mountainman

But many cultures have involved themselves with the philosophy and religious beliefs that surround the issues of "eternal life or immortality", so we cannot be convinced that this represents a "Christian Copyright Signature" on the work. See for example Pomegranate in Ancient Greek Mythology. I reject the notion that non christians of these few hundred years of antiquity commencing 000 CE did not commemorate and explore the philosophy associated with eternal life or immortality.

But that influence was certainly not necessarily "religious devotion" and in fact the evidence indicated quite the opposite. Rich pagans flooded into the Constantinian church as the influence of Constantine ascended, and as Constantine allowed his clergy attractive tax exemptions at a time when his imperial taxation policy was starting to cripple the empire. Robin Lan-Fox describes this in the following terms:

"This enormous favor was an open invitation to false pretence:
by 320 Constantine already had to legislate against rich pagans
who were showing a fascinating ingenuity and were claiming exemptions
as alleged Christian priests." [FN:47]

[FN:47] Codex Theodosius 16.2.3 and 6

The political influence in the mosaic by far exceeds any religious influence IMO.

I dont buy that at all Andrew. Pagan traditions flooded into the "State Christian Church" with Constantine's promotion of it. Were people in awe of Constantine's Jesus or were they in awe of Constantine himself? I suspect the latter. In fact in those days it paid all civilians in the Roman Empire to be particularly in awe of the "Lord God Caesar", especially after the tetrarchy collapsed to one supreme figure with absolute power.

mountainman

That's what and who Jesus was asserted to be by the author(s) of the books of the New Testament Canon and by the suspiciously dishonest "Church Historian" Eusebius furiously researching and writing three centuries after the "alleged miraculous and divine events". Tolkien made plenty of assertions about the nation of hobbits, but that does not make hobbits historical figures. I reject the notion that we have evidence of any "Historical Jesus".

avi

Thank you for correcting my sloppy writing, Pete.

Yeah, I was careless. I should have been more careful.

avi

spamandham

It *could* be a syncretic mosaic, but given that it looks a hell of a lot like other depictions of Constantine, and given that his symbol of conquest is depicted right behind the face, what reason is there for presuming it's supposed to be Jesus? Further, evidence suggests Christian art was using the Pisces symbol to represent Jesus in this time period.

Tel Megiddo mosaic, dated to late 3rd/early 4th century:

Minimalist

Then again, perhaps the artist simply chose to show what looks like a dolphin and another fish and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Megiddo is pretty close to the sea.

To paraphrase Freud....'sometimes a fish is just a fish.'

andrewcriddle

Hi Avi



In its context (described above) I think the figure has to be symbolic of something. This is not IMO realistic portraiture. However in the absence of some written explanation I am not sure how I can convince you that it is not just a portrait.

I will say that the fact that the figure is that of a European aristocrat not a Jewish peasant is not evidence that it was not intended to be Jesus. Christian images of Jesus in the early Christian empire did not depict him as a Jew.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

What early Christian images of Jesus?
The Good Shepherd is not carry a lost sheep, but an animal with horns.

Readers should please feel free to point at some secure and unambiguous image of the "early christian jesus", but I dont think anyone is going to find anything at all .... Jesus Christ as the "Sun God" does not fit the jigsaw puzzle of ancient history in the way the christians would like it to.

Helios being interpretted as Christ ante pacem

avi

Perhaps it is wrong for me to continue this line of inquiry, Andrew, apologies, if so.

I do not understand your suggestion that "the figure has to be symbolic of something." Why? Why must the figure, and here, I suppose you refer to the image of Constantine, (not the four male figures with windswept hair, nor the hero Bellerophon mounted on his winged horse, Pegasus,) be symbolic, rather than decorative? Perhaps the problem is my ignorance of both art and history. Are there no known examples of two thousand year old mosaics which represent people or ideas in a straightforward, non-symbolic fashion? Does every ancient Roman/Greek mosaic always embed symbolism within it?
Gosh, Andrew, I am not sure what you mean by this. Holy cow. I can not begin to imagine the degree of skill needed to assemble a bunch of stones, and arrange them embedded within some kind of concrete to look like a portrait. To me, that is just about as amazing as the Peruvian geoglyphs. No, it is not the Mona Lisa, but, it is clearly a portrait, in my view. Maybe I simply have viewed too few mosaics, and accordingly am a poor judge of quality, when it comes to discerning a highly accurate portrayal of someone.

I suppose that a useful starting point would be a simple link to a web site, or alternatively a citation from a book, illustrating a comparable mosaic, i.e. roughly the same time period, with an image that is clearly symbolic, and obviously not a portrait. As a side note, i.e. off topic, do you suppose that the muslim abhorrence of depicting mohammed bears any relationship to this debate about whether an image is intended to be an accurate portrayal, versus a symbolic representation? Is it not curious, Andrew, that we have no images of Jesus, from the time period when he was alive, i.e. images created by someone who had physically observed him in action? In that sense, we also lack images of David, Moses, Daniel, Jacob, or any of the other heroes of the jewish tradition. Is there some scriptural, hebreic prohibition against creating images of humans? Perhaps this question of accuracy of representation, versus symbolic meaning, led to a prohibition of artistic endeavors related to human faces? We have images of the famous Egyptian kings.....

Within Europe, we also have short, Mediterranean types, but the guy in this mosaic, is Germanic/Nordic/ancient GREEK, in appearance, to my narrow minded way of thinking. In modern terms, Yugoslavia: yes, Ethiopia: no, Damascus/Jerusalem/Cairo/Amman: improbable. Here's another image: both his mother, Helen, and his father were born in modern day Serbia. I would say the guy in the mosaic has genetic markers indicating Alexander's cousin, rather than David's son.

Whether one believes, as I do, that Jesus was a mythical invention, or contrarily, that he was a genuine historical figure, either way, he is regarded, according to tradition and the gospels, as being of patrician lineage, not a peasant of immodest financial means. He had been given an excellent education, according to the gospels, a characteristic of family wealth. So, I don't expect an image of him to look like a guy in rags, ...

avi

avi

Did they depict him as a Constantine? If Pete's theory were at least partially correct, the religion not only took off, under Constantine's reign, but also took on the formal trappings, including scholarly attributes, which we today accept as having preceded Constantine, though possessing remarkably little evidence in support thereof.

By contrast, we have lots of evidence of christian activities, including documents, monuments, coins, mosaics, murals, and so on, AFTER Constantine. Is it possible, that the rationale for depicting the son of David as Roman Emperor, rather than as itinerant Palestinian rabbi, is based upon Constantine's declaration that henceforth, Christianity should be the official state religion?

avi

andrewcriddle

Hi Avi

As I said before, I doubt if I'll be able to convince you, but I'jj try and explain better what I meant.

When I come across a portrait in the presence of Bellerophon pomegrantes a great tree figures with windswept hair etc I read the whole thing as symbolic. I did not mean to suggest that the mosaic figure is not highly skilled work, it obviously is.

Even if it is a picture of the Emperor it is a symbolic representation of the Emperor not an attempt at a photograph. (Again this is in no way a criticism of the skill of the artist.)
The second of the 10 commandments (no graven image etc), although strictly speaking about idolatry, tended to discourage representational art.

Andrew Criddle