Althouse: "In order to provide a better understanding of what Christ would have looked like, in 1998, Richard Neave, a retired forensic scientist, set to work on recreating his face."

December 17, 2015

"In order to provide a better understanding of what Christ would have looked like, in 1998, Richard Neave, a retired forensic scientist, set to work on recreating his face."

"To do so, he began examining the skulls of Semites from around Galilee in Northern Israel from the beginning of the first century....."

50 comments:

mccullough said...: Looks like a terrorist; 12/17/15, 12:08 PM
Paddy O said...: A surprisingly old story but nevertheless very interesting. I've used this picture for a while in my classes on Jesus.; 12/17/15, 12:10 PM
Henry said...: All facial reconstructions look the same.; 12/17/15, 12:13 PM
Shane said...: Who would have thought Bob Hoskins was born of the family of Jesse's tree?; 12/17/15, 12:21 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: It's amazing that they could even reconstruct the confused look on his face...; 12/17/15, 12:44 PM
Archilochus said...: Should Mr. Neave be concerned about retaliation from orthodox Christians? His project is plainly a violation of the Second Commandment.; 12/17/15, 12:46 PM
damikesc said...: Christians find this interesting.

Wonder how Muslims would react to their figures doing this...; 12/17/15, 12:48 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Wow, how gutsy. Per damikesc, Yes, breathlessly awaiting the next facial reconstruction of Mohammed by scientist Neave.....; 12/17/15, 12:55 PM
William said...: Why would Jesus have only his mother's genes. There is every reason to believe that God is tall, red haired, and good looking.; 12/17/15, 1:26 PM
JAORE said...: If you took skulls from people born mid (20th) century in middle America, would he recreate my face?

Highly doubtful.

Click bait. But I'll behead him none the less.; 12/17/15, 1:27 PM
Paddy O said...: The original study, and how I use the picture in my classes, is not as a picture of Jesus himself but a picture of what a common Galilean Jewish man from the 1st century looks like.

This isn't a picture of Jesus but a picture of what men in Jesus's context look like. Jesus looked something like the man in this picture. Certainly much more like almost every other depiction in Christian history.

From the 2002 Popular Mechanics article that I first saw this in: "Neave emphasizes that his re-creation is simply that of an adult man who lived in the same place and at the same time as Jesus."

The article Althouse links to misses the key research goals.

What's interesting is how little people are generally troubled by the mass amount of other depictions in which Jesus is a medieval Dutch or Italian man.; 12/17/15, 1:30 PM
madAsHell said...: I don't want to talk about Jesus.
Just wanna see his face.

-Exile on Main Street; 12/17/15, 1:33 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Looks like a terrorist."

That's what the Romans thought.; 12/17/15, 1:56 PM
Ann Althouse said...: If Jesus only had his mother's genes, he was a she.; 12/17/15, 2:00 PM
CStanley said...: What's interesting is how little people are generally troubled by the mass amount of other depictions in which Jesus is a medieval Dutch or Italian man.

I don't find that troubling at all. Why shouldn't people see Jesus in the context of their own experience?

Anyway, I think the expression on this rendering is odd, and the choice of short scruffy hair (was there some basis for that?) Funnily, it reminds me of the Monkey Jesus painting in Spain. Maybe the lady who fixed the fresco was on to something.

And related, this was an interesting book, about the author's search for Jesus' image in a relic purported to be the veil of Veronica:
The Face of God; 12/17/15, 2:28 PM
Fernandinande said...: William said...
There is every reason to believe that God is tall, red haired, and good looking.

Although they didn't have cameras back then, this is a pretty accurate picture of god; the hair might be red.; 12/17/15, 2:45 PM
Peter said...: The article seems muddled, as it starts talking about "Historical evidence of the life of Jesus Christ" but then segues to Isaiah 53:2, which was written at least five centuries before Jesus' birth.

If it's about "historical evidence" then surely you'd have to start with an agnostic PoV as to whether Jesus was the Son of God. But if you do that then why would you assert that Isaiah 53:2 is about Jesus?

Further, even if Isaiah did prophecy the coming of Jesus, if Jesus didn't look like a typical man of that time and place, might that difference in itself have been interpreted as having "no beauty or majesty"? It all just seems muddled (not Neave's work, but the article about it).; 12/17/15, 3:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: Besides being the unique Son of God, Jesus was a descendant of David that was short, ruddy and red headed. Probably because David had a gentile grandmother and gentile great grandmother.; 12/17/15, 3:30 PM
Paddy O said...: "Why shouldn't people see Jesus in the context of their own experience?"

Because Jesus shouldn't be made in our image.

Also because Jesus isn't in the context of their own experiences.

Jesus was incarnated as a Jewish man in the 1st century Israel. Jesus died. Jesus resurrected (so Christians say), Jesus ascended and is now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

In Christian theology it is the Holy Spirit who is with us in the context of our own experiences.

In Christian practice, making Jesus look European leads to an assumption that Christianity is European, that other cultures and peoples and races are not measuring up to the ideal. When Jesus looks like a first century Jewish man, it is the Europeans who are the outsiders, and in that, gain humility in understanding and relating to the Jesus who lived.; 12/17/15, 3:37 PM
wildswan said...: I think most of early depictions of Christ resemble the face in the Shroud of Turin - icons from Byzantine and so on. After the Renaissance and the rise of nations there was a move among European artists to depict Christ in a way to which Europeans could immediately relate. Usually he resembles the Jews living in European cities or he looks Spanish. (Rembrandt, El Greco) With the 19C rise of anthropology and its close attendant racism, there arose the idea that the ruling class among the Jews was red-haired. King David is described as fair and ruddy in their translations of the Bible - obviously a Norseman or a Celt, at any rate descended from the Great Race as defined by Madison Grant. The reconstruction in the article in question is directly opposed to the earlier anthropology so that it is the same line of thought as saying that Christ was from the "Great Race", only reversed. 19C polemics in the 21C

But also I don't see the picture as a very believable reconstruction of a charismatic person - it suggests an unbalanced mind and this was probably intended also. Routine anti-Christian, anti-religious stuff.; 12/17/15, 3:45 PM
Original Mike said...: "There is every reason to believe that God is tall, red haired, and good looking."

Well, I was made in his image.; 12/17/15, 4:15 PM
CStanley said...: Sorry Paddy but that sounds like a SJWs polemic.

It's not necessary to assign the motivation of superiority when it's at least equally likely that the motivation was to help people accept Christ. It's an acknowledgement of human nature (that people seek out the familiar) just like the cultural appropriation of various local pagan practices into Church feasts.

Would it be better if people didn't have these foibles? Sure, but then we wouldn't have needed Christ for salvation.; 12/17/15, 4:19 PM
Paddy O said...: "Sorry Paddy but that sounds like a SJWs polemic."

Sorry too. I call 'em as I see 'em. SJW polemic comes out of wanting to go along with the outrage of the moment. I don't care about the outrage of the moment, but I have studied theology and church history quite a bit.

The way the image of Jesus was used in history was in part devotional but also alienating. Them's the facts.

Note, that I'm not saying we should rid ourselves of Christian art that portrays Jesus. But, if there's protest against depicting Jesus in this way, then the protest must be greater for traditional depictions.; 12/17/15, 4:33 PM
Mark said...: What did Jesus look like?
Way to miss the point.; 12/17/15, 4:35 PM
Jason said...: I clicked on the link, but it just looked like a GEICO ad.; 12/17/15, 4:35 PM
Curious George said...: Makes me want to ask him why the didn't hand the ball off to Lynch?; 12/17/15, 4:40 PM
Wince said...: Oh, how I wish it could be proven Jesus looked like Ted Cruz.; 12/17/15, 4:43 PM
Mark said...: God, in becoming man, specifically intended that people be able to personally identify with him, to see him as "one of us."
Yes, there is the historical truth of what Jesus looked like. Aside from history, however, that bit of trivia is largely irrelevant.
The deeper reality is, as Jesus said, that he "looks" like the guy who is hungry, like the woman who is thirsty. He, the Son of God, looks like the other children of God - humanity. He looks like the person next to you -- and for his purposes, he is the person next to you.
Treat those you encounter well, treat them with love, then you are loving Jesus himself. Treat them poorly, then you are treating Jesus with contempt.
He looks like the person next to you -- and he asks that you think, act, believe and live in a way that you look like Jesus to the people around you.

This is what is most important about how Jesus "looks."; 12/17/15, 4:44 PM
Gahrie said...: What's interesting is how little people are generally troubled by the mass amount of other depictions in which Jesus is a medieval Dutch or Italian man.

I don't find that troubling at all. Why shouldn't people see Jesus in the context of their own experience?

Exactly. While I am no longer a Christian, I would expect Jesus's appearance to change, based on his audience. After all, God made man in his own image..so logically God (and his son) should have the ability to appear as any man. (Every man's image originates in God's image) Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that their appearance must be, or is, static.; 12/17/15, 5:10 PM
Gahrie said...: Because Jesus shouldn't be made in our image.

Of course he should. Jesus was born of, and as a, man and then lived among men. Besides, our image is that of God's, so just who or what else should Jesus resemble?; 12/17/15, 5:13 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Paddy O said...

"What's interesting is how little people are generally troubled by the mass amount of other depictions in which Jesus is a medieval Dutch or Italian man."

Really? You've never heard Blacks complain about pictures of "white Jesus"? Or don't you consider Blacks people?

"In Christian practice, making Jesus look European leads to an assumption that Christianity is European, that other cultures and peoples and races are not measuring up to the ideal."

Early Christians, in Europe and out, were very aware that Christianity was decidedly NOT of European origin, and used imagery that allowed the common people to relate to someone who was both God and man. Don't get your knickers in a twist about white folks inappropriately appropriating; the Jews who made 21 Jumpstreet didn't invent Korean Jesus.; 12/17/15, 5:44 PM
Che Dolf said...: That guy was great in The Naked Prey.; 12/17/15, 5:50 PM
Paddy O said...: "Jesus was born of, and as a, man and then lived among men"
Our image as a person, yes, not the image of Europeans. He was a first century Jewish man. Which I don't look like and most art or movies don't portray. Image can mean more narrow or broad things.

"You've never heard Blacks complain about pictures of "white Jesus"?"

Yes I have. And I think it's a good critique. Do you know the history of Black slavery? How they weren't considered fully people? I suspect if a picture like the one in this link was more prevalent throughout history it would have been a much harder argument to make.

"Early Christians..."
Early Christians were Middle Eastern and Northern African as well as European. So, they didn't have the same hangups. Medieval Christians tended to not see things in the same way, and certainly not early Modern Christians, for whom missionary work tended to always go alongside Europeanizing.

"Don't get your knickers in a twist about white folks inappropriately appropriating"

My knickers aren't in a twist. I study church history, I teach church history. I'm just saying how things happen to be. The images of Jesus shaped Church practices and Christian assumptions in how they related to other people groups outside of Europe. That's just true. Knickers were atwisting long before I commented.

If you want an idealized history, then you'll not find it in the study of the Church.

And again, I don't have a problem with images of Jesus. I'm not an iconoclast. But it's certainly the case that people who have a problem with other racial portrayals of Jesus are also not iconoclasts. They want the Jesus that looks the way they're comfortable with, which is almost always much more foreign than what Jesus really looked like. This is true with a lot of areas in Christian theology and practice. Who will save us from this body of death?; 12/17/15, 7:01 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Paddy O said...
a bunch of stuff that I said that refuted his comments, while using different words and pretending it was what he meant all along.

*knicker twisting intensifies*; 12/17/15, 8:05 PM
Anonymous said...: "If Jesus only had his mother's genes, he was a she."

Jesus was a woman trapped in a man's body? Today we have a surgical solution for that. Caitlyn, the Daughter of God. Is that blasphemous?; 12/17/15, 8:39 PM
Big Mike said...: Dang! I had a carpenter who looked like that do some work on my house. Said he'd learned his trade from his daddy. I think he said his mother's name was Mary.

You don't suppose ...; 12/17/15, 8:41 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: He can't be red-haired, because he has a soul!; 12/17/15, 8:42 PM
The Godfather said...: Mark (4:44 pm) states the Christian case admirably: Jesus looks like the people around us that we treat either rightly or wrongly. See Matthew 25:31 et seq.

I'm not bothered by the fact that the constructed image shows a 1st Century Semite, rather than a 14th-15th Century Fleming or Italian. Of course Jesus (Yeshua) was a 1st Century Semite. But he was among other things a teacher and a prophet. He was not a confused dolt, which is how this reconstruction portrays him. He was us, a human being. That's the whole point. If European artists in the 14th and 15th Centuries portrayed him as looking like them, they were being true to who Jesus was and is. And if Black Christians portray Jesus as looking like them, they are also being true to who Jesus was and is.; 12/17/15, 9:17 PM
Darrell said...: If you dig up three tossers who died in Liverpool after the war, I'm sure you come up with a reconstruction that looks exactly like John Lennon. Junk science.; 12/17/15, 9:21 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Iapetus said...
'"If Jesus only had his mother's genes, he was a she."

Jesus was a woman trapped in a man's body? Today we have a surgical solution for that. Caitlyn, the Daughter of God. Is that blasphemous?'

St. Longinus had a different surgical solution for Jesus.; 12/17/15, 9:52 PM
SJ said...: @PaddyO

This isn't a picture of Jesus but a picture of what men in Jesus's context look like.

Can we refer to the man in the picture as Brian?; 12/17/15, 10:46 PM
SJ said...: @traditionalguy
Besides being the unique Son of God, Jesus was a descendant of David that was short, ruddy and red headed. Probably because David had a gentile grandmother and gentile great grandmother.

First off, there are many generations between David and Jesus. I don't think David's looks tell us much about Jesus.

Secondly, I also don't think David was described as red-headed.

The translations I'm familiar with describe David as "ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance", or "ruddy and altogether of a beautiful countenance and good to look upon". (1 Samuel 16:12, if you care to look.)

Words related to red/ruddy are used to describe David. It's probably skin color, not hair color.

David was also a musician; and a man who spent much time outdoors with the animals. He had a poetic nature; but was also a capable warrior and leader of men.

I'm tempted to describe David as a redneck. Though there is also similarity to cowboys, or vaqueros.; 12/17/15, 10:48 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Ignorance is Bliss said they could even reconstruct the confused look on his face.

This is just another "he's not what you think he is" micro aggression aimed at believers during the Christmas season. Nothing more. But luckily, special secular dispensation is granted micro aggressing against Christians during Christmas.

It's fascinating to see the fascination with Jesus Christ among the non believers. Makes me wonder what it is they really don't believe. Maybe they turn their faces away from something they know is true. Like fallen angels.; 12/17/15, 11:06 PM
DavidM said...: The reason most images of Christ look eurocentric and have long hair is because they took the image from the shroud of Turin. The shroud of Turin is really a 3d image on a 2d shroud. Google "3d image shroud of Turin" to see some more semetic looking images of Jesus.; 12/17/15, 11:09 PM
Gahrie said...: They want the Jesus that looks the way they're comfortable with, which is almost always much more foreign than what Jesus really looked like

While he lived as a human, Jesus most certainly did resemble the Semites he lived among. The roman historical records would surely have recorded the fact if he had an unusual appearance.

Now however, (if you believe that Jesus still lives) is a different story.; 12/17/15, 11:35 PM
J said...: Neave wanted Jesus to look like Neave.Then he would know he was God.; 12/18/15, 2:43 AM
chillblaine said...: Jesus came back in the form of a community organizer from Chicago. Written documentation of his existence is hard to come by. Most accounts of his life are anecdotal and second-hand: his biography was written by others and full of allegory.

I'm told he looks like a black man. I've heard from David Brooks that even the hem of his garment has healing powers. He quotes himself often, and plans to lower the sea levels.; 12/18/15, 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: That's one ugly Jesus!Why do people assume Jesus looked like a random skull or two?; 12/18/15, 10:22 AM
CStanley said...: Found this After following David McMillan's suggestion, an article on recent research that compares the Shroud of Turin with the Sudarium of Oveido. Apparently the stains and other features of both cloths match up and forensic specialists have gained a great deal of information. One man who is both artist and scientist has created striking images and sculpture:
http://www.lahornacina.com/articulosminarro.htm

(I recommend putting the last link into Google translate because the article is quite interesting too.); 12/18/15, 10:46 AM
Paul Snively said...: "What's interesting is how little people are generally troubled by the mass amount of other depictions in which Jesus is a medieval Dutch or Italian man."

Conversely, I've been struck by the beauty of the iconography at the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church.; 12/18/15, 3:28 PM