Representations and depictions of the deity

[rogue06]

I see you have read the wiki entry on the Christian Cross but your reply did not actually address the question put by Machinist which was "[I]When did the church start openly displaying crosses?"]

FWIU, they were openly displayed enough pretty early on or you wouldn't have Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220 A.D.) defending against the accusation of Christians being cross worshipers^[1]. That he did strongly suggests that Christianity and the cross were already closely associated^[2]

This is verified by the fact that second- and third-century Christian texts mention how some Christian martyrs would make the sign of the cross by stretching out their arms such as in the Odes of Solomon and Acts of Paul and Thecla (the latter is quoted by Tertullian so it is definitely second cent.). Moreover, it appears that during this period many Christians would pray standing up with their arms stretched out in the form of a cross.

Further Stott mentions how Hippolytus wrote in The Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 A.D.) that the sign of the cross was used by the bishop when anointing the person's forehead during Confirmation (Tertullian also mentions something similar) and notes that given Hippolytus' reputation for being very conservative about such matters he wouldn't have described rites and customs unless they were "already long-established."

Still, it wasn't until the fourth century, after the conversion of Constantine, that the cross as a symbol became much more publicly visible. Prior to that Christians were routinely persecuted meaning that we were extremely reticent about portraying the cross openly and symbols of our faith were kept mostly private.

But with Constantine, crucifixion as a punishment was forbidden, the persecution ended and the cross no longer had to remain hidden.






1. Even before Tertullian there was Justin Martyr who proclaimed that God had placed the shape of the cross in everyday objects. In everything from the masts of ships to the standards of Roman legions.


2. Keep in mind that even in its infancy Paul repeatedly uses the word "cross" in his letters as he responds to various conflicts stirred up by opponents (Galatians 2:18-20) even though he notes how it is a "stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness for Greeks and Romans" (I Corinthians 1:23). In fact, according to Augustine, even the Latin word for cross was harsh to the ears and supposedly it was so repulsive that Cicero refused to use it.

[NorrinRadd]

On the topic of representations of deity, I was wondering about the cross as a symbol. I guess the reason it's easy for protestants to accuse Orthodox folk and Catholics with idolatry is because symbols such as statues, icons and relics are representations of actual people...sentient beings.



I'm just wondering how a statue or icon becomes an object of worship. What is meant by the accusation that that these things are being worshipped?

Yes, the "sentient beings" is it for me. It doesn't *much* bother me when such items are just kind of "around." I mean, I'm a big fan of Nativity scenes (in spite of the historical issues of "three" Magi, and their being present at the stable). It bothers me more when people gaze adoringly at them, and it bothers me a lot when they bow to them or kiss them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

FWIU, they were openly displayed enough pretty early on or you wouldn't have Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220 A.D.) defending against the accusation of Christians being cross worshipers^[1]. That he did strongly suggests that Christianity and the cross were already closely associated^[2]

Strong associations do not necessarily imply that the cross was "openly displayed" as you have alleged.

This is verified by the fact that second- and third-century Christian texts mention how some Christian martyrs would make the sign of the cross by stretching out their arms such as in the Odes of Solomon and Acts of Paul and Thecla (the latter is quoted by Tertullian so it is definitely second cent.). Moreover, it appears that during this period many Christians would pray standing up with their arms stretched out in the form of a cross.

Really? Who says this was particular only to Christians? I think you may find that standing or kneeling with the arms outstretched and palms upward was not unknown as a position to adopt for praying to the gods, as this Egyptian figure [which predates Christianity by a millennium] shows.

Further Stott mentions how Hippolytus wrote in The Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 A.D.) that the sign of the cross was used by the bishop when anointing the person's forehead during Confirmation (Tertullian also mentions something similar) and notes that given Hippolytus' reputation for being very conservative about such matters he wouldn't have described rites and customs unless they were "already long-established."

None of this actually addresses the question put by Machinist.

Still, it wasn't until the fourth century, after the conversion of Constantine, that the cross as a symbol became much more publicly visible.

After Christianity was granted toleration.

Prior to that Christians were routinely persecuted meaning

They were not "routinely" persecuted.

that we were extremely reticent about portraying the cross openly and symbols of our faith were kept mostly private.

That is speculative as we have very little information as to how these various sects operated in private.

[rogue06]

Strong associations do not necessarily imply that the cross was "openly displayed" as you have alleged.

For some reason you skipped over Tertullian responding to critics who called Christians the equivalent of cross worshipers. Tell me oh faux historian, why would he have to reply to such a charge and why would it be made in the first place?

Really? Who says this was particular only to Christians? I think you may find that standing or kneeling with the arms outstretched and palms upward was not unknown as a position to adopt for praying to the gods, as this Egyptian figure [which predates Christianity by a millennium] shows.

Fair point, but it also depends on the stance. Having your arms held out in supplication isn't exactly the same as stretching your arms out to either side.

None of this actually addresses the question put by Machinist.

I'm sure he appreciates you speaking for him.

It all goes to show that the cross as a symbol for Christianity stretches back to the roots of Christianity and didn't just suddenly appear as one. We've been using it since the beginning (see Paul's use of it and IIRC several scholars think that it is mentioned in Revelation as a symbol -- 7:2-3 -- indicating that the cross was used as a Christological identity marker from the beginning).

After Christianity was granted toleration.

They were not "routinely" persecuted.

Aside from your two statements tending to be mutually contradictory if you wish to play that game then by your measure neither were the Jews.

That is speculative as we have very little information as to how these various sects operated in private.

Yeah, because the moment after Christianity was no longer illegal (but not persecuted according to H_A) the fact that crosses started appearing in public is obvious nothing more than an odd coincidence.

You admit that crosses started appearing in public after the Christianity was no longer illegal, but try to then imply that had nothing to do with it.

[tabibito]

Yeah, because the moment after Christianity was no longer illegal (but not persecuted according to H_A)

Then there's the whole thing of Jews being evicted from Rome a couple of times - which if I remember rightly, was done during the time of Pagan Rome, but Jews weren't subjected to institutionalised racism by Pagan Rome.
There is logic somewhere in the claim, I'm sure: if only I could work out where.

[rogue06]

Then there's the whole thing of Jews being evicted from Rome a couple of times - which if I remember rightly, was done during the time of Pagan Rome, but Jews weren't subjected to institutionalised racism by Pagan Rome.
There is logic somewhere in the claim, I'm sure: if only I could work out where.

IIRC, at least once in the first quarter of the 1st cent. A.D., before there even were Christians.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

For some reason you skipped over Tertullian responding to critics who called Christians the equivalent of cross worshipers.

It was known that Christians worshipped a crucified Jew and there is an early graffito mocking the crucifixion with a donkey's head.

However, after the events of 70 CE Christians did not want to draw attention to the reasons behind the manner in which their eponymous founder had met his end.

Fair point, but it also depends on the stance. Having your arms held out in supplication isn't exactly the same as stretching your arms out to either side.

How do you know?

It all goes to show that the cross as a symbol for Christianity stretches back to the roots of Christianity

And beyond.

However, as an object being displayed for veneration in churches we have no evidence before the fourth century. According to Eusebius' Life of Constantine he describes the emperor commissioning a replica of what he supposedly saw in his vision to be his imperial military standard. This was a long spear covered in gold , covered with gold and with a cross-bar giving it the appearance of a cross. The standard was crowned with a christogram around which was a wreath of precious stones. From the cross-bar hung a banner depicting images of the emperor and his sons.

and didn't just suddenly appear as one. We've been using it since the beginning (see Paul's use of it and IIRC several scholars think that it is mentioned in Revelation as a symbol -- 7:2-3 -- indicating that the cross was used as a Christological identity marker from the beginning).

Referencing it is not quite the same as openly displaying and venerating it.

Aside from your two statements tending to be mutually contradictory if you wish to play that game then by your measure neither were the Jews.

Neither the Jews nor the Christians routinely persecuted in the Graeco-Roman world.

Yeah, because the moment after Christianity was no longer illegal (but not persecuted according to H_A)

I challenged your use of the word "routinely". Persecution indicates the targeting of members of a group purely because of their participation in the practises of that group. Individuals are prosecuted because they have broken the law. That the law might be considered unjust and therefore that prosecution unfair is another matter. As the law stands that remains the situation.

Nor in the Roman world was the distinction between politics and religion evident and furthermore, religious freedom was not an inalienable human right.

There is therefore a recognisable difference between being prosecuted under a law that was not intended to target or eradicate any particular group, and the deliberate persecution of a particular group.

the fact that crosses started appearing in public is obvious nothing more than an odd coincidence.

Once the religion had legitimacy and the protection of the state it quickly rose to pre-eminence. However, as Jensen notes those early depictions were not of what we would now consider a standard cross.

As to what various Christian sects were doing in private prior to the Edict of Serdica in 311 CE, we have very little information.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

IIRC, at least once in the first quarter of the 1st cent. A.D., before there even were Christians.

You need to read up on Tiberius' eviction of certain Jews.

[tabibito]

You need to read up on Tiberius' eviction of certain Jews.

Proselytism, which had met with the same response in 139 BCE. Claudius also expelled Jews from Rome, with some debate about whether he expelled all the Jews, "all" being quite commonly a hyperbolic usage.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Proselytism, which had met with the same response in 139 BCE. Claudius also expelled Jews from Rome, with some debate about whether he expelled all the Jews, "all" being quite commonly a hyperbolic usage.

I recommend David Wood's paper on "Tiberius, Tacfarinas and the Jews". You can download it here: https://journal.fi/arctos/article/view/85856.

[rogue06]

It was known that Christians worshipped a crucified Jew and there is an early graffito mocking the crucifixion with a donkey's head.

That doesn't explain why they would then accuse Christians of adoring or worshiping the cross itself. The indisputable fact is that the importance of the cross in Christianity goes back to its roots (see Paul for example).

However, after the events of 70 CE Christians did not want to draw attention to the reasons behind the manner in which their eponymous founder had met his end.

How do you know?

That last question could well be addressed to yourself since the evidence keeps indicating that the cross remained an important symbol for Christians long before the 4th cent.^[1] IOW the supposition you present as fact (and a very oversimplified one at that ) but the evidence we have shows that the cross has always been an important symbol to Christians.

I mentioned Tertullian previously about how we were accused of being cross worshipers (he also called Christians "crucis religiosi" -- devotees of the cross), which means it was an important visible part of Christianity itself. It is interesting that the New Advent or (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia claims that

Tertullian meets the objection that Christians adore the cross by answering with an argumentum ad hominem, not by a denial. Another apologist, Minucius Felix, replies to the same objection. Lastly we may recall the famous caricature of Alexamenos, for which see the article Ass. From all this it appears that the pagans, without further consideration of the matter, believed that the Christians adored the cross; and that the apologists either answered indirectly, or contented themselves with saying that they do not adore the cross, without denying that a certain form of veneration was paid to it.

The fact that another early Christian writer, Minicus Felix (d.250-60 A.D.) was addressing the same accusation around the same time in Rome that Tertullian was in Carthage, shows how widespread it is.

And of course, early in the third century Clement of Alexandria referred to the cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, that is to say, "signum Christi" (or a "sign of Christ" or "symbol of the Lord")

And beyond.

Meaning wildly different things to different people (the swastika was originally an Aryan cross thought to symbolize the 'movement' of the sun), but this discussion is about it's use in early Christianity, specifically when was it first used as a symbol of the religion.

However, as an object being displayed for veneration in churches we have no evidence before the fourth century.

Could that have something to do with those are the first "official" churches and virtually the only ones we know a lot about. But given all the evidence of the importance of the cross to the Christian community through the centuries, it would be strange indeed that it would suddenly become the Christian symbol over night.

According to Eusebius' Life of Constantine he describes the emperor commissioning a replica of what he supposedly saw in his vision to be his imperial military standard. This was a long spear covered in gold , covered with gold and with a cross-bar giving it the appearance of a cross. The standard was crowned with a christogram around which was a wreath of precious stones. From the cross-bar hung a banner depicting images of the emperor and his sons.

The "Chi-Rho" symbol (☧) is not something Constantine came up with but had been used as a symbol for Christianity at least since the second century for the very reason that it ... wait for it ... contains a cross. The same resources I previously listed go into the history of Christian usage of the Chi-Rho as well.

Referencing it is not quite the same as openly displaying and venerating it.

There has to be a reason to explain why Christians were being called cross worshipers to the point that two different Christian writers of the time felt it necessary to use expensive ink and paper to address. So there has to be something that would lead the pagans to believe that Christians worship the cross itself rather than the being that died upon it. And unless you wish to posit that critics of Christianity sat in during worship service or something similar, the logical conclusion is that there was something that caused them to link us to the cross and not the one crucified on it.

Neither the Jews nor the Christians routinely persecuted in the Graeco-Roman world.

By the way you appear to be using the word to fit your agenda it would also mean that the Jews weren't routinely persecuted in Europe from the Middle ages or (with one infamous exception) since then

As to what various Christian sects were doing in private prior to the Edict of Serdica in 311 CE, we have very little information.

Hardly stopped you from making definitive declarations though.






1. in the same way that anti-Semitism can be traced centuries before Christianity began.

[tabibito]

I recommend David Wood's paper on "Tiberius, Tacfarinas and the Jews". You can download it here: https://journal.fi/arctos/article/view/85856.

Right there on the first page (267), citing Josephus - the entire Jewish community expelled from Rome because of the actions of four men. That makes it sound like the stated reason was no more than a pretext.
citing Tacitus (268) - not only the Jews, but the Egyptians as well; required to either renounce their religions, or to leave not just Rome but Italy. That makes it seem that there is good reason to believe that it was indeed a pretext.
citing Seutonius (268) - "Those of the Jews who were of military age he (Tiberius) assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art."

So - a religious pogrom against assorted groups, including the Jews.

"there is little insight otherwise as to what motivated him to take these particular actions at this particular time." (269)

Fragment: "Dio ...claims that Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were converting many people to their religion:"
As the Jews had flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he banished most of them." (270)

The Jews were singled out for conscription to military service in Sardinia, with no explanation for this treatment provided. The action was singular - without precedent and never repeated. "no attempt seems to have been made to conscript the Jews expelled from Rome in 139 BC." "no hint that the emperor Claudius sought to conscript any of the Jews when he expelled them from Rome also, whether one dates this event c. AD 41 or 49." (271)

Certainly seems like faithism was in play, even if other factors formed part of the reason, and proselytism seems also to have been a factor, at least in part.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Right there on the first page (267), citing Josephus - the entire Jewish community expelled from Rome because of the actions of four men. That makes it sound like the stated reason was no more than a pretext.
citing Tacitus (268) - not only the Jews, but the Egyptians as well; required to either renounce their religions, or to leave not just Rome but Italy. That makes it seem that there is good reason to believe that it was indeed a pretext.
citing Seutonius (268) - "Those of the Jews who were of military age he (Tiberius) assigned to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the army; the others of that same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not obey. He banished the astrologers as well, but pardoned such as begged for indulgence and promised to give up their art."

So - a religious pogrom against assorted groups, including the Jews.

"there is little insight otherwise as to what motivated him to take these particular actions at this particular time." (269)

Fragment: "Dio ...claims that Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were converting many people to their religion:"
As the Jews had flocked to Rome in great numbers and were converting many of the natives to their ways, he banished most of them." (270)

The Jews were singled out for conscription to military service in Sardinia, with no explanation for this treatment provided. The action was singular - without precedent and never repeated. "no attempt seems to have been made to conscript the Jews expelled from Rome in 139 BC." "no hint that the emperor Claudius sought to conscript any of the Jews when he expelled them from Rome also, whether one dates this event c. AD 41 or 49." (271)

Certainly seems like faithism was in play, even if other factors formed part of the reason, and proselytism seems also to have been a factor, at least in part.

Am I to infer from the above that you have only read the first five pages of that paper?

[tabibito]

,

Am I to infer from the above that you have only read the first five pages of that paper?

Those were the relevant sections. Nothing showed in skimming the rest that seemed to contradict what was in those pages, and Woods is careful to state that much of what he writes is speculation. In short, this reads much as a discussion paper exploring and intending to open avenues of enquiry.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That doesn't explain why they would then accuse Christians of adoring or worshiping the cross itself. The indisputable fact is that the importance of the cross in Christianity goes back to its roots (see Paul for example).

That last question could well be addressed to yourself since the evidence keeps indicating that the cross remained an important symbol for Christians long before the 4th cent.^[1] IOW the supposition you present as fact (and a very oversimplified one at that ) but the evidence we have shows that the cross has always been an important symbol to Christians.

I mentioned Tertullian previously about how we were accused of being cross worshipers (he also called Christians "crucis religiosi" -- devotees of the cross), which means it was an important visible part of Christianity itself. It is interesting that the New Advent or (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia claims that

Tertullian meets the objection that Christians adore the cross by answering with an argumentum ad hominem, not by a denial. Another apologist, Minucius Felix, replies to the same objection. Lastly we may recall the famous caricature of Alexamenos, for which see the article Ass. From all this it appears that the pagans, without further consideration of the matter, believed that the Christians adored the cross; and that the apologists either answered indirectly, or contented themselves with saying that they do not adore the cross, without denying that a certain form of veneration was paid to it.

The fact that another early Christian writer, Minicus Felix (d.250-60 A.D.) was addressing the same accusation around the same time in Rome that Tertullian was in Carthage, shows how widespread it is.

And of course, early in the third century Clement of Alexandria referred to the cross as tou Kyriakou semeiou typon, that is to say, "signum Christi" (or a "sign of Christ" or "symbol of the Lord")


Meaning wildly different things to different people (the swastika was originally an Aryan cross thought to symbolize the 'movement' of the sun), but this discussion is about it's use in early Christianity, specifically when was it first used as a symbol of the religion.


Could that have something to do with those are the first "official" churches and virtually the only ones we know a lot about. But given all the evidence of the importance of the cross to the Christian community through the centuries, it would be strange indeed that it would suddenly become the Christian symbol over night.


The "Chi-Rho" symbol (☧) is not something Constantine came up with but had been used as a symbol for Christianity at least since the second century for the very reason that it ... wait for it ... contains a cross. The same resources I previously listed go into the history of Christian usage of the Chi-Rho as well.


There has to be a reason to explain why Christians were being called cross worshipers to the point that two different Christian writers of the time felt it necessary to use expensive ink and paper to address. So there has to be something that would lead the pagans to believe that Christians worship the cross itself rather than the being that died upon it. And unless you wish to posit that critics of Christianity sat in during worship service or something similar, the logical conclusion is that there was something that caused them to link us to the cross and not the one crucified on it.


By the way you appear to be using the word to fit your agenda it would also mean that the Jews weren't routinely persecuted in Europe from the Middle ages or (with one infamous exception) since then




Hardly stopped you from making definitive declarations though.






1. in the same way that anti-Semitism can be traced centuries before Christianity began.

The question made pertains to when the church started openly displaying crosses. And that did not occur after the early fourth century

Your phrase "adoring or worshiping the cross itself" raises questions. Jesus the Christ was worshipped but was the cross as an icon in and of itself worshipped in the second/third centuries? There is a subtle distinction between veneration and adoration/worship.

Furthermore, Christianity was hardly a monolithic religion in those early centuries and various different forms were to be found across a wide variety of theological beliefs, commitments, and practices. The entire belief system was fluid ranging from the proto-orthodox to various Gnostic forms, and because of that the beliefs of adherents cannot be neatly packaged and assumed to be uniform.

The staurogram, while adopted by some early Christians, predates Christianity and just because two intersecting lines were made on an ancient artefact it cannot automatically assumed that those lines represented a Christian cross. Nor do other artefacts from those early centuries necessarily indicate an exclusive Christian monotheism. Would an amulet or ring with a cross automatically mean that the owner/wearer worshipped the Christian deity exclusively? Were there groups who worshipped Jesus among other gods? It is not inconceivable. Verses in Revelation refer to the Nicolatians and a Gnostic sect of this name is mentioned by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tertuallian. That Irenaeus alleges this sect was founded by the Nicholas of Antioch who appears in Acts, that is nothing but his own conjecture and his and those other Christian writers may all be deriving their accounts from the verses found in Revelation.

I think you are in danger of falling into the assumption that those early followers of Jesus made frequent use of the cross at all time from the very outset. That assumption does not hold up against the historical data.

The symbolism of the cross was clearly of significance to those early Christians but the material evidence from the early centuries is scant and suggests that it was not at the focal point of devotion in Christian gatherings until much later and its artistic prominence only occurred after the initiatives of Constantine.