg
This depiction of a shorter-haired Jesus also enjoyed the support of some personages, such as Theodorus Lector in the early 6th centuy, who once recorded the story of a certain painter who painted an icon of Christ “in the likeness of Zeus” (tou en taxei Dios) for a pagan (‘Hellene’) patron in Constantinople, whereupon his hands withered. It wasn’t until Gennadius I (Patriarch of Constantinople 458-471) prayed for the painter that his punishment was relieved. St. John of Damascus quotes this story, and adds the description: “the hair on the head was painted as dividing on either side so that the eyes were not hidden. For in such manner, the Greeks painted their Zeus.” He goes further: “The historian says that the other type of the Savior, the curly and short-haired (to oulon kai oligotrichon), is more truthful.”
This has led some writers to opine that one possible root of the longer-haired Jesus in iconography is the portraiture of Zeus (the statue of Zeus at Olympia was believed by some to be at Constantinople during the earlier half of the 5th century, where it was destroyed in the great fire of the Lauseion in 475), but it cannot have been convincingly solely derived only from there, since the exact iconography of Christ’s long hair seems to deviate from that of Zeus as well. This issue is also brought up in a text attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, which also complains about depictions of Jesus with long hair - based on what the author believes to be an illogical opinion: that since Christ was called a Nazarene, He ought to have long hair (cf. Nazarite). Another theory is that the (other) source for the long-haired depictions of Jesus is the Mandylion of Edessa - sometimes connected with the Shroud of Turin.
Some iconophile writers during the 9th century even go on to describe that in paintings and mosaics in the Holy Land Constantine the Great depicted our Lord “as the ancients described, with eyebrows that joined+, fine eyes, a long nose, frizzy hair, flesh tones like His Mother’s, the color of wheat.” This description eventually became more detailed as time went on, as we can see from (Epiphanius the Monk’s description of Jesus: a handsome man, six feet tall with not-too thick blondish lightly waved hair and beard, clear and beautiful eyes, a long nose, black eyebrows, a slightly-bent neck, and a face pointed towards the chin).
P
patrick457
Guest
During the Byzantine period, there was a trend of portraying Jesus with stereotypical ‘Semitic’ features: short, curly (almost frizzy) hair and a matching beard. This was one main iconographic variation that existed alongside the ‘short/long-haired beardless young man’ form and the ‘long-haired bearded man’ (i.e. the way we often depict Jesus today) version.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4467/solidusjustinianiichris.jpg
This depiction of a shorter-haired Jesus also enjoyed the support of some personages, such as Theodorus Lector in the early 6th centuy, who once recorded the story of a certain painter who painted an icon of Christ “in the likeness of Zeus” (tou en taxei Dios) for a pagan (‘Hellene’) patron in Constantinople, whereupon his hands withered. It wasn’t until Gennadius I (Patriarch of Constantinople 458-471) prayed for the painter that his punishment was relieved. St. John of Damascus quotes this story, and adds the description: “the hair on the head was painted as dividing on either side so that the eyes were not hidden. For in such manner, the Greeks painted their Zeus.” He goes further: “The historian says that the other type of the Savior, the curly and short-haired (to oulon kai oligotrichon), is more truthful.”
This has led some writers to opine that one possible root of the longer-haired Jesus in iconography is the portraiture of Zeus (the statue of Zeus at Olympia was believed by some to be at Constantinople during the earlier half of the 5th century, where it was destroyed in the great fire of the Lauseion in 475), but it cannot have been convincingly solely derived only from there, since the exact iconography of Christ’s long hair seems to deviate from that of Zeus as well. This issue is also brought up in a text attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, which also complains about depictions of Jesus with long hair - based on what the author believes to be an illogical opinion: that since Christ was called a Nazarene, He ought to have long hair (cf. Nazarite). Another theory is that the (other) source for the long-haired depictions of Jesus is the Mandylion of Edessa - sometimes connected with the Shroud of Turin.
Some iconophile writers during the 9th century even go on to describe that in paintings and mosaics in the Holy Land Constantine the Great depicted our Lord “as the ancients described, with eyebrows that joined, (This corresponds with St. Andrew of Crete’s rather dubious citation of Josephus which supposedly says Jesus had “meeting eyebrows”) fine eyes, a long nose, frizzy hair, flesh tones like His Mother’s, the color of wheat.” This description eventually became more detailed as time went on, as we can see from Epiphanius the Monk’s description of Jesus as a handsome man, six feet tall with not-too thick blondish lightly waved hair and beard, clear and beautiful eyes, a long nose, black eyebrows, a slightly-bent neck, and a face pointed towards the chin. These later detailed purported descriptions of Jesus may be the genesis of the medieval Publius Lentulus letter.
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/967/6thsinaipantocrator.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4467/solidusjustinianiichris.jpg
This depiction of a shorter-haired Jesus also enjoyed the support of some personages, such as Theodorus Lector in the early 6th centuy, who once recorded the story of a certain painter who painted an icon of Christ “in the likeness of Zeus” (tou en taxei Dios) for a pagan (‘Hellene’) patron in Constantinople, whereupon his hands withered. It wasn’t until Gennadius I (Patriarch of Constantinople 458-471) prayed for the painter that his punishment was relieved. St. John of Damascus quotes this story, and adds the description: “the hair on the head was painted as dividing on either side so that the eyes were not hidden. For in such manner, the Greeks painted their Zeus.” He goes further: “The historian says that the other type of the Savior, the curly and short-haired (to oulon kai oligotrichon), is more truthful.”
This has led some writers to opine that one possible root of the longer-haired Jesus in iconography is the portraiture of Zeus (the statue of Zeus at Olympia was believed by some to be at Constantinople during the earlier half of the 5th century, where it was destroyed in the great fire of the Lauseion in 475), but it cannot have been convincingly solely derived only from there, since the exact iconography of Christ’s long hair seems to deviate from that of Zeus as well. This issue is also brought up in a text attributed to St. Epiphanius of Salamis, which also complains about depictions of Jesus with long hair - based on what the author believes to be an illogical opinion: that since Christ was called a Nazarene, He ought to have long hair (cf. Nazarite). Another theory is that the (other) source for the long-haired depictions of Jesus is the Mandylion of Edessa - sometimes connected with the Shroud of Turin.
Some iconophile writers during the 9th century even go on to describe that in paintings and mosaics in the Holy Land Constantine the Great depicted our Lord “as the ancients described, with eyebrows that joined, (This corresponds with St. Andrew of Crete’s rather dubious citation of Josephus which supposedly says Jesus had “meeting eyebrows”) fine eyes, a long nose, frizzy hair, flesh tones like His Mother’s, the color of wheat.” This description eventually became more detailed as time went on, as we can see from Epiphanius the Monk’s description of Jesus as a handsome man, six feet tall with not-too thick blondish lightly waved hair and beard, clear and beautiful eyes, a long nose, black eyebrows, a slightly-bent neck, and a face pointed towards the chin. These later detailed purported descriptions of Jesus may be the genesis of the medieval Publius Lentulus letter.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m a believer of the Shroud’s authenticity, but even that strikes me as odd. How were they able to determine the man’s eye color when the eyes are actually closed?I’ve read a lot of nonsense about the obviously fake Shroud of Turin,
but these comments really take the cake:
How would you determine hair and eye color from a 2,000 year old piece of cloth?
Ridiculous.
K
Kasama
Guest
Many of these records are fractional, and there was no rock solid proof of Pontius Pilot until 1961:
allaboutarchaeology.org/pontius-pilate-faq.htm
I know the letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is heavily challenged, but it did carbon-14 date to the 4th Century and can even be found in the archives of an Israeli website:
israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/PILATE-1.htm
If you go back to my original post (post 9 on this thread), there is no mention of eye color concerning the Shroud. The post was misread.I’m a believer of the Shroud’s authenticity, but even that strikes me as odd. How were they able to determine the man’s eye color when the eyes are actually closed?
P
patrick457
Guest
Not exactly. We do know quite a bit about Pontius Pilate mainly from Josephus and Philo. The Pilate Stone discovered in 1961 merely gave us a confirmation of these records.
Oh no, not the Archko Volume. (Facepalm) And nope, that totally isn’t an Israeli website.
B
buffalo
Guest
I wouldn’t characterize it as European features, I would characterize them as ideal features.
The Shroud is not debunked. If you are basing it on the Carbon dating I suggest you really look into that.
P
Pitcharan
Guest
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. (Is 53:2b-3)
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nobody knows the details of Jesus’ appearance. We can speculate, of course, as long as the speculation is not an occasion of hostility or an expression of racial or ethic biases.
There are plenty of blond, blue-eyed Semites, and probably always were. Semitic people are not a “race”, but a linguistic group composed of people of various “ethic” origins. Within the “Semitic” peoples, there are, for example, what are thought of as “typically Arab” people (a misconception in itself) like those living in the Arabian peninsula today. There are also very fair Syrians and Iraqis who consider themselves “Arabs” too, notwithstanding that they don’t even remotely resemble the “typical” Arab from Yemen, and would not be remarked as “foreign-looking” even on the streets of Frankfurt. There is pretty good evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews we in America think of as “typically Jewish” in appearance, are actually descendants of Khazars, a Turkic people. Many, many Western European Jews do not “look like Jews” to Americans because Americans are so used to seeing Jews of Eastern European descent.
As someone previously mentioned, the real question is what appearance is, to most people, a representation that most induces reverence and prayer. So, if to a German, it is conducive to his prayer life to see Jesus as blond and blue-eyed, there’s no harm. If it is conducive to the spiritual life of an African to see Jesus as black, no harm.
It’s probably just as well, given some of humanity’s negative proclivities, that we don’t know what Jesus really looked like.
I am not an ardent devotee or discounter of the Shroud. I take it as the Church does. But it is my impression that the image, even if truly genuine, can be interpreted in various ways, given, of course, that the face is distorted by wounds, swelling, etc.
There are plenty of blond, blue-eyed Semites, and probably always were. Semitic people are not a “race”, but a linguistic group composed of people of various “ethic” origins. Within the “Semitic” peoples, there are, for example, what are thought of as “typically Arab” people (a misconception in itself) like those living in the Arabian peninsula today. There are also very fair Syrians and Iraqis who consider themselves “Arabs” too, notwithstanding that they don’t even remotely resemble the “typical” Arab from Yemen, and would not be remarked as “foreign-looking” even on the streets of Frankfurt. There is pretty good evidence that the Ashkenazi Jews we in America think of as “typically Jewish” in appearance, are actually descendants of Khazars, a Turkic people. Many, many Western European Jews do not “look like Jews” to Americans because Americans are so used to seeing Jews of Eastern European descent.
As someone previously mentioned, the real question is what appearance is, to most people, a representation that most induces reverence and prayer. So, if to a German, it is conducive to his prayer life to see Jesus as blond and blue-eyed, there’s no harm. If it is conducive to the spiritual life of an African to see Jesus as black, no harm.
It’s probably just as well, given some of humanity’s negative proclivities, that we don’t know what Jesus really looked like.
I am not an ardent devotee or discounter of the Shroud. I take it as the Church does. But it is my impression that the image, even if truly genuine, can be interpreted in various ways, given, of course, that the face is distorted by wounds, swelling, etc.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Exactly this.
K
Kasama
Guest
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Wait, wait, wait, wait…
Are you suggesting that blonde hair and blue eyes are “ideal” features?
Please step forward as soon as possible and clarify what you’re trying to say here. I don’t want to believe that you are a Neo-Nazi or something, but that’s what this is sounding like. So please correct me if I’m wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
:bigyikes: What?Wait, wait, wait, wait…
Are you suggesting that blonde hair and blue eyes are “ideal” features?
Please step forward as soon as possible and clarify what you’re trying to say here. I don’t want to believe that you are a Neo-Nazi or something, but that’s what this is sounding like. So please correct me if I’m wrong.
As prototypical humans what did Adam and Eve look like? Did they have ideal features. I would say so. So why not Jesus? Unless the argument is God deliberately toned down His beauty.
However, I do not think He looked like Qausimoto
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...VY_8nhzNwUDprfvNYKUNkf_ydsItR5DHkHxVxqPeCrnbA
After His resurrection we know He had a glorified body. We too will have a glorified body at the second coming.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I’m lost, mind if we re-cap?
Here’s the timeline I have:
- Some of the Shroud of Turin people suggest that Jesus had blue eyes and blonde hair.
- I disagree.
- You take issue with this, seemingly disagreeing, asking me why.
- I say that Jesus is more likely to have looked like a typical Semite of the time, and anthropologically, that means it’s unlikely for him to have had blonde hair and blue eyes. Something I called “European features.”
- You then say, “I wouldn’t call them 'European features, I would call them ideal features.”
I apologize if this incorrect, but if that’s not your point, I don’t know what your point is. It seems to logically follow.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
He looked like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia.jpg
Truly, I think iconography is the best way to see what Jesus looked like.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jesus-Christ-from-Hagia-Sophia.jpg
Truly, I think iconography is the best way to see what Jesus looked like.
K
Kasama
Guest
That painting shows Jesus with blonde hair, do you know the background of that painting? The Man in the Shroud had blonde hair, if the Shroud can be proven authentic, that would be definitive. I don’t think it’s a stretch, as King David was a Semite who had red hair.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Blond hair and blue eyes are not “European features”. They’re features not uncommon to a number of peoples whose most remote knowable origin is believed to have been around the Caspian Sea. One of the truly interesting things one can read about is the 5000 year old “Tarim mummies” in China. Blond and red hair, “European” features, with clothing woven in a “tartan” fashion, with some patterns being exactly those one sees in Scotland and Ireland today.
It may be noted as well that many Kurds have what many would consider “European” features. If you look at Pashtuns and many Persians, their features are similar to that of Europeans, and their languages are related to European languages, not to Semitic languages.
I have a friend from Syria who is blond haired and blue-eyed, and I understand from him that there are a lot of people in Syria that way. I have a relative (by marriage) from Iraq. Granted, her eyes are not blue, but they’re green and she tells me her father’s eyes were blue. She’s quite fair and “European-looking” notwithstanding that she considers herself an “Arab”, and her first language was Arabic.
So, I don’t think we know what a “typical” Semite looked like in Jesus’ time any more than we do in our own time, and perhaps less.
In our own society, being blonde and blue-eyed is not really considered “ideal”, but it’s one of the “idealized” notions of beauty we have. But it isn’t the only one, and fashionable notions of “ideal beauty” change from time to time. Remember when, back in the earlier movie days when the ideal man was “tall, dark and handsome”?
B
buffalo
Guest
This is where we started - you
Um… how many Semitic men of the time had golden hair and blue eyes? I would guess none?
So I guess the Shroud is a hoax? forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif
I replied - How would you know this?I like this:
St Faustina’s Image - she was told directly by Christ to have an artist paint what He showed her. Dated - 1930’s.
Shroud of Turin - dated approx 33 AD
Put them together and they match as shown here:
Divine Mercy and Shroud of Turin
I think it the best we have. He does not have blond hair. I cannot see the eye color.
http://www.mercyimages.com/images/productimages/Images/Vilnius_2unframed.jpg
The point I was making is it is not what some people have put forth.
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/i...nSxGVjqKOiIEHVAUu2kleUm3XpQuQB4NwK0ic5cPfQnRg
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Interesting, but it doesn’t tell us anything about what Jesus looked like. If you look at ancient Greek statuary (and if the Greeks really looked like that) one would expect Greeks to show Jesus with curly hair. If you look at Greek paintings (and not many really old ones survive) most of them were dark-complected, though that might have been the result of their outdoor way of living. Greeks themselves, though, were of varied origins, particularly in the Christian era. Alexander (not really quite a Greek, but of a related people) is referred to as having been blonde.
Jesus might have been blonde. He might have had dark straight or wavy or curly hair. We just don’t know.
- Status