A FACE LIKE JESUS?

 I do not believe Jesus necessarily looked vastly different from other Jewish men. Hence, in order to get an idea of what Jesus looked like, it would seem reasonable to try and recapture features of a first century Jewish man.

 

In my opinion, one of the more credible attempts to recapture such an image, 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 archaeologists have re-created what they believe is the most accurate image of the most famous face in human history.

 

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 (the branch of zoology that deals with primates), palaeoanthropology (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.

 

Matthew's description of the events in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:48) 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. Semite skulls of this type had previously been found by Israeli experts in archaeology, who shared them with Neave.

 

With three well-preserved specimens from the time of Jesus in hand, Neave used computerized tomography (a technique for displaying a representation of a cross section through a human body) 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.

 

 

“Forensic depictions are not an exact science”, cautions Alison Galloway, professor of Anthropology at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "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, Galloway 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."

 

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul opined, “I want to know Christ [Jesus]”. He certainly was not referring to knowing the physical features of Jesus. In this and other texts, Paul was referring to an experiential knowledge of Jesus. Paul’s desire was to identify with what Jesus represented.

 

In another letter (Colossians 1:28-29), Paul “strenuously contended” to lead Christians into full maturity in Christ. The outcome is to look like Jesus, certainly not as a first century Jewish male. In 1963, I had an encounter with Jesus. It was not an academic encounter. Rather, it was an experiential encounter. One in which I acknowledged Jesus as my Lord. Today, fifty-seven years later, I can categorically confirm that such an encounter with Jesus is not merely credal. It is transformational.