I
iohannes13
Guest
Oops left out that the orthodox icon itself is a prayer. At least that’s what I understand.
- Status
P
patrick457
Guest
The ‘bald Peter’ is actually a later development.
Historically speaking, ever since the earliest days of Christian art only two persons have been depicted consistently: Sts. Peter and Paul. In the oldest images, Peter was always depicted as a man with a full head of frizzy hair and a short beard, while Paul was balding and had a longer, pointy beard. Not even Jesus was depicted as consistently as these two were: He could be depicted as anything from a beardless young man with short hair, a beardless young man with long hair, a man with a close-cropped beard and short frizzy hair, to a man with a long hair and a long beard (what eventually became the standard depiction). Peter and Paul were pretty much the only people in early Christian art that you could easily recognize by their appearance. That’s why some scholars thought, maybe these artistic templates had their origin from an ancient tradition describing what Peter and Paul looked like.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/pilgr/bord/pcts/05Paul.jpg
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Depicting St. Peter as bald was due to the concept of the tonsure: the Roman tonsure shaved the top of the head, so as to allow the hair to grow in the form of a crown. Later tradition attributed this form of the tonsure to Peter himself: if the tonsure involved shaving the top of the head, then that must mean Peter was also bald in that spot. That’s why Western artists began depicting him that way.
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/15...rGw/04VMTpT2o3OZf9ToCsaGnbG9xFJPkElqeSZJ8Gw==
I
iohannes13
Guest
Patrick, Here is the response from the Orthodox icons:
P
patrick457
Guest
What Matthew actually says is that the coin Peter found was enough to pay his tax and Jesus’. The tax was worth two drachmas (didrachma = a half-shekel), so what Peter found was a statēr or tetradrachma (four drachmas = one shekel).
When they came to Capharnaum, the collectors of the didrachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the didrachmas?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from foreigners?” And when he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a statēr. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”
P
patrick457
Guest
Eastern iconography is conservative in that it has mostly preserved many early Christian artistic templates that had either disappeared or took a backseat in Western Christian art. This way of depicting Peter and Paul is one. Depicting Jesus being born in a cave (another early tradition based on the Greek text of Isaiah 33:16 “he shall dwell in a high cave of a strong rock”) is another. Yet another would be depicting Jesus crucified with His feet separate instead of one foot over the other. (Which is actually the more accurate depiction historically and anatomically; Western artists only got around to depicting three nails probably because of the powerful symbolism of the number three, and because it’s much more dramatic to show the legs crossed if the head is bowed and the body is slumping than to show them side-by-side and the body sort of erect.)
Of course, that doesn’t mean that there were absolutely no changes along the way: there were. As I mentioned, by the Byzantine period Jesus can either be depicted as a man with a close-cropped beard and short frizzy hair or as a man with a long hair and a long forked beard. While the short-haired Jesus enjoyed some popularity in its day (some people even thinking that it was ‘more authentic’ than the long-haired one, which reminded them of the Greek god Zeus*), it was eventually supplanted by the long-haired version.
- There were even these stories about an artist whose hand withered because he dared portray Jesus long-haired and long-bearded! “A certain painter, while painting an icon of Christ our Master, found that his hand shriveled up. And it was said that, as the work of the icon had been ordered by a certain pagan, in the adornment of the name of the Savior he had depicted his hair divided on his forehead, so that his eyes were not covered—for in such a way the children of the pagans depict Zeus—so that those who saw it would think that they were assigning veneration to the Savior.” (Theodorus Lector as quoted by St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images (720s-30s), Treatise 3, 130)
Another example of a change would be the way the crucifixion is depicted. While the earliest Christian depictions of Jesus’ crucifixion from 4th-5th century Rome do show Him naked with a loincloth, in the East it became more common to depict Jesus on the cross wearing a sleeveless long tunic called a colobium. This was either done out of respect or as symbolism highlighting Christ’s role as both priest and victim.
This robed crucified Jesus also popped up from time to time in the West (for example, in some Carolingian and Celtic artworks), although in the Western version Jesus’ tunic could be a regular one with sleeves. (For example, the of LuccaVolto Santo shows a robed Jesus on the cross.) Eventually, by the 9th-10th century (I believe) both depictions became rarer as artists in both East and West reverted back to the ‘naked Jesus with a loincloth’ type of depiction.
P
patrick457
Guest
I should add: historically the East and the West each had different understandings of the nature and function of sacred images.
In the East, the icon was and is, as a common saying has it, a ‘window to Heaven’. An icon isn’t just a piece of art, in fact isn’t even just sacred art; the icon in a way makes present the saint depicted on it. The icon does not only represent the prototype (the subject depicted), it shares the saint’s holy essence and miracle-working power - it was a channel of divine grace, having an almost ‘sacramental’ character. It makes him/her present by participation in its uncreated energies or grace. (You can notice how it is related to the whole essence-energy debate.) The aim of the iconographer is thus to induce that presence in the icon, with divine assistance. It was the Eastern Fathers after all who developed the adage, “the honor paid to images passes to the archetypes” and “he who reveres the image, reveres the person it represents.”
In the West, more emphasis was historically given on images having practical functions: as an educational (teaching tools for the illiterate), commemorative (reminders of sacred persons and events) and aesthetic (decorations for a church) purposes. Icon theology wasn’t as developed in the West as it was in the East, although we also venerate sacred images. If anything, the Western view still pretty much saw images as practical objects rather than ‘sacramental’ ones - although one in which God can work through.
That might explain why iconography became rigid in the East and not in the West.
In fact, during the Iconoclastic period in the East, a work came out of the courts of Charlemagne (the Libri Carolini) that harshly attacked the Eastern theology of icons and the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which ruled against Iconoclasm. The work - a product of Charlemagne’s theologians and scholars - espoused a middle way between icon veneration and iconoclasm: images have a practical purpose, but they are not to be venerated in the same way as the Cross or the relics of the saints are to be venerated. (The author of the Libri Carolini makes an exception for crosses - because of the cross’ association with Jesus - and relics - which are holy because they are the bodies of the saints or items that they touched or used. For him, venerating those are okay, but images are not.) In other words, for the author of the Libri Carolini, the image was just that, a piece of art. To ascribe a special, sacred status to it is idolatry. In fact, in his view, images are not necessary in the long run. A Christian should be able to contemplate God and the virtues of the saints with oculus mentis, the “mind’s eye,” without the need for sensual means.
P
patrick457
Guest
Actually, come to think of it: iconography tends to become fixed and rigid in those belief systems where there is a sort of link between image and the subject portrayed. In Hinduism, for example, there are also strict rules governing the making of a murti (‘embodiment, form,’ aka ‘idol’). Hindu ‘idols’ in Hinduism work in a pretty much similar way as Eastern icons do: rules govern the making of an image and how the image is to look like, and the act of making images is itself a sacred task.
The image itself is not what’s worshiped, but the murti is, in a way, an embodiment of the deity portrayed, making him/her present. (Murtis are consecrated by a ritual calling the god or goddess to take up ‘residence’ in the image. After the consecration, the murti ceases to be just an image and is now thought to be imbued with the spirit of the deity, which in many cases may be permanent barring factors like damage or neglect - in which case, the deity ‘leaves’ the murti, making it a mere image again.) That’s why Hindus treat images as if they’re the god (or goddess) in person and perform worship and veneration before them: the unbeliever sees only the stone or metal statue or the painting, but the believer ‘sees’ the deity.
By contrast, the rules are relatively flexible / there are pretty much little to no iconographic rules for those belief systems where art does not occupy a very important position within the belief, and where the image does not have that direct, supernatural link between the subject portrayed. For example, Judaism or Protestantism or even Islam. The image does not so much embody or makes present in a metaphysical / supernatural way the subject portrayed; images are more for decorative (to adorn worship spaces) or commemorative (bringing to mind the subjects and the events portrayed, in a way photographs do) or teaching (as a visual aid) purposes.
I think Latin Rite Catholicism somewhat straddles both sides. We do venerate sacred images and we do accept the adage that the veneration given to the image passes to the subject portrayed, but we don’t quite have the exact same understanding of the mechanics behind them in the way Eastern Christianity has; from my experience we Latins often tend to focus more on the practical uses of images (say, as reminders or as teaching aids), and that’s why Western Catholic iconography can be relatively more loose and flexible (it has been that way since the Middle Ages but especially during and after the Renaissance). As long as the image calls to your mind, say, Jesus, it doesn’t really matter whether He is portrayed as long-haired or short-haired or whatever.
I
iohannes13
Guest
Good research Patrick. Your the man.
P
patrick457
Guest
You’re right. The story of the coin in the fish’s mouth is usually given as proof that most of the other apostles besides Peter - and maybe Matthew - were either teenagers or young adults, just because only Peter and Jesus are mentioned paying the two-drachma tax in the story. But then again, the focus of the pericope is only these two, so any silence regarding the other apostles (whether they paid the tax or not) is not an automatic indicator that they were really younger.
As noted earlier, only Peter and Paul were pretty much the only ones I know of that had specialized features in early Christian art. It was only by and after the middle Byzantine period (mid-9th century to mid-13th century) that the other apostles’ iconography became personalized and standardized.
Before that point (and even during that period), the ‘beardless’ apostles can vary: Thomas and Philip became the two mainstays, but James or John or Thaddaeus/Jude can sometimes be portrayed beardless as well. (In this depiction of Pentecost from the Rabbula gospels (AD 586), most or all of the apostles have facial hair. In this icon of the Ascension also from the 6th century, meanwhile, about six to eight apostles are apparently beardless.) Depictions of Judas were not yet consistent either: for example, in this mosaic in Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna depicting the betrayal of Jesus, (also 6th century) he has a beard.
Andrew was indeed more oftentimes depicted with long unkempt white hair and a beard, but then you have a few depictions where he’s one of the beardless apostles. (The Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo mosaics seem to show him with what look like cornrows or dreadlocks.
) Bartholomew has brown curly hair.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
The Ever Virgin Mary was 12 maybe 13 , Joseph was about the same age , the apostles were also teenagers
T
thistle
Guest
Please let us have your documented evidence to support your claim.
C
commenter
Guest
She could have been 13, or 30.
We don’ t know how old Mary and the apostles were at specific times in their lives. I understand the projected age for Mary at the Annunciation has been repeatedly lowered in articles and sermons in recent years. But the reality is we don’t know! These lowered estimates are all based on studies suggesting that, maybe, for some periods of ancient time, at some places in the Mideast, girls on the average were engaged younger than we previously thought. But we have no idea how old Mary herself was, since those trends are very approximate guesses about possible averages, and we don’t know if Mary was average or not. The same is true of guessing the age of apostles. In another 20 years they might be raising the age of Mary and the apostles, if that is the trend.
This is a “good” example of people putting their opinions out there as if they were facts. I cringe whenever I hear someone teaching about the Bible that “We now know…”
Caveat Emptor.
P
patrick457
Guest
Amen.
Y
You
Guest
medically the optimal age for child-bearing is 17. Even if cultures got engaged as children that wold obviously not apply in this case.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Just saying if you were at least WAY older than a person, you would be PRETTY uncomfortable with that person calling you a child.
N
Nita
Guest
What verse are you referring to where He calls the apostles “children”?
(The word in 17:25 is “sons”, not “children”.)
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
“Little children, have you caught any fish?”
N
Nita
Guest
According to the Greek Lexicon I have, the Greek word has several usages:
- in it’s literal sense: a baby or young child (cf Hebrews 11:23; Mt. 2:8)
- in a figurative sense: undeveloped understanding; eg. as a childish person (cf 1 Cor 14:20)
- in a spiritual sense: as an expression of fatherly affection. (cf 1 John 2:18 )
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Jesus is literally saying, “Hey boys! You got any fish?”
- Status