PDA

View Full Version : Early Image of Jesus Found in Egyptian Tomb



Jesse
07-04-2014, 02:54 PM
Jesus of Nazareth may be the subject of an image from the sixth century, found in an Egyptian structure underneath the ground. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6386/20140505/early-image-of-jesus-christ-possibly-found-in-egyptian-tomb-dig.htm

I found this pretty interesting.

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 04:47 PM
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6386/20140505/early-image-of-jesus-christ-possibly-found-in-egyptian-tomb-dig.htm

I found this pretty interesting.

I think the header is interesting: "Early image of Jesus Christ possibly found in Egyptian tomb dig"

I THINK they mean "Possible image of Jesus Christ found in Egyptian tomb dig". :smile: (as opposed to the image being "possibly found") Unfortunately, when I clicked on a link in that article, it launched a whole series of ads and banners. :shrug:

Cerealman
07-04-2014, 05:05 PM
I think the header is interesting: "Early image of Jesus Christ possibly found in Egyptian tomb dig"

I THINK they mean "Possible image of Jesus Christ found in Egyptian tomb dig". :smile: (as opposed to the image being "possibly found") Unfortunately, when I clicked on a link in that article, it launched a whole series of ads and banners. :shrug:

Here comes the Christ mythers.

Jesse
07-04-2014, 05:23 PM
I think the header is interesting: "Early image of Jesus Christ possibly found in Egyptian tomb dig"

I THINK they mean "Possible image of Jesus Christ found in Egyptian tomb dig". :smile: (as opposed to the image being "possibly found") Unfortunately, when I clicked on a link in that article, it launched a whole series of ads and banners. :shrug:

Sorry about that. I have an ad blocker on my browser so I didn't see those popups :|.

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 05:25 PM
Sorry about that. I have an ad blocker on my browser so I didn't see those popups :|.

Yeah, me too -- that's how I know it was so ad laden -- my popup blocker kept whining and crying. :smile:

rogue06
07-04-2014, 05:31 PM
I think the header is interesting: "Early image of Jesus Christ possibly found in Egyptian tomb dig"

I THINK they mean "Possible image of Jesus Christ found in Egyptian tomb dig". :smile: (as opposed to the image being "possibly found") Unfortunately, when I clicked on a link in that article, it launched a whole series of ads and banners. :shrug:
For the unfortunate prodder of bovines:


Jesus of Nazareth may be the subject of an image from the sixth century, found in an Egyptian structure underneath the ground.

University of Barcelona researchers believe the room in which the image was found may be a tomb. This could be the final resting site of several priests and a writer, based on items found around the underground structure. The location is roughly 26 feet wide and 13 feet long. Archaeologists removed nearly 50 tons of rocks and other debris to access the underground structure.

Josep Padró led the expedition, in an area he has spent 20 years exploring. Inside the tomb, he found several images, including one of a curly-haired man giving a blessing, while wearing a short tunic.

The Spanish researcher believes this one central figure may be a rendering of Jesus Christ, created 500 years after his death. Numerous inscription surround the picture, and archaeologists are scrambling to translate the characters to make a positive identification.

Within the underground grave site, two pens and a metallic pot full of ink is provided for the writer to continue their work. Examination of the scribe's body revealed the writer was around 17 years old at time of death.

The ancient room is located in the ancient city of Oxyrhynchus, roughly 100 miles south-southwest of Cairo. This city is considered one of the richest archeological sites ever discovered.

The discovery "has caused such as stir that even Egypt's Minister of Antiquities, Mohamed Ibrahim, has become personally involved. He broke the news himself in a press release which described the contents of the tombs," The Local, a Spanish newspaper, first reported.

At one time, a religious processional route ran between the Nile River and Osireion, a temple for worshipers of Osiris, the Egyptian God of the afterlife. Several structures in the city have been found, this path ran just past the underground structures.

Padró and his team are investigating the exact nature of the room, along with researchers from the University of Montpellier and the Catalan Egyptology Society.

They want to know if the structure was created just as a tomb, or if there may have been an additional purpose to the room.

A second structure was also discovered in the dig, attached to the scribe's resting place by a worn set of steps. For now, archaeologists can only make intelligent guesses about what may lie within the unopened room. It may be a temple, possibly another of a series dedicated to Osiris.

Jesse
07-04-2014, 05:35 PM
Thanks for that rogue06 :). I should've done that lol.

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 05:39 PM
The grammar is poor, but that may be due to translation. :shrug:

rogue06
07-04-2014, 05:42 PM
The grammar is poor, but that may be due to translation. :shrug:
Didn't I warn you about that Jesse? :hehe:




If you haven't run across the notorious prodder of bovines as of yet, consider yourself lucky. It is best to double check your spelling and grammar when conversing with him -- he will correct any mistakes.

Jesse
07-04-2014, 05:44 PM
Didn't I warn you about that Jesse? :hehe:



Lol. You did warn me about it lol. Glad he has yet to catch on to me though. Out of all of that, he catches grammar mistakes :lol:.

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 05:45 PM
Didn't I warn you about that Jesse? :hehe:



I was talking about the article, not Jesse. :glare: The subject/verb agreement n particular is atrocious. Doesn't look very "scholarly". :smile:

Jesse
07-04-2014, 05:49 PM
I was talking about the article, not Jesse. :glare: The subject/verb agreement n particular is atrocious. Doesn't look very "scholarly". :smile:

It's probably just lazy writing on their part.

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 05:59 PM
It's probably just lazy writing on their part.

Yeah, but I have a tendency to equate that to the quality of their "research / reporting". :smile:

Jesse
07-04-2014, 06:09 PM
Yeah, but I have a tendency to equate that to the quality of their "research / reporting". :smile:

You know, you seem to be right. I just Googled "Early Image of Jesus Found in Egyptian Tomb" and it seems none of the sites report it quite like they do. So there is probably a better link than the one I just supplied.

rogue06
07-04-2014, 06:15 PM
I was talking about the article, not Jesse. :glare: The subject/verb agreement n particular is atrocious. Doesn't look very "scholarly". :smile:
You left out a letter "i".

:outtie:

Cow Poke
07-04-2014, 06:28 PM
You left out a letter "i".

:outtie:

Cause I knew you'd never be happy if you couldn't complain. :smug:

(It's ok, Jesse -- he ain't ugly, he's my brother!)

So, buy me a vowel, Rouge!

Jesse
07-04-2014, 06:29 PM
During my "Googling" I found this quote on the HuffingtonPost article about it:


CORRECTION: A previous headline of this article incorrectly suggested the depiction found in Egypt was the earliest known; it is among the earliest, but other images thought to be of Jesus predate it.

I wonder what those other images are and if there are any similarities/differences.

One Bad Pig
07-04-2014, 09:00 PM
The earliest images found archeologically are probably from the Roman catacombs in the 3rd century. There are a couple icons attributed by legend to St. Luke, but I'm not sure if they have been tested (and they may have been repaired over the centuries, which would throw off dates). Many images were destroyed in the 8th century by iconoclasts.

rogue06
07-05-2014, 01:51 AM
Cause I knew you'd never be happy if you couldn't complain. :smug:
You know me so well :hug:


(It's ok, Jesse -- he ain't ugly, he's my brother!)
I'm too purty to be ugly. Just homely enough to be considered cute (at least to the wimmenfolk who forgot to wear their glasses).


So, buy me a vowel, Rouge!
I see you're trying to make me happy again Cow Poek

rogue06
07-05-2014, 02:04 AM
The earliest images found archeologically are probably from the Roman catacombs in the 3rd century. There are a couple icons attributed by legend to St. Luke, but I'm not sure if they have been tested (and they may have been repaired over the centuries, which would throw off dates). Many images were destroyed in the 8th century by iconoclasts.
And many of the early Church Fathers spoke negatively about making images of Jesus as well as the 4th century Synod of Elvira.

One of the earliest depictions that has survived and isn't from the Roman catacombs comes from what appears to have been the baptismal chamber of a house-church in Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria depicting the miraculous healing the paralytic at Capernaum by Jesus in the Gospels in (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). It is dated at c.235 B.C.


1002
Christ is top center

tabibito
07-05-2014, 02:18 AM
Say it isn't so Ethel.

And many of the early Church Fathers spoke negatively about making images of Jesus as well as the 4th century Synod of Elvira.

One of the earliest depictions that has survived and isn't from the Roman catacombs comes from what appears to have been the baptismal chamber of a house-church in Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria depicting the miraculous healing the paralytic at Capernaum by Jesus in the Gospels in (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). It is dated at c.235 B.C.



1002
Christ is top center

Jesse
07-05-2014, 09:44 AM
And many of the early Church Fathers spoke negatively about making images of Jesus as well as the 4th century Synod of Elvira.

One of the earliest depictions that has survived and isn't from the Roman catacombs comes from what appears to have been the baptismal chamber of a house-church in Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria depicting the miraculous healing the paralytic at Capernaum by Jesus in the Gospels in (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). It is dated at c.235 B.C.


1002
Christ is top center

Thank you both One Bad Pig and rogue06 for clarifying this for me.

Rogue, the Healing of the Paralytic painting is also the earliest one I could find myself. It's interesting that both of these depict Christ as having short, curly hair. And the tunic is also pretty much the same. Very interesting.

rogue06
07-05-2014, 09:49 AM
Say it isn't so Ethel.
:lol: It was... um... er... I, uh ... did it on purpose so that CP would have something to pick on me about. Yeah, that's the ticket. I did it on purpose :uhoh::whistle:

Cow Poke
07-05-2014, 09:51 AM
:lol: It was... um... er... I, uh ... did it on purpose so that CP would have something to pick on me about. Yeah, that's the ticket. I did it on purpose :uhoh::whistle:

He always comes back to this if he's not quick enough to destroy the evidence that he even tried. :smug:

tabibito
07-05-2014, 09:51 AM
Reconstruction based on the shroud of Turin:
1012
It is a highly intriguing piece of linen.

rogue06
07-05-2014, 09:55 AM
He always comes back to this if he's not quick enough to destroy the evidence that he even tried. :smug:
Growing up around you made me an expert on covering my tracks. But at 5:00 in the morning when I've had 13 hours sleep over the past 72 hours I got sloppy.

Cow Poke
07-05-2014, 10:03 AM
Reconstruction based on the shroud of Turin:
1012
It is a highly intriguing piece of linen.


Intriguing, yes -- reliable, not so much.

tabibito
07-05-2014, 10:21 AM
I'm not satisfied one way or the other, but the claim that it originates in the early 1300s doesn't hold water - a hymnal from 70 years earlier has a picture of the shroud on it.
This isn't the most exhaustive report, but it is a (relatively) dispassionate overview.
http://shroud2000.com/FastFacts.html

Jesse
07-05-2014, 10:25 AM
Intriguing, yes -- reliable, not so much.

Here also is Christ in the Roman Catacomb of Callixtus (End of the 2nd Century):

1013

Is there anything to be said for these depictions being so similar but being so far apart where age is concerned?

rogue06
07-05-2014, 05:53 PM
The latter is interesting for being beardless which definitely would not have been the norm.

Jesse
07-05-2014, 07:48 PM
The latter is interesting for being beardless which definitely would not have been the norm.

Indeed rogue06. Did you also notice Christ is beardless in the Paralytic painting as well as the one I first posted about? I am not sure what it could mean.

One Bad Pig
07-06-2014, 08:26 AM
And many of the early Church Fathers spoke negatively about making images of Jesus as well as the 4th century Synod of Elvira.
I'd appreciate seeing evidence for this. Every single non-Protestant church tradition has icons, even those outside of the Roman Empire and which were separated from the Orthodox Church well before the iconoclast controversy.


One of the earliest depictions that has survived and isn't from the Roman catacombs comes from what appears to have been the baptismal chamber of a house-church in Dura-Europos on the Euphrates River in modern Syria depicting the miraculous healing the paralytic at Capernaum by Jesus in the Gospels in (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). It is dated at c.235 B.C.


1002
Christ is top center
I thought that was from the third century, but didn't feel I had a sufficient recollection of the details to bring it up.

rogue06
07-06-2014, 09:07 AM
Indeed rogue06. Did you also notice Christ is beardless in the Paralytic painting as well as the one I first posted about? I am not sure what it could mean.
I can't make out the details well enough to be sure that he is depicted as being beardless or if he has a short beard like that seen in the supposed reconstruction from the Shroud of Turin (which seems odd for him to have a beard since AFAICT they would have shaved the body before anointing Him).

I think the reason that some of these images depict him as beardless is that they have taken Christ out of his cultural context (a Palestinian Jew from around 30 A.D.).

Jesse
07-06-2014, 09:18 AM
I can't make out the details well enough to be sure that he is depicted as being beardless or if he has a short beard like that seen in the supposed reconstruction from the Shroud of Turin (which seems odd for him to have a beard since AFAICT they would have shaved the body before anointing Him).

I think the reason that some of these images depict him as beardless is that they have taken Christ out of his cultural context (a Palestinian Jew from around 30 A.D.).

That makes sense. I do wonder why they would take him out of his cultural context when some of these paintings (the ones around the 2nd century) where created early enough to know better? Especially something from the Syrian area for example.

Here is a closer look at the Paralytic painting:

1027

Link: http://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/edge-of-empires/highlights/christ-healing-paralytic

rogue06
07-06-2014, 10:13 AM
I'd appreciate seeing evidence for this. Every single non-Protestant church tradition has icons, even those outside of the Roman Empire and which were separated from the Orthodox Church well before the iconoclast controversy.

I thought that was from the third century, but didn't feel I had a sufficient recollection of the details to bring it up.
At the risk of citing everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia...


During the persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire, Christian art was necessarily furtive and ambiguous, and there was hostility to idols in a group still with a large component of members with Jewish origins, surrounded by, and polemicising against, sophisticated pagan images of gods. Irenaeus (d. c.202), Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320) and Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) disapproved of portrayals in images of Jesus. The 36th canon of the Synod of Elvira in 306 A.D. reads, 'It has been decreed that no pictures be had in the churches, and that which is worshipped or adored be not painted on the walls', which has been interpreted by Calvin and other Protestants as an interdiction of the making of images of Christ. The issue remained the subject of controversy until the end of the 4th century.


Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus#Before_Constantine)


The footnotes at the bottom mention some of the sources for this (#1 for Irenaeus, #2 for Eusebius, #6 for Eusebius and notes that Clement did approve of symbolic pictograms which I suppose would include things like the Ichthys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys)).

As the one for Irenaeus of Lyon notes, he was mostly critical of how the Gnostics employed them and cites his On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (popularly called Adversus haereses or Against Heresies) I.XXV.6 which criticized the followers of Carpocrates of Alexandria:


They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.


Source (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103125.htm)


So perhaps it could be said that Irenaeus was more concerned with how the Gnostics used them than with the images themselves. :nsm:

If so then it is sort of ironic that the apocryphal Acts of John, which many have viewed as a Gnostic work, was highly critical of the veneration of images calling it "childish."

In Eusebius' case, in 327 he received a letter from Emperor Constantine's sister, Constantia, asking him for a picture of Christ which he denied the request writing, "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error."

Another example would be Epiphanius of Salamis, in Cyprus (IIRC regarded as a saint in Orthodox tradition) who told John, Bishop of Jerusalem in the last part of Letter 51


I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person.

Source (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001051.htm)


Interestingly, this letter attacks Origen and "the heresy of Origen" (whose works have fallen in and out of favor with Christians on a seemingly regular basis[1]), who had responded to the charge of "atheism" made by many Romans in his Contra Celsus Book VII Chapter 64 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04167.htm) by acknowledging that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment. One of the reasons that the Romans claimed that Christians were atheists was because they didn't have any images of any gods in their homes or churches and Celsus made this Christian rejection of all images a point of criticism, claiming that Greek philosophers understood that the images were not the gods themselves.





1. Currently the RCC views him as a Church Father, but not a Saint.