7th Century crucifixion iconography - Why so late?

[joedad]

Fom a standpoint of iconography, there is no Christian depiction of a crucified human christ/Jesus until the 7th century. Bede ventured the explanation that this is simply iconoclasm. Is there evidence supporting this position?

I'm also aware that the V/VI Councils held in Constantinople in 692 decreed that John the Baptist is no longer to be depicted pointing to a lamb, but instead to a figure of a human christ.

The earliest Christians depicted their christ as a lamb, a good shepherd and a young teacher, but never as a human crucified. After Constantine this christ began to be depicted as an adult, assuming imperial attributes and a halo of divinity. Constantine was still, however, an early 4th century event.

It took two/three more centuries for Christianity to officially and fully and supplant Paganism, after which time a crucified human christ/Jesus appears in the religious record.

I'm wondering if this late appearance has more to do with the disappearance of classical Paganism than the historicity of the crucifixion. The cross was certainly not an explicitly Christian symbol, but could only become a wholly Christian symbol if there were no more Pagans to contest it.

Does this very late depiction of a crucified christ/Jesus at all weaken the historical claims to crucifixion, especially in light of the fact that Christian imagery flourished for centuries without such a depiction?

joe

[Peter Kirby]

The first depiction of Christ on a cross may date a little earlier than the 7th century.

In the Rabbula Gospels, dated to 586, "The Crucifixion and Resurrection scenes are arranged in two registers, as if the second artist, whose work it is, was copying from an illustrated rotulus. ... the two crucified thieves are of the same proportions as Christ Himself." (The Origins of Christian Art, p. 130) A quick look at the illustration in the Rabbula Gospel will show that it is indeed a depiction of the crucifixion in the sixth century.

C. R. Morey writes: "Here [northern Italy and southern Gaul] one finds, for example, our earliest existing representations of the Crucifixion (fifth century), depicting the Saviour nude save for the loincloth and differing widely from the extant Asiatic renderings, which come about a century later, wherein Christ is clothed in a long tunic." (Christian Art, p. 11)

Michael Gough writes of this item: "A lack of refinement and a stubborn insistence on Scriptural authority mark the square ivory box in the British Museum. For once, too, the Passion forms the sole theme to be treated, from Christ's confrontation with Pilate, through the Way of the Cross to the Crucifixion itself, to the Holy Women at the Empty Tomb and the Reappearance of Christ among the Apostles. This Crucifixion, rather more terrible than the Santa Sabina panel, may even be fractionally ealier, and dated about 400 with a possible provenance in Southern Gaul." (The Origins of Christian Art, p. 130)

Instead of a crucifix, a cross seems to be the preferred iconography in the earlier centuries of Christianity. Andre Grabar writes of a fourth century sarcophagus in which the passion and related Gospel imagery is used with a cross instead of a crucifix: "The Christian formula replaces the [Roman] trophy by the Cross, on which is suspended a triumphal crown, and substitutes for the captured barbarians two armed but sleeping soldiers—in an allusion to the guardians of the tomb of Christ." (Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins, p. 125)

F. van der Meer comments on the same item: "These ancient artists do not know how to cope with the Passion. What they show, on a sarcophagus at about 350 in Rome, is the 'Victory over Death'." (Early Christian Art, p. 120)

Walter Lowrie writes: "It seems strange therefore that in the earliest Christian art the cross was not depicted realistically. But we can understand that Christians were loath to depict the common patibulum or gallows upon which the worst criminals suffered. This would subject them to teh cruellest misunderstanding. A graffito scratched upon the wall of the pages' room on the Palatine shows a figure with the head of an ass attached to a cross, and the inscription under it reads, 'Alexaminos adores his god.' This was a young Christian derided by his companions. The picture belongs to the end of the second century, and it is the earliest representation of the Crucifixion we know of. The cross which first appeared upon the monuments was the triumphal cross of Constantine, often in the form of a monogram he beheld in his vision." (Art in the Early Church, p. 110)

Referring to Palestinian ampullae that are part of the Treasure of the Collegiale, Monza, Andre Graber writes: "The images of the Incarnation which we have considered so far represent this dogma by means of hitsorical scenes evoking—or at least making allusion to—the beginnings of Christ's earthly life, either through the conception or through the birth of God made man. It goes without saying that, indirectly, any scene that shows Christ in the course of his earthly career is a reference to the Incarnation. This is especially true of images of his death on the Cross, since this death always figured among the major proofs of a complete incarnation. It was not in late antiquity, however, but only at the beginning of the Middle Ages that the image-makers began to use the subject of the Crucifixion as a representation of the death of Jesus. In late antiquity, the scene of Golgotha, sometimes realistic in detail, did not extend its realism to the figure of the Crucified, and especially not in order to represent him after his death; for here, as elsewhere, the evangelical scene serves to proclaim a truth. It is often said that the image-makers did not dare to approach the subject of the Crucifixion, but this is a gratuitous affirmation, particularly in view of the fact that the theologians of the same peroid treated it constantly. It would be more judicious to maintain here our usual point of view and to state that during this period images of the Crucifixion were used not to designate the reality of Jesus' death but to demonstrate the glory of Christ, his victory over death (that is, as a symbol of the Resurrection), the universality of salvation through the Cross, and so on." (Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins, p. 132)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby

Walter Lowrie writes: "It seems strange therefore that in the earliest Christian art the cross was not depicted realistically. But we can understand that Christians were loath to depict the common patibulum or gallows upon which the worst criminals suffered. This would subject them to teh cruellest misunderstanding. A graffito scratched upon the wall of the pages' room on the Palatine shows a figure with the head of an ass attached to a cross, and the inscription under it reads, 'Alexaminos adores his god.' This was a young Christian derided by his companions. The picture belongs to the end of the second century, and it is the earliest representation of the Crucifixion we know of. (Art in the Early Church, p. 110)



That particular carving on a pillar in Rome (193-235 CE) is shown in the photo section of The Jesus Mysteries. The caption reads: "A Pagan initiate of the Mysteries looks on at the crucifixion of a donkey-headed man. This represents his lower "animal" nature,which he has put to death in the process of initiation so that he may be spiritually resurected."

Somebody here is wrong about this carving. My finger is already pointing at Lowrie since theres nothing there to suggest the ass-headed man is Jesus or that man beside it is a Christian.

[Bede]

Fenton,

Given the amount Freke and Gandy get wrong, it would be gullibility of the highest order to give them the benefit of the doubt over an esteemed scholar.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Bede
Fenton,

Given the amount Freke and Gandy get wrong, it would be gullibility of the highest order to give them the benefit of the doubt over an esteemed scholar.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Just as it would be"gullibility of the highest order" to not take your reply with a huge grain of salt.:D

You could at least make an attempt to prove Freke/Gandy are wrong and your "esteemed scholar" correct about this carving.


Thanks,
Fenton

[Bede]

Fenton, the carving is crude graffiti found with lots more crude graffiti of various kinds and and the inscription is clearly an insult. People don't put their religious icons, crudely scratched, on to graffiti covered walls. Also we have no record at all of anyone worshipping an ass headed crucified man while we have lots of evidence for Christianity.

B

[Fenton Mulley]

Originally posted by Bede
Fenton, the carving is crude graffiti found with lots more crude graffiti of various kinds and and the inscription is clearly an insult. People don't put their religious icons, crudely scratched, on to graffiti covered walls. Also we have no record at all of anyone worshipping an ass headed crucified man while we have lots of evidence for Christianity.

B

That inscription is among many other markings and there is no possible way to know that it was carved on there when the image of the ass-headed man was.

Theres also no way to say that people don't scratch religious icons on walls. And theres no way to say that it was scratched on top of other graffiti. I'm looking at that picture and it's impossible to tell what was scratched first.
And who's to say that inscription wasn't carved later by Christians to make fun of the existing Pagan image?
It's not as if we don't have plenty of examples of Christians slamming Pagans. Even the word "Pagan" itself was created for the sole pupose of making fun of lesser "hick" religions.

According to Freke/Gandy the crucified ass-headed man is purely symbolic. Why should there be a record of people worshipping a symbolic crucified ass-headed man? It's not as if it the symbolism was mistaken for a real event like some other religious symbols were.;)

I was hoping you'd have a better explanation than that,but the most informative part of your post was how quickly your friendly signature changed to just a lone "B".

Fenton

[Peter Kirby]

Bede and Fenton,

Instead of assuming one authority must be wrong and another right, it would be reasonable to attempt to understand the graffito on its own terms, and not to make claims that go beyond the evidence.

It is not difficult to understand why many have supposed that the graffito was mocking xianity, when we know this fact: xians were accused, along with Jews, of worshipping an ass. Tertullian writes (Defense of the Christians Against the Heathen, chapter 16): "For you, too, like some others, have dreamed that an ass's head is the object of our worship. The fancy of such a deity was put into their minds by Cornelius Tacitus, who in the fifth of his Histories, having begun his account of the Jewish War with an account of the origin of the race, and having also discussed at his pleasure alike the origin itself and the name and religion of the race, records that the Jews, having been freed or, as he thought, exiled from Egypt, when they were weakened through thirst in the deserts of Arabia, where water was very scarce, employed some wild asses to guide them to a spring, thinking that they would probably be seeking water after food, and on that account consecrated the form of a similar animal. And hence I think it was presumed that we, too, being thus allied to the Jewish religion were taught to do reverence to the same image. But indeed it is the same Cornelius Tacitus, truly the most inventive of romancers, who in the same history records that Gnaeus Pompeius, after capturing Jerusalem and thus going to the temple to investigate the secrets of the Jewish religion, found no image therein. And to be sure, if the object of worship was represented by some figure, this would have been most appropriately shown in its own shrine, the rather that the worship, however vain, had no fear of strangers to witness it; only the priests were allowed to approach, while the gaze of the rest was forbidden by a curtain spread out over it. And yet you will not deny that you pay divine honours to all beasts of burden, as well as to asses, heads and bodies both, along with their own goddess Epona. Perhaps our fault consists in the fact that amongst the worshippers of cattle and beasts of all kinds we worship the ass alone."

Further evidence for this interpretation might be found with an inscription that says "Alexmenos worships his god" (Freke & Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries, p. 52). This would seem to go against the idea that the figure on the cross is the lower animal self, not a god, which I suppose is why it is now being said that the inscription is (maybe) by another hand.

I assume that F&G wrote "Alexmenos" as a typo for "Alexamenos." Here would have been an opportunity for F&G to use a knowledge of Greek in their discussion. The word SEBETE is indeed derived from SEBW and means to revere. In this conjugation, however, it is either 2nd person plural of the Present Active Imperative (for all of you: "worship!") or the 2nd person plural of the Present Active Indicative ("you [pl.] worship"). Thus it does not appear to be a dig against Alexamenos individually in the form of "Alexamenos worships his god," unless the reconstruction of the inscription is wrong or the person who made the inscription didn't know Greek well. One could instead read the inscription as if the person who made the graffito is Alexamenos and he is saying, "worship God!" Or one could still read it as indicative and saying to Alexamenos that he is among the "you" that worship god in this way.

There is another inscription that might suggest that this is a pagan graffito of a pagan subject. F&G write: "In addition the graffito depicts another well known Pythagorean symbol, the letter 'Y.' Cumont records numerous grave inscriptions with this symbol (see Cumont [1922], 26-7, 76, 148, 150). To the Pythagoreans it was a symbol of the two paths open to man in life and in death. In life the left-hand path leads to dissolution and the right to virtue, likewise after death the left-hand path led to Tartarus, the Greek purgatory, follwed by subsequent reincarnation, while the right-hand path led to the Elysian fields." (p. 269) I am not aware of any other writers who take the "Y" into account when evaluating the image.

Because the evidence is meager and various, I won't be pointing fingers at this time.

best,
Peter Kirby

[joedad]

Peter Kirby:
The first depiction of Christ on a cross may date a little earlier than the 7th century.
...
A quick look at the illustration in the Rabbula Gospel will show that it is indeed a depiction of the crucifixion in the sixth century.Right you are, Peter. I got my centuries wrong. C. R. Morey writes: "Here [northern Italy and southern Gaul] one finds, for example, our earliest existing representations of the Crucifixion (fifth century), depicting the Saviour nude save for the loincloth and differing widely from the extant Asiatic renderings, which come about a century later, wherein Christ is clothed in a long tunic." (Christian Art, p. 11)Are we talking about this:
http://vandyck.anu.edu.au/introduction/add/Christ.iconog/jpgs/Ah441-097.jpg
the Door of Santa Sabina, circa 432? This is obviously some type of crucifixion, but no cross, at least not one that I can see. It is interesting.

Peter Kirby[concerning crucified ass-headed men]
There is another inscription that might suggest that this is a pagan graffito of a pagan subject. F&G write: "In addition the graffito depicts another well known Pythagorean symbol, the letter 'Y.' Cumont records numerous grave inscriptions with this symbol (see Cumont [1922], 26-7, 76, 148, 150). To the Pythagoreans it was a symbol of the two paths open to man in life and in death. In life the left-hand path leads to dissolution and the right to virtue, likewise after death the left-hand path led to Tartarus, the Greek purgatory, follwed by subsequent reincarnation, while the right-hand path led to the Elysian fields." (p. 269) I am not aware of any other writers who take the "Y" into account when evaluating the image.

Because the evidence is meager and various, I won't be pointing fingers at this time.Christian iconography has many such images. Even the Good Shepherd imagery is known not to be Christian.

On this subject, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity p. 88, is an illustration "Christ as the Divinity of a Germanic Warrior Aristocracy." It is described:In this funerary plaque...he is shown armed as a soldier, scaramax [Frankish battle-axe] in hand, with other accoutrements. He has a long phallus, there are beasts round him and a snake under his feet; and he wears a headdress not unworthy of a pagan god. It has points of resemblance to the figure of a brooch from Finglesham in Kent, which is now thought to be Woden...How and why is such an artifact even thought to be of "Christ" and therefore "Christian" in the first place?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Bede
...
the carving is crude graffiti found with lots more crude graffiti of various kinds and and the inscription is clearly an insult. People don't put their religious icons, crudely scratched, on to graffiti covered walls. Also we have no record at all of anyone worshipping an ass headed crucified man while we have lots of evidence for Christianity.
Bede, I actually agree with you here, but with one correction:

Both Venus-cults and Priapus-cults were very often commerated in graffiti, and not as marks of dishonour either.
That being said, I think your main argument is correct.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by joedad
Are we talking about this:
http://vandyck.anu.edu.au/introduction/add/Christ.iconog/jpgs/Ah441-097.jpg
the Door of Santa Sabina, circa 432? This is obviously some type of crucifixion, but no cross, at least not one that I can see. It is interesting. Since C. R. Morey refers to multiple representations, I think that he is talking abou the Door of Santa Sabina and the ivory box held in the British Museum, on which Michael Gough writes: "A lack of refinement and a stubborn insistence on Scriptural authority mark the square ivory box in the British Museum. For once, too, the Passion forms the sole theme to be treated, from Christ's confrontation with Pilate, through the Way of the Cross to the Crucifixion itself, to the Holy Women at the Empty Tomb and the Reappearance of Christ among the Apostles. This Crucifixion, rather more terrible than the Santa Sabina panel, may even be fractionally ealier, and dated about 400 with a possible provenance in Southern Gaul." (The Origins of Christian Art, p. 130)

Here are a couple pictures of that ivory box.

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/05/05/csmimg/p18s1g1.jpg

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/05/05/csmimg/p18s1g2.jpg

Originally posted by joedad
How and why is such an artifact even thought to be of "Christ" and therefore "Christian" in the first place? I don't know anything about the item you mention. I would suggest that Western historians are a little overzealous to find allusions to Christianity, such as with the cruciform shape in Herculaneum and the Chrestus reference in Suetonius.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Evangelion]

There is a very simple explanation for the paucity of Christian iconography in the early years of the church.

Gabrielli Finaldi (a curator at London's National Gallery) explains:

First of all of course, Christ was a Jew and the Jewish tradition was an an-iconic tradition, it was a non-representational tradition. There were no portraits made of Christ, and very interestingly, in the gospels, there's no description of what Christ actually looked like.

And in fact there is no Christian art really, until about the 3rd century, and then again, not in Israel, not in Palestine, but in the Pagan west, in Rome. And very interestingly there you don't have representations of Christ's person at all.

To begin with, you have these symbolic images, these signs that stand for Christ. They are the fish, for example, the fish, which is essentially an acronym based on a statement which declares that Jesus is the son of God, the saviour, and the letters of that phrase, the initial letters, make up the letters which form the word 'fish'. And then of course the Good Shepherd, that's really the main image that you have of Christ.

But the important thing to realise is that the Good Shepherd image is not actually a representation of the person of Christ, it is actually a visual rendition of the metaphor that Christ uses of himself in the gospels: 'I am the good shepherd', and it says something about the nature of his mission of his activity, of his concern for the poor, the marginalised, the sinner and so on. The early church was not remotely interested in what Christ looks like, that's a later concern.

A similar point is made by ex-Jesuit Ian Guthridge in his Rise and Decline of the Christian Empire:

Gathering together the threads of our discussion so far, Johnson develops this point as follows:

'Christianity was changing... In the second century, the Church had acquired the elements of ecclesiastical organisation; in the third it created an intellectual and philosophical structure; and in the fourth, especially in the latter half of the century, it built up a dramatic and impressive public persona; it began to think and act like a state Church. This policy was shaped by the need to outface paganism - almost consciously so.'

The emergence of this new 'public persona' is clearly evident, not just in the early Christian basilicas, but in the changing image of Christ himself in early Christian art. In the earliest portrayals of Christ in the Roman Catholic Catacombs, for example, he appears as a young shepherd, dressed in a simple tunic, and often carrying a lamb or sheep (the 'lost sheep'?) affectionately around his shoulders. No imperial trappings; no suggestion of divinity; just the original Gospel image of the Good Shepherd.

From the mid 4th Century onwards, however, he looks quite different – like an Emperor; indeed, rather like one of the older Greek and Roman versions of Zeus (Jupiter), the father of the god. He has dark hair, a dark beard, and a commanding presence. He now wears a toga – a sign of senatorial rank. And over the toga, a cloak which is either fringed with purple or purple all over – and only an emperor wore purple.

Bottom line: the depiction of Christ by his followers was largely defined by the prevailing ethos of their respective eras.

The earliest Christians (still predominantly Jewish, of course) eschewed such images in favour of Christian symbols (such as the anchor and the fish); later Christians (emphasising the personal relationship between Christ and his followers) were bold enough to represent him as the Good Shepherd (but nothing more); Constantine himself preferred a simple cross (as previously noted by Mr Kirby), while 4th Century Christians celebrated the triumph of Christianity over paganism with a tribute to Christus Rex.

And finally, at long last, we have the crucified Christ.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

[Toto]

Originally posted by Evangelion
There is a very simple explanation for the paucity of Christian iconography in the early years of the church.

Gabrielli Finaldi (a curator at London's National Gallery) explains:

First of all of course, Christ was a Jew and the Jewish tradition was an an-iconic tradition, it was a non-representational tradition. There were no portraits made of Christ, and very interestingly, in the gospels, there's no description of what Christ actually looked like.


. . .

I am not an art expert, but I don't get this about the Jews being "an-iconic". They had no pictures of YHWH, but they did have art work depicting historical figures. Are you claiming that there were no pictures of Jesus because he was a god?

The Skirball museum in Los Angeles has a third century mural from a Hellenistic Jewish synagogue in Dura-Europa, Syria. It portrays the high priest Aaron (written ARWN in Greek characters, and other figures.

There is no good explanation as to why early Jewish-Christians did not make art work featuring a human Jesus, if they in fact thought of him as human.

[Evangelion]

I am not an art expert, but I don't get this about the Jews being "an-iconic".

You don't have to ben an art expert. It is a demonstrable, historical fact that the Jews did not have a practice of representing humans and animals in their artwork. Indeed, they were prohibited from doing so.

The roots of this prohibition are found in the Law of Moses, with which you are clearly unfamiliar:

Exodus 20:4.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

The commandment here was only intended to prohibit the manufacture of images, icons and pictorial representations for the purpose of worshipping them. But the rabbis of a later period extended the ban to any form of pictorial representation for any purpose. That is why Jewish culture simply does not have a consistent history of visual artistic expression.

In the words of the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

Religion as an Opponent of the Plastic Art.

It was the religion of the Jews that precluded the full development of the art of sculpture, and so confined it within the above-mentioned narrow limits. In the most ancient times, when images were not proscribed, the technical ability to make them artistically was lacking; and when in later periods this artistic skill might have been acquired from others, images were forbidden.

The persistent fight of the Prophets against images was waged with such success that in the end not only was any representation of the Deity forbidden, but even the portraiture of living beings in general, man or beast. Such a command as that of the Decalogue (Ex. xx. 4; Deut. v. 8) would have been impossible to a nation possessed of such artistic gifts as the Greeks, and was carried to its ultimate consequences—as to-day in Islam—only because the people lacked artistic inclination, with its creative power and formative imagination.


Painting.

The same reason, to which is to be added a defective sense of color (see Delitzsch, "Iris, Farbenstudien und Blumenstücke," pp. 43 et seq.; Benzinger, "Hebr. Archäologie," pp. 268 et seq.), prevented any development of painting. Attempts in this direction are found in the earliest times in the custom of decorating with colors jars, vases, and articles of similar character.

Objects found at Tell el-Hesy show such attempts of a somewhat rude fashion; those found in Jerusalem exhibit them executed in a more careful and finished manner. The question, of course, still remains whether these latter objects are native products or imported articles.

In either case the painting amounts to but a simple form of ornamentation by means of colored lines, in which geometrical figures predominate, with parallel lines and lines at right angles, zigzag and waving lines, all forming a sort of band around the neck or body of the vessel.

In the Old Testament, painting is not mentioned: when Ezekiel (xxiii. 14) speaks of "men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion," it is not painting that is referred to, but probably outline drawings with a colored pencil, the contours being then filled in with color. See Cherub, House, Sanctuary, Synagogues, Temple, Pottery, Seals.

Source. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1822&letter=A)

Interestingly, the Muslims would adopt this same prohibition.

They had no pictures of YHWH, but they did have art work depicting historical figures.

Only much later (3rd Century, as you point out) and only as a result of a Hellenic influence. The exception proves the rule; even your example is strikingly anomalous.

Are you claiming that there were no pictures of Jesus because he was a god?

Nope. They certainly did not believe him to be God at all. That was a much later invention by the Hellenic philosopher-theologians.

The Skirball museum in Los Angeles has a third century mural from a Hellenistic Jewish synagogue in Dura-Europa, Syria. It portrays the high priest Aaron (written ARWN in Greek characters, and other figures.

Exactly. A third century mural from a Hellenistic Jewish synagogue. Thankyou for proving my point.

There is no good explanation as to why early Jewish-Christians did not make art work featuring a human Jesus, if they in fact thought of him as human.

Yes there is. I provided it in my previous post, and have since enlarged upon the point in this one.

[joedad]

Evengelion:
And in fact there is no Christian art really, until about the 3rd century, and then again, not in Israel, not in Palestine, but in the Pagan west, in Rome.Nope.
The powerful religious crosscurrents of the world of late antiquity may be seen in microcosm in the distant outpost of the Roman Empire on the promontory overlooking the Euphrates River in Syria.

The siege and fall of Dura-Europos in 256 at the hands of Rome's new enemy in the East, the Sasanians, heir to the Parthian Empire, is an important fixed point in the chronology of late antiquity because the population of the fortified town was evacuated and Dura's buildings were largely intact.

This "Pompeii of the desert" has revealed the remains of over a dozen different cult buildings, including many shrines of the polytheistic religions of the Classical and near Eastern worlds, as well as places of worship for adherents to the monotheistic creeds of Judaism and Christianity.

Known not only as a preserved Roman garrison but also for the synagogue and its extensive cycle of mural paintings depicting biblical themes. The paintings seem to be in defiance of the 2nd Commandment, prohibiting graven images and surprised scholars when first reported.

While the Jews of the Roman Empire did not worship idols as their pagan contemporaries, biblical stories were painted on walls and manuscripts. God was never depicted in the synagogue paintings (nor in the illustrated bibles), except as a hand emerging from the top of the framed panels.

The style of the Dura murals is also instructive -- even when a narrative theme is illustrated, the compositions are devoid of action. The story is told through stylized gestures and the figures, which have expressionless features and are lacking in both volume and shadow, tend to stand in frontal rows. These are traits that increasingly characterize the art of Rome during the 3rd and 4th Centuries.from here:
http://www.hart.k12.ca.us/valencia/directory/jmarcucilli/page/Notes/early_christian.htm

[Evangelion]

Allow me to correct you.

The original citation was:

And in fact there is no Christian art really, until about the 3rd century, and then again, not in Israel, not in Palestine, but in the Pagan west, in Rome.

Note carefully the word "Christian."

Now your citation:

Known not only as a preserved Roman garrison but also for the synagogue and its extensive cycle of mural paintings depicting biblical themes. The paintings seem to be in defiance of the 2nd Commandment, prohibiting graven images and surprised scholars when first reported.

While the Jews of the Roman Empire did not worship idols as their pagan contemporaries, biblical stories were painted on walls and manuscripts. God was never depicted in the synagogue paintings (nor in the illustrated bibles), except as a hand emerging from the top of the framed panels.

Note carefully the words "the Jews" and "synagogue." So Finaldi is talking about Christians (not Jews), while your citation talks about Jews (not Christians.)

Not only that, but the Duros-Europos synagogue was built in Syria (not Israel) in the 3rd Century (not the 1st), and reflects the influences of (a) the era in which it was built, and (b) the cultural environment in which it was immersed. Your citation is therefore irrelevant, and Finaldi's point still stands.

Once again, the exception proves the rule.

[Toto]

Ev - your citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't have any dates on it, so it's not clear when exactly the prohibition of graven images was extended to all art.

In any case, Dura-Europa shows that Hellenistic Jews rahter close to the time of Christ and not that far away from Jerusalem were painting images. If the Christians of that era were not painting images of Jesus, there has to be some other explanation than their Jewish origins.

[Evangelion]

Ev - your citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't have any dates on it, so it's not clear when exactly the prohibition of graven images was extended to all art.

It began during the rise of the rabbinical schools in the intertestamental era. Please, learn the history. Study the sources. Please.

For your own sake.

In any case, Dura-Europa shows that Hellenistic Jews rahter close to the time of Christ

AD 256 is not "rather close to the time of Christ." It is more than 2 centuries afterwards.

and not that far away from Jerusalem were painting images.

Nonsense. It was in Syria, in a Hellenic Jewish community.

If the Christians of that era were not painting images of Jesus, there has to be some other explanation than their Jewish origins.

Why? All you've got here is a single synagogue outside Israel in a Hellenic-influenced community. The exception proves the rule.

Deal with it.

[SLD]

I own two pieces of early Christian Art. Oil lamps from early to mid 4th Century Carthage. One depicts a Cross in the center of the lamp with the oil intake right in the center of the cross, and the cross coming out in concentric rings around it (actually looking a lot like a four leaf clover. The other shows a lamb in the center. Both have symbols around the edges showing concentric crosses (like four leaf clovers). None show Jesus. I also have a coin that I found from that same time period. It shows a bearded man with a helmet on top of which is a cross and he is holding an orb with a cross on it. I had always assumed that the figure was Justinian, but now I'm not so sure - could it be Jesus? The Romans put their gods on their coins all the time - not just their leaders. I have several others showing various gods.

When I lived in Tunis, I scoured the souks for good artifacts, and saw many crosses on various lamps and the like, but I never did see a crucifixion.

Interesting discussion.


SLD

[joedad]

Evangelion:
Allow me to correct you.
...
Note carefully the word "Christian."
...
Note carefully the words "the Jews"...It is difficult to separate the two in the earliest centuries. Perhaps we ought not even use the word 'Christian' so early in its history but instead, "Jew" and "Hellenized Jew." But we're making the same point, and using the same evidence to support it, that being that a human representation of the Christian 'Christ/Jesus' of the gospels in the early centuries is absent.

Once again, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, p. 54 is a marble sculpture of Jonah from the third century. It is described:JONAH – FOR CHRISTIANS A SYMBOL OF RESURRECTION. One of four small marble sculptures on the theme made in the third century in the Greek East. The style is that of ancient statuettes designed for the decoration of a fountain. The astonishing vitality strangely seems to anticipate Bernini.Looking at the sculpture, it is a whale-like creature (obviously the ancients didn't know how to depict a whale, if indeed this is what it depicts) with a very Zeus like person exiting its mouth. Once again, I think one has to be looking at such a sculpture through a "Christian" lens to see any Christianity in it. Peter makes this point quite well.

In the same book there is an earlier depiction of a fresco associated with the Aurelii:A PROBLEM WALL PAINTING of the early third century at Rome in the vault of the Aurelii (a group clubbing together for a collective sepulchre). It has been taken to represent an apostle, but the Aurelii may have had only a loose attachment to the church, and their frescoes mainly represent philosophers.It is the picture of a bearded man with a stoic gaze, no eye contact, and can only be seen as a "Christian" apostle if observed through a Christian lens.

I kind of wish Bede would chime in. He had mentioned magical amulets of the third/fourth centuries depicting crucifixions and Christian crucifixions, but stated they were not religious artifacts. The Oxford Illustrated... definitely agrees with him, though by the tone of the intro that is to be expected.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Evangelion
All you've got here is a single synagogue outside Israel in a Hellenic-influenced community. The exception proves the rule.



The exception does not prove the rule in that sense, it tests the rule. Get your English proverbs straight.

Dura-Europa is unusual only in that it was well preserved. It shows that whatever rules some rabbis were making up, they were not being enforced 2 centuries after Jesus presumably lived, in the Jewish Diaspora. Are you trying to claim that Christians of that era would have adopted a strict Jewish rule that Jews themselved did not follow?

[Evangelion]

The exception does not prove the rule in that sense, it tests the rule. Get your English proverbs straight.

This has nothing to do with "English proverbs" and everything to do with facts. Again: this exception proves the rule. The article cited by joedad even supports this by pointing out that the use of such images was contrary to the 2nd Commandment. It was contrary to the normative practice.

Dura-Europa is unusual only in that it was well preserved.

No, it is also unusual in that it provides us with an example of a blatant breach of Jewish law in a Jewish synagogue.

It shows that whatever rules some rabbis were making up, they were not being enforced 2 centuries after Jesus presumably lived, in the Jewish Diaspora.

Well, duh! :rolleyes: Of course a Hellenic Jewish community in Syria is going to start pushing the envelope. I already anticipated this when I wrote:

Bottom line: the depiction of Christ by his followers was largely defined by the prevailing ethos of their respective eras.

Are you trying to claim that Christians of that era would have adopted a strict Jewish rule that Jews themselved did not follow?

No, I am making no such claim. Please read this thread carefully.

I have pointed out that the earliest Christians were Jews, and that this is the primary reason why they did not employ images of people and animals in their religious art. But later (when Christianity spread to Rome) we have examples of Christian art which does incorporate images of humans. And why? Because we are now dealing with (a) 3rd Century Christianity, and (b) a non-Jewish population.

Hence the citation from Finaldi:

And in fact there is no Christian art really, until about the 3rd century, and then again, not in Israel, not in Palestine, but in the Pagan west, in Rome.

So again:

Bottom line: the depiction of Christ by his followers was largely defined by the prevailing ethos of their respective eras.

[Toto]

Originally posted by Evangelion

Bottom line: the depiction of Christ by his followers was largely defined by the prevailing ethos of their respective eras.


This is certainly true. How else to explain the blue-eyed Anglo Jesus with flowing light brown hair so beloved in modern America. But I don't think it helps your case.

[Toto]

I know this is an old thread, but it is not very involved and I have just come across a source on a disputed point, whether the early Christians refused to have pictures of Jesus because there was a Jewish-derived prohibition against graven images:

Veneration of Images (Catholic Encycopedia) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm)

The catacombs are the cradle of all Christian art. Since their discovery in the sixteenth century -- on 31 May, 1578, an accident revealed part of the catacomb in the Via Salaria -- and the investigation of their contents that has gone on steadily ever since, we are able to reconstruct an exact idea of the paintings that adorned them. That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling. They accepted the art of their time and used it, as well as a poor and persecuted community could, to express their religious ideas. Roman pagan cemeteries and Jewish catacombs already showed the way; Christians followed these examples with natural modifications. From the second half of the first century to the time of Constantine they buried their dead and celebrated their rites in these underground chambers. The old pagan sarcophagi had been carved with figures of gods, garlands of flowers, and symbolic ornament; pagan cemeteries, rooms, and temples had been painted with scenes from mythology. The Christian sarcophagi were ornamented with indifferent or symbolic designs -- palms, peacocks, vines, with the chi-rho monogram (long before Constantine), with bas-reliefs of Christ as the Good Shepherd, or seated between figures of saints, and sometimes, as in the famous one of Julius Bassus with elaborate scenes from the New Testament. And the catacombs were covered with paintings. There are other decorations such as garlands, ribands, stars landscapes, vines-no doubt in many cases having a symbolic meaning.