www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Byzantine Crucifixes and Crucifixion Icons

CIX!

Here's a question I've been meaning to ask for a long time.

Why do traditional Byzantine representations of the Crucifixion omit the crown of thorns? Even in early western images, the crown isn't there - just look at the San Damiano crucifix. I realise the later Greek and Slavic painting-style ones have it, but that's obviously from Latin influence... all the traditional ones don't have it.

Anyone know the answer?

In Domino,

Edward

Edward,

I would hazard a wild guess that it could be related to the fact that the Shroud of Turin doesn't show a crown. (The bloodstains from the crown are quite evident though.)

Ther'es been some fascinating work that show remarkable similarities between iconographic depictions of the Lord and the image on the Shroud.

OK, now the folks with actual expertise can jump in!

Cheers,

Sharon

Dear Friends,

It is quite true that Eastern Crucifixes don't show our Lord wearing a Crown of Thorns.

As a matter of fact, NEITHER do early Latin Crucifixes.

The Crown of Thorns was always considered part of Our Lord's humiliation experience at the hands of the Roman soldiers together with His scourging i.e. "Hail, King of the Jews!"

The East has the icons of "the Bridegroom" and "Extreme Humility" to represent Christ in this way.

The evolution of the Crucifix began, from earliest times, with the depiction of Christ standing on His Cross almost smiling with arms outstretched . . .

The Cross of San Damiano is a good example of how Christ is shown as the "Lord and Master of the situation" even in His Passion. His Body is larger than that of all others depicted on that icon. His demeanor is sobre, but His Head is unbowed and He is not shown in a suffering state - as if He feels nothing etc.

The tradition of the Crucifix before the Baroque and Renaissance periods underscored Christ's Divinity even during His voluntary Passion and His Resurrection - the Cross of San Damiano actually depicts the Resurrection above Christ's Head.

Later Latin Passion traditions emphasized Christ's suffering in His Humanity, with Crown of Thorns, bowed Head and contorted features.

The West even introduced the novelty of depicting Christ's Feet nailed one on top of the other in a way to celebrate the Trinity ie. three nails rather than four.

The use of a "one-bar" Cross in the Latin West was also a novelty. The "subpedalion" of Christ where His Feet were transfixed was always extended out like the Eastern representations of the Cross, together with the sign above His Head.

In fact, we know that both were extended out to form a "three bar" Cross from commentators like Origen and the earliest Christian art.

Even anti-Christian graffiti to be still found on old Roman walls in Rome depict Christ on a three bar Cross!

The Papal Cross to this day is a three bar Cross.

Christ on the Cross, in both East and West, is depicted leaning towards our left and His right - and this led later to the development of the three bar Orthodox Cross with the slanted foot-rest.

Alex

Who needs New Advent when we have Doc Alex !

ps- I guess if Alex is unavailable we could use NA.

james

Dear Jakub,

Yes, don't discard New Advent just yet!

Alex

I love the icon of the Bridgegroom so much. It is especially helpful to gaze at Him when you are feeling depressed, sick or sad, and know that He understands exactly how you feel.

Dear Dolly,

Yes, I have one wallet-sized "Bridegroom" icon given me by a Greek Orthodox Ighumena.

She didn't know me, but looked at me intently as she gave it to me and said, "Keep this in your wallet always."

I always have ever since.

Alex

As some have already pointed out, Orthodox depicitions of the Saviour's Crucifixion generally stay away from brutal, graphic portrayals. Certainly there is no equivielent in Orthodoxy to the graphic "Spanish Crucifixes" or ultra realistic portrayals of Christ's Passion that you see in RC mediteranian/latin-american churches.

This long standing difference in portrayals is a very interesting subject, because it actually touches upon doctrinal differences of no little importance.

The root reason for this difference is a difference in soteriology (theology of salvation). Popularized by Anslem, the post-schism west accepted a theory of salvation which goes as follows: our sins have offended the infinite majesty of God, and in order to propitiate this offended majesty (which is infinite) an infinite sacrifice is needed (in this case, that of God-Incarnate, Jesus Christ.)

This idea has become so firmly rooted in the western consciousness (by both Roman Catholics and Protestants) that it is taken as a given - they cannot read the Bible without seeing this in passages regarding Christ as "High Priest" or that underly the sacerdotal/sacrificial nature of His Mission. It has also manifested itself in praxis and popular piety in the RCC - the evolution of portrayals of Christ in sacred art are evidence of this. If you look at the images in the west from the time just preceeding the schism (still preserved in the west's older churches), you'll see they are Icons - both in style and content, there is little separating them from the representations venerated throughout the Christian East.

This is also why in the west, popular piety was (imho) perverted. If you look in older RC books containing popular devotions, there are all sorts of prayers and novenas which take for granted the idea of God the Father as basically being an angry old man, who constantly needs to be propitiated by the Precious Blood of our Lord. This is frankly, blasphemous, and unacceptable from an Orthodox p.o.v.

The fact of the matter is, the New Testament's use of priestly/Old Testament imagery is dealing with God's acceptance of the saving economy of Christ - for in other places we read that God justified men well in advance of Christ's Passion. How was this possible, if God's anger was constantly aroused by our spiritual ugliness to the point that He needed Christ's Precious Blood?

The truth, taught by the Orthodox Church, is that our enemy is not God, but the devil. Perhaps it is because (oddly enough) the devil's role came to be understated in western Christianity, that it became common to blame God for that which ultimatly rests on satan's shoulders.

God is the supreme lover of mankind - as outlined by St.John 3:16, which shows clearly that the Holy Trinity (which is of one will) loves mankind, and this is why the Son was sent into the world. The significance of the Cross is intimatly joint to that of the Ressurection. God does not need the Blood of the Saviour to forgive sinners. Rather, it was by the Holy Cross that mankind (both those who died before Christ's Passion and Ressurection, and those who would come afterwards) was freed from the unjust oppression of satan, for prior to His descent into hades, the devil was making some claim on those whom he had no right to (the righteous patriarchs and faithful of times past, who had already been justified by their faith in God and His Promises).

It says in St.Paul's epistle to the Romans, that Christ came so that God could be called "just" in saving sinners. If you look at the devil's role throughout history, it is as accuser. By ruining men's consciences (very often by their very real sins, which they have in fact committed - creating despair in sinners) through despair, the devil lays claim to souls, with the justifying statement - "look, they've offended the Divine Majesty - they're worthy of death, and everlasting death!"

The Cross is a rebuke to the devil - for by It, he has no room whatsoever to boast, or lay claim on souls. For whatever sin he accuses a sinner of, the sinner can be consoled with the knowledge that God's love is stronger than his sins, and that if the Law is going to be held over his head, then the Cross of Christ more abundantly satisifies it's requirements. The devil tries to use everything good (including the Law) to ruin men. Christ bears the curse of the Law (death), to make just the mercy shown by a merciful God.

Thus, the matter of the Cross is not that of a blood soaked propitiation to a vexed, angry "God", but a rebuke to satan, and his minions, who are the ministers of hades. All of them, as we know from prophecy, will be thrown into Gehenna (the place of everlasting destruction) and will be heard from no more, at the end of the age.

Seraphim

I don't understand why we should see a "happy Christ" (or even a "not-in-excruciating*-pain Christ") on crucifixes. I mean, the Passion of Christ was necessary. He attained our salvation by showing how much He loves us by going through such terrible torment. For crucifixes not to show His pain undermines the Crucifixion for me. It's not a big deal to be crucified for the world when it isn't painful.

Yanno?

Logos Teen

*"Excruciating" literally means "out of the cross" i.e. the incredible torment one undergoes when crucified.

Dear Seraphim Reeves

I know what you mean about the Spanish Crucifixes. We visited 6 of the very old Franciscan missions in California and we saw several very graphic corpus (sp?). And these were not little crucifixes. They were about 1/2 life size. Much more graphic than anything I had ever seen before. I am surprised any of the Native Indians stayed around.

Also depicted in one painting was the Father as an old man. The explanation was that the Natives needed a different depiction than we would normally need.
denise

Dear Friends,

Personally, I see the later Catholic crucifixions with their graphic depictions more a function of a "movement away from" Theosis in representing Christ in sacred art.

Orthodox iconography (and Western iconography before the schism, as Seraphim rightly points out)is there to "teach" theology in the first instance.

Iconic representations of Christ could not show Him in His abject suffering since icons tell us, at one and the same time, about BOTH His Humanity and Divinity.

I do believe Seraphim is wrong in the position he takes with respect to Western soterioloogy - and John Meyendorff is a ready resource to illustrate.

The West has had its particular soteriology in place for a long time, as Meyendorff shows with respect to the struggles with Arianism and Eutychianism.

And yet it produced the same Iconographic depictions of Christ on the Cross as the Orthodox East did throughout all that time.

The graphic crucifixion type is really only a product of later times with its naturalistic realism.

Alex

I guess it would be "corpi" (like bonus and boni) or, if you'd prefer not looking like a dork, "corpuses" (which I obviously prefer).

But doesn't it make sense? When I see a "normal" (we'll call the not-in-pain Christ "normal") crucifix, it basically means nothing to me. On the other hand, when I see a passionate Christ on a crucifix, I am deeply touched by what He gave "for us and for our salvation", as the Creed says. It reminds me of the incredible pain He underwent. It has been devastatingly obvious that Christ went through terrible pain on the Cross, so why shouldn't religious images depict that? Why is it preferrable not to portray Christ as He almost certainly looked like on the Cross, or at least portray outwardly what He was experiencing inwardly?

I'm not saying that "normal" crucifixes and icons aren't perfectly fine, but for me, the passionate Christ makes a lot more sense and touches me (and I suspect millions of others) more deeply. So let's not bash a later artistic development that makes perfect sense anyway.

Logos Teen

I think that the reason for the Eastern "crucifix" not being more "emotional" in portraying Our Lord's sufferings is related to the reason that icons are not written in a "natural" or "realistic" way. They are meant to depict the Figures of Our Lord, the Theotokos, the Saints and Feasts in their "Glorified" state not necessarily as they actually appeared.
The Eastern Church looks towards and emphasizes the Resurrection not so much on the Sufferings or Passion as does the Western Church (especially as seen in Latin Crucifixes in Spain and Latin America)

Slava Isusu Christu!

Yes, it makes perfect sense from a "realistic and natural" standpoint, but not as much from a supernatural, mystical standpoint, which, as I'm sure you know, we in the East are rather fond of .

The good Dr. Roman brought up Meyendorff (and I have to thank you once again for exposing me to his writings, Alex!), which reminded me of a passage I recently read again in Byzantine Theology (I think it was in BT). Fr. Meyendorff was explaining the difference between the Greek and Latin versions of Romans 5:12. The original Greek is a bit ambiguous, it seems, as it can read either, "because of sin, all die" or "because of death, all sin" (when translated into English). While the Greek Fathers "premitted" both readings, the latter was definitely the preferred one. The Latin language, however, does not permit such ambiguity, and Jerome had to pick one rendering when he was working on the Vulgate. He chose the former, "because of sin, all die", which then heavily influenced Blessed Augustine's work into the nature of sin and Original Sin in particular.

In the Eastern view, Christ came to overcome death so that we would be freed from the shackles of sin moreso than just forgiving sin, because death itself is the basic problem. Death restricts our vision, limits our horizon, and causes us to think more in the interests of self-preservation as opposed to our neighbor, which, of course, leads to sin. But Christ's death and Resurrection, and our own death and resurrection through baptism, frees us from this fear of death, calling us to focus less on ourselves and more on our neighbor, as Jesus Himself commanded us to do. It is the triumph over Death that we in the East celebrate, more than the capitulation of our sins through the Cross.

Of course, without the Cross, there is no Resurrection and no Triumph. But in the Eastern mind, it is the Triumph over Death that we focus on, which leads us to sing during the Paschal season, "Christ is risen from the dead! By death He conquered Death and to those in the tombs, bestowing Life!"

In Christ,
mikey.

I was recently told of a statement made by Bishop Fulton Sheen during one of his famous lectures that seems relevant. As he spoke, he held up in one hand a traditional latin-rite crucifix. Cradled in his other arm he held an icon of Our Lord. He stated, " The western Church has Christ crucified, the east has Christ glorified!"

I don't belive he made this statement with the intent of putting a preference of one over the other. It's simply a matter of emphasis. We need to be continually reminded of both!