It’s my understanding that the early Christians didn’t like the idea of Jesus having been crucified, and so didn’t display him on the cross. When did that change? I’ve seen some pretty gory examples of it.
It’s not so much that they didn’t like it; more that they were following a “Risen Savior” than a dead body. Early first to third generation followers were more tuned into the time he spent on Earth after death and his awaited and expected return. A cross is a much better symbol for that than a crucifix. Crosses start to appear (I believe) around the 1st Century AD in religious art and crucifixes more around the 4th century.
Why? Some write it off to Rome going from pagan to Christian and the artistic (and gory) traditions of their art being applied.
The Alexamenos Graffiti shows a crucified many with a donkey’s head and the inscription reading “Alexemenos worships his god”. It seems to be a parody/comment on Christian worship. I’ve seen it reproduced in several books, and Wikipedia has it. The problem is that its date isn’t established. It’s apparently from sometime in the 1st to 3rd century AD. If that helps:
edited to add: The Wikipedia sartisvcle on crucifiction says that there are questionable examples from before the 4th century, but that certainly by then the subject started to appear:
The idea that the earliest Christians would find crucifixion so repugnant that there would be a natural disinclination to portray the crucifixion in art is not supported by the New Testament writings.
Paul proudly boasts that he preaches Christ crucified.
Matthew has Jesus saying anachronistically, “Unless you take up your cross you can not follow me.”
John has Jesus talking about seeing him “lifted up” (on the cross and in the ascension) as a sign of salvation. John also has Jesus telling doubting Thomas to touch the wounds in his hands and sides.
Revelation talks about the martyrs in heaven washed in the blood of The Lamb.
And so, the crucifixion becomes a focal point of devotion precisely because it was overcome by Christ in the resurrection. And this happened very early, at least in preaching and writing. When that devotion first manifested itself in art is unknown, although, it would be much more likely for the Gentile Christians to do than the Jewish Christians.
Where did you get this understanding from?
I’ve come across it in books on early Christianity and Christian art. One such book claimed that earliest dpiction of Christ is as the beardless “Good Shepherd” (who is not crucified, of course). I never understood why this shpould be thought a depiction of Christ, rather than simply the figure of The Good Shepherd from the parable.
Probably, as you cite says, from the Gospel of John: “I am the Good Shepherd.”
But, as even the Wikipedia article says, there’s no reason not to think that many of the depictions were meant to anything but a generic “Good Shrpherd”. It’s not as if they’re labeled “Jesus”. Assuming that they must represent Jesus seems an unwarranted assumption.
They’re likely a representation of the good shepherd in the story Jesus told and not Jesus himself as the Good Shepherd, since he himself wasn’t an actual shepherd.
Unless the image of a good shepherd was a timeless Ancient Near East image that predates Jesus?
[quote=“moriah, post:9, topic:652910”]
They’re likely a representation of the good shepherd in the story Jesus told and not Jesus himself as the Good Shepherd, since he himself wasn’t an actual shepherd.
[QUOTE]
Precisely my point.
I once attended an art history class in which the teacher showed comparative slides of Apollo as the Good Shepherd, then Christ as the Good Shepherd. It was a community college, but it sounded decently researched.
Christianity wasn’t technically legal in Rome until the 300s, so some plausible deniability/ vagueness in the religious art wasn’t a bad idea for a while. “No, officer, that’s just a shepherd. And we just, well, we really like fish and wine.” It’s not surprising that early Christian artworks are adapted from various other religious (Mithraism, Roman religions, Judaism, etc).
Well, yeah, but I believe the New Testament canon wasn’t set until 300 AD or so. And I don’t think anyone knows exactly when the gospels were written.
The canon wasn’t set until then, but the early writings such as those of Paul were written and distributed well before that. And even the gospel of John, which is thought to be the last one written, was completed a couple of hundred years before that as well. And, as moriah says, the early Christians had no hesitation in describing Jesus as having been crucified.
I suspect most of the official art work depicting Jesus came about after the Edict of Milan officially ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman empire. Before, there wouldn’t have been many sponsors for Christian art, so most of it would have been by amateurs with an interest in plausible deniability - hence the fish symbol.
The earliest depiction of Jesus being crucified that I can find (apart from the graffito CalMeacham mentions) is a plaque from around AD 420.
Regards,
Shodan
“Setting the canon” was a process of declaring which documents would be part of an official set of holy scriptures. The documents were written well before that.
Most of the letters from Paul were actually from Paul. So, that had to be written sometime between 30 - 60 AD. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke also wrote Acts of the Apostles in which he talks about “we did this and we did that.” The ‘we’ is he and Paul. And since Luke copied from Mark, that dates Mark to about the 50s and Luke in the 60s/70s.
Other types of detective work puts Mathew at about 70-80s and John at 90-120s.
Yup. I think the truth here is not that the early Christians didn;t like to depict Jesus crucified; it’s that they didn’t like to depict him at all.
This may be partly a heritage from Judaism, with its strictures against images, and partly a prudent measure of self-preservatation at a time when the church was persecuted. When they did start to produce depictions, as others have pointed out those depictions were ambiguous.
As a modern corollary, the Mormons don’t like to depict the crucifiction, either. Not even the cross – their church spires terminate in rods, with no cross on the end. You won’t find a cross in their official logo, on the decorated walls of their temples, in their chapels, tabernacles, in the illustrations for the Book of Mormon, or around Temple Square.
LDS folk say it’s becsause they celebrate the Resurrected Christ.
The only depiction of a cricifiction I’ve ever seen on Mormon grounds was a single depiction in one of the Salt Lake Visitor’s Centers. And I suspect the only reason that it’s there is because they were trying to appeal to non-LDS Christians, who relate to and expect such a picture aas a fundamental part of their faith.
Sounds reasonable. The teacher supposed that both the pagans and the Christians were using the same pool of artists, and that the artists tended to suggest variations on what they were used to painting. (Most of his slides were on tomb walls in the catacombs of Rome.)
He had no research to back that up, it was just something he thought was reasonable.
They must have added that crucifix after I left the church as we definitely didn’t have crosses. We took pride in that.
That would be an interesting question as to when the Mormons started to disdain them.
Humm. Life was so much more difficult in the ancient world bg (before google).
So, while the cross wasn’t ever really a strong part of Mormonism from the beginning, it wasn’t until the 1950s that its use would became the scandal it is now.
Grammar Nazi nitpicking: There’s only been one example of Jesus on the cross. The question should be what was the earliest depiction of Jesus on the cross.