The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionThe chubby Lord
by Joshua J. McElwee on Feb. 01, 2010
Something struck me yesterday as I was studying the emaciated figure of Christ on the crucifix behind the altar at my parish: Had the story of the incarnation taken place 2,000 years later, in our own time, that figure of Jesus would almost undoubtably be overweight.
Think about it. From the Gospel we know that Christ was an outcast who was economically impoverished. That means he probably ate only two types of food: cheap stuff and what was offered to him by the people he encountered on his journeys.
In his era the cheap stuff probably included lentils, beans and vegetables at market. In our era it mostly includes canned goods overpumped with sodium, juices which are mostly high fructose corn syrup and fast food sandwiches or hamburgers.
Even with all the exercise he did getting from place to place, I think it’s fair to say the difference in diet may have had the Lord looking a little more filled in.
Perhaps that’s just another sign of his solidarity with the trials of those who are forgotten by society.
Jesus was a carpenter, which
Jesus was a carpenter, which meant he was accomplished at all the building trades of the day, including setting tile. He was strong and fit, not "emaciated".
He ate and winebibbed with his brothers and sisters, his friends, his disciples, his apostles (fishermen). He had eaten a multi-course seder (matzoh ball soup, lamb, etc.) the night before he was crucified.
He looked something like this: http://www.bridgebuilding.com/narr/mi600.html
Very, err, that image is
Very, err, that image is based upon the Shroud of Turin?
err, dude, hate to tell you this, but, well have you heard of the 1988 carbon dating which places it between 1260 and 1390? How about this early Catholic Dictionary item:
"According to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia
Owing mainly to the researches of Canon Ulysse Chevalier a series of documents was discovered which clearly proved that in 1389 the Bishop of Troyes appealed to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope then recognized in France, to put a stop to the scandals connected to the Shroud preserved at Lirey. It was, the Bishop declared, the work of an artist who some years before had confessed to having painted it but it was then being exhibited by the Canons of Lirey in such a way that the populace believed that it was the authentic shroud of Jesus Christ. The pope, without absolutely prohibiting the exhibition of the Shroud, decided after full examination that in the future when it was shown to the people, the priest should declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ, but only a picture made to represent it. The authenticity of the documents connected with this appeal is not disputed."
Of course back then popes had not yet been declared infallible, even when speaking ex cathedra . . .
Kindly provide the Gospel chapter and versicle which shows Jesus slinging a hammer, or any other of "all the building trades of the day, including setting tile." Setting tile? How this degree of specificity? What about the grouting of the tile? Any miracles when by accident too much water was added?
Where have you seen this remarkable relic, the wine list and menu from the Last Supper? Matzoh ball soup? Your specificity again is most remarkable but might require some reference to reliable sources in order that the cynic not take you in jest. Who boiled the broth?
Jesus looks like the loving compassionate service you provide the person next to you and far away.
1) The fact that the seller
1) The fact that the seller of the picture claims the artist based it in part on various saints' visions and a bogus winding sheet means nothing. (What did the artist who produced the "emaciated" corpus on Joshua's crucifix use for inspiration?)
2) You're quoting the Cath. Encyc. now? I thought you said you had never heard of it, that you only use McBrien's encyc.
3) Jesus and his father Joseph and his brothers surely worked at booming Zippori (Sepphoris), Mary's home town, a few short miles from Nazareth. Their cousins probably supplied them with hearty lunches every day while they rested from their hard work with stone and tile (and the little wood available in the region).
Links to get you started on a well-known topic that has been extensively covered in biblical archaeology journals and even on t.v.:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS257&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=j...
http://www.emethatorah.com/node/89
"The fact that Yeshua’s legal father, Joseph, was identified by the Greek word tekton, "builder" (inaccurately translated "carpenter" (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) is also important. This would mean that they were construction craftsmen, skilled in wood and stone work. Since it was the practice of a father to teach his son his trade or skill, we can assume that Joseph trained Yeshua for this vocation. It is postulated that they would have traveled daily to Zippori to work in the building of the city. As one who has worked in the construction industry I know that you go where work is and in the case of Yosef and Yeshua this work would have presented itself.Nazareth was a small village, presumably lacking in the kind of construction projects that would provide sufficient work for skilled builders. With extensive building in progress an hour’s walk away, it is likely that on some occasions, Yosef and Yeshua would have been employed in Sepphoris."
4) http://www.pbase.com/kitkool/zippori The mosaic portrait of the "Mona Lisa of the Galilee" could be a picture of Jesus' wife, or the wife of one of his brothers, or of one of their sisters, or of Mary.
1.) Joshua's? In any case the
1.) Joshua's? In any case the crucifix is a sacramental of prayer and meditation, an edifying and concrete representation of spiritual realities, not a photographic or Norman Rockwell style representation, but that is a problem you cafeteria literalists seem to have, at your conveneince, as seen in your point three.
Please see the cover of the venerable Thomas Merton's New Dimensions treatise Bread in the Wilderness for one of the most instructive corpus I have witnessed, and ancient one from France. See also the cover of Father Gustavo Gutierrez's A Theology of Liberation for another, a wooden copy of which informs our humble hermitage chapel.
2.) Was the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien writing in 1917? I chose that one as possibly overcoming your skepticism, but certainly and happily refer you to the item in the excellent HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism as well!
got to go or would address the rest of your writing, which is PURE SPECULATION!
Jesus was the One who built
Jesus was the One who built the Church upon this Rock with the words Love thy enemy.
This is far more important than any speculation about body type and stud muffin six packs.
It is far more important to fulfill Matt. 25 and the Sermon on the mount, and on the Plain, than speculations about was he buff.
Maybe he would drink
Maybe he would drink Maneschewitz, live in Forest Hills, and have a house account at 'Ben's Best' on Queens Boulevard. How about a serious Christology here?
Agree that serious
Agree that serious Christology would be useful here.
From Who is Jesus, by Thomas P. Raush, S.J., search term, "meals":
"Meals played a very important role in the ministry of Jesus; it is interesting how often they are mentioned in stories about Jesus and appear in his parables. According to Luke, much of Jesus' teaching takes place at meals."
"Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." Matt 11:19
"His table fellowship had implications for sinners. Meals with Jesus were joyous occasions; Schillebeeckx says that it was impossible for his disciples to be sad in his presence; they did not fast, even though the Pharisees criticized them for this." Mark 2:18-22
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Jesus-Introduction-Christology-Michael/dp/0814...
Agreed w/ the above posters
Agreed w/ the above posters on the poor understanding of Christ's appearance and diet here, but as for the modern diet of the poor, there is nothing forcing anyone poor (even/especially those receiving government food assistance) to live off of fast-food garbage.
How easy it is to forget that we are all fallen and sinful creatures who make our own choices out of free will! Fresh vegetables and fruits in season, brown rice, whole-grain pastas and breads, and a wide variety of beans and legumes are all cheaper to purchase and cook than most fast food meals cost to buy. If we want to improve education on healthy eating and cooking, especially for the lower SES groups, then that is something I think we can all support as a very worthy endeavor. Not only will the poor save money by eating more healthily, but they will also be able to avoid most of the common and entirely preventable long-term health conditions that are a result of long-term poor diets like too much fast food. That saves society and the health care system as a whole a lot of expenditures and difficult "cures" instead of easier steps to prevention.
Post new comment