The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:03 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,141
What is the oldest painting/drawing of Jesus Christ we have?

I'm wondering about this because it is interesting and I also am trying to find out when he started being portrayed as "white".

What is the oldest drawing/painting we have of Christ?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:29 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
The earliest images of Jesus found in 3rd Century Roman catacombs show him as a "good shepherd" or as a clean shaven youth (similar to other Roman images). His ethnicity is basically shown as "Roman," which, I guess would be "white," but these were intended to be liturgical, mythical images, not representative portaits from life.

In this link you can view a gallery of images and icons which are laid out chronologically from the earliest images on.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:36 PM
hajario hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 13,153
Interesting link, Dio. Unfortunately, the first picture that they show is from the Shroud of Turin which is a fake. I know that you know this but it had to be said.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:41 PM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario
Interesting link, Dio. Unfortunately, the first picture that they show is from the Shroud of Turin which is a fake. I know that you know this but it had to be said.
Since the page shows it with a group of other pieces of art, it's simply treating it also as art, right? It's not claiming it's anything supernatural, that I can tell.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:44 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Yes, of course it's a fake, but it's still an image of Jesus. The problem is that the page puts the Shroud in its gallery but that it misplaces it as the "first" image instead of putting it (and the Mandylion, for that matter) instead of the Middle Ages where it belongs.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-08-2006, 04:46 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
That should be the problem is NOT that the Shroud is included in the gallery but that it's misplaced chronologically.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-08-2006, 05:30 PM
Shagnasty Shagnasty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 22,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth
I'm wondering about this because it is interesting and I also am trying to find out when he started being portrayed as "white".
I am trying to figure out where you are going with this. Jesus was a middle-eastern Jew which definitely = white in most people's minds. A dark-haired, brown-eyed man with whitish skin is about the only conclusion one can draw. Art may not depict his skin as olive enough but it can't be that far off.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-08-2006, 06:27 PM
Agnostic Pagan Agnostic Pagan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shagnasty
I am trying to figure out where you are going with this. Jesus was a middle-eastern Jew which definitely = white in most people's minds. A dark-haired, brown-eyed man with whitish skin is about the only conclusion one can draw. Art may not depict his skin as olive enough but it can't be that far off.
Unfortunately, it can get pretty far off sometimes. One of my many complaints about the religion of my youth - how did a young Irish youth get to the middle east?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2006, 07:06 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,846
Back to the OP. It was a near universal practice in artistic depictions until comparatively "yesterday" for the artist to show the subject in the image of the current mode of looks and dress. No one tried to discover authentic historical information about the way people would have looked in the past. Doing so would have been practically impossible. At best they could have reproduced styles from ancient sculptures, but even those in Italy surrounded by them didn't do so. They used what was to them modern dress.

It wasn't that Jesus was depicted as "white;" it was that "whites" depicted Jesus.

You can make some complicated philosophical/socio-cultural arguments that they did so because the universality of Jesus who died to save everyone, but the simpler and better reason is that the artists painted what they and their audiences expected to see: themselves. That they depicted the Greek and Roman figures from myth in the same style makes this the more likely explanation.

The interesting question would be when and why historic realism became to be the expected default mode in western culture.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2006, 09:41 PM
Mehitabel Mehitabel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Heh. This , ca. 1965, was the bible of my childhood, and it was actually very well-done; some of the illustrations have stayed with me the rest of my life.

Pretty much everyone was depicted as olive-skinned and black-haired (and there were reddish-skinned Egyptians and black Africans too), even Mary, although her hair was a shade lighter than everyone else's and her eyes were blue. But--Jesus was a total Nordic-looking blond, shining like the sun in a world of brunettes. I guess it was supposed to set him apart from everyone else and it sure worked.

FWIW, we spent very little time on the physical appearance of Jesus in parochial school, except once we were taught that he looked like the folks there now--light brown skin, thick black hair, and Caucausian if not literally very 'white'.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-09-2006, 12:44 AM
capybara capybara is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 4,948
The oldest image of Jesus that I know of is from the 1st half of the 3d century. Shows him with a donkey's head, for what it's worth (graffito from a building on the Palatine hill).
Oh, hey, it's actually on that site-- it's the first non-forged image on that page. That's a little surprising that the same people who include the Turin shoud and the mandylion include it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-09-2006, 02:22 PM
Can Handle the Truth Can Handle the Truth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Yeah, this Childrens' Bible is the source of a lot of controversy. I had this book as a kid. But we also had a big deluxe family bible that was illustrated with Renaissance paintings, a few of which showed Jesus as blond or red-haired.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-09-2006, 02:33 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 5,162
What interests me is when he started to be depicted with long hair. From Dio's link it seems to be c. 4th century. I recall reading that no Jew would have worn his hair long in Jesus' day. Is that true?

Of course, it's a given now. In the movies, etc Jesus has to have long hair, we're so used to seeing him that way.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2006, 03:50 PM
Walloon Walloon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: America's Dairyland
Posts: 12,780
St. Paul, a Jew, wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"

A frieze on Rome's Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-09-2006, 05:58 PM
Mayo Speaks! Mayo Speaks! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
I hate to come in here with no actual information, but I couldn't resist sharing. I once posed this question to a worker at the art museum on campus, and she said, "Well, I know that we have a few from around 900 BC." It turns out that she meant "AD," but she sure confused me for a few moments.
__________________
Jurisprudence Fetishist Gets Off On Technicality
- The Onion
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.