DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14697#0370
1202
Appendix N
To determine the date of the chalice is a task of primary importance. Sound
criticism will rely, not on any a priori notions as to what the early Church could
or could not have done, but on definite considerations of shape, technique, style,
and subject.
Now the outer shell or container is essentially an ovoid bowl, without
handles, supported on a round knop with a low and narrow foot-stand. A cup
so constructed suffers from one obvious defect. It is top-heavy and would be
easily upset. Such a shape could hardly have been popular for long together.
Norwas it. Bronze coins of uncertain denomination struck by Simon Maccabaeus
in 136/5 B.C. have for reverse type a closely similar chalice with knop, short
stem, and small foot1. But silver shekels and half-shekels dating from the First
Revolt of the Jews in 66/7—70 a.d. have for obverse type a chalice with smaller
knop, longer stem, and broader foot2. Coins of the Second Revolt in 132—135 a.d.
substitute either a one-handled jug3 or a two-handled amphora^, and do not
enable us to trace further the evolution of the chalice. But this at least is clear,
that on Palestinian soil the old top-heavy chalice was passing out of use as early
as 66 a.d. Elsewhere too the same holds good. Two silver cups of similar shape
belonging to the Pierpont Morgan collection, exhibited in the Metropolitan
Museum of Fine Arts, are justly regarded as excellent samples of Hellenistic
work3. And silver cups of a like pattern depicted in frescoes from Herculaneum6
amulet. Again, if 10 is St John, the other beardless figure (11) must be his brother,
St James the son of Zebedee. Moreover, St Peter (2) would naturally be balanced by
St Paul (3). And the resemblance of the older man 5 to figure 2 suggested St Peter's
brother, St Andrew. Lastly, it was surmised that figures 12 and 4, seated respectively on
the right and left hand of Christ are St James the Lord's brother and St Jude, his nearest
relatives on earth. It is claimed that figure 12 alone is clad in linen, which would suit
the tradition that St James despised woollen clothes even in winter and habitually wore
thin linen garments (Euseb. hist. eccl. 2. 23. 6 ovSe yap epeovv e<popet dWa aivdovas). These
are the main arguments advanced by Dr Eisen, whose proposed identifications may be
conveniently shown in tabular form :
((12) James (i) Christ (4) Jude \ (6) Luke (8) Christ (10) John
Dr G. H. Rendall in a letterto me (Feb. 16, 1924) very pertinently suggests that 5 may
be, not St Andrew, but St Barnabas, whose association with Antioch was most intimate.
Accepting the attribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to St Barnabas, Dr Rendall points
out that we should thus have represented on the chalice the whole canon of the New
Testament [phis James, son of Zebedee]. His shrewd conjecture of course postulates a date
at which the canon was complete. But I see. no difficulty in supposing that, at the time
when the graffiti were added, those who added them believed the ten seated figures to
include portraits of all the New-Testament writers.
1 Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Palestine p. 185 ff. pi. 20, n —14.
2 lb. p. 269 ff. pi. 30, 1—9.
3 lb. p. 288 ff. pi. 33, sf., 9f., 14 f., pi. 34, 4—10, 20.
4 lb. p. 303 f. pi. 35, 14, pi. 36, 1—3, p. 306 pi. 36, 10.
5 Miss G. M. A. Richter in Art in America 1918 vi. 171 ff. with pi., Am. Jonrn.
Arch. 1918 xxii. 349 f. fig. 1.
6 Antichita di Ercolano Napoli 1760 ii (Pitture ii) p. 287 (= Roux—Barre Here, et
Pomp, iv Peintures 3e Serie p. 219 pi. 115) preparations for a festival, including a silver
jug, a silver cup, three wreaths, a palm-branch, etc., cp. ib. ii pp. 118, 157 a similar but
deeper vessel, standing on a square plinth, with a couple of wreaths in it.
(5) Andrew
(7) Mark
(9) Matthew
as Boy
Appendix N
To determine the date of the chalice is a task of primary importance. Sound
criticism will rely, not on any a priori notions as to what the early Church could
or could not have done, but on definite considerations of shape, technique, style,
and subject.
Now the outer shell or container is essentially an ovoid bowl, without
handles, supported on a round knop with a low and narrow foot-stand. A cup
so constructed suffers from one obvious defect. It is top-heavy and would be
easily upset. Such a shape could hardly have been popular for long together.
Norwas it. Bronze coins of uncertain denomination struck by Simon Maccabaeus
in 136/5 B.C. have for reverse type a closely similar chalice with knop, short
stem, and small foot1. But silver shekels and half-shekels dating from the First
Revolt of the Jews in 66/7—70 a.d. have for obverse type a chalice with smaller
knop, longer stem, and broader foot2. Coins of the Second Revolt in 132—135 a.d.
substitute either a one-handled jug3 or a two-handled amphora^, and do not
enable us to trace further the evolution of the chalice. But this at least is clear,
that on Palestinian soil the old top-heavy chalice was passing out of use as early
as 66 a.d. Elsewhere too the same holds good. Two silver cups of similar shape
belonging to the Pierpont Morgan collection, exhibited in the Metropolitan
Museum of Fine Arts, are justly regarded as excellent samples of Hellenistic
work3. And silver cups of a like pattern depicted in frescoes from Herculaneum6
amulet. Again, if 10 is St John, the other beardless figure (11) must be his brother,
St James the son of Zebedee. Moreover, St Peter (2) would naturally be balanced by
St Paul (3). And the resemblance of the older man 5 to figure 2 suggested St Peter's
brother, St Andrew. Lastly, it was surmised that figures 12 and 4, seated respectively on
the right and left hand of Christ are St James the Lord's brother and St Jude, his nearest
relatives on earth. It is claimed that figure 12 alone is clad in linen, which would suit
the tradition that St James despised woollen clothes even in winter and habitually wore
thin linen garments (Euseb. hist. eccl. 2. 23. 6 ovSe yap epeovv e<popet dWa aivdovas). These
are the main arguments advanced by Dr Eisen, whose proposed identifications may be
conveniently shown in tabular form :
((12) James (i) Christ (4) Jude \ (6) Luke (8) Christ (10) John
Dr G. H. Rendall in a letterto me (Feb. 16, 1924) very pertinently suggests that 5 may
be, not St Andrew, but St Barnabas, whose association with Antioch was most intimate.
Accepting the attribution of the Epistle to the Hebrews to St Barnabas, Dr Rendall points
out that we should thus have represented on the chalice the whole canon of the New
Testament [phis James, son of Zebedee]. His shrewd conjecture of course postulates a date
at which the canon was complete. But I see. no difficulty in supposing that, at the time
when the graffiti were added, those who added them believed the ten seated figures to
include portraits of all the New-Testament writers.
1 Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins Palestine p. 185 ff. pi. 20, n —14.
2 lb. p. 269 ff. pi. 30, 1—9.
3 lb. p. 288 ff. pi. 33, sf., 9f., 14 f., pi. 34, 4—10, 20.
4 lb. p. 303 f. pi. 35, 14, pi. 36, 1—3, p. 306 pi. 36, 10.
5 Miss G. M. A. Richter in Art in America 1918 vi. 171 ff. with pi., Am. Jonrn.
Arch. 1918 xxii. 349 f. fig. 1.
6 Antichita di Ercolano Napoli 1760 ii (Pitture ii) p. 287 (= Roux—Barre Here, et
Pomp, iv Peintures 3e Serie p. 219 pi. 115) preparations for a festival, including a silver
jug, a silver cup, three wreaths, a palm-branch, etc., cp. ib. ii pp. 118, 157 a similar but
deeper vessel, standing on a square plinth, with a couple of wreaths in it.
(5) Andrew
(7) Mark
(9) Matthew
as Boy