Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Modern iconography (was Re: The Shroud of Turing) Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 02:51:56 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 44 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article sl87m@cc.usu.edu (The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Ensemble) writes: >If anybody's done any study of Mediaeval manuscripts, one find sthat in all >of them, the figures are all dressed according to the period the ms. >(manuscript) was written. The scenes depicted are drawn from the milieau. >This is true in all that I've seen, from early 2nd c. through the Renaissance; >and from Iberia to India (I've not done much study of Oriental mss., though >from what I've seen, this rule still holds true). I've seen many modern >attempts to be accurate to Christ's time, but the majority of modern religious >pictures employ imagry of our time period. Similarly, few popular paintings of Jesus portray him as looking like a Hebrew. Few manger scenes portray Jesus being born in a cave. Without divine inspiration, no portrait of Jesus will be accurate, since we don't have any good photographs of him. Any religious symbol will not accurately portray reality, the artist can only hope to communicate an understanding. In order to communicate to a society, an artist must give them something they can identify with. So, religious symbols are biased toward the society for which they were produced. Experiments by Nazis suggest that a man cannot be hung on a cross by putting nails through the palms of his hands, (the flesh will rip). Instead, the nails must be driven through the wrists. This doesn't really stand in conflict with the Bible, since as I understand it the word which we translate hand referred to the hand as well as the wrist. Archeological evidence backs up this conclusion, and the much disputed shroud depicts a man who had nails driven through his wrists. And yet, most of the crucifixes I have seen portray Jesus with nails in his palms. As I've said before, the position of the nails are not important. What is important is the reason for the crucifixion, and our response to it. Similarly, in a portrait of Jesus, his actual physical features, or his clothes are not important. What is important is the portrayal of Jesus by the artist, and the interpretation of the viewer. Does the viewer look at the portrait and see that Jesus was a kind man? Does the portrait bring the viewer closer to Jesus? On the altar table in my church we have a brass cross with the letters "IHS" on it. Jesus was not nailed to a brass cross, but that cross helps us to remember the crucifixion. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton