Jesus' first bath

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Evan

Guest
My wife is learning to make icons and wanted me to ask.
Is acceptable to show Jesus first bath with Solome and the midwife bathing him?

She heard that the Council of Trent had condemned this icon and we were asked not to reproduce it. The story comes from some 1st century apochryphal document.
 
I have never heard of this, but if Trent condemned it, then I would say not to do it.
 
Richard_White said:
I have never heard of this, but if Trent condemned it, then I would say not to do it.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of what I’m wondering. Was it a condemnation because some particular thing was happening then, or was it a universal condemnation.

Like the index of forbidden books. It no longer exists.
 
Evan said:
That’s kind of what I’m wondering. Was it a condemnation because some particular thing was happening then, or was it a universal condemnation.

Like the index of forbidden books. It no longer exists.
Click to expand...
I would think that Trent condemned it b/c it is not from a Scriptural sources. It does strike me as a little odd to have a icon based on a scene from an apocrypha. The incident may not be true.

God Bless
 
Evan said:
My wife is learning to make icons and wanted me to ask.
Is acceptable to show Jesus first bath with Solome and the midwife bathing him?

She heard that the Council of Trent had condemned this icon and we were asked not to reproduce it. The story comes from some 1st century apochryphal document.
Click to expand...
I would not make extra-biblical Eastern Icons unless there is a prior tradition of depicting this event in the form of an Eastern Icon. Those who paint Icons must paint them according to the tradition of the Church and not make up things. 🙂

You can make the Icon since there is a 12th century Icon of the event that you described. Since tradition supports the Icon, there is nothing wrong with it. 👍

https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1379715_592943457436699_350927562_n.jpg
Source: flickr.com/photos/27305838@N04/8406713004/
 
I remember seeing on-line a mural, said to be painted on the interior of the John the Baptist Church at the Jordan River, which depicts the birth of Christ, and his first bath. :o I am ignorant about the Council of Trent, etc., but this work of art was lovely and, in my opinion, shows also the humanity of the Holy Baby. :o
 
bilop said:
I would think that Trent condemned it b/c it is not from a Scriptural sources. It does strike me as a little odd to have a icon based on a scene from an apocrypha. The incident may not be true.

God Bless
Click to expand...
The assumption?
 
bilop said:
The Assumption is de fide. It is not Apocryphal.

God Bless
Click to expand...
There are plenty of apocryphal (i.e. non-Scriptural) stories that are true. The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple is celebrated on November 21 and the story come to us from the apocryphal, Protoevangelium of James. Being only recorded in a non-Scriptural writing does not lesson the truth of the event. 🙂
 
Zekariya said:
There are plenty of apocryphal (i.e. non-Scriptural) stories that are true. The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple is celebrated on November 21 and the story come to us from the apocryphal, Protoevangelium of James. Being only recorded in a non-Scriptural writing does not lesson the truth of the event. 🙂
Click to expand...
Right, but it lessens our certainty about the Truth. We can be certain of things in Scripture, for the things in other sources, we need more evidence.

If the Church has declared something a feast day, we can be confident in its truth. Likewise if a Council says it isn’t true, we should be confident it’s not.

God Bless
 
Zekariya said:
You can make the Icon since there is a 12th century Icon of the event that you described. Since tradition supports the Icon, there is nothing wrong with it. 👍
Click to expand...
Just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s gold 😉 There are many problematic icons that have existed throughout history, many of which depict God the Father, rather than Christ as Ancient of Days. This icon is less troubling, but problematic, nonetheless. Icons aren’t simply history, but rather revealed eternal and theological truths. Christ being bathed assumes the necessity to be cleaned from birth, but we know that the Theotokos’s conception and delivery wasn’t the same as everyone else’s…She remained a Virgin throughout, which would likely require no ‘cleaning’ of the God-Man Jesus. Did Christ in His ministry allow washing as a blessing to those performing it? Of course…we hear of the washing of His feet, His Baptism, etc. So if the washing in the icon is understood as a ‘gift’ offered by the handmaidens and not something that was necessary, then it seems to be okay, but I still think there’s room for misapplication so I would personally avoid using it.
 
bilop said:
I would think that Trent condemned it b/c it is not from a Scriptural sources. It does strike me as a little odd to have a icon based on a scene from an apocrypha. The incident may not be true.

God Bless
Click to expand...
We have pictures of Veronica wiping Jesus’ face in most every church. That story isn’t from scripture and may also not be true 🤷
 
The icon of Christ’s bath is historical and canonical Byzantine icon. This is quite different from non-canonical Buzantine icons of the Father as an old man.
 
One important factor that this icon does maintain and should be maintained in any Nativity depiction is the 2 specific animals seen depicted in the cave: ox and donkey (fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy).

This traditional icon is also a good example of the eternal and theological reality depicted in icons in that it shows the Christ child soon after birth, as well as the Magi. Clearly these events happened at different times, but the icon depicts it in a way that brings about the celebrated feast into one eternal ‘instance’.

Canonicity has nothing to do with it…Icons aren’t painted, then given to a court of canonical approval. Certain depictions have been discussed in the canons due to improper veneration or extracting false theologies, but for the most part this is not the case. There isn’t some ‘cleanup crew’ that goes around and discards all icons that don’t meet the standard. The tradition is to not reproduce them, but once they have been created with honest and devout piety, they aren’t typically removed unless all of the iconography is being redone in a church, etc. There are icons depicting God the Father in some of the most staunchly rigorous bastions of canonicity (Mt Athos).
 
Canonocity has to do with the canons put forth in the Ecumenical Councils and those ratified by them. Depicting the Father as an old man is not canonical (ie against the canons).
 
Zekariya said:
Canonocity has to do with the canons put forth in the Ecumenical Councils and those ratified by them. Depicting the Father as an old man is not canonical (ie against the canons).
Click to expand...
Of course, I was referring specifically to the replication of an older icon such as the one displayed here, or any others of God the Father. For a long while, when Russia was going through a bit of a Western art phase, they depicted God the Father regardless of the Canon (perhaps they were simply unaware since it was so commonplace in the West). It took a counsel of their own to rectify this, and you no longer see such depictions other than what has already been produced. The point is, these matters are handled post facto. Have you seen any icons of St. John the Forerunner pointing to a lamb? Such a depiction of an allusion to Christ was canonically ‘outlawed’ early on, yet many such depictions have adorned church temples for centuries.

As for the historicity of the icon, I am unaware of any church hymnography that refers to the washing of Christ, but I certainly invite any that may be made available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top