Good read for snoopy & others on why the images of Prophets & Gods is not allways the best path....Also why Islam never opted towards Icons....
Icons in Christianity
Christianity originated as a movement within Judaism during a time when there was great concern about idolatry.
There is no evidence of the making and use of painted icons or of similar religious images by Christians within the New Testament writings. However, Eastern Orthodox theologian Rev. Dr. Steven Bigham writes (Early Christian Attitudes Toward Images, Orthodox Research Institute, 2004), "The first thing to note is that there is a total silence about Christian and non-idolatrous images. It is important to note that the silence is in the New Testament texts, and this silence should not be interpreted as describing all the activities of the Apostles or 1st century Christians. St. John himself said that 'Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book...' (Jn 20.30). We could easily add that the Apostles also did and said many things not recorded in the New Testament. It is obvious, therefore, that we do not have a complete account of the activities and sayings of the Apostles. So, if we want to find out if the first Christians made or ordered any kind of figurative art, the New Testament is of no use whatsoever. The silence is a fact, but the reason given for the silence varies from exegete to exeget depending on his assumptions." In other words, relying only upon the New Testament as evidence of no painted icons amounts to an argument from silence.
Though the word eikon is found in the New Testament (see below), it is never in the context of painted icons. There were, of course, Christian paintings and art in the early catacomb churches. Many can still be viewed today, such as those in the catacomb churchs of Domitilla and San Callisto in Rome.
The earliest written records available of Christian images treated like icons are in a pagan or Gnostic context. Alexander Severus (A.D. 222–235) kept a domestic chapel for the veneration of images of deified emperors, of portraits of his ancestors, and of Christ, Apollonius, Orpheus and Abraham (Lampridius, Life of Alexander Severus xxix.). Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies 1:25;6, says of the Gnostic Carpocratians, “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 [pagans].”
A criticism of image veneration is found in the apocryphal Acts of John (generally considered a gnostic work), in which the Apostle John discovers that one of his followers has had a portrait made of him, and is venerating it: (27) “...he [John] went into the bedchamber, and saw the portrait of an old man crowned with garlands, and lamps and altars set before it. And he called him and said: Lycomedes, what do you mean by this matter of the portrait? Can it be one of thy gods that is painted here? For I see that you are still living in heathen fashion.” Later in the passage John says, "But this that you have now done is childish and imperfect: you have drawn a dead likeness of the dead."
In addition to the legend that Pilate had made an image of Christ, the 4th Century bishop Eusebius, in his Church History, provides another reference to a “first” icon of Jesus. He relates that King Abgar of Edessa sent a letter to Jesus at Jerusalem, asking Jesus to come and heal him of an illness. In this version there is no image. Then, in the later account found in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai, a painted image of Jesus is mentioned in the story; and even later, in the account given by Evagrius, the painted image is transformed into an image that miraculously appeared on a towel when Christ pressed the cloth to his wet face (Veronica and her Cloth, Kuryluk, Ewa, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, 1991). Further legends relate that the cloth remained in Edessa until the 10th century, when it was taken to Constantinople. In 1204 it was lost when Constantinople was sacked by Crusaders.
Elsewhere in his Church History, Eusebius reports seeing what he took to be portraits of Jesus, Peter and Paul, and also mentions a bronze statue at Banias / Paneas, of which he wrote, "They say that this statue is an image of Jesus" (H.E. 7:18); further, he relates that locals thought the image to be a memorial of the healing of the woman with an issue of blood by Jesus (Luke 8:43-48), because it depicted a standing man wearing a double cloak and with arm outstretched, and a woman kneeling before him with arms reaching out as if in supplication. Some scholars today think it possible to have been a misidentified pagan statue whose true identity had been forgotten; some have thought it to be Aesculapius, the God of healing, but the description of the standing figure and the woman kneeling in supplication is precisely that found on coins depicting the bearded emperor Hadrian reaching out to a female figure symbolizing a province kneeling before him (see John Francis Wilson's Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan; I.B Taurus, London, 2004).
When Christianity was legalized by the emperor Constantine within the Roman Empire in the early 4th Century, huge numbers of pagans became converts. This created the opportunity for the transfer of allegiance and practice from the old gods and heroes to the new religion, and for the gradual adaptation of the old system of image making and veneration to a Christian context. "By the early fifth century, we know of the ownership of private icons of saints; by c. 480-500, we can be sure that the inside of a saint's shrine would be adorned with images and votive portraits, a practice which had probably begun earlier" (Pagans and Christians, Robin Lane Fox, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1989).
After the legalization of Christianity under Constantine, and its adoption as the Roman state religion under Theodosius I, Christian art began to change not only in quality and sophistication, but also in nature. This was in no small part due to Christians being free for the first time to express their faith openly without persecution from the state, in addition to the faith spreading to the non-poor segments of society. Paintings of martyrs and their feats began to appear, and early writers commented on their lifelike effect, one of the elements a few Christian writers criticized in pagan art — the ability to imitate life. The writers mostly criticized that the pagan works of art pointed to false gods, and thusly constituted idolatry. Nilus of Sinai, in his Letter to Heliodorus Silentiarius, records a miracle in which St. Plato of Ankyra appeared to a Christian in a dream. The Saint was recognized because the young man had often seen his portrait. This recognition of a religious figure from likeness to an image was also a characteristic of pagan pious accounts of appearances of gods to humans. However, in the Old Testament we read of prophets having dreams of various heavenly figures, including a vision of God who appeared to Daniel as an elderly man, the "Ancient of Days".
It is also in this period that the first mention of an image of Mary painted from life appears, though earlier paintings on cave walls bear resemblance to modern icons of Mary. Theodorus Lector, in the History of the Church 1:1 (excerpted by Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos) stated that Eudokia (wife of Theodosius II , died 460) sent an image of “the Mother of God” from Jerusalem to Pulcheria, daughter of the Emperor Arcadius (this is by some considered a later interpolation). The image was specified to have been “painted by the Apostle Luke.” In later tradition the number of icons of Mary attributed to Luke would greatly multiply.
The first depictions of Jesus were generic rather than portrait images, generally representing him as a beardless young man. It was some time before the earliest examples of the long-haired, bearded face that was later to become standardized as the image of Jesus appeared. And when they began to appear there was still variation. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) said that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary (De Trinitatis 8:4-5), though it should be noted that Augustine wasn't a resident of the Holy Lands and therefore wasn't familiar with the local populations and their oral traditions. Gradually, paintings of Jesus took on characteristics of portrait images.
At this time the manner of depicting Jesus was not yet uniform, and there was some controversy over which of the two most common forms was to be favored. The first or “Semitic” form showed Jesus with short and “frizzy” hair; the second showed a bearded Jesus with hair parted in the middle, the manner in which the god Zeus was depicted. Theodorus Lector remarked (Church History 1:15) that of the two, the one with short and frizzy hair was “more authentic.” He also relates a story (excerpted by John of Damascus) that a pagan commissioned to paint an image of Jesus used the “Zeus” form instead of the “Semitic” form, and that as punishment his hands withered.
Though their development was gradual, we can date the full-blown appearance and general ecclesiastical (as opposed to simply popular or local) acceptance of Christian images as venerated and miracle-working objects to the 6th century, when, as Hans Belting writes, "We first hear of the church's use of religious images...(Likeness and Presence, University of Chicago Press,1994). "...As we reach the second half of the sixth century, we find that images are attracting direct veneration and some of them are credited with the performance of miracles" (Patricia Karlin-Hayter, The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford, 2002). Cyril Mango writes, "In the post-Justinianic period the icon assumes an ever increasing role in popular devotion, and there is a proliferation of miracle stories connected with icons, some of them rather shocking to our eyes" (The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, University of Toronto Press, 1986). However, the earlier references by Eusebius and Irenaeus indicate veneration of images and reported miracles associated with them as early as the second century. It must also be noted that what might be shocking to our contemporary eyes may not have been viewed as such by the early Christians. In Acts 5:15 of the New Testament, it is written that "people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by."
The Iconoclast Period
There was a continuing opposition to misuse of images within Christianity from very early times. "Whenever images threatened to gain undue influence within the church, theologians have sought to strip them of their power" (Belting, Hans; Likeness and Presence, Chicago and London, 1994). Further,"there is no century between the fourth and the eighth in which there is not some evidence of opposition to images even within the Church (Kitzinger, Ernst; The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks, 1954; repeated by Pelikan, Jaroslav; The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 600-1700, University of Chicago Press, 1974). Nonetheless, popular favoritism for icons guaranteed their continued existence, while as yet no systematic apologia for or against icons, or doctrinal authorization or condemnation of icons existed.
The use of icons was seriously challenged by Byzantine Imperial authority in the 8th century. Though by this time opposition to images was strongly entrenched in Judaism and in the rising religion of Islam, attribution of the impetus toward an iconoclastic movement in Eastern Orthodoxy to Muslims or Jews "seems to have been highly exaggerated, both by contemporaries and by modern scholars" (see Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom).
Though significant in the history of religious doctrine, the Byzantine controversy over images is not seen as of primary importance in Byzantine history. "Few historians still hold it to have been the greatest issue of the period..." (Patricia Karlin-Hayter, Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford University Press, 2002).
The Iconoclastic Period began when images were banned by Emperor Leo III sometime between 726 and 730. Under his son Constantine V, an ecumenical council forbidding image veneration was held at Hieria near Constantinople in 754. Image veneration was later reinstated by the Empress Regent Irene, under whom another ecumenical council was held reversing the decisions of the previous iconoclast council and taking its title as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council anathemized all who hold to iconoclasm, i.e. those who held that veneration of images constitutes idolatry. Then the ban was enforced again by Leo V in 815. And finally icon veneration was decisively restored by Empress Regent Theodora.
Icons in Greek-speaking regions
Icons are used particularly among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic and Eastern-rite Catholic populations.
The icon painting tradition developed in Byzantium, with Constantinople as the chief city. Few icons from early Constantinople have survived, first because of the Iconoclastic reforms during which many were destroyed, second because of plundering by Venetians in 1204 during the Crusades, and finally the taking of the city by the Islamic Turks in 1453. Still, both some panel paintings and mosaics, etc. still exist. Early icons such as those preserved at the Monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai are realistic in appearance, in contrast to the later stylization. They are very similar to the mummy portraits done in encaustic wax and found at Faiyum in Egypt.
In the Comnenian Period (1081-1185), religious sculpture was abandoned in favor of panel painting. The style of the time was severe, hieratic and distant. In the late Comnenian period this severity softened, and emotion, formerly avoided, entered icon painting. This was particularly evident in outlying regions influenced by Byzantine culture, now in Macedonia and the former Yugoslavia.
The tendency toward emotionalism in icons continued in the Paleologan Period, which began in 1261. Paleologan art reached its pinnacle in paintings such as those of the Kariye Camii (former Chora Monastery). In the last half of the 1300s, Paleologan saints were painted in an exaggerated manner, very slim and in contorted positions.
After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the Byzantine tradition was carried on in regions previously influenced by its religion and culture--the Balkans and Russia, Georgia, and in the Greek-speaking realm, on Crete.
Crete, at that time, was under Venetian control and became a thriving center of art of the Scuola di San Luca, the "School of St. Luke," an organized guild of painters. Cretan painting was heavily patronized both by Catholics of Venetian territories and by Eastern Orthodox. For ease of transport, Cretan iconographers specialized in panel paintings, and developed the ability to work in many styles to fit the taste of various patrons. In 1669 the city of Heraklion, on Crete, which at one time boasted at least 120 painters, finally fell to the Turks, and from that time Greek icon painting went into a decline, with a revival attempted in the 20th century by art reformers such as Photios Kontoglou, who emphasized a return to earlier styles.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/bbcjesus.htm
Analysis of BBC Jesus Documentary
This piece from By Dr. Kuba O. Assegai is in response to an article 'British documentary suggests dark-skinned Jesus'.
I read the article on the topic of Zeus (Jesus). As you know the letter 'J' entered the English alphabet in the 16th century, so there could not have been anyone by the name of 'Jesus'. Even the Latin's pronounced the word 'Jesus' as H'zeus'.
In light of the Catholic church's recognition of its congregational base among the 'Third World' peoples, they have decided to adopt a revision of their image of 'Jesus'. You and I would argue that we don't want 'new images', although it is relevant, I believe we would rather the Catholic Church pay reparations for starting the 'enslavement of Afrikans in the Americas.
However, it is important to analyze the 'British Documentary', within a Eurocentric Asili (ideological core underlying a culture), then an Afrikan Asili. In the first reference, when the leimotif of the Durkheim, Weber or Marx analysis, are applied, the methodology of the programme is extremely flawed.
(a) As I have pointed out hitherto, the letter 'J' is a 16th century creation, augmented from the letter 'i'.
(b) The term 'Jew' or 'Jewish' began in the 13th century, after the destruction of Khazaria by a combination of Russian and Byzantianite forces. The Khazars who occupied an area which is today Ukraine, was converted to Ha Bru (Hebrew) in 840 AD (read Arthur Koetler, 'The 13th Tribe'). So the idea of using 'Bio-Cabon Dating' on the skull of a 'phantom' ethnic group, is unscientific and bogus.
(c) There was no such place in ancient history called 'Isreal'. 'Isreal' is an artificial Nation State created by the United Nations in 1948. Its creation was compatible for two reasons (i) the need for the zionist to have a 'Homeland' after they had collaborated with the Nazis in Germany to sent their people to the gas chambers. (ii) The guilt of their fellow Europeans about their silence during the 'Jewish Holocaust'.
Many of my contemporaries would recall their geography lessons, where the area today called 'Israel' was termed 'Asia Minor'. In the ancient period is was termed 'North East Africa'. Therefore, the subject, the object, and the foundation has no validity in reality, history nor science. Are the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Discovery Channel going to reproduce the 'Piltdown Man' experiment? When an English solicitor called Dawson, planted a scull, half-orangutan/half man, in Sussex,1912, and claimed that humanbeing have their origins in England.
From an Afrikan World View, the myth of 'Jesus' began around 30 BC with the story that 'Bocius' and 'Buncius' were born in a cave in Ethiopia. Since the continent of Afrika was termed 'Ethiopia', derived from the Roman 'Ethiopi' which means 'People with scorch face' even from the terminology of 'ethiopi', there is no rational for the belief that 'Jesus' could be anything but an Afrikan. So the question has to be asked, where did this 'Cracker' come from? As the enslaved Afrikans underwent 'Ife Akono' (defiled spirit) by the duel indoctrination of 'King James' Bible' and Micheal D'Angelo' painting of 'Jesus' in the 12th Bazilica,1611, we surrendered to 'Elenini ( blocked spiritual development) as apart of our maafa (great destruction). As the Yurugu (incomplete being) hegemony bambard our minds with these images and concepts on a daily basis, and intensified every Sunday, not to mention the other 'holydays', our resistance level has surrendered to the Ife Akono (defiled spirit). As our esteem deceased Elder Dr. John Henry Clarke, said, 'The Whiteman has not only colonized our lands but they have colonized the very concept of "GOD". Now the organ of British racism, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) masquerading as 'Objectivity' will take this gross absurdity to another level. Such bathos!!! must be condemned.
From Apollo to Jesus Christ!
What Did Jesus Really Look Like?
Very good read......
Buy on AliExpress.com
