What Did Jesus Look Like?

[Roland]

I am assuming that it was common in ancient biographies for the biographer to provide at least some mention of his subject's physical appearance. Yet, out of four canonical gospels, we get not a single word about what Jesus actually looked like. This is also true of all the epistles in the NT.

I know Christians would probably respond with "The writers were more concerned with what Jesus said, did and represented than what he looked like," but doesn't it seem strange that NOBODY thought Jesus' physical appearance worthy of comment? Wouldn't that have simply added more verisimilitude to their biographies, and isn't this a strong argument that the gospels really are just works of fiction?

[True Christian]

I am assuming that it was common in ancient biographies for the biographer to provide at least some mention of his subject's physical appearance. Yet, out of four canonical gospels, we get not a single word about what Jesus actually looked like. This is also true of all the epistles in the NT.

I know Christians would probably respond with "The writers were more concerned with what Jesus said, did and represented than what he looked like," but doesn't it seem strange that NOBODY thought Jesus' physical appearance worthy of comment? Wouldn't that have simply added more verisimilitude to their biographies, and isn't this a strong argument that the gospels really are just works of fiction?

No, it's not a strong argument for the Sacred Gospels being works of fiction. Why would not including a physical description of our Lord and Savior be an argument for them being fiction? I suspect this is just a poor excuse for people so they don't have to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. May our Heavenly Father forgive them and show them mercy on Judgement Day, which draws near.

In Christ's Love,

Barbara

[rlogan]

I am assuming that it was common in ancient biographies for the biographer to provide at least some mention of his subject's physical appearance. Yet, out of four canonical gospels, we get not a single word about what Jesus actually looked like. This is also true of all the epistles in the NT.


Taken in consideration of all the other evidence, the "argument from best explanation" is that there is no physical description because there was nothing to describe.

[Toto]

Even novels contain descriptions of the characters.

One of the arguments that Jesus was originally considered a spiritual entity is the lack of any description or representation in the early years of Christianity. This changes in later years as Christians decide that Jesus was human or at least took a human form, and now there are pictures of Jesus (http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/) all over.

If this were the only indication that the gospels are fiction, it might be weak. But it is part of the puzzle.

[TheBigKahoona]

I don't understand how this proves JEsus to be a fictitious character. First of all, if I was going to make up a person and write a book about him whats keeping me from making up a description as well? Second of all, there is a bare minimum of physical description in the Bible as it is.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

I don't understand how this proves JEsus to be a fictitious character.

By itself, it doesn't prove anything. But it's yet another piece of evidence.

[Anat]

Were physical descriptions common in writing about historical characters that was based on eyewitness accounts at that time?

[rlogan]

I don't understand how this proves JEsus to be a fictitious character. First of all, if I was going to make up a person and write a book about him whats keeping me from making up a description as well? Second of all, there is a bare minimum of physical description in the Bible as it is.

You missed Toto's point. Some reading of Earl Doherty is recommended.

Toto had a pun in there about the "puzzle", since Doherty wrote "The Jesus Puzzle", and the upshot of the piece is that Jesus was in the spiritual plane, not the earthly plane in the initial years of Christianity.

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Profiles of great leaders are impressed upon coins, memorabelia, buildings, and etc.

Christian apologetics is one long string of excuse-making, and this is just one of them.

The cumulative weight of the total Christian special pleading (single-spaced on bonded paper) has been estimated at 14.3 metric tons.

[coloradoatheist]

I had read somewhere by a christian that one of the prophecies of the messiah dealt with physical looks, can anybody confirm? Because if that's the case why didn't Matthew who was notorius for finding anything that closely resembled OT prophecies for a messiah and making Christ fit the bill. I don't think the picture of Jesus per se is a problem, but the lack of a birthdate, crucifixation date, and returning to Christ's spots later go against human nature.


Mike

[rlogan]

This was a good question, and the answer gives yet more support to the notion of the "junkyard Jesus", patched together by the HB dumpster-diving prophecy sluts.


I had read somewhere by a christian that one of the prophecies of the messiah dealt with physical looks, can anybody confirm?


I think it is referring to isaiah 53, and it is exceedlingly sketchy:

2: For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.


3: He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4: Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


I gave most of the "description" here because it is long on "sorrow/suffering" and short on description other than not being beautiful.



Because if that's the case why didn't Matthew who was notorius for finding anything that closely resembled OT prophecies for a messiah and making Christ fit the bill.


I don't think you will find in the HB any meaningful description of the Messiah, and that is precisely the evidence that Matthew did indeed quote mine only what he could.

Were the HB to provide us with a big nose or seven toes, you can be sure that Jesus would have them. Lacking such description, none is found in the gospels.
...........................




Actually, there is one element of description in the NT. There has been some confusion in Acts where due to translation error it has Jesus being hung from a tree. The proper Greek translation has him hung "as" or "like" a tree. A real whopper, apparently. Spin will back me up on this big time.

so there really is no inconsistency between Acts and the gospels on crucifixion. They speak to entirely different subjects.

[RED DAVE]

Just a parentesis, can anyone recall a physical description of anyone in the OT or NT outside of, say, the Song of Songs?

RED DAVE

[Chili]

I am assuming that it was common in ancient biographies for the biographer to provide at least some mention of his subject's physical appearance. Yet, out of four canonical gospels, we get not a single word about what Jesus actually looked like.

Any Jew after transfiguration. The Transfiguration is important to evidence the New creation so the old one can be crucified.

[Vivisector]

No, it's not a strong argument for the Sacred Gospels being works of fiction. Why would not including a physical description of our Lord and Savior be an argument for them being fiction? I suspect this is just a poor excuse for people so they don't have to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. May our Heavenly Father forgive them and show them mercy on Judgement Day, which draws near.

You're right about exactly one thing; it's a weak argument along the lines of absence of evidence, understandable from the standpoints that including physical descriptions wasn't common in Jewish and related literature and that the Gospel authors didn't, in all likelihood, have a clue what HJ looked like. Maybe this is where RED DAVE was going with his question.

As for the rest of your post, I don't need poor excuses for not believing in your Lord Jesus Christ (whatever "believing in" means) - I have plenty of good ones.

And just how "near" is Judgement Day? Seems people such as Paul thought it was pretty "near" about 2000 years ago; was Paul misinformed?

[Chili]

And just how "near" is Judgement Day? Seems people such as Paul thought it was pretty "near" about 2000 years ago; was Paul misinformed?

It precedes transfiguration and is the cause of it. It is valid option in a person's life who is earnest about crucifying his persona.

[MortalWombat]

What are you guys talking about? There is plenty of evidence of what Jesus looked like. For instance, right here (http://www.astrosdaily.com/players/Alou_Jesus.html).

[Dave Roberts]

And here you have it

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0710JesusMyth.html#top

[Boro Nut]

...but doesn't it seem strange that NOBODY thought Jesus' physical appearance worthy of comment?

Not to me. I have been making this point for years. Don't take any notice of the current images, which are simply rehashing middle ages revisionism. The fact that there is no mention of his physical appearance is obvious. He was a gimp. Nobody likes to mention obvious physical defects. If he was simply hunchbacked or bong-eyed at least someone would have compensated by saying "Ooh doesn't he have lovely hair though". But there isn't a whisper. He must have been a right old grockle. He may well have been ginger even.

Boro Nut

[Anat]

Just a parentesis, can anyone recall a physical description of anyone in the OT or NT outside of, say, the Song of Songs?

RED DAVE

Was that meant as a pun? ;) The only two physical details that I recall of any biblical characters are David's red hair and Saul's height.

[Dave Roberts]

How about the uncircumcised lips of Moses? Exudos 6:12, 6:30

Yes I know, it was probably in reference to his stuttering, or a problem with public speaking.

I just find it very difficult to ignore the visual that comes wih reading those verses.

The long hair of Sampson.

[Chili]

It was probably his Adams apple that gave him a foul mouth and his long hair was to hide the rest of his face. This conclusion may be drawn from some Early Church icons wherein the crucifixion gave him a shave and a hair cut.

[kciredor reprah]

Don't mean to derail, but I always wondered why he never took the time to write any of his thought down on paper or whatever they were using then.

Peace

[RED DAVE]

Song of Songs:
5:10 My beloved is white and ruddy.
The best among ten thousand.
5:11 His head is like the purest gold.
His hair is bushy, black as a raven.
5:12 His eyes are like doves beside the water brooks,
washed with milk, mounted like jewels.
5:13 His cheeks are like a bed of spices with towers of perfumes.
His lips are like lilies, dropping liquid myrrh.
5:14 His hands are like rings of gold set with beryl.
His body is like ivory work overlaid with sapphires.
5:15 His legs are like pillars of marble set on sockets of fine gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.
5:16 His mouth is sweetness;
yes, he is altogether lovely.You couldn't pick him out of a line-up from this, but I had forgotten how terrific the poetry is.

RED DAVE

[LSHAFC2004]

I always pictured Jesus as having a beard and long hair. Why do people pertray him like this on the cross and other items when the bible doesnt mention his appearence at all? :huh:

[Dave Roberts]

I always pictured Jesus as having a beard and long hair. Why do people pertray him like this on the cross and other items when the bible doesnt mention his appearence at all? :huh:


Because it would be hard to sell a short, dark, hunchback God to a white Europe?

[Chili]

Because it would be hard to sell a short, dark, hunchback God to a white Europe?

He was certainly no freak of nature and was very able in every which way we look at it.

[Dave Roberts]

He was certainly no freak of nature and was very able in every which way we look at it.


You're missing the point.

[Chili]

You're missing the point.

Many have come and gone since that have done greater things and they testify on his behalf. None of them were hunchbacks except in the myth.

[anti-X]

Well, if he existed, the he'd look like an olive skinned, black haired, Eastern Mediterranian type !

[badger3k]

Well, if he existed, the he'd look like an olive skinned, black haired, Eastern Mediterranian type !

Yeah - and if he comes back he'll end up in Gitmo through profiling. :p

[kjartan]

Well, if he existed, the he'd look like an olive skinned, black haired, Eastern Mediterranian type !
But are we sure that the typical mediterranian type had olive skin and black hair back then?
Italians and greecks couldnt be as dark as they are today, considering the influx of darker groups (slaves and immigrants) that came into their countries .. Or..?

[badger3k]

But are we sure that the typical mediterranian type had olive skin and black hair back then?
Italians and greecks couldnt be as dark as they are today, considering the influx of darker groups (slaves and immigrants) that came into their countries .. Or..?

From what I understand, Gallillee (sp?) where he was said to be born was pretty cosmopolitan, so he could have been a mutt (although if you believe either of the lineages they give Joseph then he would have looked Jewish - but what that was then I have no clue).