Roland

I am assuming that it was common in ancient biographies for the biographer to provide at least some mention of his subject's physical appearance. Yet, out of four canonical gospels, we get not a single word about what Jesus actually looked like. This is also true of all the epistles in the NT.

I know Christians would probably respond with "The writers were more concerned with what Jesus said, did and represented than what he looked like," but doesn't it seem strange that NOBODY thought Jesus' physical appearance worthy of comment? Wouldn't that have simply added more verisimilitude to their biographies, and isn't this a strong argument that the gospels really are just works of fiction?

True Christian

No, it's not a strong argument for the Sacred Gospels being works of fiction. Why would not including a physical description of our Lord and Savior be an argument for them being fiction? I suspect this is just a poor excuse for people so they don't have to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. May our Heavenly Father forgive them and show them mercy on Judgement Day, which draws near.

In Christ's Love,

Barbara

rlogan

Taken in consideration of all the other evidence, the "argument from best explanation" is that there is no physical description because there was nothing to describe.

Toto

Even novels contain descriptions of the characters.

One of the arguments that Jesus was originally considered a spiritual entity is the lack of any description or representation in the early years of Christianity. This changes in later years as Christians decide that Jesus was human or at least took a human form, and now there are pictures of Jesus all over.

If this were the only indication that the gospels are fiction, it might be weak. But it is part of the puzzle.

TheBigKahoona

I don't understand how this proves JEsus to be a fictitious character. First of all, if I was going to make up a person and write a book about him whats keeping me from making up a description as well? Second of all, there is a bare minimum of physical description in the Bible as it is.

PoodleLovinPessimist

By itself, it doesn't prove anything. But it's yet another piece of evidence.

Anat

Were physical descriptions common in writing about historical characters that was based on eyewitness accounts at that time?

rlogan

You missed Toto's point. Some reading of Earl Doherty is recommended.

Toto had a pun in there about the "puzzle", since Doherty wrote "The Jesus Puzzle", and the upshot of the piece is that Jesus was in the spiritual plane, not the earthly plane in the initial years of Christianity.

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Profiles of great leaders are impressed upon coins, memorabelia, buildings, and etc.

Christian apologetics is one long string of excuse-making, and this is just one of them.

The cumulative weight of the total Christian special pleading (single-spaced on bonded paper) has been estimated at 14.3 metric tons.

coloradoatheist

I had read somewhere by a christian that one of the prophecies of the messiah dealt with physical looks, can anybody confirm? Because if that's the case why didn't Matthew who was notorius for finding anything that closely resembled OT prophecies for a messiah and making Christ fit the bill. I don't think the picture of Jesus per se is a problem, but the lack of a birthdate, crucifixation date, and returning to Christ's spots later go against human nature.


Mike

rlogan

This was a good question, and the answer gives yet more support to the notion of the "junkyard Jesus", patched together by the HB dumpster-diving prophecy sluts.



I think it is referring to isaiah 53, and it is exceedlingly sketchy:


I gave most of the "description" here because it is long on "sorrow/suffering" and short on description other than not being beautiful.




I don't think you will find in the HB any meaningful description of the Messiah, and that is precisely the evidence that Matthew did indeed quote mine only what he could.

Were the HB to provide us with a big nose or seven toes, you can be sure that Jesus would have them. Lacking such description, none is found in the gospels.
...........................




Actually, there is one element of description in the NT. There has been some confusion in Acts where due to translation error it has Jesus being hung from a tree. The proper Greek translation has him hung "as" or "like" a tree. A real whopper, apparently. Spin will back me up on this big time.

so there really is no inconsistency between Acts and the gospels on crucifixion. They speak to entirely different subjects.