Talk:Hinton St Mary Mosaic

Oldest?

Is this certain? Would be interesting if it is certain. Is it?

But this source has a question mark....History2007 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind but this probably needs more attention in Wikipedia, seems ignored so far. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Quote in Paul Stephenson (Professor of History Durham University) states:

• It is here at a small church at Hinton st Mary in Dorset that the image of Christ appeared for the first time in an extant floor mosaic, which dates from the fourth century and is now in the British Museum

I reverted after checking a second book which states wall painting found on a 1st century Roman catacomb - could this be the earliest potrait of Jesus?

Both sentences can be read two ways (ie first in a mosaic; and later painting on 1stC wall. Also the Hinton is definitely Jesus...the catacombe painting might be Jesus. Anyway I decided to revert for now. Tom Pippens (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How do we know the Hinton is definitely Jesus? The British Museum source seemed to be careful not to claim it, and perhaps rightly so. It says: "If it is Christ, it stands at the very beginning of a tradition... " And one can have reasonable confidence in that Museum's assessments. In any case, if there is any doubt anywhere, it is not certain. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Stephenson states The attribution of the image seems certain for it has an identifying symbol, the chi-rho... Tom Pippens (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sure Stephenson thinks that, but there are also lots of freshwater people who will swear on the grave of economists past that X is true, only to be rebuffed by their saltwater peers. So disagreement among experts is not new - in this field or elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

lol I've never heard of freshwater people before...and I've got a Degree in Economics. The curse of Wikipedia... I'm now going to have to read up about that as well. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You probably went to a saltwater school... History2007 (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The British Museum, a very cautious lot, say on the same page it is "thought to be" Christ, which pretty much means it is. Whether it is the earliest depends on all sorts of uncertain identifications & datings of other depictions in the Catacombs etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the "it is thought to be Christ" statement is like the weather forecast of 90% chance of rain tomorrow, leaving the 10% window open. And I think rightly so. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way John, the article has a reference: S. Pearce, ‘The Hinton St Mary mosaic: Christ or emperor?’ Britannia 39 (2008), pp. 193-218 I do not have access to that. But does that suggest an alternative? History2007 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes - I can't get to that either, but I think the argument is that some (later?) coins have the head of the emperor with a chi-rho behind in a similar way. Btw, whether Christ or Emperor, the positioning on the floor is surely unusual, & might have raised some eyebrows among visitors from more civilized parts of the Empire. But there are a lot of specialists who are pursuaded it is Christ - who does indeed often look "imperial" in one type of early image. Johnbod (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So I guess the Museum people were right to be cautious. The long and short of it seems to be that: There is a good chance it may be Christ, but there is a chance it may be the Emperor. And unless someone digs up something new near there, there is no way to be sure. And in any case, as you said it is far from clear if this is "the very earliest" image of Christ even if it is intended to be Christ. Yet, an interesting item - that is the only thing certain here. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)