The Real Face Of Jesus
Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.
Illustration by BBC Photo Library
From the first time Christian children settle
into Sunday school classrooms, an image of Jesus Christ is etched into
their minds. In North America he is most often depicted as being taller
than his disciples, lean, with long, flowing, light brown hair, fair
skin and light-colored eyes. Familiar though this image may be, it is
inherently flawed. A person with these features and physical bearing
would have looked very different from everyone else in the region where
Jesus lived and ministered. Surely the authors of the Bible would have
mentioned so stark a contrast. On the contrary, according to the Gospel
of Matthew, when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane before
the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to indicate to the soldiers whom
Jesus was because they could not tell him apart from his disciples.
Further clouding the question of what Jesus looked like is the simple
fact that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described, nor have any
drawings of him ever been uncovered. There is the additional problem of
having neither a skeleton nor other bodily remains to probe for DNA. In
the absence of evidence, our images of Jesus have been left to the
imagination of artists. The influences of the artists' cultures and
traditions can be profound, observes Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi,
associate professor of world Christianity at Columbia Theological
Seminary in Atlanta. "While Western imagery is dominant, in other parts
of the world he is often shown as black, Arab or Hispanic." And so the
fundamental question remains: What did Jesus look like?
An
answer has emerged from an exciting new field of science: forensic
anthropology. Using methods similar to those police have developed to
solve crimes, British scientists, assisted by Israeli archeologists,
have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of the most
famous face in human history.
The Changing Face of Jesus
>
The Body As Evidence
An
outgrowth of physical anthropology, forensic anthropology uses cultural
and archeological data as well as the physical and biological sciences
to study different groups of people, explains A. Midori Albert, a
professor who teaches forensic anthropology at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. Experts in this highly specialized field require
a working knowledge of genetics, and human growth and development. In
their research they also draw from the fields of primatology,
paleoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution) and human
osteology (the study of the skeleton). Even seemingly distant fields
like nutrition, dentistry and climate adaptation play a role in this
type of investigation.
While
forensic anthropology is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a
medical artist retired from The University of Manchester in England,
realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus. The
co-author of Making Faces: Using Forensic And Archaeological Evidence,
Neave had ventured in controversial areas before. Over the past two
decades, he had reconstructed dozens of famous faces, including Philip
II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, and King Midas of
Phrygia. If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would
be Neave.
>
Reconstructing Jesus >>>
Keith Kasnot/National Geographic Image
Bettmann/Corbis
Reconstructing Jesus
Matthew's description of the events in Gethsemane offers an obvious clue to the face of Jesus. It is clear that his features were typical of Galilean Semites of his era. And so the first step for Neave and his research team was to acquire skulls from near Jerusalem, the region where Jesus lived and preached. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli archeology experts, who shared them with Neave.
With
three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave
used computerized tomography to create X-ray "slices" of the skulls,
thus revealing minute details about each one's structure. Special
computer programs then evaluated reams of information about known
measurements of the thickness of soft tissue at key areas on human
faces. This made it possible to re-create the muscles and skin overlying
a representative Semite skull.
The
entire process was accomplished using software that verified the
results with anthropological data. From this data, the researchers built
a digital 3D reconstruction of the face. Next, they created a cast of
the skull. Layers of clay matching the thickness of facial tissues
specified by the computer program were then applied, along with
simulated skin. The nose, lips and eyelids were then modeled to follow
the shape determined by the underlying muscles.
A Matter Of Style
Two
key factors could not be determined from the skull—Jesus's hair and
coloration. To fill in these parts of the picture, Neave's team turned
to drawings found at various archeological sites, dated to the first
century. Drawn before the Bible was compiled, they held crucial clues
that enabled the researchers to determine that Jesus had dark rather
than light-colored eyes. They also pointed out that in keeping with
Jewish tradition, he was bearded as well.
It
was the Bible, however, that resolved the question of the length of
Jesus's hair. While most religious artists have put long hair on Christ,
most biblical scholars believe that it was probably short with tight
curls. This assumption, however, contradicted what many believe to be
the most authentic depiction: the face seen in the image on the
famous—some say infamous—Shroud of Turin. The shroud is believed by many
to be the cloth in which Jesus's body was wrapped after his death.
Although there is a difference of opinion as to whether the shroud is
genuine, it clearly depicts a figure with long hair. Those who criticize
the shroud's legitimacy point to 1 Corinthians, one of the many New
Testament books the apostle Paul is credited with writing. In one
chapter he mentions having seen Jesus—then later describes long hair on a
man as disgraceful. Would Paul have written "If a man has long hair, it
is a disgrace to him" if Jesus Christ had had long hair? For Neave and
his team this settled the issue. Jesus, as drawings from the first
century depict, would have had short hair, appropriate to men of the
time.
The historic
record also resolved the issue of Jesus's height. From an analysis of
skeletal remains, archeologists had firmly established that the average
build of a Semite male at the time of Jesus was 5 ft. 1 in., with an
average weight of about 110 pounds. Since Jesus worked outdoors as a
carpenter until he was about 30 years old, it is reasonable to assume he
was more muscular and physically fit than westernized portraits
suggest. His face was probably weather-beaten, which would have made him
appear older, as well.
Keith Kasnot/National Geographic Image
Computer
models (left) and modeling clay enable Neave (right) to create a
forensically acceptable facial reconstruction. (Photographs by Keith
Kasnot/National Geographic Image Collection [left] and The Unit of Art
in Medicine/The University of Manchester, UK [right])
An Accurate Portrait
For
those accustomed to traditional Sunday school portraits of Jesus, the
sculpture of the dark and swarthy Middle Eastern man that emerges from
Neave's laboratory is a reminder of the roots of their faith. "The fact
that he probably looked a great deal more like a darker-skinned Semite
than westerners are used to seeing him pictured is a reminder of his
universality," says Charles D. Hackett, director of Episcopal studies at
the Candler School of Theology in Atlanta. "And [it is] a reminder of
our tendency to sinfully appropriate him in the service of our cultural
values."
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. As might well be
expected, not everyone agrees.
Forensic
depictions are not an exact science, cautions Alison Galloway,
professor of anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz.
The details in a face follow the soft tissue above the muscle, and it
is here where forensic artists differ widely in technique. Galloway
points out that some artists pay more attention to the subtle
differences in such details as the distance between the bottom of the
nose and the mouth. And the most recognizable features of the face—the
folds of the eyes, structure of the nose and shape of the mouth—are left
to the artist. "In some cases the resemblance between the
reconstruction and the actual individual can be uncanny," says Galloway.
"But in others there may be more resemblance with the other work of the
same artist." Despite this reservation, she reaches one conclusion that
is inescapable to almost everyone who has ever seen Neave's Jesus.
"This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great
masters."
>
No comments:
Post a Comment