An Icon Question

[Photini]

It came to my attention recently (and I've never noticed this before), that Orthodox Icons of the Crucifixion do not depict Christ with the crown of thorns oh His head. Does anyone know why this is? Just wondering.

 

[nicodemus]

It came to my attention recently (and I've never noticed this before), that Orthodox Icons of the Crucifixion do not depict Christ with the crown of thorns oh His head. Does anyone know why this is? Just wondering.

I don't know if this is true, but I once heard a priest say Orthodox icons of the Crucifixion exist to show the event, not to be a gruesome depiction of His suffering like so many other depictions of it. Once again, just passing along one thing I heard once.

 

[Oblio]

I've heard it is to place emphasis on him willingly entering the realm of death to defeat death, rather than the Western emphasis on judical appeasment of a divine penalty that he paid to himself.

 

[Philip]

Never noticed it before. I would agree with the explanations above.

 

[Maximus]

After I read your post I looked at my icon corner and discovered that, judging from it, you are right, Photini.

Among my icons I have one icon of the crucifixion and one old bronze crucifix that I bought on Arbat Street in Moscow. Neither of them show the crown of thorns.

I don't know why it is not pictured.

Curious . . .

 

[Photini]

What you guys said makes sense. I sent an e-mail to Fr. Averky from Monachos asking him why this is. It is from him that I first came to notice this. I'll let you all know what he says.

 

[Oblio]

Icons of the Crucifixion also center on the Theological truth of Christ lowering Himself in Extreme Humilty to save us, rather than an emphasis on pain and suffering that was the physical truth. He shows His sorrow and love for His Creation that have been separated from Him.

 

[Photini]

I always tend to think that it actually looks like Christ is holding the Cross up, rather than the Cross holding Christ. And the Icons that have the sun and moon in them...it looks like He's balancing them sort of...after all, He is the Pantokrator...the One Who holds it all.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

I never really noticed until you made this post. However, when I think of the crown of thorns and Icons, I think of this one...

 

[Photini]

That's the Bridegroom Icon. I hope to have an Icon like that one day. I can hardly wait for Pascha. The Bridegroom services are probably my absolute favorites.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

That's the Bridegroom Icon. I hope to have an Icon like that one day. I can hardly wait for Pascha. The Bridegroom services are probably my absolute favorites.

They are quite wonderful.

 

[Matrona]

That's the Bridegroom Icon. I hope to have an Icon like that one day. I can hardly wait for Pascha. The Bridegroom services are probably my absolute favorites.

Oh, mine too! I've only seen two, but I remembered how they touched me so. Holy Week was the week before I was baptized, it was all building up to my first communion on Pascha night, and I loved it.

Pretty soon, I hope to be able to have an icon corner for the first time. If everything goes right, and I pray that it does, I'll finally have a place to put icons, and finally a place to pray and to keep pictures of my heavenly family.

If all goes well, the Extreme Humility icon is going to be the first one I get. That's one of my favorite icons.

 

[Oblio]

The middle bar is that on which the Lord's hands were nailed. On either top corner we see the depiction of the sun (left) and the moon (right), for "The sun hid its light, and the moon turned to blood." (Joel 2:31)

An Explanation of the Russian Orthodox Three-Bar Cross

 

[Photini]

I got this answer from Fr. A today....looks like he's going to get a better answer for me soon.

My Dear "Little Wreck,"

Years ago, our Metropolitan told me that the Orthodox depiction of the crucified Christ does not have the crown of thorns because, according to an old tradition, it was taken off, which was much more painful than putting it on.

Orthodox icongraphers do not go into all the bloody details, as do some Catholic ones, especially the Spaniards. Although Christ is dead on the Cross, His death is not a shameful thing, but is a symbol of victory - the victory over death. Sometimes, rather than the usual inscription. "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews," it will read "The King of Glory," which is taken from the psalms. I recently read a fascinating article about the veneration of the Cross which makes so very beautiful that willing sacrifice which our Saviour made for us. I will look up a better answer for you.


May you and your little family have a peaceful and Blessed Nativity of the Lord. As usual, you are in my prayers. Hope you are mending well, and, God bless you!

your,

hieromonk A.

 

[MariaRegina]

Please don't tell Father A. this but

The book "A Doctor at Calvary" said that the head wounds due to the crown of thorns according to the Shroud of Turin indicate that Christ probably died of those head wounds from all the blood which he lost. The soldiers were surprised that he died so soon as other criminals had their legs broken to hasten death.

Glory to Thee, O Lord, Glory to Thee.

 

[nicodemus]

The soldiers were surprised that he died so soon as other criminals had their legs broken to hasten death.

It was so the prophecy might be fulfilled that he would never break a bone or so much as strike his foot on a stone.

 

[MariaRegina]

It was so the prophecy might be fulfilled that he would never break a bone or so much as strike his foot on a stone.

Exactly. So is there any proof that the Crown of Thorns was removed prior to the Crucifixion of our Lord. Several movies portray the removal of the Crown of Thorns but I thought they might be taking liberties. But were they?

BTW: Whatever happened to the Crown of Thorns? Is it in the Vatican archives or hidden away in a monastery?

 

[Philip]

BTW: Whatever happened to the Crown of Thorns? Is it in the Vatican archives or hidden away in a monastery?

Vaguely, I recall reading that it was held in the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. If this is correct, the crown was likely destroyed, along with many relics, during the French Revolution.

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Exactly. So is there any proof that the Crown of Thorns was removed prior to the Crucifixion of our Lord. Several movies portray the removal of the Crown of Thorns but I thought they might be taking liberties. But were they?

BTW: Whatever happened to the Crown of Thorns? Is it in the Vatican archives or hidden away in a monastery?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04540b.htm
In 1238 Baldwin II, the Latin Emperor of Constantinople, anxious to obtain support for his tottering empire, offered the Crown of Thorns to St. Louis, King of France. It was then actually in the hands of the Venetians as security for a heavy loan, but it was redeemed and conveyed to Paris where St. Louis built the Sainte-Chapelle (completed 1248) for its reception. There the great relic remained until the Revolution, when, after finding a home for a while in the Bibliothèque Nationale, it was eventually restored to the Church and was deposited in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in 1806. Ninety years later (in 1896) a magnificent new reliquary of rock crystal was made for it, covered for two- thirds of its circumference with a silver case splendidly wrought and jewelled. The Crown thus preserved consists only of a circlet of rushes, without any trace of thorns. Authorities are agreed that a sort of helmet of thorns must have been platted by the Roman soldiers, this band of rushes being employed to hold the thorns together. It seems likely according to M. De Mély, that already at the time when the circlet was brought to Paris the sixty or seventy thorns, which seem to have been afterwards distributed by St. Louis and his successors, had been separated from the band of rushes and were kept in a different reliquary. None of these now remain at Paris. Some small fragments of rush are also preserved apart from the sainte Couronne at Paris, e. g. at Arras and at Lyons. With regard to the origin and character of the thorns, both tradition and existing remains suggest that they must have come from the bush botanically known as Zizyphus spina Christi, more popularly, the jujube-tree. This reaches the height of fifteen or twenty feet and is found growing in abundance by the wayside around Jerusalem. The crooked branches of this shrub are armed with thorns growing in pairs, a straight spine and a curved one commonly occurring together at each point. The relic preserved in the Capella della Spina at Pisa, as well as that at Trier, which though their early history is doubtful and obscure, are among the largest in size, afford a good illustration of this peculiarity.

 

[MariaRegina]

Thank you Andreas.