Talk:Depiction of Jesus/Archive 1

Modern Interpretations of Jesus's Appearance

Nowhere in this article is any modern, scientific approach to determine his real appearance mentioned. Instead it's loaded with Medieval paintings all depicting him as some Nordic-looking, fair-skinned, long-haired European, when in reality he probably resembled modern Arabs more closely than anything else.

Concerted scientific investigations by reputable people in the field of anthropology and ethnogensis should be mentioned. Eg: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/arts/21JESU.html?ex=1392786000&en=4d732275d553f498&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

These depictions are probably far closer to the truth than the myriad of paintings by European artists intent on depicting Jesus as "White" usually for political purposes or racial connotations of superiority.

Gamer112 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Race of Jesus for his possible actual appearance. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Dark-skinned' Jesus

Jesus of Nazareth was probably dark-skinned. Has any painter ever depicted him like this?

Several have shown him with a darker "tan", like the Greek icon in the article or even a little darker. I don't think I've seen him depicted as dark-skinned as an African though, for instance. Doesn't mean that no one has, though. Wesley 16:09 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tabulation

This page needs a < table > for the images. The div make it all jumbled. I'll do it if noone else does. reddi

I gathered from the to-do text that the images were just more or less tossed in --- several are collected from other articles where they were first used --- with the intent that when the topics were discussed in the text in chief, they would be there to sit beside the text they relate to. Obviously finishing this is going to be a fairly major undertaking, and the images will probably need to be moved to appropriate places inline when the article is done. But that's a long way away. -- Smerdis of Tlön 01:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

yep, you are right ... threw the table in anyways to get them lookin ok for now though [till it get more work] ... reddi 03:32, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

TO DO

Moved here from the front page:

TO DO: add more images and arrange them chronologically and by place of origin; provide background about the artist, his or her culture, and the location of the depiction; provide an analysis of the meaning and theological symbolism of the representation; provide discussion of changes in representations of Jesus as they relate to changes in Christianity; provide discussion of changes in representations of Jesus as they relate to changes in Western art

Isn't there a TODO macro or template or something for this purpose? Wesley 03:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image layout

This article has gone through unaligned divs, aligned divs, tables, sections and who knows what else to format the images. I've done it in Yet Another way, with left-floating divs and captions in the images, instead of somewhere next to them.

You may not be immediately smitten with the look, but please do consider the following:

This is as easy to edit as tables. Just copy & paste a new div for a new image and you're done.
The browser will take care of the layout, and it will not waste so much space on the left as the table-based solution does.
The uncomfortable gaps caused by the different image sizes are minimized.

There may still be room for improvement, but I think it comes ahead of tables in general. JRM 19:25, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Thank you, JRM! It looks much better now, at least in my browser. Wesley 01:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Jesus graffito.jpg

Contrary to what the caption says, this picture is not what some people think Jesus may have looked like and is not supposed to be a representation of Jesus. It is actually a piece of Greek graffiti mocking a Christian by depicting Jesus as a donkey. The scrawl says "Alexmenos is worshipping his god." Since this is not an "Image of Jesus" it doesn't belong on this page. Avertist 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does belong on this page, though this section might be a little farther down the article. As a culturally significant pictoral mockery of Jesus and the Christian faith in general (or possibly just poor Alexmenos), it gives an encyclopaedic flavor to this article, which also includes an image gallery, a series of discussions on the historical majority, and a listing of alternate depictions. It also reminds us of the humanity of history, that mockery has been around as long as people. This is a pretty good article, come to think of it. All it's missing is a picture of the Big Butter Jesus and the Boondocks Black Jesus. --BlueNight 03:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible orgin of long hair look

"As part of the 613 commandments, an injunction in Leviticus (19:27) commands Jews "You shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shall you destroy the edges of your beard" JPS translation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyos

The source of the beard

Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Considering this, The idea that he had a beard would have been confirmed by Isaiah 50:6 which reads:

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting.

Cultural depictions of Jesus?

I see that Jesus already has three cultural pages and that a merger is under discussion for two of them. I'd like to suggest a model for resolving this: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a featured list that covers various aspects of high culture and popular culture in organized sections. It's an approach I'm suggesting for other biographies included in Wikipedia's Core Biographies project and might be a good model for editors here. Respectfully, Durova 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is certainly the best page of that type, and the approach should be used here. Johnbod 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Africa?????

check this, the largest following of Jesus is where? Brazil and Africa. Yet where are the Black versions of Jesus. this article is not a worldview hence the tag. See Ethiopia if you cant find an image. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wand image?

If the image is real, and not just OR, then where is it on this page? The only sources I can find of it are on rabidly-skeptic (I say this with no disrespect to skepticism, but these people think Dan Brown utters nothing but truth and that there is a grand conspiracy - these are not real scholars, nor are they accredited as such) sites, and on this article. Or on sites making fun of Christianity such as "Why doesn't Jesus come down and just wave his wand?"74.140.118.84 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that we remove the claim, unless someone can cite it.74.140.118.84 06:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Wand

References were on subject page and noted directly following material. Please readers pay more attention.

The Two Faces of Jesus by Robin M. Jensen, Bible Review, 17.8, Oct 2002
Understanding Early Christian Art by Robin M. Jensen, Routledge, 2000

Also see the illustrations in Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith User:Kazuba 25 Apr 2007

The links provided are inadequate to make this assertion: "The wand is thought to be a symbol of power. The bare-faced youth with the wand may indicate that the Jesus was thought of as a user of magic or a wonder worker by some Early Christians. Some scholars suggest that the Gospel of Mark, the Secret Gospel of Mark and The Gospel of John (the so-called Signs Gospel), portray such a wonder worker, user of magic, a magician, or a Divine man. (Only the Apostle Peter is also depicted in ancient art with a wand)."

The only common early depiction of Jesus with a wand is at the tomb of Lazarus. Why is this significant? The symbol for physicians 2000 years ago to the present day is the Rod of Asclepius. As such, most respectable physicians, from the time of Jesus even through the 1860's would carry a wand of some sort as per the British and Foreign Medical Review Journal dated 1861, lamenting the waning of the physician's wand.British and Foreign Medico-chirurgical Review

I personally hold that the depiction of the wand during the resurrection of Lazarus conveys the same as the depiction of a man with a stethoscope today. The reason for its inclusion is the identification of the man as a physician (or in Jesus' case, the Great Physician). Naturally, this is conjecture, so neither this idea nor the present quote above should be included in the article.

--Akalhar (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV statement

This makes a categorical evaluation which in Wikipedia is not supposed to be done: "There is no reliable evidence that a surviving portrait of him exists, or ever existed." It is a sweeping generalization to call supporter's evidence of the authenticity of the shroud non-reliable. The statement should then be changed. Lafem 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud of Turin

This is the most famous of all images of Jesus and which also have the most number supporters among which are academics and scholars. See Pro-authenticity sites.

Origin of the Most Famous Image

Although I went to a Lutheran church when I was a child (it was the only one within walking distance), I'm pretty much an agnostic. But EVERY church I have ever been in, whether Protestant or Catholic, Lutheran or Episcopalian or anything else, has had the SAME image of Jesus someplace. Everyone knows the one I'm thinking of. It's the long-haired, bearded Jesus, handsome by comtemporary standards, right side of face (although I've seen it reversed). It's often the only image children see of him. But no one I have ever asked knows ANTHING about the painting! By the style, I think it's probably from the late 1800s or very early 1900s, but I'm not an art expert. Can anyone find out anything about this picture? CFLeon 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are thinking of The Head of Christ, by Warner Sallman (1941), which most certainly should be discussed in this article. Beyond that, however, I would like to see a discussion of how we got the standard contemporary image of Jesus as a tall, handsome brunette of northern European origin, with long, flowing hair and a cropped beard. (Since there is strong evidence that Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew, we know that he did not look very much like this conventional image.) John M Baker (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Warner Sallman work is based on his own artistic idea, and may be popular for reasons which may defy simple logic. However, I have not seen that image as often as you suggest in Catholic Churches, but I do not go to Lutheran Churches. But that image does not have "Church approval" from a Catholic viewpoint, so to speak. Anyone is, of course free to paint, but the images that have some sort of "approval" from the Catholic Church are the Divine Mercy (painting) because the writings of Saint Mary Faustina Kowalska are approved (and her reported conversations with Jesus are quoted on the Vatican website) and Secondo Pia's photograph for it is used in the Holy Face of Jesus devotion. I shoudl also note that there are many paintings of Madonna and Child and they do not often resemble each other. So everyone is free to paint what they like, of course. If there is another image to discuss, it is probably the Kowalska which has some sort of approval. Come to think of it, I should do that sooner or later. Thanks fo rsuggesting it. History2007 (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jesus Of Divine Mercy.jpg

Image:Jesus Of Divine Mercy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]