[quote=“Cruciferi, post:23, topic:458942, full:true”] I don’t find the BBC’s version realistic. To me, that picture resembles Peter.
I have no idea why, but this was the first thing I thought when I looked at that picture, “That looks like Peter!”
I don’t claim to have knowledge of that. Maybe somewhere in my past—in a picture Bible, or a kid’s story book, or some play, or a movie, or something—that might have been how Peter was depicted and so it formed my subconscious expectation of what Peter looked like.
That is why I love the OP’s question. Everyone, Christian or no, has an idea in their heads of what he must have looked like, shaped in the same way as my expectation of St. Peter’s appearance. Not necessarily based on the historical fact or reality, but looming large in the subconscious mind!
Therefor it is an important question to ask and to contemplate.
I also like what was said above. Artistic representations, cultural expressions, etc-those are important! But we risk losing the real fact of the Incarnation: God Himself entered time and space and took on flesh and dwelt among us! The details of that life, from appearance to every word spoken, are intensely important.
We lose so much when we forget that Jesus was a first century Jew! There are so very many details and major references that no first century Jew would have missed about what our Lord said and did. 2000 years later, separated by cultural context and language barriers, we risk losing the entire point of many of his discourses.
I love science—double major in Biology and Theology at a Catholic university. Science tells us that there is a God and what he is, Theology tells us who he is. I intensely studied all of the Shroud of Turin debates at one time. I find the Shroud to be convincingly and scientifically valid. I like the following summation on the science around the Shroud: