Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Is that the one that argued that JC had an erection under his loincloth?
I don't recall the title, but there was a longish essay on this topic in Critical Inquiry. I didn't know (and don't know) that it particularly caused an uproar: it certainly shouldn't have because its thesis in fact was run-of-the-mill: it usefully underlined the knowledge that in the middle ages and renaissance the incarnation of christ was emphasized more than it has been since. The reason (the author argued) for showing jc with an erection (and not just under the loincloth but quite visible) was precisely to emphasize that he was god *incarnate*. The illustration I remember is a mother-and-child painting, in which the infant has a quite noticeable erection even in a black and white illustration printed in the pages of CI.
Carrol