04 Apr 2009 Jesus’s beard and other mysteries
 |  Category: Meditations, Museums

Why does Jesus have shoulder-length, brown wavy hair and a beard?

One of my personal favorite bits of touristing is doing the museum tour, and there’s plenty to choose from in Europe.  The grand cities have some of the greatest art musuems of the world, collecting over a millennium of masterpieces (mostly from Europe and North America, granted, but also some from further afield).  In our time here, Susan and I have been privileged to explore the Prado, Reina Sophia, Thyssen, Louvre, d’Orsay, National Gallery, and Victoria and Albert.  And that’s not counting other art museums that we’ve seen on other occasions or the vast amounts of art accumulated in palaces, cathedrals, churches, mansions, and random other tourist destinations.  It brings alive all those dusty memories of art movements that (for me) date back to high school, making them vivid and setting them in context.  Still, with all of this art trekking, we’ve noticed a few other features that aren’t mentioned quite so often.

For one, why is Jesus always pictured as having shoulder-length, wavy brown hair and a beard?

Jesus and his hairdo

Jesus and his hairdo

For most of us, this is an image we’ve seen all our lives — so much so that we probably don’t even think about it.  There is always the observation that Jesus was, of course, almost certainly Semitic, rather than Caucasian (as he is usually pictured in Euro-derived art).  But I have never really heard anybody discuss this artistic convention about his hairdo.

I mean, really — where did this notion come from?  It’s everywhere — in art going back at least a thousand years, J.C. is drawn this way.  It’s there in medieval paintings, stained glass in cathedrals, Renaissance statues, and everything since, up to and including modern neon light displays.  You have to look hard to find a rendition of Jesus that doesn’t have those features.  But, as far as I know, we have no actual evidence or description of how he really looked.

So who came up with it?  Somebody had to have been first to draw him like that, and it has stuck ever since.  But who?  And why?  I suppose that it sticks because it has become a set of attributes that we use to identify J.C.  In the same way that the crescent moon and the third eye are attributes that identify Shiva to Hindus, Christians know to look for the coiffure.

Saint Sebastian (as rendered by Crivelli)

Saint Sebastian (as rendered by Crivelli)

Another thing we’ve noticed is an overwhelming fascination with certain specific saints.  While the Catholic church acknowledges an incredible number of saints (over 10,000 according to the Wikipedia article), only like five or six ever show up in European art.  One of the favorites is Saint Sebastian.  The story is that this poor bastard managed to piss off Emperor Diocletian and got his ass filled with arrows for his trouble.  Miraculously, of course, he didn’t die, but lived on to work other miracles and harangue Diocletian some more.  (Not surprisingly, this did not sit well with Diocletian, who decided that he must not have done the job thoroughly the first time and had his soldiers drag Sebastian out, beat him to death, and toss his body into the outhouse.  Yum.)  Anyway, Sebastian is all over the place.  Everybody seems to love to paint him.  We’ve seen dozens of images of this poor fellow, all recognizable by the arrows.  (Sometimes only a couple, sometimes a porcupine’s complement.)  Usually, he has a far-away expression that is probably intended to represent his holy fixation on the heavens and his unconcern with paltry physical ephemera like being pincushioned with broadheads.  Unfortunately, too few artists can really capture “ethereal”, so it usually comes out feeling like a cross between marijuana mellow and constipated.

Salomé with the head of John the Baptist, as rendered by Caravaggio

Salomé with the head of John the Baptist, as rendered by Caravaggio

You see a similar sort of ambiguous facial expression in the omnipresent images of Salomé.  So this chick either deliberately, or at her mother’s behest, requested John the Baptist’s head on a platter as a present.  Most teenage girls don’t get such extravagent gifts from their dads, but when your dad is the king, special rules apply.  (I would have gone for the red sports car myself, but hey — no accounting for tastes.)  So Herod’s soldiers dutifully brought her the head on a plate.  The funny thing

Titian's version

Titian's version of Salomé and John

is that she’s so often pictured almost completely impassively, or at most with a little distaste or perhaps some smugness.  But a surprisingly underwhelming reaction for someone who has just had a dish of gore dropped in her lap.  I guess I haven’t verified for myself, but I’m pretty sure that the Bible doesn’t say anything about her being clinically psychopathic or having dangerously flattened affect.  Or maybe that was just the kind of thing you got for your daughter in those days and she was used to it — had a dozen in her closet already.  I dunno.  shrug

Little old man baby Jesus

Little old man baby Jesus

Ugly babies are another popular theme.  Specifically, ugly baby Jesuses.  We can’t quite figure out what’s going on, but our best guess is that it was way easier for Rennaisance painters to get adult female models than baby males.  (Or to get them to sit still or something.)  Or maybe it’s just that the painters are all struggling to make the little guy look simultaneously like a cute and helpless infant and the King of Kings with all the wisdom of the ages in his barely postnatal eyes.  For whatever reason, the galleries are littered with truly fugly baby Jesuses.  Warped little beasts that look sometimes more like a lizard and sometimes more like a goblin.  Sadly, I don’t have the absolute best example of this genre here.  They don’t allow photos in the National Gallery in London, but there’s an absolutely stunningly horrendous baby Jesus in their collection.  The kid is, I shit you not, gray.  And it’s not that the painting has aged — the other people in the painting are relatively normal flesh-toned.  In comparison, the little Lamb of God comes off as, well, a baby zombie.  “Awwww….  Kewt widdle baby zombie Jesus!  Smile for Mr. Painter man!”

Baby Jesus: lord of the pit fiends

Baby Jesus: lord of the pit fiends

Madonna with a creepy child

Madonna with creepy child

With looks like these, the little guy would have had to have God looking out for him, to keep his parents from drowning him quietly in the night…

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
9 Responses
  1. Crystal says:

    the most prominent rumor I’ve heard on the subject is that the first portrait is actually of Alexander the Great. Granted, I don’t know how Greek that guy really looks, but I think that it IS more likely than not that the image is a portrait of someone else, and was re-dubbed to represent Jesus. This was done quite a bit when Rome overtook a variety of cultures, and re-tasking imagery in early Christianity is about as common as re-tasking holidays (almost every modern Christian holiday was once a Pagan holiday. This is particularly obvious in regards to Easter.) Many of the images of “The Madonna and Child” were actually images of Isis before Rome converted.

    They say “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. Once upon a time anywhere you WENT you were “in Rome”, and I don’t think Rome gave you much of a choice. ;)

    • Terran says:

      Interesting. I hadn’t heard that one myself. I (obviously) don’t know much about this idea, but I can say that Alexander is traditionally pictured as beardless. For example, check out the Wikipedia entries on Alexander the Great and on Lysippus, his official sculptor. Another thing we’ve gotten from museum touristing is dozens of different depictions of Alexander — statues, coins, paintings, etc. They’re all beardless, with relatively short (albeit still curly or wavy) hair. Also more fleshy cheeks than the almost-hollow ones that J.C. is typically pictured with.

      I’m sure that, like Jesus, what we have now for Alexander are a set of artistic and stylized conventions, passed down through the millennia. But, unlike Jesus, Alexander was actually prominent enough in his day that people went to the trouble of making durable images of him — busts and so on. So there’s actually some real evidence back there to base our current imagery on.

      Anyway, your point stands: I wouldn’t be surprised if the canonical Jesus iconography is a re-dubbed image. The question is: of whom and how did this particular image get such widespread buy-in?

  2. Crystal says:

    Yeah, I thought of that when I went looking for images of “Alexander the Great”, they don’t really look alike at all. I may have to go on a crusade (um, no pun intended?) to find out who that picture’s really of. ;) (Stuff like this always makes me curious.)

    • Terran says:

      Hey, if you find out, let me know — I’m totally curious.

      • Crystal says:

        and now that I’ve finally picked up on the whole concept of threaded conversations… lol

        After just a little bit of research, it turns out that that first image is actually a painting by a guy named Warner Sallman (1892–1968). It apparently started life as a charcoal drawing and was sold to be a cover of a newsletter called the Covenant Companion. In 1935 he converted it to an oil painting and in 1940 was asked to do a reproduction of it for North Park Theological Seminary where it was spotted by the publishing arm of the Anderson Church of God (which explains my own little mystery of “Why the hell do I ALWAYS see this image WHENEVER I’m in a ‘Church of God’ church?” Seriously… it’s one of the telling points of whether you’re in a church belonging to that denomination, and if the church your in has the image up and ISN’T Church of God, it more than likely was at some point, or is affiliated with it. It’s kinda creepy…) and they created an entirely new company to market Sallman’s work.

        It doesn’t say why he looks so coiffed or why he has blonde-ish highlights, but traditions and social stigmas that were prominent during the time Sallman lived might explain why he looks so damned Aryan. The only other major images I’ve found of him looking so very blonde and pale are the Sacred Heart images, and in those he looks mostly Roman (with a touch of French, which makes sense being that the image is derived from a French Catholic nun, or at least so says wikipedia.) And although apparently early images of him picture him beardless, it seems like the idea that he had a beard probably stems from Jewish cultural background (rabbis wear beards, Jesus was a rabbi.)

        Not nearly as juicy as the rumor on Yahoo Answers that the picture is actually a portrait of Cesare Borgia, but probably more accurate. ;) Although the image on his wiki bears some resemblance to other images of Christ, so who knows?

  3. jklGoDuke says:

    When we were touring some collection in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire (Vienna, I believe) I was amazed at the number of alter pieces that claimed to have “a fragment of the true cross” in them. I would love to do an analysis and see just how many different types of wood are represented in all of those splinters. Somebody in the Holy Land sure had a racket going during the era of the Crusades. Probably several somebodies.

    • Susan says:

      That really was a racket. I remember learning about one of the kings of France (one who I believe was not called Louis and who was also sainted) building a big cathedral and shopping around for the most reputable relic he could find. Kings and nobles shelled out some truly enormous sums for what was probably a piece of someone’s fencepost or someone’s dead grandmother’s finger bone.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>