Icon of Christ the Good Shepherd

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Thioni,

Welcome to Monachos, I was delighted to hear you're back where you belong, thanks be to God.

There is wonderful Icon that a good Greek Orthodox friend of mine painted below. I'm sure you can relate to it as many people do particularly when they have been through some difficult times and look to Christ who is always there even when not noticed.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin


http://eikona1.com/iconimages/b04i45c00-075.jpg

[Peter]

Christ Is Risen.
My family's prayers are with you, and we rejoice with much gladness that you have re-found the Way. Welcome to Monachos, and rest assured that in the turbulent sea called Life, this place is one of the few habours where we can come and rest our weary boats.

Matthew, thank you for sharing this icon, i have never seen it before, and it has touched me greatly. I hope you are well, and may God bless your labours.

In Xc

Petros

[Olga]

This might sound pedantic, but it should be noted that, unlike in much Western devotional art, Christ should only be shown bearing the marks of His crucifixion in icons of the Resurrection, the encounter with Mary Magdalene at His tomb, and at His appearance to Apostle Thomas; in other words, only in subjects which refer to the historic confirmation of the bodily resurrection of the Lord. Other portrayals of Christ which are not derived from post-Resurrection Gospel history and narrative, should not show the stigmata.

[M.C. Steenberg]

This might sound pedantic, but it should be noted that, unlike in much Western devotional art, Christ should only be shown bearing the marks of His crucifixion in icons of the Resurrection, [etc., ...] Other portrayals of Christ which are not derived from post-Resurrection Gospel history and narrative, should not show the stigmata.
Dear Olga,

I wonder if you know the history, or perhaps some thoughts behind, this norm? Clearly the wounds would not be portrayed in icons that display Christ before the events of the Passion - but your comment brings out that non-situational icons of Christ (e.g. Christ Pantokrator) never portray the wounds. I'm curious if you (or perhaps another iconographer or historian) knows any details as to why?

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Olga,

Yes it did sound pedantic, to me anyway. If anybody else said it other than you I don't think I would respond. Since I know you know what you are taking about here goes...

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above-

In Short form, the core argument that was used against the OT prohibition was that to deny depicting the Logos in iconography was to deny the Incarnation. I think the same thing applies here relative to this Icon. To deny depicting the wounds on the Risen Christ as the Good Shepherd goes against quite a bit of theology, as such I would be very interested to know how such a conclusion and stand could be taken and supported. Are there some canons against such renderings? Since the Incarnation forms the basis for icons surely the Risen Christ who redeems mankind as is seen in the Decent into Hades (with stigmata) is acceptable, migrating that reality to include lost sheep presents no problem historically or presently, thanks be to God. Besides what's wrong with the 8th day?

If my memory serves me correctly Photios Kontoglou painted the original or copied it. I don't know of any iconographer that has had a problem or expressed any concern about this particular icon.

I'm all for this Icon, I think it is very Orthodox and moving.

Waiting patiently...

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It wasn't until Matthew P's good post that I understood why for so many years I have had trouble with the idea that all icons must be 'historically accurate'. To point to just one example of the problem with this what of icons of parables such as the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son? I have to stop my self every year as we prepare for Great Lent and remember that the Publican and Pharisee is a parable and not an account of an actual event. Or perhaps it is an account of what is more real than an actually occurring event in time.

This points to the weakness in ascribing icons to what is historically accurate. By historical do we mean the icon must faithfully represent the prototype according to canonical norms as understood by the Church? Or do we mean that the icon is an absolute description of what is being portrayed according to historical norms? If we connect icons to historical depiction then the Publican & Pharisee is indeed less real than an actually occurring event even though Christ's parable is actually more real.

We wouldn't want to reject modern history any more than we would want to reject modern science. After all even in the Church we have relied on history writing (although written in a different way in general from the modern). But we must understand the uses of these things and that modern history is based on a secular view of reality which both restricts meaning to what it can perceive and then gives an absolute significance to its manner of perception. Historical perception is thus at once both more 'flat' like a picture restricted to a line-drawing and more absolute in its demands since it claims to have captured the essence of the matter.

Here I think we get closer to the problem of trying to tie the norms of iconography to historical norms. Of course iconography should deal with reality and according to certain norms. But Church norms are not identical to historical. Think again of depicting Christ's Parables which certainly is canonically correct. But also think of how for the Church the idea of a faithful image does not mean that we claim to have portrayed the prototype absolutely. In other words according to canonical norms we can have icons of Christ with or without wounds- the Christ of the Passion or of the Resurrection- without each contradicting the other. Both convey the reality of Christ for all time since we never claimed that an icon must be absolute in its depiction. In fact by definition we know that an icon cannot be an absolute depiction since we openly proclaim we do not depict the essence of what we are portraying but rather a faithful image.


As with science and all such subjects since we are really talking about perception and how this is depicted it is impossible to draw a hard & fast line between the Church's manner of depiction and the secular. Because of human nature itself each has always been influenced by and influenced the other. But we must never mistake the two for each other otherwise without quite seeing it we risk secularising our view of the Church itself- which needs a converted vision in order to be seen.

If the task of balancing these two was always necessary but difficult it is so even more now when the world tries to enclose itself into an absolute space separate from the Divine. The answer to this isn't to then enclose ourselves into a separate 'Church-world' like the Alamo which is really a deluded fantasy. It is to continue that old task of parsing the good from the bad, of recognising the good efforts of people even amid their confusion & of bringing the Light of Christ to the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Fr Raphael and Matthew P

I, too, have pondered over the canonicity or otherwise of portrayal of parables in iconographic form, or, of such topics as Christ the Good Shepherd, and I've come across statements for and against, and, to be honest, I'm not sure one way or another. However, the purpose of my post on the wounds of Christ was not whether Christ should be portrayed as the Good Shepherd, but on the presence of the wounds in such an icon.

I am currently searching my sources for a definitive answer, but a simple answer for now is this: In the same way a saint is not portrayed in his physical imperfection, but as a spiritually transfigured being, then this should be the same for Christ, who is eternal and beyond time. Where Christ is portrayed "in time", i.e. in scenes derived from post-Resurrection, pre-Ascension Gospel narrative, then the wounds may be shown. Where Christ is portrayed "outside of time", as in Pantokrator and its variants, then the wounds should not be present.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I am currently searching my sources for a definitive answer, but a simple answer for now is this: In the same way a saint is not portrayed in his physical imperfection, but as a spiritually transfigured being, then this should be the same for Christ, who is eternal and beyond time. Where Christ is portrayed "in time", i.e. in scenes derived from post-Resurrection, pre-Ascension Gospel narrative, then the wounds may be shown. Where Christ is portrayed "outside of time", as in Pantokrator and its variants, then the wounds should not be present.

This may well be the answer, Olga. But I wonder. For the saints, physical infirmity or wounds may indeed be, as you say, signs of physical imperfection that are not portrayed in the icon - for the icon reveals the transfigured, perfect reality. But for Christ, the wounds of the passion are not signs of imperfection, but perfection. It is the wounds that are the full images of his death and resurrection, of the victory over death, not the succumbing to it. They are part of the identity of the one whom St Gregory calls 'The Lamb crucified before the foundation of the world'. So at least Gregory would see the wounds not as aspects of Christ's temporal mission, but part of the eternal character of the One Who Is.

So I'm still curious as to the precise nature of the canons on iconography in this regard. Thank you much for the helpful thoughts thus far.

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Olga,

The Good Shepherd is always the Good Sheperd, time is not an issue before and after the incarnation, cruxcifiction and ressurrection, isn't that the historical, present and future reality?

It seems to me we can't over emphasize the application of a historical rule which might be what is happening here to some degree. The book of Revelation is iconographic, rich with symbolism as is iconography, do those events unfold within space and time? As we know Iconography is to transcend space and time, if we can permit it. Icons depicting those events would pose a problem via the application of historical contextual occurrences, yet such Icons correctly exist.

The only way that one can argue against correctness of this Icon since it depicts Christ's wounds is precisely by placing it within a strictly adhered to and created context or rule of a historical nature.

Iconographers are well aware of the sacred balance that must not be violated. I do not think that this Icon breaches that space in any way. In short the note rings true, to these ears.

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

I don't think there can be any canons that can be applied against such an Icon.

Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco has some interesting comments that may be of some help.


Now what are Icons? Icons are precisely the union between painting and those symbols and works of art which replaced Icons during the time of persecution. The Icon is not simply a representation, a portrait. In later times only has the bodily been represented, but an Icon is still supposed to remind people of the spiritual aspect of the person depicted.

Christianity is the inspiration of the world. Christ founded His Church in order to inspire, to transfigure the world, to cleanse it from sin and bring it to that state in which it will exist in the age to come. Christianity was founded upon the earth and operates upon the earth, but it reaches to Heaven in its structure; Christianity is that bridge and ladder whereby men ascend from the earthly Church to the Heavenly. Therefore, a simple representation which recalls the earthly characteristics of some face is not an Icon. Even an accurate depiction, in the sense of physical build, still signifies nothing. A person may be very beautiful externally, yet at the same time be very evil. On the other hand, he may be ugly, and at the same time a model of righteousness. Thus, we see that an Icon must indeed depict that which we see with our eyes, preserving the characteristics of the body's form, for in this world the soul acts through the body; yet at the same time it must point towards the inner, spiritual essence. The task of the Iconographer is precisely to render, as far as possible and to as great an extent as possible, those spiritual qualities whereby the person depicted acquired the Kingdom of Heaven, whereby he won an imperishable crown from the Lord, for the Church's true significance is the salvation of man's soul. That which is on the earth perishes when we bring the body to the grave; but the soul passes on to another place. When the world comes to an end, consumed by fire, there will be a new earth and a new Heaven, as the Apostle John the Theologian says, for with the eyes of his soul he already foresaw the New Jerusalem, so clearly described in his sacred Revelation. The Lord came to prepare the whole world for this spiritual rebirth. To prepare oneself for this new Kingdom, one must uproot from within oneself those seeds of sin which entered mankind with our ancestors' fall into sin, distorting our pristine, grace-endowed nature; and one must plant within oneself those virtues which they lost in the fall. The Christian's goal is to change daily, to improve daily, and it is of this that our Icons speak.

In calling to mind the saints and their struggles, an Icon does not simply represent the saint as he appeared upon the earth. No, the Icon depicts his inner spiritual struggle; it portrays how he attained to that state where he is now considered an angel on earth, a heavenly man. This is precisely the manner in which the Mother of God and Jesus Christ are portrayed. Icons should depict that transcendent sanctity which permeated the saints. The Lord Jesus Christ is the union of all that is human and all that is divine; and when depicted in an Icon, the Savior must be painted so that we sense that He is a man, a real man, yet at the same time something more exalted than a man, that we not simply approach Him as we approach a visitor or an acquaintance. No, we should feel that He is One Who is close to us, our Lord Who is merciful to us, and at the same time an awe-inspiring Judge Who wants us to follow Him and wishes to lead us to the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, we must not turn away to one side or the other. We should not depict only the spiritual aspect of the saint, completely disregarding how he looked while alive on earth. This would also be an extreme. All saints should be depicted so as to convey their individual characteristics as much as possible—soldiers should be portrayed arrayed for battle; holy hierarchs in their episcopal vestments... It is incorrect to depict bishops of the first centuries vested in the sakkos, for at that time bishops wore the phelonion, not the sakkas, and yet this is not such a great error, for it is far better to make a mistake in what is physical than in what is spiritual, to ignore, as it were, the spiritual aspect.

However, it is far worse when everything is correct in the physical, bodily sense, but the saint appears as an ordinary man, as if he had been photographed, completely devoid of the spiritual. When this is the case, the depiction cannot be considered an Icon. Sometimes much attention is spent on making the Icon beautiful. If this is not detrimental to the spirituality of the Icon, it is good, but if the beauty distracts our vision to such an extent that we forget what is most important—that one must save one's soul, must raise one's soul to the heights of Heaven,—the beauty of the depiction is already detrimental. It cannot be considered an Icon, but merely a painting. It may be very beautiful, but it is not an Icon. An Icon is an image which leads us to a holy, God-pleasing person, or raises us up to Heaven, or evokes a feeling of repentance, of compunction, of prayer, a feeling that one must bow down before this image. The value of an Icon lies in the fact that, when we approach it, we want to pray before it with reverence. If the image elicits this feeling, it is an Icon.

In context:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_discourse.aspx

[Tim Grass]

I'm still curious.... is it actually a canon that the wounds of Jesus can only be painted in those certain scenes Olga mentioned? .... or is that just common practice?

I don't think this icon is the first time I've seen something like this.

--tim