Peter Kirby

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.





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

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

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.

Interestingly, the Muslims would adopt this same prohibition.

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.

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

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

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

joedad

Nope.
from here:
http://www.hart.k12.ca.us/valencia/d..._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

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.

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

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

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

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: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: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.