Baby Jesus in religious pictures

Something I noticed when viewing paintings (let's say up to XIXth century) showing baby Jesus naked (Madonna with child etc.): Jesus is always shown with a foreskin narrowing at the tip, that is, as almost all Christian boys would appear.

Yet Jesus was Jewish, was circumcised, and his circumcision is even depicted in other paintings (one just sees some old Jewish priest bending over him holding some instruments).

My hypothesis is that Christian painters, although they may have heard “theoretically” about Jesus' circumcision, simply did not connect and painted what they knew about and considered normal in a baby boy.

(An interesting comparison to what many American parents consider “normal”, which is to be circumcised at birth.)

Medieval artists probably didn't so much wonder about depicting reality as it is around us, but as it was supposed to ideally, doctrinally and morally be, especially when it came to depictions of religious subjects.

I am certain that many would have been aware of the disconnect between what was depicted and how someone from then and there was supposed to actually be. Classical Greeks also had a tendency to distort reality on their statues (and vases) in depicting the ideal man to have a small-seized penis. They knew better but did it so anyway.

For instance there were several relics of the Holy Foreskin on display in various churches. Even in my own city His foreskin was on display as a relic in the city cathedral. There is still a medieval mural and chapel showing the scene. The relic itself however disappeared in 1576 during the Spanish sack of the city. Who knows where it ended up. Chances are drunken plundering soldiers ended up destroying it. Or else it sits somewhere in a wooden chest in a dusty attic in an old house somewhere on the plains of Castile and Leon.

For instance there were several relics of the Holy Foreskin on display in various churches. Even in my own city His foreskin was on display as a relic in the city cathedral. There is still a medieval mural showing the scene. The relic itself however disappeared in 1576 during the Spanish sack of the city.

The mere fact that he is depicted as a Caucasian male, typically with sandy-brown hair, is all the proof you need of the disconnect between European artists and a realistic depiction of Jesus.

And don't get me started on "holy relics." Why on earth would have anyone have thought to save baby Jesus' foreskin? Did some rabbi whose name is lost to history save it because he knew Jesus was the son of God? 🙄 Of course not. I'm sure it was tossed out with the other dozen or so foreskin from rabbi's duties that morning.

Same for these stories about a nail or piece of wood from his crucifixion. Crucifixions were a dime a dozen back then. And Jesus was no one special, just another rabble rouser, a political prisoner if you will. No one would have thought to save a bloody nail from his grizzly fate, lest he be associated with Jesus and run the risk of being executed as one of his followers.

Holy foreskins and random splinters of wood on display in a church are just a testament to man's gullibility and their desire to believe that something just has to be waiting for them when they pass from this planet.

Right. In those paintings buildings supposedly in the Holy Land centuries ago were often depicted as medieval or Renaissance buildings, soldiers were depicted as contemporary soldiers, and Jews wore costumes like medieval Muslims.

But here the presence of the foreskin contradicts explicitly what is described otherwise in the Bible, right?

IMHO - Isn’t it all just BS anyway?

@Rigel We're talking culture 😃.

@Pecan_nutjob So was I.😄

Right. In those paintings buildings supposedly in the Holy Land centuries ago were often depicted as medieval or Renaissance buildings, soldiers were depicted as contemporary soldiers, and Jews wore costumes like medieval Muslims.

That is because Medieval/Renaissance artists did not have any visual documentation of foreign lands, different eras in the past or of different fashions.

So how would they have known what clothes looked like from a millennium ago or from cultures several thousand kms away? Or what kind of armor was worn or which weapons used? All they could do is depict their contemporary visual culture and project it onto the past or foreign parts. Which gives present day scholars some very interesting insights into the culture of the artists themselves.

I live in a city where everything is as flat as a proverbial billiard table for hundreds of kms around. And yet Renaissance artists regularly added craggy mountains in depictions of the city. And even the mountains weren't realistic either. Even artists not that long ago depicted Greek and Roman cities and statues inaccurately, with everything in gleaming white marble, while Romans and Greeks painted everything in really quite garish colors, much like Andy Warhol might have done had he lived in Antiquity … 😃

Well. I recall seeing images of Noah's ark from children's bibles where both lions had manes…

Remember that Jewish boys are not circumcised (the Bris ceremony) until 8 days after birth. So, if it is a depiction of Jesus in the first few days of life, he would not have been circumcised yet, anyway.

Plus, ya know, art. Not historically accurate photos, lol

@Harris The baby or infant is usually depicted more than 8 days old. 😉

Well. I recall seeing images of Noah's ark from children's bibles where both lions had manes…

Don't expect artists to put Herculean efforts into creating their imagery. Most do it to make a living and probably want to get commissions like these over as quickly as possible. Or maybe this is their way of having some fun.

@Harris The baby or infant is usually depicted more than 8 days old. 😉

If it’s a depiction of the nativity scene- it’s within 8 days of birth. Aside, again, from, you know, art… not history.

@Harris No, not nativity. Nativity is usually not a “close up” view. More like “Madonna with infant Jesus”. A very common theme in Catholic art.

Apparently circumcision looked different back then, and they removed a lot less. I think your hypothesis might be more correct though.

The images had an educational function for people who did not have access to the Bible. Representing the Christ circumcised would have been a bad sign to give, circumcision being no longer recommended to Christians. They had to distinguish themselves from the Jews.

There are certainly many more representations of Jesus as a baby than paintings with his circumcision, a rather "anecdotal" event compared to his birth and which is no longer celebrated today.

Generally speaking, circumcised penises are very rare in the visual arts.

Biblical circumcision, what's commonly called milah. was a simple technique to gently pull the prepuce and trim it in front of the glans. This particular procedure did not intend to expose the glans but to remove a rather insignificant amount of prepuce that extended beyond the tip of the penis. In fact, it was difficult to tell if a male was circumcised after the procedure was performed. That's why you generally would see an ancient drawing of baby Jesus where his penis looks as if it is intact.

The somewhat primitive pull-and-cut technique was later modified to include an additional step, periah. After, the excess prepuce was removed in the first step, the remaining prepuce was drawn back to reveal the glans until the coronal sulcus became visible. Most of the inner lining was then removed along with the frenulum, which resulted in a permanent externalization of the entire penile head. This two-step technique is the preferred method of circumcising males today.

Modern circumcision is very effective for both hygiene and prophylaxis; it is a rather strong social norm. But it differs significantly from the Biblical circumcision of Jesus.

@madebare Interesting. Do you know when periah was introduced? Did it completely bare the glans? How does it differ from modern circumcision?

Are there Jewish communities still using these older forms?

@madebare Interesting. Do you know when periah was introduced? Did it completely bare the glans?

My understanding is that periah was introduced sometime after the time of Christ, although I am not sure.

As far as the procedure goes, yes, it was introduced to ensure full exposure of the glans (as we observe in circumcised males today).

The mere fact that he is depicted as a Caucasian male, typically with sandy-brown hair, is all the proof you need of the disconnect between European artists and a realistic depiction of Jesus.

Like drawings of Adam & Eve, showing them with belly buttons…

It's got nothing to do with circumcision (my apologies), but it does have to do with baby Jesus in religious pictures. And I almost died laughing looking at it:

https://i0.wp.com/www.happyhealthyandprosperous.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Baby-Jesus-Wicked-Abs.jpg?w=540&ssl=1

@bbw4doc You made my day!

Luke 2.21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

On a related note: on the French-speaking Zity, somebody points to me that Boy with a frog contemporary sculpture from Charles Ray features a circumcised boy.

https://c8.alamy.com/compfr/bdxw9f/boy-with-frog-sculpture-de-charles-ray-punta-della-dogana-venise-italie-europe-bdxw9f.jpg

Since Charles Ray was born in the US in 1953, he is most likely himself circumcised and likely all his relatives as well.

Possibly more an example of cognitive dissonance. The early Church considered the Jews to be evil Christ deniers so why would they make Baby Jesus look like one (even though he was one). Good Christians didn't get their pencils trimmed, that was only for Jews and Muslims.

@Nurse_Phillips On a related note, something I noted in my family, and the same was reported by other French male Zity users: parents describing circumcision for phimosis as “phimosis surgery”, as though completely different from religious-motivated circumcision, as though making it clear we are good Christians and not Jews (or, God forbid, Muslims). I even heard about some father who did not want his son circumcised despite repeat UTIs because it would make him look like a Jew.

My hypothesis is that Christian painters, although they may have heard “theoretically” about Jesus' circumcision, simply did not connect and painted what they knew about and considered normal in a baby boy.

That's most certainly one aspect of it. Jesus wasn't of the white European phenotype either to begin with.

But as a jew, he definitely had a circumcision. Based on the amount of “holy prepuces” the catholic church suppsedly has, he must have had like 10 or so, lol.

Add to it that painters of that period often just used the religious theme as an excuse to paint. Up until the modern era The Church frowned on anything without a religious theme. During the renaissance they loosened up to allow for classical themes as well but you were safer keeping it to religion. It wasn’t just the baby Jesus that got that treatment either. Dunno who modeled for The David but he sure as heck wasn’t Jewish.

@Harris The baby or infant is usually depicted more than 8 days old. 😉

This is in contrast to Peas Porridge, which was typically depicted in the pot 9 days old.

Add to it that painters of that period often just used the religious theme as an excuse to paint. Up until the modern era The Church frowned on anything without a religious theme. During the renaissance they loosened up to allow for classical themes as well but you were safer keeping it to religion.

I would say prior to the Renaissance the church was the institution with the financial means to commission and pay for art for art's sake. And that therefore they (generally) controlled the subject matter being produced. They were also best placed to safeguard art throughout the centuries, prevent it from being inherited by the disinterested to afterwards be discarded, neglected and deteriorate.

By the Renaissance though, individuals (traders, bankers) were becoming so rich and affluent that they themselves could start commissioning art suited to their own personal tastes. This often took the form of portraits but then spilled over into other subject matter, like a still life, special occasions from everyday life (think of a Breughel village/marriage feast), perhaps something mythological that allowed the artist to show a serious amount of naked flesh or a plethora of nude nymphs or goddesses from Antiquity. Think of the last as antique soft porn … ha ha.

But in any case, those secular groups becoming wealthier were then able to call the artistic shots more and more, because they controlled wealth.

And one of my personal notions is that so so much has gone lost over the centuries, especially art in what might be called the lower end of the price range.

We also have to take into account what pieces that museum curators and directors allow us to see in exhibitions or in published art books. They go for the big attractions and money-makers so it always tends to be the same-old, same-old throughout the decades/centuries. Every now and then a book on art will be published containing rarely seen pieces, but that doesn't happen enough. So our notions of what art was in centuries past is based on the images we see again and again. Perhaps a bit outside of the time frame but on Pharaohonic art, we seldom see anything that is not monumental or impressive. But there are things like dawdles or sketches made of irreverent subjects that have been found, like copulating couples, a sex party etc. These are often thought inappropriate for mass consumption.