Bleeding From The Knees?

Source: news.aol.com...

Yesterday when I was reading this news article on AOL, the very last paragraph stumped me a bit. Here is the qoute:

Pencil and watercolor drawings for the design of a crucifix for San Damiano Church in Assisi grabbed the attention of Andrea Del Col, a history professor at the University of Trieste. The Holy Office's "corrected" version of the sketch eliminated graphic spurts of blood pouring out of Jesus' knees in the original design.

The story of the Crucifixion of Jesus as we know it to be, is very specific regarding the wound sites of Jesus. We have the crown of thorns, we have the nails in the hands and the feet, and we have the sword wound in the side of Jesus. Is there some other reference to injury to Jesus's knees that I am not familier with?

My interest is peaked simply becuase I do not understand why the artist being commissioned to design a crucifix for San Damiano Church would take "creative license" and create a wound site that did not exist. If the artist simply wanted to add a bit of gore to bring a stronger impact to the artwork, he could have had blood pouring out of any of the well documented wound sites, he wouldn't have had to add in an extra location. Or did the Vatican hire a complete dolt of an artist that was not familiar with the crucifixion story which I would find hard to believe.

The article mentions that the Vatican corrected the original piece of art to have the bleeding from the knees removed. Understandable -- but -- did they correct the artwork due to an error made by an incompetent artist who made an error on wound site locations, or did they correct it becuase the wound site is valid and they didn't want the gore, or did they correct it becuase the wound site, while valid, didn't comply with the crucifixion story?

I've been trying to remember all of the crucifixes that I've seen, and I don't remember ever seeing any of them with any type of wound site around the knees.

Does anyone have any information that could help clear up why this artist might have had blood pouring out from the knee area?

Thanks!

That probably relates to the fall and struggle to drag the timbers on the ground. Lots of style and imagination regardless of where it comes from.

reply to post by Apsaroke


That site kept locking up on me but the first thing that came to mind is the method of a typical Roman crucifixion. To speed up the death of a crucifixion victim (remember death by crucifixion typically took days to occur), Roman soldiers would break the legs. Reason would dictate this could be done by busting the knee caps. Unable to support themselves on the cross, the victim would die by asphyxiation.

In Jesus' account, the Bible is emphatic that His bones were not broken. He died sooner than expected. This surprised the Romans at His death so they pierced Him in the side to ensure He was dead. This artist might have assigned the typical crucifixion scenario to Jesus incorrectly.

Joy. Here comes the "truth is hidden in artwork" crowd.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Apsaroke

 

Joy. Here comes the "truth is hidden in artwork" crowd.

Thanks for your reply, I think.

I just found it odd that the artist had this imagery and was wondering if there was anything out there that supported that artist's original rendition and whether or not there may be more to the story of the crucifixion that does not fit the Vatican's official position.

This is one of my tamer questions. If this one got you filled with joy, I can't wait to see your response to future threads I kick off.


Illahee -- Thank you for the reply. That would sound about right to me and would fit in nicely.

Originally posted by Apsaroke
Thanks for your reply, I think.

I probably could have left that last line off. Sometimes my mouth gets in the way of my southern 'polite at all costs' upbringing.

I just found it odd that the artist had this imagery and was wondering if there was anything out there that supported that artist's original rendition and whether or not there may be more to the story of the crucifixion that does not fit the Vatican's official position.

The most important thing to know is when the painting was created. If it was done during the middle ages, Renaissance, or even later then why should we take this artist's clues over previous historical arguments?

Art is like poetry. The interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Christian fundamentalists like myself will say it was just some other injury He suffered while carrying the cross while conspiracy theorists (which is what ATS is all about, of course) will say the Vatican knows something we don't and that Jesus' legs were broken.

It would actually be against some parts of the T&C's to say the conspiracy theorists are wrong on all accounts because there is no proof either way with such a lack of facts surrounding the painting.

This is one of my tamer questions. If this one got you filled with joy, I can't wait to see your response to future threads I kick off.

Skepticism, as always! But good thread this time around.

No worries, Ashely. I always enjoy a good solid debate on differences of opinion.

I wouldn't say that I am skeptical. I do beleive in Jesus. But I also beleive there is a lot more out there than just the currently narrow defined version that has been hand-carved throughout history by men with their own agendas.

I'm currently working on a post in a text editor that will take me quite a few more days to complete before I feel it is postable. I don't have as much time to work on it as I would like to have. It'll be posted in this forum however, and I would enjoy having you join in on the discussion if you care to do so.