I am asking this as apparently the Code of Emperor Justinian forbade any images of Jesus and threatened a “heavy penalty” to those who did.
The first images of Jesus as a person in art date from the third century. Before that, Jesus was usually portrayed in art as a fish or a lamb, for instance. This is the first known image portraying Jesus (he’s the one standing to the top of the paralytic:
And this piece of anti-Christian graffiti, from probably the end of the second or beginning of the third century, is probably the actual oldest image of what’s meant to be Jesus:
It’s a crucified man with a head of a donkey, and beneath him is a man looking up at him, and there’s the caption, “Alexamenos worships his god”. Images of Jesus really got popular in the 5th-7th centuries, leading to the iconoclasm controversy.
Very cool! I had never seen either of those before.
I find an interesting parallel in the fact that we don’t see images of the Buddha in human form start appearing until a few centuries after his death-- before then he is represented by a footprint or other symbol.
I am a bit surprised. Byzantine iconoclasm didn’t really get going until a couple of centuries after the time of Justinian.
Yeah, I have to ask for cite here. . . I’m not a Byzantine expert but from Justinian’s time there are some things in Ravenna at least-- S Vitale, S Apollinare Nuovo, although I might have the dates slightly off.
There’s some Jesus on the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, which is darned early, as is Galla Placidia, and the doors from Sta Sabina. Dura Europos stuff I’ll accept as purposefully ambiguous. For manuscript Rossano and Rabbula Gospels are both 6th c-- still early.
Codex Justinianus, Book I, Title 8:
Please note, however, the the Codex was a compilation of all existing imperial edicts back to the time of Hadrian; as the text shows, this was an edict collected from the earlier code of Theodosius II.
I can’t say why this particular edict was issued, but considering the Christ-based theological controversies at the time and the fact that iconography was often used to promote “heretical” interpretations, this may have been part of an effort to stifle debate.
Interesting wording-- sounds like it might have been intended to mean sculpture in particular. Interesting.
I don’t think sculpture in particular. It also covers murals.
So does that mean the traditional image we have of Jesus is completely made up?
Did you really think he looked Caucasian?
If by “completely made up”, you mean, “not having any relation to what the actual Jesus looked like”, yes. If you want some more early images, here’s Jesus as Apollo:
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-as-apollo-mosaic-3rd-cent-tomb.jpg
Jesus and his apostles:
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/350_christ_and_apostles_catacomb_domitilla.htm
Jesus as teacher:
Jesus as Orpheus:
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/image_gallery/4C_christ_as_orpheus.htm
The Last Supper:
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/ravenna-sant-apollinare-nuovo-photos/slides/xti_6926p.htm
Image of Jesus in the Hagia Sophia:
http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/images/christ-mosaic-hagiasophia.jpg
My assumption was that his skin color and features were gradually modified to be more Caucasian-like, but that his image was based on the real person. Much like the transformation of Michael Jackson over the years, although his was done to his actual face.
I sure sounded like a smartass. Thanks for not being offended.
I suppose someone may have drawn or painted a picture of him and that likeness was passed down and copied and all we have are later copies that were morphed to make him look more and more European over time.