Talk:Depiction of Jesus

Alexamenos graffito
The edit to this section which I performed was removed entirely although the information is contained in other references already cited, and also contains inaccurate information. Most scholars date it to the 1st century, not the 3rd. Some propose dates as late as the 3rd, but that is not the predominant view rather the minority view. Additionally, the image is intended to represent Alexamenos in his worship of the crucified figure which has an upsilon over its shoulder, generally interpreted as indicating that the crucified figure was a Jew. These facts are self-evident and well referenced. It is important to assume good intentions when others edit, but I do wonder about the motive considering the inaccurate information that was reverted. There have been many from a certain religious denomination who seek to discredit the image because if it is from the first century it would manifest that Jesus was crucified on a cross and not an upright pole. This frightens some people. I'd appreciate a clarification from the individual who changed my edits because he doesn't accept direct contact through Wikipedia. Bbltype (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alexamenos graffito is the initial place for this. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Later it became a staff
In the earliest Christian art Jesus wields a wand. In the 4th century it is portrayed as a staff. Kazuba (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg
The image Image:The Head of Christ by Warner Sallman 1941.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Christ Enthroned (Teaching)
I couldn't find an image here of this sculpture, which is supposed to be one of the oldest depctions of Christ. Is it not authentic, are there copyright issues or what is the reason? I mean the one from the Museo delle Terme: Fulcher (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We certainly can't cover every work, especially here. That one comes under traditio legis really, not that this work is mentioned there either. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good shepherd m2.jpg

I looked up that museum and it also has this Good Shephered image from the 4th century. I don't know if it fits but if you guys want to include it, go head. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact the GS was probably not intended as a portrait of Christ, more a symbol of him. We have an image already. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. And you may want to add that very text to the article because it clarified it for me, and it may do so for others too. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's in there, & in the pic caption (just changed). Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New image
Johnbod, the new image you added is very interesting, as is the detail that image had on Commons. Question: Is there anywhere a semi-definitive agreement as to what is the "earliest" realistic surviving image, 3rd-4th century? The Good shepherd type images are not realistic images, while this detail is amazingly similar to many of the later icons. Any refs on that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm trying to work this out, but there doesn't seem to be much surviving before 300, & then its mostly sarcophagii. Then there were different types co-existing, including the bearded one that later came to dominate, which was indeed there from very early on. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, you just opened a new, and interesting avenue. This detail seems to have a beard and the hand also seems to show, if one looks carefully enough. When I have time, I will build a page for the location: which does not have an English Wiki-entry. Later this year I may be passing by there, and will see if I can somehow find or get more clear image. Cheers History2007 (talk)


 * By the way John, if you want to "name this image" and build a page for it once you have done some more research, you will just get it entered into the art history world as a new entry. And that will be almost a first case where Wikipedia starts an entry. Of course, you would need a nice way around the Wiki-rules but there are always ways. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * added more now - the Zanker book is all online & has good detail, though his line is somewhat distinctive. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These last changes since the new image look pretty good now. I saw that you added a link to the detail at the end, but my guess is that most people will not notice it. If you could somehow work in teh detailed image in the main page, that would make it even better. History2007 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe - the trouble is they are both so dark... Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I will try to see if I can get a lighter one later this year. Yet, I was impressed by it as is, and I think others may be impressed too. We will see I guess. History2007 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be good - I made the link more prominent anyway. I tried the detail as the main pic, but you really have to peer at it. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We can look at it this way: that image has been there for many centuries now, so let us wait a few months to see if I can find a lighter one. I am not sure, but I will try it, for it is so interesting. Cheers History2007 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

86.80.43.76 (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) The earliest image of christ can also be 'Sarcophagus of the 'Two brothers', c. AD 330-350. Museo Pio Cristiano, Vatican' Sourch: A world history of art by Honour and flaming, revised seventh edition, P 297 fig 7.17. ithis one i could find on the internet http://personal.stthomas.edu/plgavrilyuk/PLGAVRILYUK/Baptism/Peter%20preaches1.jpg

Hinton St Mary mosaic, England
Is this worth a mention? No finds from the site later than 270AD, and the mosaic has been tentatively dated to 4th century. Stronach (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Tertullian on Jesus' appearance
"Tertullian (d.220) believed, following Isaiah:53:2, that Christ's appearance was unremarkable"

Tertullian was a very early Christian, less than two centuries from Christ; and he himself certainly doesn't refer to the Isaiah passage -- why the complete lack of mention of the possibility that this represents a genuine tradition from those who knew Jesus personally? 165.91.166.90 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, he does mention Isaiah 53:2, but several chapters later (ch 17 of Against Marcion); the initial mentions appear in ch 9 ("“His body did not reach even to human beauty to say nothing of heavenly glory.”) and perhaps obliquely in ch 7 (though this may simply refer to the mortality of His human body).

Also, the Celsus bit suggests that there might be historical basis for it. (It certainly seems more likely that Christians would portray a historically physically unattractive Jesus as an idealized figure, than that Christians would portray a historically handsome Jesus as physically unattractive.)

The current article suggests that Tertullian believed that Jesus was physically unattractive because of an interpretation of Isaiah 53:2; that is not the impression Against Marcion gives.165.91.166.218 (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Timescale tilt
As I look at the table of contents, this article looks tilted towards early depictions. But there are major other themes, there is little text about the Renaissance, etc. And various themes such as depictions during Crucifixion, Ministry etc. have not been addressed. Are the Transfiguration style depictions not worth mentioning? Comments? History2007 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncle
My did keep say this is Michel Angelo's uncle.Is this true?184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there 184.44.129.253. The Divine Mercy image that you posted (and I unfortunately have since had to remove as a copyright violation) is unlikely to be depicting Michaelangelo's uncle as Jesus Christ. The reason is that the artist who painted the image (Adolf Hyla) did so in 1943, nearly 400 years after Michaelangelo died, so I don't believe that there was much way for him to know what Michaelangelo's uncle would have looked like. If you can find any reliable sources that state that Hyla did in fact use Michaelangelo's uncle as the basis for the depiction of Jesus, then go ahead and add them - they'd certainly be quite interesting to read. Merry Christmas! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 01:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – Yesterday, I requested a move of Depictions of Muhammad when I noticed the inconsistency of its title and this article's. Per WP:PLURAL, that seemed right. But discussion there indicated that just didn't feel right. Since that's not much of a policy argument, I'll say this is by the Naturalness and Consistency characteristics of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. There are two other articles that begin with "Depiction of." One is an unreferenced essay I've nominated for deletion. I almost included the other one on this request, but since they're not particularly similar topically, I'll hold off on that one to see what happens here. By comparison, four articles begin with "Depictions of," including three that deal with religious founders. I really just want consistency here, and comments at the Muhammad request convinced me this is the right way to achieve it. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This article seems to have been titled according to WP:PLURAL (wasn't it called "Images of Jesus" at one point?) and contorts the lead sentence into conformance by stating The depiction of Jesus in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form... when it would seem more natural and correct to state instead Depictions of Jesus in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form.... And while the lead talks about "depiction" as a singular practice, the entire body of the article refers to specific depictions as part of a group, which would naturally imply a plural title. As I stated in my comment at Talk:Depictions of Muhammad, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that we shouldn't slavishly apply the WP:PLURAL guideline just because doesn't include an exhaustive list of exceptions. The singular-form title here seems force-fit to the guideline. Because I don't feel particularly strongly about my arguments here, I designate my support for this renaming as "weak". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No actually it wouldn't "seem more natural and correct to state instead Depictions of Jesus in art took several centuries to reach a conventional standardized form...." (my sentence I think). Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Is part of a group of "something", also more natural way of speaking. The article is not about specific depictions, but about the depictions as a whole.--ZooFamily (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yees, so .... isn't it better to use the singular to cover the concept? Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, just to be contrary. Do we really have nothing better to do? Jesus and Muhammad are not exactly comparable in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very POV opinion. BTW: Support this move as it encompasses a concept, or a group of things, not a single unit. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  00:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ?? But that is exactly why we should use the singular, just as the French do in Représentation de Jésus-Christ dans l'art chrétien]. Your arguments make no sense at all. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A> What happens on the French Wikipedia does not determine what happens here, French has it's own rules for grammar, capitalization, guidelines etc. It's a separate project. B> Saying that "Jesus and Muhammed are not exactly comparable" is extremely Point of View, depending on what you are talking about, your personal perspectives, and religious beliefs. A depiction is a single instance, the scope of this article, the subject of this article, is the depictions, all of them, as a group, not one individual instance, or any individual instance. And by the way The French do not use the singular in the same way, as their article title is "(Artistic) Representation of Jesus Christ in Christian art" - not the singular noun representation here, but the concept of representation - or portrayal - which designates not a single art piece, but the whole group of christian art. Do we need to make our English title lengthy to conform to the French one? No, English wikipedia says use the simplest title possible that accurately represents the subject.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * UnQuébécois—The question is which term is preferable. Is the article more addressing itself to "depictions" of Jesus or "depiction" of Jesus? Were we concerning ourselves with "depictions" of Jesus we would be including those that transpire in the present. We would also be including obscure "depictions" that have occurred over time. This article contains the conclusions of scholarly research—which can be revised over time. But this article is addressing itself to the path that "depiction" took, to arrive at widespread acceptance of what Jesus "looked like". The article concerns itself with the solidification in art of an iconography indicating that a figure in a painting is that of Jesus. Outlying images are not necessarily included or considered. Such "depictions" are not supportive of some of the conclusions that scholars reach on this subject. Therefore "depiction" is the more correct term because the underlying question is: by what route was the dominant or almost dominant iconographies arrived at? We are in this article primarily examining "depiction" because we are examining a selective route. Sure there are other "depictions" of Jesus but the implied conclusion in an article such as this is that those other depictions were not strongly adopted in art by the time that particular facial features—long hair and beard for instance—became the norm and were seen widely in art, especially painting. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think the article is about "Depictions of Jesus". It is about "Depiction of Jesus". There is a subtle difference, in that the article tries to make sense of and see patterns in how Jesus is depicted as varying by factors such as time and place and other factors. "Depictions of Jesus" sounds indiscriminate while our article is discriminating. The examination of this subject is selective as addressed by reliable sources and hence our article. I think "Depiction of Jesus" is the more correct title of the two titles under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Following the nominators arguments & it is about a group concept. --MrBoire (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * MrBoire—it is because the reference is to a concept that the term in the title should be "Depiction". The term "depictions" refers to individual images while the term "depiction" refers to the concept of visual representation. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I've notified both "WikiProject Christianity" and "WikiProject Visual arts" that this discussion is taking place. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per WP:PLURAL, "Articles that actually distinguish between multiple distinct instances of related items" would seem to apply.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't - I suggest you read that bit again. It applies to things like Moons of Jupiter. This is par excellence a generalizing article. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. But I don't agree with it. Other articles that are Depiction of are general, but other articles that are Depictions of are of specific things. The article in question necessarily and inherently compares specific depictions. Positing the article as being about depiction of Jesus in some general sense lacks context.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. It describes developments in the iconography of the millions of images of Jesus, every now or then mentioning or illustrating ones typical of a major type. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Moderate oppose I can myself see how we could have separate articles for each title. One, "Depiction of Jesus," dealing with the "history of the depiction of Jesus in art," and the other "Depictions of Jesus," possibly redirecting to something like "List of significantly variant artistic representations of Jesus." Of the two, though, I tend to think that the former, which would deal with the general topic of the "depiction of Jesus," would probably be the more important of the two. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support, per WP:PLURAL. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article covers the subject "The depiction of Jesus [over time]", and is not a study of individual artworks.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe. I was expecting to support, but having read the article I believe the current title is a more accurate description of the content. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early church rejection of images of Christ
The page ought to make some balancing mention of early church opposition to the making of images of the Image of God, and their perceived connexion with idolatry. Irenaeus for example, writes, 'They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.' Contr.Her.I.XXV.6. Philip Schaff comments on this, 'This censure of images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption, should be noted.' (Footnote 300 in loco). Lactantius wrote, 'But if all imitation is not particularly a serious matter, but as it were a sport and jest, then there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion.' Inst. Bk.2.XIX. Justin, Tertullian, Athanasius and Augustine inter alia echo vehement sentiments against worshipped images centuries before iconoclasm, which would look hypocritical in the extreme if they too had venerated images of Christ. Then Hosius of Cordoba, Athanasius' companion 'in arms' initiated the Elvira Synod, the 36th canon of which reads: 'Ne picturiae in ecclesia fiant. Placuit picturas in eccclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.'. Gnostics used images of Christ in the second, but how early can the confessionally Nicene churches date their use? Cpsoper (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I see you have gone and done so, but we are not (WP:PRIMARY) supposed to use primary sources, as you have done, and without the evidence pointing the other way, including catacomb images, pointing the other way - the earliest of these are usually dated late 2nd century. Aniconism in Christianity and I think Early Christian art also cover this area. Condemnation of images by Church Fathers is (as above) itself usually evidence of their use, is it not? A balanced modern scholarly account should be followed; there are issues around the Elvira canon & other quotes referred to above, as you may know. At what date does it start to make sense to talk about "confessionally Nicene churches" I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the importance of avoiding OR, and the danger primary sources may introduce. I have substituted Philip Schaff's comment rather than just refer to Irenaeus' text. However I note that one living author has recently complained of the considerable inaccuracy insisting on secondary sources can cause, especially when primary sources themselves are as explicit and lucid as subsequent critics. It should be not be difficult to identify churches and groups after 325 AD that embrace with the Nicene Creed, though I grant before it, such a task requires judgement and will remain somewhat subjective. The other pages you've referred to are helpful, though incomplete, and it may also be worth crosslinking to Aniconism in Christianity. If there is a preponderance of evidence that Christians used real depictions, not visual symbols, of Jesus Christ, before the fourth century, however it doesn't seem to be found in either. Irenaeus seems to indicate in the second century it was a purely Gnostic, not to say Carpocratian, practice, and so Schaff understands him. Lactantius wrote extensive condemnation of the use of images as aids in worship, in the 'Origin of Error' (Book II, chapter II, Divine Institutes, ANF), without any reference to their employment by Christians. Cpsoper (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you may be aware of Calvin's allusion (Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1, Chapter V. Section 6.) to Augustine's opposition to the use of images, possibly referring to this quote from the exposition of Psalm 115.7, 'This is the chief cause of this insane profanity, that the figure resembling the living person, which induces men to worship it, has more influence in the minds of these miserable persons, than the evident fact that it is not living, so that it ought to be despised by the living.' Cpsoper (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Material from the Jesus page
There are length discussions on the Jesus page and I am parking the depictions material from there here, reducing it there. Some of this is not present on this page and should be added if you guys want. I am not watching this page anymore. History2007 (talk) 08:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite the lack of biblical references or historical records, for two millennia a wide range of depictions of Jesus have appeared, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts. As in other Christian art, the earliest depictions date to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, and survivors are primarily found in the Catacombs of Rome. In these early depictions, which use popular rather than elite Greco-Roman styles, Jesus is usually shown as a youthful figure without a beard and with curly hair, often with different features from the other men in the scenes, such as his disciples or the Romans.

Although some images exist at the synagogue at Dura-Europos, Judaism forbade images, and there is no record of its influence on the depictions of Jesus. The oldest Christian paintings are from the Roman Catacombs, dated to about 200, and the oldest Christian sculptures are from sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 3rd century. Christian depictions of the 3rd and 4th centuries typically focused on New Testament scenes of healings and other miracles. Following the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, Christian art found many wealthy donors and flourished. In this period Jesus began to have more mature features, and was shown with a beard. A new development at this time was the depiction of Jesus without a narrative context, but just as a figure by himself. By the 5th century depictions of the Passion began to appear, perhaps reflecting a change in the theological focus of the early Church. The 6th century Rabbula Gospels includes some of the earliest surviving images of the crucifixion and resurrection. By the 6th century the bearded depiction of Jesus had become standard in the East, though the West, especially in northern Europe, continued to mix bearded and unbearded depictions for several centuries. The depiction with a longish face, long straight brown hair parted in the middle, and almond shaped eyes shows consistency from the 6th century to the present. Various legends developed which were believed to authenticate the historical accuracy of the standard depiction, such as the image of Edessa and later the Veil of Veronica. Partly to aid recognition of the scenes, narrative depictions of the Life of Christ focused increasingly on the events celebrated in the major feasts of the church calendar, and the events of the Passion, neglecting the miracles and other events of Jesus' public ministry, except for the raising of Lazarus, where the mummy-like wrapped body was shown standing upright, giving an unmistakable visual signature. A cruciform halo was worn only by Jesus (and the other persons of the Trinity), while plain halos distinguished Mary, the Apostles and other saints, helping the viewer to read increasingly populated scenes.

The Byzantine Iconoclasm acted as a barrier to developments in the East, but by the 9th century art was permitted again. The Transfiguration of Jesus was a major theme in the East and every Eastern Orthodox monk who had trained in icon painting had to prove his craft by painting an icon of the Transfiguration. However, while Western depictions aim for proportion, in the Eastern icons the abolition of perspective and alterations in the size and proportion of an image aim to reaches beyond man's earthly dwellings.

The 13th century witnessed a turning point in the portrayal of the powerful Kyrios image of Jesus as a wonder worker in the West, as the Franciscans began to emphasize the humility of Jesus both at his birth and his death via the nativity scene as well as the crucifixion. The Franciscans approached both ends of this spectrum of emotions and as the joys of the Nativity of were added to the agony of crucifixion a whole new range of emotions were ushered in, with wide ranging cultural impact on the image of Jesus for centuries thereafter.

The Renaissance brought forth a number of artists who focused on the depictions of Jesus and after Giotto, Fra Angelico and others systematically developed uncluttered images that focused on the depiction of Jesus with an ideal human beauty. Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper which is considered the first work of High Renaissance art due to its high level of harmony became well known for depicting Jesus surrounded by varying emotions of the individual apostles at the announcement of the betrayal. Meanwhile, the Protestant Reformation, especially in its first decades, violently objected to almost all public religious images as idolaterous, and vast numbers were destroyed.

By the end of the 19th century, new reports of miraculous images of Jesus had appeared and continue to receive significant attention, e.g. Secondo Pia's 1898 photograph of the Shroud of Turin, one of the most controversial artifacts in history, which during its May 2010 exposition it was visited by over 2 million people. Another 20th century depiction of Jesus, namely the Divine Mercy image based on Faustina Kowalska's reported vision has over 100 million followers. The first cinematic portrayal of Jesus was in the 1897 film La Passion du Christ produced in Paris, which lasted 5 minutes. Thereafter cinematic portrayals have continued to show Jesus with a beard in the standard western depiction that resembles traditional images.


 * I have belatedly added most of this, en bloc from "By the 5th century depictions of the Passion began to appear ..." as a "Later periods" section. I haven't looked to see if more can be integrated. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Modern depictions of Jesus
Shouldn't this article include modern depictions of Jesus? Like the one in South Park, for example. --Epitectus (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we did I doubt it would need to feature that. Apart from the predominant continuation of the traditional depictions there are plenty of one-off modern depictions but they are really too diverse to cover in an article like this. Has South Park had much influence on other depictions? It seems unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, the fact that Jesus is still being depicted is notable, even more so that it is being done in popular culture. Though I agree with you that this would not be in sync with the current tone and approach of the article. Either this article isn't really covering depictions of Jesus, and the title has to change, or a modern section for modern depictions has to be added, along with a slightly modified introduction on the subject. --Epitectus (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Link (to de:wiki)
This interwiki goes to Jesus in der Popmusik, “Jesus in Popmusic”. This is not the matching subject. Rather de:Christusbild, but there seems to be no article de: Bildliche Darstellung Jesu. --Schwab7000 (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

In film?
Dramatic portrayals of Jesus redirects here. So then I look for the word "film"; there's nothing about it. Is there really no article or even a section of an article dealing with depictions of Jesus in film/TV? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 21:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Depiction of Jesus → Depictions of Jesus – This article doesn't discuss a single depiction of Jesus, but numerous ones (that, yes, can be discussed as a whole). . I'll note that relevant categories here are Category:Jesus in art and (parent)Category:Cultural depictions of Jesus, the latter part of Category:Cultural depictions of religious leaders. So plural is the norm. See also: Depictions of Muhammad. That said, this was a no consensus move proposal 10 years ago (see few sections above). I did read it and I don't find it compelling - the topic is IMHO still the same, and we should be consistent our naming of articles. Plural name should be better, as in, it's simpler to standardize this exception to the norm then rename dozens of other articles and categories to match this one. Alternatively Jesus in art, currently a redirect, would also be an option to conside ( Depictions of God in Western Christianity redirects to God the Father in Western art...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose for exactly the same reasons as in the last discussion 10 years ago. The singular is much more appropriate for this article, which mentions few individual works, and focuses on the changing nature of the depiction. So the subject is "the depiction of Jesus", not "Depictions of Jesus", which suggests some listy road tour of famous works, which thank God this isn't. Depictions of Muhammad (executive summary: there hardly are any) is an odd example to use, and consistency of this sort between article titles is a very low priority. In fact, Wikipedia seems to have more "Depiction of ..." articles than ones with the plural - try a search. There's a reason "Depictions of God in Western Christianity" is only a redirect. There is also Life of Christ in art to consider for a redirect target for Jesus in art. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have screeds of OR
This seems to be full of original research, long sections which read as a somewhat unreflective and rambling essay. Howard other editors feel about a major cull which could leave substantial material, prior to a re-write into a coherent structure? I don’t think it’s in need of BLOWITUP, but it seems pretty low quality at the moment. Springnuts (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's essentially an article on art history, perhaps not your field? Any rewrite should be done by someone experienced in this area. Given the subject, odd stuff does get in, but I think is generally removed quickly. The article size has changed little in the last 7 years. There are a good number of references, mostly to high quality sources, not internet junk. What do you think is OR/excessive, and what do you think is missing? Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a little embarrassed because what I wrote was far too sweeping - by miles! In my defence I was on a train and using a phone, so I just picked up the bits about Revelation at the end of the Lede, and then at the start of the first section of the article read this completely unreferenced paragraph ...
 * Except for Jesus wearing tzitzit—the tassels on a tallit—in Matthew 14:36[5] and Luke 8:43–44,[6] there is no physical description of Jesus contained in any of the canonical Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus is said to have manifested as a "light from heaven" that temporarily blinded the Apostle Paul, but no specific form is given. In the Book of Revelation there is a vision the author had of "someone like a Son of Man" in spirit form: "dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. The hair on his head were white like wool, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like burnt bronze glowing in a furnace (...) His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance" (Revelation 1:12–16, NIV). Use in art of the Revelation description of Jesus has generally been restricted to illustrations of the book itself, and nothing in the scripture confirms the spiritual form's resemblance to the physical form Jesus took in his life on Earth.
 * ... which needs some scholarly reflection of imagery in apocalyptic literature, then looked for and could not find the Alexamenos graffito which I think probably deserves at least a mention because if it is depicting Christ it is the earliest representation of the crucifixion, nor eg Ralph Kozak's Laughing Jesus, nor anything from Stephen Prothero's "American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon". But now on a proper screen I can see that the rest of it is actually mostly good stuff and well referenced.  So basically I take it all back, and apologise for not reading it properly in the first place . When I have a moment I'll try to add some of the stuff I mentioned in, if nobody else does. Springnuts (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Never heard of these - we don't have Piss Christ or Jesus dress up either. The article certainly mainly concentrates on the early period when the remarkably persistent standard range of depictions were still being formed. The Alexamenos graffito is rather too off-beat to include, I think - the BM engraved gem mentioned in that article is more relevant. The article isn't a survey of individual depictions but about general trends that are reflected over very wide areas. The main gap I see is that we should have a section, and a proper main article, on the Niño Dios / Santo Niño tradition. We don't even have a proper category on that, which I will do. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here we are - Category:Statues of the infant Jesus, Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the article should be entitled something like “Early artistic representations of Jesus”? Because at the moment the title does not suggest any of the limitations which you are saying apply. And Stephen Prothero is absolutely noteworthy for his masterly survey! Springnuts (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No not at all. This isn't really about America. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is - from the opening - about "the depiction of Jesus in pictorial form". Prothero's book is precisely about the development of the pictorial representations of Jesus - in the US because that's what he is looking at - and the sociological, psychological and occasionally(!) theological forces which lie behind them. So, I'll put something in sourced from Prothero.  If you don't like it then I'd encourage you not to revert, but please do come here to make your case - then we can discuss and can seek help elsewhere if need be. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Christianity only
Why is this article only about the depiction of Jesus in Christianity?

I asked myself this when seeing. Synotia (moan) 15:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)