I saw a documentary a while ago, and I don't know how credible this is so anyone who can chime in is appreciated, but it was a historian talking about the history of Christian art, and he basically made the point that at the time of the widespread adoption of Christianity into roman life, artists who had no idea what christ looked like drew upon the imagery of religious figures known to them. When it came to depicting jesus the obvious figure to use as inspiration was Jupiter, or zeus to the Greeks, given his position as the deity at the top of the hierarchy in the pantheon, which explains the emergence of jesus being depicted as a white, 'manly' bearded figure with long hair. He pointed out that in earlier roman depictions of jesus, he was a much more cherubic figure, but that didn't align with his new position as the deity of the roman rulers wherein more powerful imagery was wanted to represent the religion of the empire. It was a very compelling argument that seemed to make sense to me in the context of the progression of jesus' depiction that he laid out
It dates to 200 years after Christ's death, I wouldn't take it as a firsthand depiction. Although yes he did almost certainly have short hair and brown skin.
it's a great example of society imposing their ideal onto him though, much like we do today. i believe based on personal experiences. man has been doing man things since forever, and this includes mucking up everything they are involved in and usually in short order. give men a perfect system and see how long it takes to be overran by some sort of man introduced fault.
A picture depicting Jesus 2 or 20 centuries after his death doesn’t change the fact that it’s a figment of the imagination of the painter.
The simple explanation: any person who could have possibly accurately painted his appearance in the early first century was a Jew from whom the idea of making an image of an animal or human being (let alone a divine entity) would be utterly idolatrous.
inquisitor1965 | 2 hours ago
Archaeologists in Iznik, western Turkey, have discovered the best preserved early image of Christ ever found.
Interesting. A man with short hair and brown skin.
nauett | an hour ago
I saw a documentary a while ago, and I don't know how credible this is so anyone who can chime in is appreciated, but it was a historian talking about the history of Christian art, and he basically made the point that at the time of the widespread adoption of Christianity into roman life, artists who had no idea what christ looked like drew upon the imagery of religious figures known to them. When it came to depicting jesus the obvious figure to use as inspiration was Jupiter, or zeus to the Greeks, given his position as the deity at the top of the hierarchy in the pantheon, which explains the emergence of jesus being depicted as a white, 'manly' bearded figure with long hair. He pointed out that in earlier roman depictions of jesus, he was a much more cherubic figure, but that didn't align with his new position as the deity of the roman rulers wherein more powerful imagery was wanted to represent the religion of the empire. It was a very compelling argument that seemed to make sense to me in the context of the progression of jesus' depiction that he laid out
CHICAGOIMPROVBOT2000 | 27 minutes ago
As far as hair goes, short would be the standard Roman fashion
deus_voltaire | 2 hours ago
It dates to 200 years after Christ's death, I wouldn't take it as a firsthand depiction. Although yes he did almost certainly have short hair and brown skin.
theschoolorg | 2 hours ago
not enough to make me believe he was any more than some guy, but the painting is in exceptional condition.
sfzombie13 | 2 hours ago
it's a great example of society imposing their ideal onto him though, much like we do today. i believe based on personal experiences. man has been doing man things since forever, and this includes mucking up everything they are involved in and usually in short order. give men a perfect system and see how long it takes to be overran by some sort of man introduced fault.
blahblah19999 | 5 hours ago
It's odd to see a history article use AD rather than CE.
EDIT: But it was an interesting read, thank you
manuyzmani | an hour ago
A picture depicting Jesus 2 or 20 centuries after his death doesn’t change the fact that it’s a figment of the imagination of the painter.
The simple explanation: any person who could have possibly accurately painted his appearance in the early first century was a Jew from whom the idea of making an image of an animal or human being (let alone a divine entity) would be utterly idolatrous.