Not having Jesus’ skull

The problem for us about the figure of Jesus is that we only have secular, civilians and clergy their writings about the man who live about two thousand years ago and walked many miles telling about his heavenly Father, the God of Abraham.

Many people would like to put a face on that man born in Bethlehem, who was brought up in Nazareth in a family of the tribe of king David. We do not have any particular elements of his body which creates for any forensic reconstruction of his face.

Now, what about Jesus? Without a skull, what could they discern what he looked like? Well, they did something dumb, but it’s the best a believer can do. Christianity Today reports excitedly:

With this in mind, the research team acquired three well-preserved skulls from Jerusalem in Israel, where Jesus lived and preached.

Medical artist Richard Neave from The University of Manchester in England then took charge of evaluating the skulls. Using special computer programmes, his team was able to re-create the muscles and skins overlaying the skulls.

The skulls, however, did not provide two key pieces of information about Jesus’ appearance: his hair and his skin colour. To be able to determine these, the researchers analysed drawings found in various archaeological sites in Israel.

The research team ultimately concluded that Jesus had dark eyes, and was bearded following Jewish tradition.

As regards the length of Jesus’ hair, the researchers deviated from the common belief that Christ had long, straight hair. Instead, they assumed that Jesus Christ had short hair with tight curls, based on their analysis of the Holy Bible. [JAC: I don’t think the Holy Bible tells us anything about how Jesus’s hair looked!]

Well that’s certainly convincing, isn’t it? The chance that Jesus, if he really existed, looked like an amalgam of three random skulls dug up in Jerusalem (dates not given), is about nil. Nevertheless, they produced the image given below, which links to the AOL video. >

Forensic science reveals how Jesus really looked

British scientists have stitched together (in 2015) what they say is probably most accurate image of Jesus Christ's real face.

British scientists have stitched together (in 2015) what they say is probably most accurate image of Jesus Christ’s real face.

 

Please also find:

  1. A dark skinned Jesus
  2. Most probable and accurate image of Jesus Christ according British scientists

+++

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Not having Jesus’ skull

  1. jpk07452 noted:

    Let’s screen out the hokum. Every responsible historian knows that Jesus was described by Roman and Jewish writers of the era that overlapped His life on Earth. The Gospels were not written by ‘ Romans’ — the Gospels were written in Greek in a style widely used by Jewish writers in that region, (I read Greek.) The penmanship dates them all to the later First Century. Place names used in the First Century but not after are also mentioned. Anyone who claims Jesus was not a historical figure is a liar or a fool — or perhaps a liar looking for fools.

    +

    The British forensic artist Richard Neaves appears to have said, according to the UK Daily Mail, that the face he drew resembled a man of the time of Jesus — not specifically Jesus Himself. That is genuine science — up to a point. There is no such thing as a “Semite skull” — Semitic languages exist and include Arabic as well as Hebrew. The face Neaves portrayed looks like a Palestinian with some including Muslim warriors from the Sudan who fought in Palestine during the Crusades — twelve centuries after the time of Jesus.

    Like

    • Re “Every responsible historian knows that Jesus was described by Roman and Jewish writers of the era that overlapped His life on Earth” – feel free to name them… truth is, Josephus et al only mention Jesus as a fabrication, added later by early Christians trying to lend credence to the story.
      I’m VERY interested in these contemporary writers that wrote of Jesus……

      Like

  2. Pingback: How Did Jesus Become White? By Richard Stockton | Stepping Toes

  3. Pingback: Stepping Toes 2015 in review | Stepping Toes

You are welcome to react - U bent welkom om een reactie te geven

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s