2015-03-15

Now for something light (or heavy if you prefer)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

As an interlude till the next post on Vridar —

How did Jesus get to be so hot? (Or the historical origins of images of Jesus and what they say about their creators and us.) This is also on AlterNet. It’s by Valerie Tarico.

screen_shot_2015-03-12_at_3.18.51_pm

Was Jesus resurrected naked? — and is that how he appeared to Mary and the others? Though James Tabor insists the question has serious implications for theology!

Tizian-Post-Resurrection

 

8 Comments

  • Sili
    2015-03-15 21:20:24 UTC - 21:20 | Permalink

    Pity, that Tabor still insists that there’s an inscription to be find in that damn tomb.

    • Sili
      2015-03-15 21:26:45 UTC - 21:26 | Permalink

      *found, even.

  • Pier Tulip
    2015-03-15 21:29:06 UTC - 21:29 | Permalink

    It is possible to give an answer to each question
    The first answer with this document in Italian, eventually I will give the English translation
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/arnaldo-tavernese/laspetto-di-ges%C3%B9-secondo-gli-antichi/10150950721243434

    The second is a stupid question for a serious answer
    The scene is called “noli me tangere” by Latin text and has been the subject of numerous artworks
    This is a possible explanation of the episode: his character is hermetic and alchemical, like several other of the Gospels
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/thebiblegeeklisteners/permalink/844092888996043/

  • Bee
    2015-03-15 23:00:32 UTC - 23:00 | Permalink

    Tabor seems to feel that if the resurrection was physical, then it would have been indecent, since Jesus was naked. So the resurrection must be spiritual.

  • Neil Godfrey
    2015-03-16 07:27:50 UTC - 07:27 | Permalink

    If you read nothing else on Jesus this month, no matter your view on his historicity or role in the great scheme of things, do read [Valerie Tarico’s article on Why Jesus Doesn’t Look Jewish], it’s a real eye-opener. The subject is simply how we came to portray this seminal figure in a way that is clearly a massive distortion of reality.

    — that’s from Gavin of Otagosh who has picked up on the same article I commended in the above post. Gavin has definitely taken the serious historical side from the article — which everyone should know if only to be constantly reminded of the real heritage of Christianity every time they see an image of Jesus.

    • Bee
      2015-03-16 07:50:00 UTC - 07:50 | Permalink

      I agree. I might add though that the “spiritually true” idea in one way, was halfway there, to ageeing it was all false. Though spiritualization has its own problems in turn, as you correctly note.

      • Bee
        2015-03-16 08:48:52 UTC - 08:48 | Permalink

        Better said, I am a mythicist 96%. More than Ms. T? But the historian in me is always watching the data to see if anything concrete shows up.

        Currently I “say there is so much evidence that the vast majority of “Jesus” is false, that the best short answer is to say he is a myth.

    • David Ashton
      2015-03-16 12:28:40 UTC - 12:28 | Permalink

      I have already commented on the possible physical appearance of the “Pale Galilean” and the male chromosome question, and remain unimpressed by the needlessly smutty tone of Valerie Tarico’s iconoclasm and its links.

      1. The implication that “Jews” are “ugly” compared to Nordic heroes may be rejected. It is anyhow unlikely that a Palestinian of the time period would resemble a caricatured Ashkenazi rather than a Samaritan or Arab, some of whom still have blue eyes and occasionally fair hair. According to anthropologists like Robert Gayre, these features were widely distributed in the region at that time.
      2. The skull reconstruction cited was not necessarily representative of that population and the external features were added.
      3. The possibility that Jesus was short has some slight early evidence (e.g. Celsus), but must not be confused with much later, merely theological “Suffering Servant” criteria. For alternative views on his appearance, consult Christian “biographers” (however dated) like Fernand Prat & Ethelbert Stauffer.
      4. Quoted statements by apologists that God must have specially created the “male gene” for the Virgin mother’s ovum of course raises the question whether, in that case, the Second Adam could really be a True Man. That “Roman soldier” hypothesis seems more probable to me.
      5. Religious believers will picture their gods and heroes according to cultural preference, which is why Chinese Christians for example make Jesus and Mary look Chinese.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *