Loading ...
You’ve probably all seen the story about St. Paul supposedly being given a philosopher’s face. That is to say, some modern art historians think that St. Paul was first painted the way he traditionally is painted in Church iconography in order to portray him as a philosopher with a stereotypical philosopher’s face. See the article here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1339103?eng=y I started reading the article and then promptly stopped when I read the following, which is one of the premises of the argument:
“Portraiture was very widespread in Greek and Roman art. But in Jewish culture, human images were forbidden, and therefore it was unthinkable that Paul and the others would have themselves depicted. It was only later that the Church accepted the depiction of figures of the Christian faith.”
This is a heaping pile of fool.ish.ness. Re-read the “argument.” St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, the saint most responsible for *dispensing with the customs of the Old Law,* would be so devoted to “Jewish culture” that he would refuse to allow his portrait to be painted? Huh?
”Jewish culture” also required circumcision and a kosher diet and we all know how devoted to those customs St. Paul was. Rejection of portraiture is not one of the four requirements made of Gentile converts at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Far from it being “unthinkable” that St. Paul would permit the painting of saints’ portraits, it seems to me unthinkable that he would ban such artwork on the grounds that it was opposed to “Jewish culture.” I doubt he’d let himself be painted during his own lifetime — fine, but that’s personal modesty, not some Jewish opposition to iconography. And who said that he *sat* for such a painting? Why couldn’t people who knew him have painted his likeness? Or passed down in writing what his general appearance was?
Furthermore, Church tradition is absolutely opposed to the idea that St. Paul hated painting. One of his disciples was St. Luke, the one Gentile Evangelist. St. Luke is the patron saint of painters because he painted images of the Blessed Virgin while she was still alive. So ecclesiastical tradition says that St. Paul’s devoted pupil painted images of saints, indeed of the Queen of the Saints. So why is it unthinkable that St. Luke painted St. Paul’s image after the Apostle’s martyrdom (if St. Luke outlived him, which I think he did, although I don’t know for certain). Or that St. Luke’s disciples painted images of Sts. Peter and Paul?
Now, I say that I stopped reading the article after I read that nails-on-chalkboard nonsense above, so I do not know what other points are made in it. I do allow that St. Paul’s traditional portrait does resemble depictions of philosophers. And who says that he did not actually look like a philosopher, after all? St. Paul writes some very lofty passages and he did converse with Stoics and Epicureans in the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34). He who was all things to all men was a philosopher to Athenian philosophers. So yes, it may well be that he’s portrayed in philosopher mode and not in tentmaker mode. He certainly isn’t painted wearing the phylacteries of a Pharisee. So the basic idea that a saint who was rather overtly philosophical should be painted that way isn’t surprising. But it’s nonsense to say that the portraits couldn’t have been based on his actual appearance because of Jewish opposition to portraiture.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Don’t forget Our Lord’s self-portrait on Veronica’s veil and also that of the Holy Shroud. According to Butler, a very ancient inscription was found in a vault near the church of Saint Mary in Via Lata in Rome, in which it is said of a picture of the Blessed Mother, discovered there, “One of the seven painted by Luke.” In 2 Timothy 4 Saint Paul in his last imprisonment at Rome writes that the rest had all left him and that Saint Luke alone was with him (probably painting his portrait). After the martyrdom of Saint Paul, Luke preached in Italy, Gaul, Dalmatia, and Macedonia, according to Saint Epiphanius.
Right, Discipule, and according to some legends Our Lord actually *sat* for a portrait that was commissioned by King Abgar of Edessa. The king was healed of disease when he venerated the icon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abgar_V_of_Edessa). In other versions of the tale the portrait was “not made by human hands.” Some historians think that the legend indicates that the Shroud of Turin (for awhile known as the Mandylion) was kept at Edessa.
Then there’s the *statue* that a woman healed by Christ during His earthly ministry erected to Him at Caesarea (http://phoenicia.org/statueandicon.html — you’ll have to scroll down a bit).
Whatever the case is, it is most certainly *not* “unthinkable” that St. Paul or other early Christians would permit the painting of portraits, at least of dead saints.
It’s all part of the “evolution of doctrine” line of thought. “The early Christians prohibited portraiture, but then, after centuries, they suddenly discovered something that was implicit in the Faith and they had not realized before.” In this particular case, the theory doesn’t have the Christians go from implicit to explicit. Rather, it has them evolve from thinking X to thinking anti-X. Apparently the Apostles were ignorant of a dogma of the Faith and acted out of that ignorance but we know better.
Of course, Church tradition has early Christians using icons and statues from the beginning of the Faith. And the dogma of the Assumption was not “discovered” by later theologians but known from the beginning, when the Apostles who were still alive visited Our Lady’s empty tomb. Does anyone think that St. John the Evangelist was ignorant of the Assumption? Or of the Perpetual Virginity? Or that he was ignorant of the Immaculate Conception? He lived with the sinless Mother of God, but he didn’t know that she was sinless? He wrote Apoc. ch. 12 but didnt’ understand its Mariology?
I didn’t get that last line of that article, “The depiction of Paul the philosopher is an eloquent warning to those who today deny relevance to a pope theologian like Benedict XVI, a modern Father of the Church.” Is the author comparing Pope Benedict XVI (who I love) to St. Paul (who, of course, I also love)? That is kind of odd, don’t you think? The Pope has Authority to proclaim and teach what has been handed down to him through the Apostles, not the authority to create something new. Perhaps the author is merely saying that the Pope maintains the truth when he supports the teachings of Paul, in the same way that St. Paul had to teach what was handed down to him.
BTW: There is a portrait in a museum (I believe it was the major museum in Buffalo, NY) which is rumored to be a self-portrait of St. Paul. Just a rumor.
Ancilla Indigna,
Thanks for sharing the rumor about the self-portrait. I think that the author of the article was stretching to make the discovery about St. Paul’s alleged artistic portrayal as a philosopher somehow relevant to today. He seemed to be saying: “St. Paul is difficult to understand, and philosophy is difficult to understand, but the Church still passed on St. Paul portrayed as a philosopher. So too should we be happy with our (profound and not always immediately comprehensible) intellectual Pope. Three cheers for Christian intellectualism!”