[soc.religion.christian] The physical appearance of Jesus

hans@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) (10/25/89)

Now here's another topic for you. I guess this must be the proper
newsgroup, even though it has relatively little to do with questions of
faith (except for the very last question).

The beginning of this article is an excerpt from a short article in this
week's New Statesman (20.10.89) (New Statesman is a British magazine) :

---

...Muhammed Ali this week `sparked a race storm' according to the Sun,
by announcing that Jesus was black. Since it is a well-known fact that
Jesus was a tall, blond Scandinavian, other theologians manques were
infuriated by such heresy. `It's nonsense', snorted John Stokes MP.
`Christ is always portrayed as a Jew with a beard.' Tory colleague
Ivor Stanbrook agreed: `Ali is historically inaccurate and spreading
racial hatred'. When Ken Leech, director of the Runnymede Trust,
pointed out that, by virtue of geography, Jesus must have been at
least brownish, he received a flood of angry mail.
   There's no contemporaneous record of Jesus's physical appearance.
Tertullian, writing in the early third century, claimed that `in the
days of the flesh [he] had an ugly countenance'. According to an 11th
century Slavonic translation of the first-century Jewish historian
Josephus, Jesus was a member of the nomadic race of Kenites - not
Jewish at all. He was also, according to the same source, very dark,
and stooped - maybe to the point of disability (which gives a savage
twist to the taunt `physician heal thyself'). But no one much believes
in the Slavonic Josephus text.

---

I discussed this article with my flatmates and we all found that of
course Jesus must have looked anything but Scandinavian. How on earth
did that `Scandinavian' image evolve ? Was it Cecil B. de Mille ?
Even Martin Scorcese uses this image in `The Last Temptation'. OK,
Scorcese's film is very controversial and he does not claim
authenticity w.r.t. the storyline, but given the efforts spent on the
authenticity of costumes, music etc. in that film, I find it a bit
surprising. 

I personally have no idea as to what the people of Palestine looked
like at that time. It seems rather unlikely to me that Jesus had an
`ugly countenance' given that he had such a huge following in his
lifetime. Given that Jesus probably also worked as a carpenter when
in his teens (we don't know anything about that period from the
Gospels) it is also rather unlikely that he was a cripple.

I also remember coming across an old Danish book some years ago in
which the author tried to prove that Jesus was indeed short, bald and
ugly.

Now my questions to you, fellow-netters :

- Are there any other sources of information that you know of ?
Anybody know more about the Josephus text ? The Bible does not
provide us with much information in general w.r.t.  the physical
appearance of the people involved. We know that Samson was hairy, that
Goliath was very tall and that some people were young and others old
but that's about it. Of course all such descriptions were probably
left out because they weren't exactly relevant to the message. I guess
it also must have had something to do with the cultural tradition that
Matthew, John etc. were in. 

- I have cross-posted this to soc.culture.arabic since I guess this is
as close as we can come to a newsgroup for discussions on Islam. I am
well aware of the fact that Islamic attitudes towards depicting people
are/can be different, but anyway... do Muslims share Mr. Ali's view ? 

- Finally - how much would it mean to YOU if it was somehow discovered
that Jesus was e.g. short, bald and ugly ? (I don't think anyone believes
in Jesus because of his good looks :-) but there must be some reason
for e.g. the `Scandinavian' stereotype mentioned above) 

Personally, I think one of the reasons why the `Scandinavian'
stereotype has been so widely accepted is that that people often
forget (want to forget ?) that Christianity began in the Middle East
among poor (probably illiterate) people. 

(Note that follow-ups are directed to soc.religion.christian. If, for
some reason, you do not receive this newsgroup, reply by e-mail.)

Best regards

Hans

| Hans H\"{u}ttel, Office 1603     JANET: hans@uk.ac.ed.lfcs
| LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science  UUCP:  ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!hans
| University of Edinburgh          ARPA:  hans%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
| Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, SCOTLAND ...  Ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more!

[Don't be shocked if this misses soc.culture.arabic, since the news
software often messes up when you cross post to a moderated and
unmoderated group at the same time. --clh]

mmcdanie@uunet.uu.net (Molly McDaniel) (10/27/89)

In article <Oct.25.05.18.54.1989.24924@athos.rutgers.edu>, 
hans@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) writes:
> Personally, I think one of the reasons why the `Scandinavian'
> stereotype has been so widely accepted is that that people often
> forget (want to forget ?) that Christianity began in the Middle East
> among poor (probably illiterate) people.

I think that Jesus is thought of as Scandinavian-like by those of us in the
Western Hemisphere because we simply like to think of God and Christ in
our own image.  This is true not only in terms of physical attributes but
more subtley in how we anthropomorphise God (far beyond the Bible's
anthropomorphising).  

And if people want to forget that Christ was not of the poor, Middle
Eastern or otherwise, then my guess is that they want to forget most of
what Christ is all about, most of what Christianity is all about.  If
you're right in your speculation about this, then I'd say we're
committing a grave error: to believe that money and education make one
group of people superior to another group.  This is contrary to Biblical
teaching and to who I think God is.  We may be surprised to find
one day just who constitutes the people of God.  

I was appalled too by the comments of the people against Ali's claim of a
black Christ.  The comments strike me as very defensive and parochial, and they
themselves showed a lack of education and knowledge in making such
responses. 

It would not affect my beliefs or feelings about Christ in any way to
learn anything about Christ's physical appearance.  He had a body of one
sort or another and that's about all that matters, as far as physical
attributes go, IMHO.
 

-- 
Molly McDaniel
UUCP:       ...cvl!umabco!mmcdanie
Internet:   umabco!mmcdanie@cvl.umd.edu
Snail Mail: UMAB, 511 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD. 21201

geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/30/89)

In article <Oct.25.05.18.54.1989.24924@athos.rutgers.edu>
hans@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) asks about references on the
physical appearance of Jesus. 

He starts off by quoting from the New Statesman (20.10.89) (New
Statesman is a British magazine).

 [discussion of Jesus' being either black or Scandanavian deleted]
>   There's no contemporaneous record of Jesus's physical appearance.
>Tertullian, writing in the early third century, claimed that `in the
>days of the flesh [he] had an ugly countenance'. According to an 11th
>century Slavonic translation of the first-century Jewish historian
>Josephus, Jesus was a member of the nomadic race of Kenites - not
>Jewish at all. He was also, according to the same source, very dark,
>and stooped - maybe to the point of disability (which gives a savage
>twist to the taunt `physician heal thyself'). But no one much believes
>in the Slavonic Josephus text.

Then Hans continues:

>It seems rather unlikely to me that Jesus had an
>`ugly countenance' given that he had such a huge following in his
>lifetime. Given that Jesus probably also worked as a carpenter when
>in his teens (we don't know anything about that period from the
>Gospels) it is also rather unlikely that he was a cripple.

In regard to Jesus' attractiveness (or lack thereof), see below.  As for
being a cripple, your guess seems pretty good that a cripple would
have a tough time making it as a carpenter.  (But, of course, the best
we can do is guess.)

>The Bible does not
>provide us with much information in general w.r.t.  the physical
>appearance of the people involved.

Well, while there's no direct Biblical account of Jesus' appearance,
Isaiah writes prophetically about about Him:

	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.

				-- Isaiah 53:2b-3 (NIV)


This seems to give us a pretty good reason to believe that Jesus was not
exactly the Tom Selleck of His day.  Whether `no beauty ... to attract
us' means `ugly' I'll leave to the speculation of the reader.

>- Finally - how much would it mean to YOU if it was somehow discovered
>that Jesus was e.g. short, bald and ugly ? (I don't think anyone believes
>in Jesus because of his good looks :-)

Absolutely nothing!  Jesus is the most beautiful person I know.  That
beauty has absolutely nothing to do with physical appearance.  It has
everything to do with His incredible love for me and all that He gave
for me.

> but there must be some reason
>for e.g. the `Scandinavian' stereotype mentioned above) 

>Personally, I think one of the reasons why the `Scandinavian'
>stereotype has been so widely accepted is that that people often
>forget (want to forget ?) that Christianity began in the Middle East
>among poor (probably illiterate) people. 

Tony Campollo (sp?) makes an interesting point in this regard.  He says
that we all tend to want to make God in our own image.  Christians are
just as likely to do this as pagans.  When we make God in our own image,
we turn Jesus into a white, middle-class businessman.  I know I often
catch myself thinking of Jesus as if He were a white American.  I
shouldn't, but I do.  This may be where the `Scandanavian Jesus' came
from.

Look at the pictures of Jesus in the Sunday School classrooms at your
church sometime.  How many of them show a white man?  It's certainly
something to think about.

--
Geoff Allen                  \  Since we live by the Spirit, 
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff  \  let us keep in step with the Spirit.
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff   \                    --  Gal. 5:25 (NIV)

smith_c@ncsatl.uucp (11/10/89)

[This is a continuation of the discussion of the "Scandinavian" stereotype
of Jesus.  --clh]

I have a very interesting book called "Faces of Jesus."  It is a collection of
pictures/statues of Jesus, as well as Madonnas, Pietas, etc.  There are
representations of a black Christ dying on the Cross, in Agony in the Garden,
an Oriental Christ forgiving an Oriental prostitute, an Hispanic Christ
whipped at the pillar, white Christs preaching the Beatitudes, a black Creche,
with a black Child, Joseph, and Mary, etc.  It isn't that we create God in our
own image; I think this is a beautiful example of us trying to incorporate
Christ into our own culture.  It's a concrete way of saying, "Christ is my
brother."  I find the book very moving.  Jesus was a man.  He was a human
being.  He was one of us.  He is a member of every culture which embraces Him. 

I can't wait to see how nonhumans draw Christ in their pictures, if it ever
comes to that.

> Molly McDaniel
> UUCP:       ...cvl!umabco!mmcdanie
> Internet:   umabco!mmcdanie@cvl.umd.edu
> Snail Mail: UMAB, 511 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD. 21201

-- 
                  |
	 	IN|RI 		     
    | 		  |	 	|     He came, He saw, 
--\-O-/--     ----+----	    --\-O-/-- He conquered death and Hell.
   \|/		  |            \|/ 
    |		  |	        |     Just a servant of the Most High
    |	  	  |	        |       
    |             |             |     Sincerely, SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER
                                      gatech!ncsatl!smith_c

barry1@ihlpa.att.com (Barry O Olson) (11/10/89)

Hi, some may not be familiar with me. I usually hang out on t.r.m.
I am a product of the charasmatic movement in the late seventies
and right now am not a member of any denominational church, or any
church for that matter.

> >Josephus, Jesus was a member of the nomadic race of Kenites - not
> >Jewish at all. He was also, according to the same source, very dark,
> >and stooped - maybe to the point of disability (which gives a savage
> >twist to the taunt `physician heal thyself'). But no one much believes
> >in the Slavonic Josephus text.
> 

I've read somewhere (Hermas? non-canonical book) that this description
above was attributed to Paul(Saul of Tarsus), which was to explain the
thorn in his side thing, e.g., (ugly, stooped). Anyone else read this?

barry olson