Watchtower 8/15, 1954:
•
The traditional picture of Jesus shows him with long hair and beard, but the WatchTower publications illustrate him as beardless and with short hair. Which is correct?—M.H.,UnitedStates.The later Watch Tower publications show Jesus as beardless and with short hair because he is shown that way in representations of him that are older than the traditional effeminate-looking picture. In an ancient beaker or cup found at Antioch, Syria, which purports to represent Jesus and his disciples at the Memorial supper, Jesus is engraved thereon as a beardless young man while some of his disciples are pictured with beards. For a photograph of this see Harper’s BibleDictionary, page 22, in the midst of the article "Antioch, the Chalice of." (M. S. and J. L. Miller, 1952) The scholarly book by Jack Finegan, LightfromtheAncientPast, tells of second-century Christian paintings found in the Catacomb of Priscilla, in the room Cappella Greca, and states:
"The painting of the Resurrection of Lazarus is now almost effaced but it is still possible to recognize that on one side is depicted a small building containing a mummy and on the other, the sister of Lazarus standing with arms upraised. In the middle Christ is shown, facing toward the tomb and with the right hand uplifted in a gesture of speech. He is represented in the Roman type, and is dressed in tunic and pallium, the left hand holding the garment. He is youthful and beardless, with short hair and large eyes. . . . The picture is of great interest since it is the oldest representation of Jesus that is preserved anywhere."—Page 371.
Further on this book tells of the painting of the Healing of the Paralytic (Mark 2:1-12) found in the house church in the excavated ancient settlement of Dura in the Syrian desert, and states: "The almost destroyed painting of Christ in the Catacomb of Priscilla at Rome probably belongs, as we have seen, to the middle of the second century. The painting at Dura is dated even more definitely in the first part of the third century. In both pictures Christ is shown as a young and beardless man with short hair and wearing the ordinary costume of the day. These and similar portrayals are the earliest type of Christ as far as is now known in early Christian art. Later in the third century Christ appears still as youthful but with long, curly hair, and from the fourth century on the more familiar bearded type appears."—Pages 408, 409.
As recently as October 7, 1949, the new east window of Stepney Parish Church, the mother church of East London, England, was unveiled by the Earl of Athlone. The photograph of this church window, as published in "The Illustrated London News," October 1, 1949, shows a cross with a young man nailed to it, beardless and with short hair, to represent "Christ crucified, but triumphant."
Since the Bible does not describe Jesus’ facial appearance or indicate he had a beard of length, we follow the oldest archaeological evidence rather than the later traditional view that makes Jesus appear effeminate and sallow and sanctimonious. Some use Isaiah 50:6 as proof that Jesus had a beard: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." This may have been literally fulfilled in a typical way upon Isaiah, foreshadowing the shameful insults and reproaches to be heaped upon the servant class, the primary one of whom is Christ Jesus. Each one of the servant class suffers reproaches, but not necessarily all of the ones here specified. The record shows Jesus was whipped, slapped and spat on, but no mention is made of beard-plucking. If it had happened why would it not have been named along with the other abuses and insults? (Matt. 27:26; Mark 14:65, NW) In fact, the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 50:6 does not mention the cheeks’ being plucked of hair, but as being slapped instead: "I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows; and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting." The record in the Gospels states all this did literally happen to Jesus.
A fascinating mix of arguments: from archaeology, contemporary religious art, aesthetical criticism, typological Bible interpretation (Jesus being just one in the "servant class") and something near to literary criticism (favouring the LXX over the MT as the background of the NT). WT stuff was funnier back then.
