I think you are overthinking it.Yes, but in such case somebody puting the branches is missing. Or that those rbanches had been already given unto the feet. Maybe thinking too much, but for this reason I've put this icon in this section, as I've never before seen something like this![]()
Perhaps laurel leaves?Yes, but why under his feet? Not kidding, as at least me I see in my head a martyr keeping the palm in his hands, not being under his feet, as it could mean condemnation?...
This looks like Coptic icon. All icons are just a manifestation of the Beauty of Our Lord, Lady and all saints!!!
The tallit and tefillin were already in use in Second Temple Judaism, as Christ mentions both Pharisees (the ancestors of Rabinnical Jews) and Sadducees (the ancestors of Karaite Jews) using them in St. Matthew 23:5. The tallit is clearly commanded in Numbers 15:38, but the commandments that Rabinnical Jews understand as commanding tefillin seem to be metaphorical, and that's how Karaite Jews see it. There were almost definitely many different sects calling themselves "Sadducees", so it's no surprise that Christ reports something that's missing from the Karaites.It is not Orthodox. It may come from some Coptic iconographer, but the depiction of Christ here is absolutely anti-traditional, dressing him in the fashion of later, anti-Christian, rabbinical Judaism.
That is one interpretation, at least.The tallit and tefillin were already in use in Second Temple Judaism, as Christ mentions both Pharisees (the ancestors of Rabinnical Jews) and Sadducees (the ancestors of Karaite Jews) using them in St. Matthew 23:5. The tallit is clearly commanded in Numbers 15:38, but the commandments that Rabinnical Jews understand as commanding tefillin seem to be metaphorical, and that's how Karaite Jews see it. There were almost definitely many different sects calling themselves "Sadducees", so it's no surprise that Christ reports something that's missing from the Karaites.
He is Jewish and would have done Jewish things like wear a prayer shawl and a phylactery when leading prayer in a Synagogue as Jewish men did. Other than the underlying antisemitism that has plagued Christianity, what is the problem with showing this?The painting emphasizes how Jewish He is isolated from the context of the Gospel verse written on it.
Is there another valid one that doesn’t ignore history?That is one interpretation, at least.
I wrote the problem that I have. Others may not have an issue with it. It's not antisemitic to point it out. In the mid-Pentecost icons that I have seen, Christ is not shown wearing this type of clothing. If you know of an example, I'd be happy to see it.He is Jewish and would have done Jewish things like wear a prayer shawl and a phylactery when leading prayer in a Synagogue as Jewish men did. Other than the underlying antisemitism that has plagued Christianity, what is the problem with showing this?
Why is it wrong to show his Jewishness?I wrote the problem that I have. Others may not have an issue with it. It's not antisemitic to point it out. In the mid-Pentecost icons that I have seen, Christ is not shown wearing this type of clothing. If you know of an example, I'd be happy to see it.
It isn't. Do you know of other icons of Christ depicting Him this way?Why is it wrong to show his Jewishness?
You said: “The painting emphasizes how Jewish He is isolated from the context of the Gospel verse written on it.” As if emphasizing his Jewish heritage was a bad thing.It isn't. Do you know of other icons of Christ depicting Him this way?
That is your own interpretation of what I wrote.As if emphasizing his Jewish heritage was a bad thing.
I'm expressing my opinion on this Strange icons thread. Someone else posted this example and I agree that it is strange. So what?Not off the top of my head, but so what?
No, it can be.A new icon can never be developed?
We would need someone with a good understanding of Coptic iconography to say if anything's wrong from their own POV, but according to my bishop, who has a bit of an iconographic background, only a bishop should approve a completely new icon, and even then only after a lot of diligence. If a Byzantine iconographer chose to replace Christ's almost universally depicted theologically meaningful clothes with imagery associated to Old Testament ritual, this might raise some questions. An icon of Christ with "corrected" clothes would be less informative than "correcting" the Pentecost icon, which depicts people who weren't there and books who weren't written yet, but we don't want to go there either.Not off the top of my head, but so what? A new icon can never be developed?