Oldest images of the Apostles discovered

Pompey Magnus · 22-06-2010 07:59PM #1

Archaeologists and art restorers using new laser technology have discovered what they believe are the oldest paintings of the faces of Jesus Christ’s Apostles. The images in a branch of the catacombs of St Tecla near St Paul’s Basilica, just outside the walls of ancient Rome, were painted at the end of the 4th century or the start of the 5th century.

Archaeologists believe these images may have been among those that most influenced later artists’ depictions of the faces of Christ’s most important early followers. “These are the first images that we know of the faces of these four Apostles,” said Professor Fabrizio Bisconti, the head of archaeology for Rome’s numerous catacombs, which are owned and maintained by the Vatican.

Link

An interesting discovery, the image of Paul was surprisingly recognisable. Although being made about 350 years after Paul lived so probably not what he actually looked like it would be interesting to know where the modern idea of these men actually derived from, and it could well be from this tomb.

Fanny Cradock · 22-06-2010 08:26PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

An interesting discovery, the image of Paul was surprisingly recognisable.

In what sense?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Although being made about 350 years after Paul lived so probably not what he actually looked like it would be interesting to know where the modern idea of these men actually derived from, and it could well be from this tomb.

What do you mean by "the modern idea of these men actually derived from"?

Pompey Magnus · 22-06-2010 10:41PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In what sense?

Sorry, what do you mean in what sense? Do you mean in what sense was it recognisable?

In the sense that the artistic representation of Paul found in this tomb bears striking similarity to much later representations of the man, so much so that I, far from an expert but with just a basic knowledge of Christian art, immediately recognised the pointed beard and balding forehead in a Christian setting as being a painting of Paul.

What do you mean by "the modern idea of these men actually derived from"?

What I meant to say the more modern artistic appearances of these men could go all the way back to this tomb.

Fanny Cradock · 23-06-2010 12:03AM

Not quite. I was questioning your reasoning for stating this probably isn't what Paul looked like. I would be far more agnostic in this regard.

Although being made about 350 years after Paul lived so probably not what he actually looked like...

On one hand, you are happy to point out that the features generally attributed to Paul such as his big beard, thin nose and crazy forehead have been faithfully reproduced (artistic licence aside) many centuries later. Indeed, the second picture you posted does bear more than a passing resemblance to the St Tecla finding. Yet this image was painted by El Grecko at the beginning of the 17th century - some 13 centuries later than the fresco.

So while we are both in agreement that this early finding noticeably conforms to later images commonly associated with Paul, I can't figure out why you are sceptical that the St Tecla image might itself conform to an earlier work or perhaps even the man himself?

vodafoneproblem · 23-06-2010 01:15AM

Pretty interesting, alright. Apparently they were discovered a couple of years ago, first reported last year along with what's believed to be the discovery of St. Paul's tomb, but it's taken them 2 years to clean them up using this "laser surgery" technique.

Pompey Magnus · 23-06-2010 11:05PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So while we are both in agreement that this early finding noticeably conforms to later images commonly associated with Paul, I can't figure out why you are sceptical that the St Tecla image might itself conform to an earlier work or perhaps even the man himself?

It is possible that the image goes back to an earlier image, I would be very surprised if the original source image of Paul goes back much further than this image and I would be amazed if it went back to Paul himself.

Christian art just didnt exist for the first 200 years of the religion's existence, it wasn't until about the period of Constantine, when it became advantageous for the wealthy (who had the finances available to patron such art) to convert to Christianity, that we start finding these kind of representations of the apostles and Jesus. So the chances that there was a continuous line of artwork representing Paul dating back to the man himself is terribly unlikely.

Fanny Cradock · 24-06-2010 09:08AM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Christian art just didnt exist for the first 200 years of the religion's existence, it wasn't until about the period of Constantine, when it became advantageous for the wealthy (who had the finances available to patron such art) to convert to Christianity, that we start finding these kind of representations of the apostles and Jesus. So the chances that there was a continuous line of artwork representing Paul dating back to the man himself is terribly unlikely.

That is a fair point.

Manach · 28-06-2010 09:39PM

I would partially disagree, based on "Christian Art" by Beth Williamson. The earliest images found in the catacombs "probably date from the 3rd Century" - p4, which puts them a little before Constantine's patronage of the Church ? As well, given their subject matter and image technique it seems to suggest that had a historical precedence before that.

Oldest images of the Apostles discovered

Comments