That’s quite a title for someone whose very existence is based on an apocryphal text first attested about 190 c.e. And that is not all of her titles. She is sometimes called
Святая великомученица прехвалная и равноапостолная Фекла Svyataya velikomuchenitsa prekhvalnaya i ravnoapostolnaya Fekla
“Holy Great-Martyress All-Laudable and Equal-to-the-Apostles Thekla.”
Thekla/Thecla used to be a prominent saint in both the Latin Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but in the 20th century Thekla was removed from the Catholic calendar of saints. The reason given was very sensibly that Quia eius cultus non aliud habet fundamentum quam Acta apocrypha Pauli et Theclae — “Because hercult has no foundation other than the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla.” She marches on, however, in Eastern Orthodoxy, which continues to have many saints who never existed in its calendar, all venerated by great numbers of people who have no idea that they saints they pray to are no more real than characters in a novel. As mentioned in previous postings here, Eastern Orthodox iconography has no strong boundary separating the canonical Old and New Testaments from extra-biblical apocrypha. That is why icons of Thekla continue to be painted and venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy.
And if you are wondering why she is Thekla/Thecla in Greek and English, but Fekla in Russia, just remember that Russian has no “th” sound as in the English word “the”. So words beginning with “Th” — the Greek letter theta (Θ) — begin instead with Ф (the “F” sound) in Russian.
Here is a recent Greek-inscribed icon of Thekla:
The title inscription beside her head reads
Ἡ ἉΓΙΑ ΘΕΚΛΑ ΠΡѠΤΟΜΑΡΤΥC ΚΑΙ ΙCΑΠΌCΤΟΛΟς HE HAGIA THEKLA PROTOMARTYS KAI ISAPOSTOLOS
[The} HOLY THEKLA, PROTOMARTYR AND EQUAL-TO-THE-APOSTLES
The Acts of Paul is believed to have been written about 160 c.e. It is included as canonical in the list found in the Codex Claromontanus, but Tertullian asserted that it was written by an Asian presbyter who was removed from his office for the forgery. Whether true or not, Tertullian did not like the work because it encouraged females to preach and to baptize. It has a very negative view of sex, encouraging complete chastity for both females and males.
The story of Paul and Thekla/Thecla is quite lengthy, and if you have a free evening and an unhealthy urge toward masochism, you will find it here:
It is common to hear contemporary Eastern Orthodox advocates quote a phrase of the 5th century (and thus pre-Schism) “French” monk Vincent of Lérins: Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est — that “Which everywhere, which always, which by all is believed.” To them, that is a description of Orthodox belief — that which has always and everywhere and by all been believed.
Of course taken at face value it is patently untrue, which Vincent himself realized as he took refuge in what he felt to be the “majority” consensus of Christian belief — which in itself is a fragile shelter, for majorities have often been wrong. Christianity has never been historically unified in its beliefs since its beginnings, and as the German Luther once said, “… denn weder dem Papst noch den Konzilien allein glaube ich, da es feststeht, dass sie öfter geirrt und sich selbst widersprochen haben …. “For neither the popes nor the councils alone do I believe, since it is certain that they have often erred and contradicted themselves.” Even Celsus, the 2nd century Greek critic of the Christianity of his time, wrote, “Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense ….”
And of course students of art history know that even the making and veneration of icons is a later innovation in the history of Christianity.
The simple point to be drawn from this, as it relates to what I will discuss today, is that even in icons we find views expressed that others would dispute.
As an example, Let’s take a look at an icon type we have seen before. You may recall that it depicts a story recorded in Joshua 5:13-15, which is the large body of text written on this icon:
“‘And it happened when Joshua was in Jericho, that he looked up with his eyes and saw a man standing before him, and a drawn sword in his hand; and Joshua drew near and said to him, Are you for us or on the side of our enemies? And he said to him, I am now come, the chief captain of the army of the Lord. And Joshua fell on his face upon the earth, and said to him, Lord, what do you command your servant? And the captain of the Lord’s army said to Joshua, Loose your shoe off your feet, for the place whereon you now stand is holy.’ And Joshua did so.”
First, as you may recall, the name of Joshua in Slavic is Isus / Jesus — the same as the New Testament Jesus. The Old Testament Isus is distinguished by calling him Isus Navin (written on the icon as Navvin) — “Jesus son of Nun.” He is given the title Pravednuiy (“Righteous”), though on this icon it is simply “Holy” Isus Navvin.
And now, after all that long prelude, we come to the point of today’s posting: As you can see, the angel holding a sword in the icon is given the Slavic title Svyatuiy Arkhistratig Mikhail — “Holy Chief Commander Michael.” In Russian iconography, this appearance is considered one of several made by the Archangel Michael. However, that was not everywhere, always, and by all believed — not even by the early Christian Justin Martyr, who is considered a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy.
The second century apologist Justin Martyr held that the sword-bearing angel who appeared to Jesus Navin / Joshua son of Nun was the “Wisdom of God,” i.e. Jesus himself, not the Archangel Michael. Justin is considered to have held a subordinationist view of Jesus, meaning that Jesus was a distinct being “numerically distinct” from God the Father, who did not directly intervene in worldly affairs, but dealt with the material world via Jesus his son, a second divine being distinct from the Father, like the light of the sun is distinct from the sun. He placed Jesus in “second place” after the father, and though Justin considered Jesus to be divine (Greek theos), he did not consider him to be God in the same sense as the Father (Greek ho theos). This, of course, is not the later post-Nicene Trinitarian doctrine.
The thing for students of iconography to remember, however, is simply that when icons depict the angel who appeared to Joshua as being the Archangel Michael, that was not a view always held by earlier Christians, even some considered to be within the “Orthodox” fold.
First, as we near the holiday season, I would like to remind everyone that Ukraine is still struggling bravely against brutal odds to maintain its sovereignty and independence. I cannot find words to say how disgustingly careless and unhelpful I find the attitude of the current U.S. President in this matter. He certainly does not reflect American ideals.
Now on to icons.
Around the end of the 17th century, icons of the “Unsleeping Eye” in an unusual form began to appear in Ukrainian art, influenced by the religious art of western Europe. Here is an example from the village of Myzove, in Volyn Oblast in northwest Ukraine.
As you can see, it differs greatly from the traditional Russian form under this title. The Ukrainian version shows the infant Christ sleeping on a cross, with symbols of the Passion about him, and in this case a vase of roses adds a bright touch of color. The inscription on the cross is the usual Latin Catholic inscription INRI, instead of the Cyrillic form found on Russian icons.
There is also another “Trinitarian” form of the “Unsleeping Eye” found among Ukrainian folk icons. It is the “Unsleeping Eye with Lord Sabaoth.” Lord Sabaoth is God the Father. Here Jesus as the “Unsleeping Eye” on a cross with implements of the Passion is shown below the Holy Spirit as a dove, and above him Lord Sabaoth.
The Slavic inscriptions on the icon read:
“God the Father — God the Son — God the Holy Spirit”
Those at the edge of the triangular halo on Lord Sabaoth read:
“Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord Sabaoth, Full [are heaven and earth with your glory]”
Above the sleeping Jesus is the abbreviation for “Jesus Christ”, followed by “Savior of the World.”
Such icons were generally painted with oil paints on a board without a gesso base.
I hope you all remember the Bogoliubskaya icon type — particularly in the form known as the “Moscow” Bogoliubskaya, like this example:
The keys to look for in identifying the “Moscow” / Moskovskaya type of Bogoliubskaya icon are first, Mary standing at left, commonly with a scroll in her hand, and among the saints gathered on the right, one should find at least a couple of the Metropolitans of Moscow — Peter, Alexei, Iona/Jonah, and Filipp. Also look for at least two “holy fools” like the bare-chested holy fools Maksim and Ioann we see here. Beyond those, the other saints vary in name from example to example.
Do not think that every old icon you see with Mary standing at left and a gathering of saints at right is the “Moscow” Bogoliubskaya, however. It turns out there has been (and still is) a lot of confusion about this, but scholars now separate those with the kind of gathering mentioned above for the Moskovskaya/”Moscow” type from those with a gathering of saints that does not specifically include the Moscow Metropolitans and the Moscow Holy Fools.
Here is an example from the latter half of the 1500s:
(State Historical Museum, Moscow)
Again, scholars now hold that this latter type should not be classified under the Bogoliubskaya title at all, because it apparently developed independently and, confusingly, is thought to have originated in Moscow. In this example, Jesus is seen above, and to his right a crowned, six-winged angel some identify as Jesus represented as Holy Wisdom (Sophia) or as the Angel of Great Counsel. Others are not so sure, because neither of those manifestations of Jesus are commonly depicted with the six wings of seraphim.
To further complicate matters, this latter type — now commonly called the Molenie o Narode — the “Prayer for the People” — is rather variable. This example omits the crowned, six-winged angel and instead has a regular angel crowning Mary at left:
Here is a 16th century example that does have one metropolitan in the top row of saints, at left facing Mary — Metropolitan of Moscow Iona/Jonah:
(State Historical and Cultural Museum, Kremlin)
In the Vologda example below, dating from the last quarter of the 15th century, we see another Metropolitan identified by some as Pyotr/Peter, wearing his white klobuk (clerical hat) standing to the right of the other saints and depicted larger than they.
So, complicated and confusing as this can be, just remember that now not only are the Bogoliubskaya Moskovskaya and the Molenie o Narode considered to be two quite separate types, but also that that Molenie o Narode / “Prayer for the People” is not considered a Bogoliubskaya variant at all — but rather an icon form that shares a common descent with the Bogoliubskaya, both thought to have originated in the Byzantine Hagiosoritissa type — as in this circa 1150 byzantine example kept in the Freising Dombergmuseum:
And also in the Byzantine Paraklesis type, as in this fresco example dating 1310-1315 from the Church of St. Nicholas Orphanos, Thessaloniki:
Now that we have gone through all that and your head is thoroughly muddled, keep in mind that though the Molenie o Narode / “Prayer for the People” is no longer considered a Bogoliubskaya variant by scholars, many people still tend to classify it as such. That is not at all surprising, given that this is a very bewildering group of similar-appearing icons.
As for me, if the crowd of saints at right includes two or more Metropolitans of Moscow, and two or more holy fools associated with Moscow, I list it as a “Moscow” Bogoliubskaya. If not, even with the presence of a single metropolitan, it is more likely classified as a Molenie o Narode / “Prayer for the People” type. Generally the “Moscow” Bogoliubskaya has fewer saints grouped at right than the “Prayer for the People” type, but I would not regard that as an infallible rule. Icons can always surprise us.
Today’s icon type is uncommon and easily misidentified. To make matters more difficult, it is a very variable type. Examples can look quite different, from simple to extremely complex.
Let’s begin near the simple end with this fine example:
(Courtesy of Temple Gallery, London)
Here is how misidentification of this type usually happens. One looks at the unfamiliar icon and is a bit puzzled. Seeing the figure standing at center base, one may recall seeing him before. Where? In icons of the Pokrov, the “Protection of the Mother of God.” Pokrov icons are quite common. Here is one:
Now it is correct that the standing fellow in red is the same saint in both icons. The mistake one may easily make from this point is to think that because they are the same saint in much the same position, today’s icon must be a Pokrov variant of some kind.
It is not. The only similarities are the guy in red on the platform — who is Romanos the Melodist — and the domes signifying that the setting is a church. Other than that, Mary — an essential element in Pokrov icons — is notably absent.
Further, in Pokrov icons, Romanos commonly holds a scroll with a Church Slavic inscription reading: “Today the Virgin stands in the Church ….”
However, that is not at all the scroll inscription Romanos is holding in today’s icon, which reads:
“A saving tree has appeared today from the bowels of the earth, which in the church …”
It is the beginning of the Kontakion of the Presanctification, Voice 8, from the Forefeast of the Exaltation of the Honorable and Life-giving Cross of the Lord;
“A saving tree has appeared today from the bowels of the earth, which in the church the bishop honorably lifts up in his hands. The universe, worshiping, kisses it with fear. Save us O Lord.”
If we look at the scroll inscription held by the monk on the left, we see that it is just a slight variant of this Troparion of the Renewal of the Jerusalem Church:
Якоже вышния тверди благолепие и нижнюю споказал еси красоту святаго селения славы Твоея Господи утверди сие во век века и приими наша в нем непрестанно приносимая Тебе моления, Богородицею, всех Животе и Воскресение.
“Like the splendor of the heavenly firmament, you have revealed on earth the beauty of the holy temple of Your glory, O Lord! Establish it forever and ever, and accept, through the intercessions of the Birthgiver of God, our prayers, unceasingly offered to you in it, the Life and Resurrection“
If we put all of this together, we may correctly conclude that today’s image is an icon of the “Renewal of the Temple of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem” (Обновление храма Воскресения Христова в Иерусалиме).
That is an annual commemoration in the Liturgical calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church, as we find in the Svodnuiy Ikonopisnuiy Podlinnik, under September 13th, as the Obnovlenie khrama Voskreseniya Khristova, izhe vo Ierusalimye — “The Renewal of the Temple of the Resurrection of Christ, which is at Jerusalem.”
Icons of this type may be traced back to the 1500s.
Of course if we had looked at the icon really closely at the beginning, we would have seen a rather dim inscription running atop the domes of the church. Here is the beginning of it:
Yes, the title of the icon is there; it is just rather difficult to make out, and written so small, it does not look much like usual, larger icon title inscriptions.. That is a caution to us to pay attention to small details. Even though some words are too faint to decipher, we can see the word ХРАМА (Khrama/Temple) clearly, and following it the beginning of ВОСКРЕСЕНИЯ (Resurrection) — so ” …Church of the Resurrection …”
Now to return to Romanos. Why does he hold a scroll talking about the “saving tree,” a Kontakion from the Forefeast of the Exaltation/Elevation of the Cross? It is because the Forefeast of the Elevation of the Cross happens on the same day as the commemoration of the Renewal of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem — September 13th.
Now let’s look at the various parts of the icon:
At the top, we see the liturgy being celebrated in the church. The main figure with his hands elevating a cross is James, the brother of Jesus — by tradition the first bishop of the Jerusalem Church. With him are other clerics. Those with halos are John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, and Basil the Great. Those without are two deacons. Before them is the diskos bearing the “Lamb of God” in the form of the child Jesus, representing the Eucharistic bread.
Below, as we have seen, is Romanos the Melodist. To his left is a monk apparently intended to be Cosmas of Maiuma, also known as Cosmas the Melodist.
At lower right is a depiction of the Resurrection, seen as the Descent to Hades. It is included because the subject of this icon is the Church of the Resurrection.
You will recall that I began by saying the Renewal of the Temple of the Resurrection is a very variable type. Well, you are about to see just how variable. Examples can look so completely different that one would hardly know it is the same subject.
Here is one from the 18th century. Its title — written at the top — is “Renewal of the Temple of the Resurrection of Christ our Lord.” In the three ovals near the top are scenes of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Transfiguration. Below, between two pillars, is an icon of Mary, and below that a group of clerics with the large central figure identified by name inscription as “Holy Patriarch Nikifor [Nicephorus].” By the left pillar stands “Holy Emperor Constantine,” and by the right pillar, “Holy Empress Elena [Helena]”
(Museum of Icons of the Most Holy Mother of God)
Bearing a bit more resemblance to today’s main icon, in that it has the depiction of the liturgy with the Lamb of God, and the Descent to Hades, is this late 16th-early 17th century restored example from the Stroganov School. It is the upper half of a two part icon, with the “Praise of the Most Holy Mother of God” depicted in the lower half omitted here. Among the other scenes it includes are the Crucifixion and the Creation of Man, The Doubting of Thomas, the Old Testament Sacrifice in the Temple of Solomon, the Preparation of the Throne, and a group of angels.
(Solvychegodsk Historial and Art Museum)
There are versions of the type that are even more complex, such as this example from the latter part of the 17th century:
(Andrey Rublev Museum)
So now you have been cautioned about the great variability of this type. But what exactly does the the “Renewal of the Temple of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem” commemorate?
It commemorates the Consecration of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem on September 13, 335, which by tradition was built at the order of Empress Helena on the site where she supposedly discovered the “True Cross” of Jesus — the location of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus. Today the Church of the Resurrection is more commonly known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
What the Russians call the обновление / obnovlenie (“renewal,” “restoration”) of the Church, the Greeks call the ἐγκαίνια / engkainia, meaning “dedication” “inauguration,” or “renewal” (of religious services). Icons of this type, however, are primarily Russian.
ICONS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 