www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Assorted questions

Dear Joe,

The earliest versions of this icon depict it in its original form, with a silver hand, representing that of St John Damascus, hanging on a chain over the icon, that was his cell icon.

Many icons have had theology developed about them later on.

Others, like the "Multiplier of Wheat" are icons that were created from theological considerations first, and later became miraculous.

Alex

Dear Alex and Joe;

I still beg to differ. Let me explain.

(See Joe's thread on the gospels regarding my explanation on biographies and the early church.) I still suspect that many of these miraculous legends were developed not to highlight actual events, but rather were developed to highlight the virtue (or "the essence") of the attributed saints.

Can it not be said of John of Damascus that his hand was metaphorically severed by the iconoclasts, but history ultimately restored his "written voice"? Thus, even if he did place a hand on the icon of the Virgin, my interpretation still applies.

There are many examples of this. For example, Romanus the Melodist had an average voice, at best. He prayed that he would be blessed with a great voice. The legend goes on to say, that one day in church, his voice became magnificent. But I suspect this really has to do with the magnificence of his musical legacy (his "voice" if you will) as still survives in the Akathist to the Virgin, etc. etc.

Look also at the beloved icon of St. George. Do you really think he slayed a real dragon?

I think we have to be careful. We know that the Church Fathers were metaphorical in their interpretation of the Bible. Well, should we not suspect they did the same for iconography?

While I am no expert, I am sensitive to recognizing the genre of such stories.

Remember, we of the Eastern Churches are Christianity's poets, not the scientists.

John

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Petrus ]

Dear John,

There really is no disagreement here!

First of all, the miraculous "legends" thing.

Don't you believe in miracles? And even great miracles?

I've experienced them in my life and I've seen them happen before my eyes in the lives of others.

Sorry, but that terminology is really unacceptable in the language of a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.

But we live in North America . . .

Secondly, of course, one may see symbolism in any icon or prayer!

That doesn't take away the miraculous nature of the very personal and holy event that took place in the life of St John Damascus.

We have his word and those of witnesses attesting to it.

We have the voice of the Church, which (and you must forgive me for never having been in a seminary - I mailed in my application, but then called to say I wouldn't be coming . . .) - as I said, which speaks of this miracle in a very confirming way.

If I wanted symbolic interpretations as well as debunking explanations, I'd join the AmChurch that Reader Sergius has referred to.

Alex

Catholic_servant86 asked about a "three-armed candleabra." I assume he was asking about the troika??

Oops - ignore my last post, I entirely misread the question.

<<I still suspect that many of these miraculous legends were developed not to highlight actual events, but rather were developed to highlight the virtue (or "the essence") of the attributed saints.>>


Fr. Dcn. John,

Legend is legend. I wasn't there, so I guess it could have been an 'event' or a 'highlight.' The point made in the article was that the habit of copying a third hand was mistakingly handed down (no pun intended) from iconographer to iconographer.

You brought up a point about the Gospels. Would you say the miracle stories were developed to highlight Jesus' essence? In what way were they historical? In another post, I mentioned John Shelby Spong's thesis that the Gospels were nothing but 'midrash' or Christian (re)interpretation of the Torah. In this way all the miracle stories in the Gospels were not historically true, but a rehashing of old legends. Take, for instance, the seven signs in John's Gospel. Are they nothing but re-doings of identical miracles taken from Elias and Eleseus? Jesus' final days corresponded with the book of Joshuah too. Does this mean that it didn't happen or were the Gospel writers using deuteronomistic principles to convey their message?

As for St. George, I believe his historical track record has gone the way of St. Christopher. Both can be seen on rare occassions at local 7-Eleven stores with Elvis and Bin Laden.

Joe

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Hello again! Peace be with you all!
Thank you all very much for that which you have written, you have all answered my questions. Sorry for my posting of this message so late, I simply forgot to thank you all earlier.
As for the whole confusion with the three handed icon, I must say that I agree very much with the common opinion, that St. John lost his hand to a sword (or other punishment) and it was mystically replaced. In rememberance, he placed the extra hand upon the icon. Now, whether it was an accident or not that iconographers placed the hand in the icon later, I do not see that of importance, the importance is its commemoration, the virgin and her great intercessions for us humans.
-Thank you all once again for your posts, Peace be with you all, Orthodox and Catholic Christians!,
Justin