What's with the statue of Peter in St. Peter’s Cathedral?

The statue in St Peter's (photographed in this thread) is strictly a renaissance piece of art. It is documented to the 14th century. The style of art of the early Roman empire (in the days of polytheism) was a dramatically different style. The statue in questions shares none of the earlier artistic characteristics. In other words, no, it's not a reused tatue. It's strictly renaissance in origin.

From my understanding of the early years of Christianity in the Roman empire, most of the statues of the roman gods were destroyed to enforce the new religion of Christianity and erase all traces of the earlier religion. Unfortunately, that also meant that few statues remained to survive to this time, and much of what we know about the craftsmanship of this time has been lost. </font>[/QUOTE]Well then - it had to have been "modified' to appear 13th-14th century - since this is a 4th-5th century statue.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Congrats Bob, you've just fell for a RC lie!
There is a looong Catholic tradition of making objects more historically significant than they truly are. just read up on the history of a certain throne held aloft by 4 saints that is in the same basilica.

 

Sure - it would really "help them" to declare that it was a fourth century statue - since at that time - Rome had only pagan images.

Kinda brings us back to Vaticano Illustrato again.

Also helps to know that at the time that Cambio was trying to build up the Basillica - they were pilfering the pantheon for material.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So, Bob, what is the source of your citation?

Why do you not answer this simple repeated question?

What is your source of the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, how about an answer?

Several have asked you this question in one form or another.

How about it?

What is your source for the citation? </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, having sent Mioque on a wild goose chase, I think that it is time that you either answer the question or fess up and apologize. </font>[/QUOTE]Bob, why don't you just supply the source of your citation?

What is the source of your citation?

We are waiting..... </font>[/QUOTE]Hi,all.

I'm going to just keep bumping and bumping until our resident dodger answers this one simple question.


Bob, what is the source of your citation?

 

Bob said
"it would really "help them" to declare that it was a fourth century statue - since at that time - Rome had only pagan images."
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~huma103/dis2.html
http://www.tigtail.org/TIG/TVM/Mez/a.early%20christian/early_christian.html
So no by the end of the 4th century there already was an extensive Christian iconography in place. including statues of Jezus as the Good Shepherd. Roman Catholic apologists sometimes try to boost the status of Peter (and thus the papacy) by claiming that individual statues of Peter were already in existance. In fact at the time the apostles were always depicted as a group.

The reason I know the statue of Peter is late medieval instead of late antiquety is the style of the statue.
&lt;oversimplification coming up&gt;
Statues created during the Roman empire were always either realistic or idealistic depending on the fashion of the moment. This statue is neither. In medieval art neither quality was considered of any significance.

 

Sadly - the references you give shows pictures/paintings and tombs with some icons painted or carved. The is a far cry from the statue of Peter/Jupiter/Zeus in the Pantheon.

Icons on that level don't appear at all in your references.

Vaticano Illustrato - and Catholic Encyclopedia appear to agree that the image of Peter is in fact not the creation of De Cambio and is much older. Both of them point to a 3rd-4th century origin. And "though there may also have been tombs and paintings" that you might use to obfuscate the point "as if" that is equivalent to such a major work as this statue in Rome at the time of Constantine -- it appears you have not a leg to speculate on.

Any late 13th century characteristics would therefore have been "Adaptations" by De Cambio rather than proof that the statue did not exist prior to that time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
These ones better?
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/jcart.stm
http://www.romansonline.com/Ev_P_img.asp?Iid=1481
A 4th century statue of Jezus as the good shepherd.

Don't worry Bob no doubt there is somebody out there who claims it's a third century statue of Apollo being reused.