It's encyclopedic in view of the historical context on how people from
the past perceived Jesus. Who knows what Jesus actually looked like?
However given the subject's significance in art, particularly
Renaissance Art, I see no valid reason to preclude such images.
On 05/02/2008, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
All question of censorship aside, does it really make
sense to have any
image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of that
person on any page except [[depictions of...]] pages?
Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has become
universally identified with the subject. But that's not the case with most
historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to be
encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend lately to have other depictions
of Jesus that are targeted to a particular audience, without any concern for
historical accuracy. This may be fine in liturgical settings, but not in an
encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously wrong than a more
"historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.