In a message dated 97-10-26 17:05:55 EST, you write:
> Most of icons attributed to Luke are actually ideal portraits of the Virgin
> and Child, but other schemes are also witnessed by images and texts. The
> first Roman icons by the Evangelist were in fact Our Lady of San Sisto, an
> image of the Virgin 'advocata', i. e. alone, stretching up Her arms in an
> intercessory pose, and the Lateran Christ, i.e. a 'Pantokrator' image. One
> may quote also later examples displaying similar features. Images of
> are also witnessed: in the coptic church of St. March in Alexandria
> an icon portraying the archangel Michael was venerated as a miraculous
> by the Evangelist in the 17th century.
> Michele Bacci
> Scuola Normale Superiore
> Pisa (Italy)
You seem to be assuming Luke could have actually made, or did actually make,
the paintings attributed to him, and that he actually was an artist. This
makes it necessary to answer certain questions.
Why would the NT call Luke a physician if he was actually an artist?
It's generally assumed that we have no paintings of Christ made during his
lifetime or by anyone who had ever actually seen him or who knew what he
looked like. Yet you seem to believe he was painted by Luke (who would have
actually seen him and who would have known what he looked like). Before even
showing that the painting was correctly attributed, you'd have to show that
Luke was an artist.
What did Christ look like in the icon, with which you seem familiar? I hope
it isn't the so-called Byzantine Christ, which comes from a much later era. I
also hope the style of the icon is not the style of, say, the 5th century.
You say Luke also painted saints. How can this be? The earliest
post-Biblical saint I've noticed on Carolyn's lists came from the 3rd
Stonehenge and many other megaliths were once thought to have been built by a
race of giants.
At Mecca, a black stone built into the Ka'aba is reputed to have fallen from
heaven. We don't have to believe these stories are true, just as we don't
have to believe that the statue of Athena in the Parthenon was made by the
gods, who dropped it from heaven. The question is whether we can reliably
believe Luke was an artist, especially in the face of the NT idnentifying him
as a physician. The evidence has to be something other than what people used
to believe. Their beliefs could have been wrong. The paintings they thought
were by Luke might actually have been made by someone else. Wrong
attributions are very common, and even major museums often change their
attributions when new evidence emerges..