Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The physical appearance of Jesus Message-ID: Date: 30 Oct 89 00:40:02 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho Lines: 85 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article 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)