What is it about this painting by Colombian artist Fernando Botero (title: Crucifixion with Soldier) that jars so? There have been a zillion icky icons and portrayals of Jesus on the cross, most of which are meant to convey a devotional response. But this?
 |
| Artist: Sofia Minson |
An article in the May issue of White Paper (from whence cometh the photograph) asks about the relationship between body image and Christianity. It's something most of us have probably never thought about. Maybe we should.
Botero is probably aiming a dig at the Catholic art of his native land, but he undoubtedly raises eyebrows equally on folks of other Christian backgrounds. So what do you think?
Jesus was described in the gospels as having been sinless. Portraying Him as a non-Jew may be inaccurate, but being other than Jewish is not in and of itself sinful. Show Him as a Maori eating a pork chop, and it becomes a different thing entirely.
ReplyDeleteThere are physiological and life style related reasons for someone being overweight. Unfortunately, when most people see an overweight person, they assume that the extra weight came from over eating, which of course in Biblical times was known as gluttony, a practice which was labeled as a sin which would keep one from entering the Kingdom.
The Christians who were put off by the painting probably feel that Botero has portrayed Jesus as a sinner.
BB
The painting jars because if is an atypical depiction of the human body. The body has an inflated look but not an obese look. Abs are clearly visible. It is a heavily muscled look. The face and hands too small.
ReplyDeleteTo most people in the Western World, the real Christ would be just as striking and odd as this painting. Physical anthropologists have established that the average, male Palestinean Jew at the time of Christ was 5'1" and weighed 110 pounds. These people were Haplogroup J and were dark or olive skinned with brown eyes and curly or wavy brown hair for the most part. Jesus was not a light-skinned Ashkenazi with European genes. And this typical Middle Easterner is not what the average member of the First Baptist Church in Atlanta wants his Savior to look like. They would much prefer an Aryan Jesus.
The fact that Christ is a Jew was a fundamental part of his role and ministry. To depict him otherwise seems to be a remove away from the intent of the New Testament. I am not sure what is gained by it but much is lost. If someone were to represent in art George Washington as an Arab, what would be the value of that?
-- Neo
Why crucifixion?
ReplyDeletePerhaps some Christians who post here can explain this bizarre aspect of their soteriology:
If I understand it correctly, the requirement for reconciliation of mankind was God becoming a human sacrifice.
So technically there would be no requirement for pain and torture, which said God would be naturally opposed to?
So why couldn't Jesus (God incarnate who understands Chemistry) simply self-administer a potent Hemlock drink?
Minimalist, we didn't invent crucifixion. We read about it in the same place you did, the Bible. Just as those of us who play the blues on our guitars didn't invent twelve bar, or the pentatonic scale. We just play them, make them our own, and occasionally have to endure listening to someone schooled in Beethoven criticize and question their appeal. Bottom line is that everyone has got to do something to occupy the time spent on planet Earth.
ReplyDeleteBB
The Bronze Age concept of animal - and human - sacrifice to appease the anger of the gods was somehow amped up in the dark literary origins of Christianity. But if we further deconstruct Christianity's colorful atonement, stripping away the window dressing of crucifixion to an essential "God, as a human, must die so that his anger is appeased". And if we assume same God is opposed (we hope) to cruel animal/human torture/slaughter, then Gods' only requirement is to incarnate, register with "reliable witnesses" (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)(LOL), then he wouldn't even need to drink more humane hemlock: with God-like powers he could self-execute a cardio-pulmonary shutdown for a few days. Have same reliable scribes (LOL) check that he really wasn't breathing.
DeleteHe didn't really die, anyway. He was alive again three days later. What kind of "death" is that? You could argue that he suffered, sure, but how can you say somebody died when they're back alive again right afterward?
DeleteThe whole idea is downright weird. And silly. Honestly, Christians - your God's son who HAD to die? That's the best solution your God could come up with? That's some poor excuse for a God who can't come up with a better plan than THAT.
What a story. First he dies. But, wait, don't go away ... look, he's back alive! But, wait, don't blink ... next he gets whisked up to heaven a short while later! So ...nobody could really prove what did or did not happen after that, could they.
Christ did not have to die for sins to be forgiven. He forgave sins before his death. This is documented in the Gospels. He elected to die as he did. Many insights cascade from this choice. These insights are well documented in Christian writings. This issue was not raised by a couple of atheists for the first time just a few days ago.
Delete-- Neo
Yes, I'm sure it's all been thoroughly debated by people who've exhausted every line of argument, with neither side convincing the other.
Delete"Insights", you say. They sound to me like rationalizations. But sorry, my friend, two thousand years of apologetics haven't been able to make sense of THIS story. Oh, you Christians are certainly good at convincing each other. But for someone with no prior belief who has carefully read what Bible really says - that person you'll never convince.
"This is documented in the Gospels"
DeleteThe "Gospels" are not history, they are faith propaganda literature,
Two of them heavily dependent on the first,
and the last one inspired by smoking dried banana peel.
No sensible "god" would lay claim to such a load of bunkum.
DeleteBe it according to your fat.
ReplyDeleteI mean faith.
Unknown:
ReplyDelete"Christ did not have to die for sins to be forgiven. He forgave sins before his death"
I'm learning stuff all the time, shocked to learn the extent Christians are divided on this topic: that large segments of orthodox Christianity reject outright direct sacrificial-substitution/propitiation as being too embarrassingly pagan, can't blame them, but always thought all accepted this - not so! What a mess.
Jesus' sacrifice was not dying on a cross. His sacrifice was his life, that is to say, he gave up living his own life for a life dedicated to obedience to "God" until his death - even though it was a horrible death. His followers are instructed to do the same thing, to be obedient until the end and to present their own bodies as a living sacrifice etc. Yeah, it's all there boys and girls, Christians should learn to read their own book.
ReplyDelete