![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 13 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Depictions of Jesus. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
|
The edit to this section which I performed was removed entirely although the information is contained in other references already cited, and also contains inaccurate information. Most scholars date it to the 1st century, not the 3rd. Some propose dates as late as the 3rd, but that is not the predominant view rather the minority view. Additionally, the image is intended to represent Alexamenos in his worship of the crucified figure which has an upsilon over its shoulder, generally interpreted as indicating that the crucified figure was a Jew. These facts are self-evident and well referenced. It is important to assume good intentions when others edit, but I do wonder about the motive considering the inaccurate information that was reverted. There have been many from a certain religious denomination who seek to discredit the image because if it is from the first century it would manifest that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not an upright pole. This frightens some people. I'd appreciate a clarification from the individual who changed my edits because he doesn't accept direct contact through Wikipedia. Bbltype ( talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In the earliest Christian art Jesus wields a wand. In the 4th century it is portrayed as a staff. Kazuba ( talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find an image here of this sculpture, which is supposed to be one of the oldest depctions of Christ. Is it not authentic, are there copyright issues or what is the reason? I mean the one from the Museo delle Terme: [2] Fulcher ( talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked up that museum and it also has this Good Shephered image from the 4th century. I don't know if it fits but if you guys want to include it, go head. History2007 ( talk) 15:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, the new image you added is very interesting, as is the detail that image had on Commons. Question: Is there anywhere a semi-definitive agreement as to what is the "earliest" realistic surviving image, 3rd-4th century? The Good shepherd type images are not realistic images, while this detail is amazingly similar to many of the later icons. Any refs on that? Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
86.80.43.76 ( talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The earliest image of christ can also be 'Sarcophagus of the 'Two brothers', c. AD 330-350. Museo Pio Cristiano, Vatican' Sourch: A world history of art by Honour and flaming, revised seventh edition, P 297 fig 7.17. ithis one i could find on the internet http://personal.stthomas.edu/plgavrilyuk/PLGAVRILYUK/Baptism/Peter%20preaches1.jpg
Is this worth a mention? No finds from the site later than 270AD, and the mosaic has been tentatively dated to 4th century. Stronach ( talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"Tertullian (d.220) believed, following Isaiah:53:2, that Christ's appearance was unremarkable"
Tertullian was a very early Christian, less than two centuries from Christ; and he himself certainly doesn't refer to the Isaiah passage -- why the complete lack of mention of the possibility that this represents a genuine tradition from those who knew Jesus personally? 165.91.166.90 ( talk) 03:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, he does mention Isaiah 53:2, but several chapters later (ch 17 of Against Marcion); the initial mentions appear in ch 9 ("“His body did not reach even to human beauty to say nothing of heavenly glory.”) and perhaps obliquely in ch 7 (though this may simply refer to the mortality of His human body).
Also, the Celsus bit suggests that there might be historical basis for it. (It certainly seems more likely that Christians would portray a historically physically unattractive Jesus as an idealized figure, than that Christians would portray a historically handsome Jesus as physically unattractive.)
The current article suggests that Tertullian believed that Jesus was physically unattractive because of an interpretation of Isaiah 53:2; that is not the impression Against Marcion gives. 165.91.166.218 ( talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As I look at the table of contents, this article looks tilted towards early depictions. But there are major other themes, there is little text about the Renaissance, etc. And various themes such as depictions during Crucifixion, Ministry etc. have not been addressed. Are the Transfiguration style depictions not worth mentioning? Comments? History2007 ( talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Race of Jesus.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 October 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
My did keep say this is Michel Angelo's uncle.Is this true? 184.44.129.253 ( talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – Yesterday, I requested a move of Depictions of Muhammad when I noticed the inconsistency of its title and this article's. Per WP:PLURAL, that seemed right. But discussion there indicated that just didn't feel right. Since that's not much of a policy argument, I'll say this is by the Naturalness and Consistency characteristics of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. There are two other articles that begin with "Depiction of." One is an unreferenced essay I've nominated for deletion. I almost included the other one on this request, but since they're not particularly similar topically, I'll hold off on that one to see what happens here. By comparison, four articles begin with "Depictions of," including three that deal with religious founders. I really just want consistency here, and comments at the Muhammad request convinced me this is the right way to achieve it. -- BDD ( talk) 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The page ought to make some balancing mention of early church opposition to the making of images of the Image of God, and their perceived connexion with idolatry. Irenaeus for example, writes, 'They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.' Contr.Her.I.XXV.6. Philip Schaff comments on this, 'This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.' (Footnote 300 in loco). Lactantius wrote, 'But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion.' Inst. Bk.2.XIX. Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine inter alia echo vehement sentiments against worshipped images centuries before iconoclasm, which would look hypocritical in the extreme if they too had venerated images of Christ. Then Hosius of Cordoba, Athanasius' companion 'in arms' initiated the Elvira Synod, the 36th canon of which reads: 'Ne picturiae in ecclesia fiant. Placuit picturas in eccclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.'. Gnostics used images of Christ in the second, but how early can the confessionally Nicene churches date their use? Cpsoper ( talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the importance of avoiding OR, and the danger primary sources may introduce. I have substituted Philip Schaff's comment rather than just refer to Irenaeus' text. However I note that one living author has recently complained of the considerable inaccuracy insisting on secondary sources can cause [6], especially when primary sources themselves are as explicit and lucid as subsequent critics. It should be not be difficult to identify churches and groups after 325 AD that embrace with the Nicene Creed, though I grant before it, such a task requires judgement and will remain somewhat subjective. The other pages you've referred to are helpful, though incomplete, and it may also be worth crosslinking to Aniconism in Christianity#Early Christianity. If there is a preponderance of evidence that Christians used real depictions, not visual symbols, of Jesus Christ, before the fourth century, however it doesn't seem to be found in either. Irenaeus seems to indicate in the second century it was a purely Gnostic, not to say Carpocratian, practice, and so Schaff understands him. Lactantius wrote extensive condemnation of the use of images as aids in worship, in the 'Origin of Error' (Book II, chapter II, Divine Institutes, ANF), without any reference to their employment by Christians. Cpsoper ( talk) 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are length discussions on the Jesus page and I am parking the depictions material from there here, reducing it there. Some of this is not present on this page and should be added if you guys want. I am not watching this page anymore. History2007 ( talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite the lack of biblical references or historical records, for two millennia a wide range of depictions of Jesus have appeared, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts. [1] [2] [3] As in other Christian art, the earliest depictions date to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and survivors are primarily found in the Catacombs of Rome. [4] In these early depictions, which use popular rather than elite Greco-Roman styles, Jesus is usually shown as a youthful figure without a beard and with curly hair, often with different features from the other men in the scenes, such as his disciples or the Romans. [5]
Although some images exist at the synagogue at Dura-Europos, Judaism forbade images, and there is no record of its influence on the depictions of Jesus. [1] The oldest Christian paintings are from the Roman Catacombs, dated to about 200, and the oldest Christian sculptures are from sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 3rd century. [6] Christian depictions of the 3rd and 4th centuries typically focused on New Testament scenes of healings and other miracles. [4] Following the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, Christian art found many wealthy donors and flourished. [4] In this period Jesus began to have more mature features, and was shown with a beard. [5] A new development at this time was the depiction of Jesus without a narrative context, but just as a figure by himself. [5]
By the 5th century depictions of the Passion began to appear, perhaps reflecting a change in the theological focus of the early Church. [4] The 6th century Rabbula Gospels includes some of the earliest surviving images of the crucifixion and resurrection. [4] By the 6th century the bearded depiction of Jesus had become standard in the East, though the West, especially in northern Europe, continued to mix bearded and unbearded depictions for several centuries. The depiction with a longish face, long straight brown hair parted in the middle, and almond shaped eyes shows consistency from the 6th century to the present. Various legends developed which were believed to authenticate the historical accuracy of the standard depiction, such as the image of Edessa and later the Veil of Veronica. [5] Partly to aid recognition of the scenes, narrative depictions of the Life of Christ focused increasingly on the events celebrated in the major feasts of the church calendar, and the events of the Passion, neglecting the miracles and other events of Jesus' public ministry, except for the raising of Lazarus, where the mummy-like wrapped body was shown standing upright, giving an unmistakable visual signature. [7] A cruciform halo was worn only by Jesus (and the other persons of the Trinity), while plain halos distinguished Mary, the Apostles and other saints, helping the viewer to read increasingly populated scenes. [7]
The Byzantine Iconoclasm acted as a barrier to developments in the East, but by the 9th century art was permitted again. [1] The Transfiguration of Jesus was a major theme in the East and every Eastern Orthodox monk who had trained in icon painting had to prove his craft by painting an icon of the Transfiguration. [8] However, while Western depictions aim for proportion, in the Eastern icons the abolition of perspective and alterations in the size and proportion of an image aim to reaches beyond man's earthly dwellings. [9]
The 13th century witnessed a turning point in the portrayal of the powerful Kyrios image of Jesus as a wonder worker in the West, as the Franciscans began to emphasize the humility of Jesus both at his birth and his death via the nativity scene as well as the crucifixion. [10] [11] [12] The Franciscans approached both ends of this spectrum of emotions and as the joys of the Nativity of were added to the agony of crucifixion a whole new range of emotions were ushered in, with wide ranging cultural impact on the image of Jesus for centuries thereafter. [10] [12] [13] [14]
The Renaissance brought forth a number of artists who focused on the depictions of Jesus and after Giotto, Fra Angelico and others systematically developed uncluttered images that focused on the depiction of Jesus with an ideal human beauty. [1] Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper which is considered the first work of High Renaissance art due to its high level of harmony became well known for depicting Jesus surrounded by varying emotions of the individual apostles at the announcement of the betrayal. [15] [16] Meanwhile, the Protestant Reformation, especially in its first decades, violently objected to almost all public religious images as idolaterous, and vast numbers were destroyed.
By the end of the 19th century, new reports of miraculous images of Jesus had appeared and continue to receive significant attention, e.g. Secondo Pia's 1898 photograph of the Shroud of Turin, one of the most controversial artifacts in history, which during its May 2010 exposition it was visited by over 2 million people. [17] [18] [19] Another 20th century depiction of Jesus, namely the Divine Mercy image based on Faustina Kowalska's reported vision has over 100 million followers. [20] [21] The first cinematic portrayal of Jesus was in the 1897 film La Passion du Christ produced in Paris, which lasted 5 minutes. [22] [23] Thereafter cinematic portrayals have continued to show Jesus with a beard in the standard western depiction that resembles traditional images. [24]
References
LHoulden63
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Perkinson30
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JensenBWell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Shouldn't this article include modern depictions of Jesus? Like the one in South Park, for example. -- Epitectus ( talk) 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This interwiki goes to Jesus in der Popmusik, “ Jesus in Popmusic”. This is not the matching subject. Rather de:Christusbild, but there seems to be no article de: Bildliche Darstellung Jesu. -- Schwab7000 ( talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Dramatic portrayals of Jesus redirects here. So then I look for the word "film"; there's nothing about it. Is there really no article or even a section of an article dealing with depictions of Jesus in film/TV? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – This article doesn't discuss a single depiction of Jesus, but numerous ones (that, yes, can be discussed as a whole). . I'll note that relevant categories here are Category:Jesus in art and (parent) Category:Cultural depictions of Jesus, the latter part of Category:Cultural depictions of religious leaders. So plural is the norm. See also: Depictions of Muhammad. That said, this was a no consensus move proposal 10 years ago (see few sections above). I did read it and I don't find it compelling - the topic is IMHO still the same, and we should be consistent our naming of articles. Plural name should be better, as in, it's simpler to standardize this exception to the norm then rename dozens of other articles and categories to match this one. Alternatively Jesus in art, currently a redirect, would also be an option to conside ( Depictions of God in Western Christianity redirects to God the Father in Western art...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be full of original research, long sections which read as a somewhat unreflective and rambling essay. Howard other editors feel about a major cull which could leave substantial material, prior to a re-write into a coherent structure? I don’t think it’s in need of BLOWITUP, but it seems pretty low quality at the moment. Springnuts ( talk) 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that the article should be entitled something like “Early artistic representations of Jesus”? Because at the moment the title does not suggest any of the limitations which you are saying apply. And Stephen Prothero is absolutely noteworthy for his masterly survey! Springnuts ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article only about the depiction of Jesus in Christianity?
I asked myself this when seeing this image. Synotia ( moan) 15:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 13 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Depictions of Jesus. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
|
The edit to this section which I performed was removed entirely although the information is contained in other references already cited, and also contains inaccurate information. Most scholars date it to the 1st century, not the 3rd. Some propose dates as late as the 3rd, but that is not the predominant view rather the minority view. Additionally, the image is intended to represent Alexamenos in his worship of the crucified figure which has an upsilon over its shoulder, generally interpreted as indicating that the crucified figure was a Jew. These facts are self-evident and well referenced. It is important to assume good intentions when others edit, but I do wonder about the motive considering the inaccurate information that was reverted. There have been many from a certain religious denomination who seek to discredit the image because if it is from the first century it would manifest that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not an upright pole. This frightens some people. I'd appreciate a clarification from the individual who changed my edits because he doesn't accept direct contact through Wikipedia. Bbltype ( talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
In the earliest Christian art Jesus wields a wand. In the 4th century it is portrayed as a staff. Kazuba ( talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find an image here of this sculpture, which is supposed to be one of the oldest depctions of Christ. Is it not authentic, are there copyright issues or what is the reason? I mean the one from the Museo delle Terme: [2] Fulcher ( talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I looked up that museum and it also has this Good Shephered image from the 4th century. I don't know if it fits but if you guys want to include it, go head. History2007 ( talk) 15:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Johnbod, the new image you added is very interesting, as is the detail that image had on Commons. Question: Is there anywhere a semi-definitive agreement as to what is the "earliest" realistic surviving image, 3rd-4th century? The Good shepherd type images are not realistic images, while this detail is amazingly similar to many of the later icons. Any refs on that? Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
86.80.43.76 ( talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The earliest image of christ can also be 'Sarcophagus of the 'Two brothers', c. AD 330-350. Museo Pio Cristiano, Vatican' Sourch: A world history of art by Honour and flaming, revised seventh edition, P 297 fig 7.17. ithis one i could find on the internet http://personal.stthomas.edu/plgavrilyuk/PLGAVRILYUK/Baptism/Peter%20preaches1.jpg
Is this worth a mention? No finds from the site later than 270AD, and the mosaic has been tentatively dated to 4th century. Stronach ( talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"Tertullian (d.220) believed, following Isaiah:53:2, that Christ's appearance was unremarkable"
Tertullian was a very early Christian, less than two centuries from Christ; and he himself certainly doesn't refer to the Isaiah passage -- why the complete lack of mention of the possibility that this represents a genuine tradition from those who knew Jesus personally? 165.91.166.90 ( talk) 03:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, he does mention Isaiah 53:2, but several chapters later (ch 17 of Against Marcion); the initial mentions appear in ch 9 ("“His body did not reach even to human beauty to say nothing of heavenly glory.”) and perhaps obliquely in ch 7 (though this may simply refer to the mortality of His human body).
Also, the Celsus bit suggests that there might be historical basis for it. (It certainly seems more likely that Christians would portray a historically physically unattractive Jesus as an idealized figure, than that Christians would portray a historically handsome Jesus as physically unattractive.)
The current article suggests that Tertullian believed that Jesus was physically unattractive because of an interpretation of Isaiah 53:2; that is not the impression Against Marcion gives. 165.91.166.218 ( talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As I look at the table of contents, this article looks tilted towards early depictions. But there are major other themes, there is little text about the Renaissance, etc. And various themes such as depictions during Crucifixion, Ministry etc. have not been addressed. Are the Transfiguration style depictions not worth mentioning? Comments? History2007 ( talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Race of Jesus.ogv, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 October 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
My did keep say this is Michel Angelo's uncle.Is this true? 184.44.129.253 ( talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – Yesterday, I requested a move of Depictions of Muhammad when I noticed the inconsistency of its title and this article's. Per WP:PLURAL, that seemed right. But discussion there indicated that just didn't feel right. Since that's not much of a policy argument, I'll say this is by the Naturalness and Consistency characteristics of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. There are two other articles that begin with "Depiction of." One is an unreferenced essay I've nominated for deletion. I almost included the other one on this request, but since they're not particularly similar topically, I'll hold off on that one to see what happens here. By comparison, four articles begin with "Depictions of," including three that deal with religious founders. I really just want consistency here, and comments at the Muhammad request convinced me this is the right way to achieve it. -- BDD ( talk) 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The page ought to make some balancing mention of early church opposition to the making of images of the Image of God, and their perceived connexion with idolatry. Irenaeus for example, writes, 'They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.' Contr.Her.I.XXV.6. Philip Schaff comments on this, 'This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.' (Footnote 300 in loco). Lactantius wrote, 'But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion.' Inst. Bk.2.XIX. Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine inter alia echo vehement sentiments against worshipped images centuries before iconoclasm, which would look hypocritical in the extreme if they too had venerated images of Christ. Then Hosius of Cordoba, Athanasius' companion 'in arms' initiated the Elvira Synod, the 36th canon of which reads: 'Ne picturiae in ecclesia fiant. Placuit picturas in eccclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.'. Gnostics used images of Christ in the second, but how early can the confessionally Nicene churches date their use? Cpsoper ( talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the importance of avoiding OR, and the danger primary sources may introduce. I have substituted Philip Schaff's comment rather than just refer to Irenaeus' text. However I note that one living author has recently complained of the considerable inaccuracy insisting on secondary sources can cause [6], especially when primary sources themselves are as explicit and lucid as subsequent critics. It should be not be difficult to identify churches and groups after 325 AD that embrace with the Nicene Creed, though I grant before it, such a task requires judgement and will remain somewhat subjective. The other pages you've referred to are helpful, though incomplete, and it may also be worth crosslinking to Aniconism in Christianity#Early Christianity. If there is a preponderance of evidence that Christians used real depictions, not visual symbols, of Jesus Christ, before the fourth century, however it doesn't seem to be found in either. Irenaeus seems to indicate in the second century it was a purely Gnostic, not to say Carpocratian, practice, and so Schaff understands him. Lactantius wrote extensive condemnation of the use of images as aids in worship, in the 'Origin of Error' (Book II, chapter II, Divine Institutes, ANF), without any reference to their employment by Christians. Cpsoper ( talk) 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
There are length discussions on the Jesus page and I am parking the depictions material from there here, reducing it there. Some of this is not present on this page and should be added if you guys want. I am not watching this page anymore. History2007 ( talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite the lack of biblical references or historical records, for two millennia a wide range of depictions of Jesus have appeared, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts. [1] [2] [3] As in other Christian art, the earliest depictions date to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and survivors are primarily found in the Catacombs of Rome. [4] In these early depictions, which use popular rather than elite Greco-Roman styles, Jesus is usually shown as a youthful figure without a beard and with curly hair, often with different features from the other men in the scenes, such as his disciples or the Romans. [5]
Although some images exist at the synagogue at Dura-Europos, Judaism forbade images, and there is no record of its influence on the depictions of Jesus. [1] The oldest Christian paintings are from the Roman Catacombs, dated to about 200, and the oldest Christian sculptures are from sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 3rd century. [6] Christian depictions of the 3rd and 4th centuries typically focused on New Testament scenes of healings and other miracles. [4] Following the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, Christian art found many wealthy donors and flourished. [4] In this period Jesus began to have more mature features, and was shown with a beard. [5] A new development at this time was the depiction of Jesus without a narrative context, but just as a figure by himself. [5]
By the 5th century depictions of the Passion began to appear, perhaps reflecting a change in the theological focus of the early Church. [4] The 6th century Rabbula Gospels includes some of the earliest surviving images of the crucifixion and resurrection. [4] By the 6th century the bearded depiction of Jesus had become standard in the East, though the West, especially in northern Europe, continued to mix bearded and unbearded depictions for several centuries. The depiction with a longish face, long straight brown hair parted in the middle, and almond shaped eyes shows consistency from the 6th century to the present. Various legends developed which were believed to authenticate the historical accuracy of the standard depiction, such as the image of Edessa and later the Veil of Veronica. [5] Partly to aid recognition of the scenes, narrative depictions of the Life of Christ focused increasingly on the events celebrated in the major feasts of the church calendar, and the events of the Passion, neglecting the miracles and other events of Jesus' public ministry, except for the raising of Lazarus, where the mummy-like wrapped body was shown standing upright, giving an unmistakable visual signature. [7] A cruciform halo was worn only by Jesus (and the other persons of the Trinity), while plain halos distinguished Mary, the Apostles and other saints, helping the viewer to read increasingly populated scenes. [7]
The Byzantine Iconoclasm acted as a barrier to developments in the East, but by the 9th century art was permitted again. [1] The Transfiguration of Jesus was a major theme in the East and every Eastern Orthodox monk who had trained in icon painting had to prove his craft by painting an icon of the Transfiguration. [8] However, while Western depictions aim for proportion, in the Eastern icons the abolition of perspective and alterations in the size and proportion of an image aim to reaches beyond man's earthly dwellings. [9]
The 13th century witnessed a turning point in the portrayal of the powerful Kyrios image of Jesus as a wonder worker in the West, as the Franciscans began to emphasize the humility of Jesus both at his birth and his death via the nativity scene as well as the crucifixion. [10] [11] [12] The Franciscans approached both ends of this spectrum of emotions and as the joys of the Nativity of were added to the agony of crucifixion a whole new range of emotions were ushered in, with wide ranging cultural impact on the image of Jesus for centuries thereafter. [10] [12] [13] [14]
The Renaissance brought forth a number of artists who focused on the depictions of Jesus and after Giotto, Fra Angelico and others systematically developed uncluttered images that focused on the depiction of Jesus with an ideal human beauty. [1] Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper which is considered the first work of High Renaissance art due to its high level of harmony became well known for depicting Jesus surrounded by varying emotions of the individual apostles at the announcement of the betrayal. [15] [16] Meanwhile, the Protestant Reformation, especially in its first decades, violently objected to almost all public religious images as idolaterous, and vast numbers were destroyed.
By the end of the 19th century, new reports of miraculous images of Jesus had appeared and continue to receive significant attention, e.g. Secondo Pia's 1898 photograph of the Shroud of Turin, one of the most controversial artifacts in history, which during its May 2010 exposition it was visited by over 2 million people. [17] [18] [19] Another 20th century depiction of Jesus, namely the Divine Mercy image based on Faustina Kowalska's reported vision has over 100 million followers. [20] [21] The first cinematic portrayal of Jesus was in the 1897 film La Passion du Christ produced in Paris, which lasted 5 minutes. [22] [23] Thereafter cinematic portrayals have continued to show Jesus with a beard in the standard western depiction that resembles traditional images. [24]
References
LHoulden63
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Perkinson30
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JensenBWell
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Shouldn't this article include modern depictions of Jesus? Like the one in South Park, for example. -- Epitectus ( talk) 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
This interwiki goes to Jesus in der Popmusik, “ Jesus in Popmusic”. This is not the matching subject. Rather de:Christusbild, but there seems to be no article de: Bildliche Darstellung Jesu. -- Schwab7000 ( talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Dramatic portrayals of Jesus redirects here. So then I look for the word "film"; there's nothing about it. Is there really no article or even a section of an article dealing with depictions of Jesus in film/TV? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – This article doesn't discuss a single depiction of Jesus, but numerous ones (that, yes, can be discussed as a whole). . I'll note that relevant categories here are Category:Jesus in art and (parent) Category:Cultural depictions of Jesus, the latter part of Category:Cultural depictions of religious leaders. So plural is the norm. See also: Depictions of Muhammad. That said, this was a no consensus move proposal 10 years ago (see few sections above). I did read it and I don't find it compelling - the topic is IMHO still the same, and we should be consistent our naming of articles. Plural name should be better, as in, it's simpler to standardize this exception to the norm then rename dozens of other articles and categories to match this one. Alternatively Jesus in art, currently a redirect, would also be an option to conside ( Depictions of God in Western Christianity redirects to God the Father in Western art...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be full of original research, long sections which read as a somewhat unreflective and rambling essay. Howard other editors feel about a major cull which could leave substantial material, prior to a re-write into a coherent structure? I don’t think it’s in need of BLOWITUP, but it seems pretty low quality at the moment. Springnuts ( talk) 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that the article should be entitled something like “Early artistic representations of Jesus”? Because at the moment the title does not suggest any of the limitations which you are saying apply. And Stephen Prothero is absolutely noteworthy for his masterly survey! Springnuts ( talk) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article only about the depiction of Jesus in Christianity?
I asked myself this when seeing this image. Synotia ( moan) 15:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)