The Face of Jesus

ic ^ | August 6, 2009 | Janine Langan

[theFIRMbss]

>There is one representation of His face. It is on the Shroud. It is not terribly clear but it is what He left us with

It's possible, too,
that just as Scripture writers
were guided by the

Holy Spirit, some
sculptors or painters may have
capture His true face

if they were guided
by the Holy Spirit. But
how could we be sure...

[NYer]

I am always intrigued by comments such as those made by both of you. For example, the following one by freeper 'skr':

He didn’t want us to focus on His appearance but on His message.

I keep wondering how articles of this nature that discuss Christ's image generate such responses. Before the printing press (which allowed for wide distribution of scripture) and photography (which allows us to capture an actual image), it was the common practice to depict scripture in images. Here, for example, is a carving above one of the portals of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. It depicts the Apostles. The majority of people were illiterate and could not read scripture even if they had a Bible (which cost upwards of $30,000 by today's standards).

Catechesis was done through imagery be it in sculpture or stained glass. Hence, articles of this nature do not dispute the focus of Christ's message in text but enlighten us on how it was taught, through imagery. Beginning only in the recent 19th century, illiteracy was eradicated throughout the west. It is still prevalent in certain 3rd world countries.

That said, I am curious as to why you feel compelled to post such obvious responses on these threads, as if imagery contradicted Christ's teaching. Thanks for your response.

[Mr Rogers]

Literacy rates were pretty good in the Roman Empire. Medieval Europe isn’t typical of the world around the Mediterranean from 100-300 AD.

The Jews were sensitive enough to ‘graven images’ that even coins with the Emperor on them caused trouble.

[Mr Rogers]

“Just how many of the Empire’s subjects could read and write is debatable. The amount of graffiti on Pompeii’s buildings suggests a literacy rate of one quarter to a third of the population—about as high as it can get in a pre-industrial society.(21) Beyond Greece and Italy, and in the countryside, it must have been much lower. It is unlikely that in Africa or Britain more than a few percent of the population could read or write.(22)”

I suspect among Jews, the literacy rates were higher than average.

Also,

“The first well documented postal service is that of Rome. Organized at the time of Augustus Caesar (62 BC–AD 14), it may also be the first true mail service. The service was called cursus publicus and was provided with light carriages called rhedæ with fast horses. Additionally, there was another slower service equipped with two-wheeled carts (birolæ) pulled by oxen. This service was reserved to government correspondence. Another service for citizens was later added.”

[Alex Murphy]

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
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 men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

-- Isaiah 53:2-4

Related thread:
The changing face of Jesus: The way we depict Christ says more about us than him, scholars say

[Campion]

The Jews were sensitive enough to ‘graven images’ that even coins with the Emperor on them caused trouble.

They still wouldn't have had a problem with them, except that the Romans typically worshipped their Emperors as divine.

The problem is not with "graven images" per se (David -- the "man after God's own heart" -- had graven images in his palace, according to Scripture), but with idols. By definition, an idol is an image of a false god. Since the Emperor was worshipped as a (false) god and the coins bore his image ... they were technically idols.

[kingpins10]

1 Corinthians 11:14

It is also in the OT.

[Patrick1]

Because the secular world has often used Christ “image” as a means of selling a racial superiority or some political agenda that actually is intended to diminish the message.

It is a fun thing to engage in but as in all things revealed by God the Bible is the word and in that word there is no description of what Christ look like except to say that there was nothing special in his appearance and that is good enough for me.

[Biggirl]

I do believe in the Book of Revelation, there is a brief description of Christ in that New Testement book, as Christ in glory.

[Varda]

“in every case the catacomb shepherd carries a single lost animal on his shoulders, often not a lamb but a goat.”

I never saw a depiction of the shepherd carrying a goat at Catacomb San Callisto only lambs. Actually not at any other place in Rome either.

[Claud]

Apparently it’s a fake. The “translator”/author was convicted of forgery and removed the work from publication:

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

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Is this the fake letter actually written during the early Renaissance to give artists at the time a guideline on how to portray Christ in their paintings?

Years ago TBN used this as a come on to get people to donate to their religious broadcasting.

Send in your money get a real, authentic description of what Jesus looked like! Real! Genuine! Honest!

[I Hate Obama]

I kind of thought so but I still found it interesting.

[Claud]

It is interesting. And on the plus side, it's a pretty good forgery! ;)

[skr]

Portraiture is my favorite genre of art, so I have pondered why not one of the Apostles described Jesus, His parents or nearly anyone else, in the new Testament, other than how John the Baptist was clothed. In fact, we know much more about David (ruddy, with a beautiful countenance) than we do about the appearance of the One promised in his lineage. Why no description, no contemporary depiction? All I’ve been able to come up with is, like not knowing His favorite color, song or childhood toy, His appearance was not included because it wasn’t important as to why He came.

Of course, how exciting it will be to actually see Him! For when we see Him, we will also know His Father’s face! The internet tells me that Jewish tradition does not include portraiture, certainly not that of the unseen God; but it does revere the reading and study of Scripture, and certainly, the Apostles wrote letters to the Churches, which were likely to be read and discussed, so that I am persuaded that however illiterate many of the early Christians may have been, that they respected God’s admonishment about graven images, and revered Him so much that it would’ve been anathema to them to even try to draw God or His Son. Jesus was symbolized by a fish or a lamb, which apparently was enough for a century or two (oddly enough, until all who had seen Him and even a few generations after that had passed away).

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. I don’t particularly subscribe to the notion that imagery contradicts Jesus’ teaching, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it may dilute it, something akin to listening to a debate on radio or watching it on a TV. Visual impact can easily override mental images (i.e.,Nixon-Kennedy debate).

[droichead]

One of the most ancient traditions in the Church, which is recounted in the liturgical books of the Eastern Churches, is that of King Abgar of Edessa the leper who sent an artist to make a portrait of Jesus so that by coming in contact with this portrait the King would be healed. However the artist was unable to accomplish this portrait so Jesus took a cloth and wiped his face with the cloth and on this cloth miraculously appeared the portrait of Jesus.

This is the origin of what is called “acheropite” in greek which means not made by human hands (actually the same word which Jesus used in John’s gospel to refer to the temple (not made by human hands) by which he described his body. By copying this acheropite the first icons were made. Although the icons of Jesus we have now only date from the fourth century it is quite likely that there were icons before that time. In the eighth century during the iconoclastic period in which many icons were destroyed the Council of Bishops referred to the tradition of the original icon not made by human hands to justify the production of icons. Since Jesus himself had provided the image, who could argue against it.

There are actually two cloths which seem to have the most in common with the acheropite we are speaking about : the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Face of Manoppello (formerly known as the Veil of Veronica)

I think that Jesus wants us to be able to experience him in many different ways: through the Holy Scripture, through our own prayer, through the Sacraments of the Church, through our neighbor, and also through images. The Church guides us to a proper understanding of all these presences of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit enlightens us individually too! There is a danger that certain depictions of Jesus could dilute his message, I think the greater danger would be that we don’t see his image at all. What a consolation to have a holy image of Jesus before us at all times!