Talk:Halo (religious iconography)/Archive 1

ramble

The halos I'm going to talk about are located around the heads of holy people in different cultures, mostly in Christianity.

It is really there.

Many people in our world think it is only a kind of symbol, or another unbelievable fact from the like of the bible. They do not believe that it exists, they will claim, because a head can not emit light from technical reasons, there is certainly no such device in what we call a human being - I do not claim these people where aliens orry. I only say, that this claim shows only the difference of the mind of the people who say it doesn't exist from the mind of the people of 'invented' the halo. But they didn't invent it - as I said - it is really there. There are people who have a very impressive personality. They are very few, on the edge of the normal curve when it becomes a binomial distribution - like the few unbelievably stupid people, or the few unbelievably smart turtles. There was or is probably some guy on earth that could on some scale be called the funniest man that ever lived. Now, lets say you would gradually become aware of him, hearing that he is the funniest man on earth, from all kinds of people including your favorite celebrities and your best friends. Every man that ever got a glimpse of him would be convinced that he is that funny. Two or three years afterwards, you will meet him personally, either by surprise or after a long period that you knew it is going to happen. He indeed would be funny, the most gifted comedian you ever saw. You would laugh so hard, and be so completely astounded; it will be something you will always remember as an almost supernatural event. Indeed, only almost, just because you know that nothing is supernatural.

- - - - I believe the halo is representative of the learned ability to control ourselves when "most heated._"

You also heard about LSD and its kind (Maybe even tried it?). You know that people can virtually see things that are not caused by external physical phenomena. It is in their heads. There is no need to say you would not see that dwarf sitting in their back yard, eating some lettuce they just gave him before tea time. But we all work chemically, right? Our chemical minds carry our culture in it by some chemical-biological ways.

So, the people that see halos do expect to see a halo around that mans head. And those chemical patterns in their head allow them to see it, just like a man can make you laugh from no physical reason. And like the funny man, it is justified - that man is an extremely rare person with true capabilities. Maybe he is so quiet outwardly as inwardly, you might see circles of quiet coming out of him, so strong that they are visual. When you draw a picture of him, you just can't ignore these circles. They are of the most important things about him. Not drawing it would make it another man in the picture.

So maybe, if you are willing to be impressed by a man"s quietness, for example, as by brains, humor, cruelty or any other virtues you think much of, you might catch something of that halo, understand how some other people could really see it there.

I have one. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (this is not true, of coarse, but I couldn't resist)

You've just defeated your own point. In the beginning, you say that halos actually exist. Then, throughout all of this rambling piece you claim that people can see halos because they interpret very strong personality traits as visual phenomena. Thus, halos do not "exist" in the usual sense of the word - they only exist in the viewer's mind. The person, or person's head is not emitting photons - it is just a self-induced hallucination. StellarFury 21:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent research (Aug 2009) suggests that light in the visible spectrum is emitted by human bodies. So, sorry the person's head is emitting photons! The results suggest that the levels of emission are too low to be ordinarily observed by humans however. Pbhj (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... can anyone tell me where to find "halo" the video game and or movie on Wikipedia??

-G

If the name of an article is shared you need to click the disambiguation link at the top of it to see the other articles. Halo the game/book/movie series is under "Halo (Video Game Series)" --FlooK 03:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference

I've just had a look through the "what links here" page to see if anything can b made more specific. While many are talk pages, or VFDs for Halo-the-game related articles, the remainder seem to be:

about 50% references to the religious meaning, or "I'm innocent" emoticons
about 30% references to the game
About 10% references to either the optical effect, or using Halo to describe a circular feature when seen

The rest either refer to multiple meanings, or to things I don't understand, or to "minor" meanings (e.g. the wrestling move, the book/film, or the name of the chinese mountain)... Ojw 21:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one halo less

Okay, let's count again:

--Abdull 08:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Jesus, there are twelve aposltes (the original twelve) sitting at the table. one, Judas (bottom center), does not have a halo. The original caption was correct. →Raul654 19:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

What the . . .?

Um, why begin "Religious Iconography" with "who the fuck would like to talk about religion"? Not that I'm a prude or anything; just seems irrelevant. Also it needs a question mark at the end.

So does anybody else think that this page badly needs to be split into two - one dealing with religion and art, and one with halos as an optical phenomenon?

I agree. I also removed the video game reference - I'm a fan of the series but it simply dosen't belong in a serious discussion of science or iconography.

012023494358034958

is it true that halos around the moon are also called "raven's eye moons" and "traitor's moons?" at first i thought it was a moonbow, but i was wrong I guess. actually, halos around the moon split light just like moonbows, so i guess a moonbow and halo are basically the same. if anybody has ever created a rainbow effect when spraying water into the air on a bright sunny day should know what i'm talking about. it'll look like a rainbow, but when you follow the rainbow quickly enough, it makes a ring.

134523654

"including the video game"

I have added the phrase "including the video game" to the disambiguation notice, and two HTML comments asking people not to mention the video game here. You can see why if you look at History; most of the edits are an anon adding a reference to Halo, a registered user reverting it, another anon adding another reference to Halo, etc. If we keep this notice, it will deflect most of the...I hesitate to call it vandalism because there's no ill intent, but that's what it effectively becomes.

Also, if it weren't for the other types of haloes (both other items in the Halo franchise and other uses of the word), we'd simply have the notice "For the video game, see Halo (video game)". And many other languages have "Halo" as a disambiguation page, so the interlanguage link points to the translation of "Halo (optics)" or "Halo (religion)" - check the list. We could even make a similar case on this Wikipedia, but in my opinion having "Halo" refer to the everyday conversation use of the word makes sense.

I admit bias towards the game (level 27 on Halo 2), but my reasoning here is to let the changes on History reflect actual work on this article, not a bunch of reverts against confused and well-intentioned people. --Geoffrey 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Halo (disambiguation) should be enough. Scoo 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omg a level 27? wow thats crazy did you mod for it. 1337.

Vandalism

Some yahoo was screwing around with the Buddist section that I just cleaned up. If someone could follow that up and ban the person I would appreciate it alot.

Deepdesertfreman

Split suggestion

Split Optical and Religious Iconography into two seperate pages and redirect Halo to disambiguation GWatson  ^TALK 12:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Having the two subjects on one page implies that they are related phenomena. I'm adding split tags to this page, and a cleanup to the dab page. -Quiddity 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presummably, we would re-use Halo (optical phenomenon), and create something like Halo (religious iconography)..? --Quiddity 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree - they belong in two completely different articles.--Brokentooth 06:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agree, strange for me~, but it seems obvious that the material is adequate to do it, and I have some cool halo images waiting. question, who will actually do it.moza 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. —Michael Z. 2006-08-04 18:26 Z

Done. Hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. :) --Quiddity 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black halos

Here's a fun fact I picked up from somewhere. I don't know about the amount of truth found in this fact, but I've heard that in monasteries within the former Byzantine Empire, Judas also had a halo, but it was black. Also, I remember seeing black halos around figures of demons in a monastery in Bulgaria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.201.181 (talk • contribs) .

various quick comments

Is the first image (Image:Meister von San Vitale in Ravenna 004.jpg) not showing up for anyone else? On my computer it doesn't appear in the article, the local description page, or the Commons description page even after reloading and purging the page cache.
Second section, fifth paragraph, last sentence seems a bit off-topic to a discussion of the halo in Christian iconography, unless it was specific to paintings of Saint Sebastian or somesuch. The meaning described there is obviously a borrowing from the religious meaning due to similar appearance, but they're not the same thing (sign of sanctity and vs. early pixelization). Is there anywhere else this sentence might be more on-topic? Perhaps Glory (disambiguation)? In a lengthier discussion of the various words and their meanings? And is there a citation available? I don't want to just delete the sentence, but it could use some tweaking. 67.68.248.177 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First section, third paragraph, refers to the translating work of (saint) Jerome. I read the line as implying that perhaps jerome had mistranslated the text with intent, to avoid the theocratic conflict of moses having, what would otherwise appear to be, a "halo", which was a fashion accessory reserved for strictly christian era personas. first, i have never heard of the idea of "anyone" (jerome included) purposly mistranslating this bit of text, for this argument or any other (though admitly it was mistranslated enough times to provide opportunity). in fact i can not fully agree that even the early christians would want to deny moses the prestige of being blessed by god. after all, if jesus was the mesiah, then he would be the public relations spokesman for the same god who moses took coffee with on several occasions. secondly, as this very article points out, the halo was orginally an artistic implement, used "in art" to signify persons with honor, prestige, sacredness, holines.... it existed only between the frames of the canvas so to speak. at some unknown point, it transfers from being an artistic entity, to being a common man's spiratual badge to look for in "reality". we would have to assume for the authors presented statement, that jerome already considered it a tangilble object rather than soley an an artistic invention. just to note with interest: we see the halo in greek and roman art from antiquity, predating the use by christians, and presumably predating the use as a spiritual symbol. yet when the hebrew torah is translated, we find an "atleast" similar device being employed in describing moses, in a completly spiritual mechanism. this leads to a whole train of questions and arguments i can not list in this comment, but i think they are noteworthy. (ie. did the idea of a physical halo derive only after we correctly translate the torah? or perhaps the original idea of the halo came from the hebrews or other predated culture before the artistic use by greeks and romans?)
continuing my previous comment listed above. i still have a problem with the way the artcile lists jeromes mistake in translation. furthermore, are we sure jerome was translating from hebrew into latin? most early christian texts, codexs, gospels, were written in greek (from what i understand). jerome was a sixth century figure in rome, and i assume working off of early christian texts, therefore i would assume for these reasons most were going from greek to latin. i do not know if jerome was working from hebrew or not. the last "interjection" may solve the querry by stating that in hebrew moses was properly horned, and thus in a proper greek translation he would still be horned. all this i could believe. but this article takes the pains to articulate how a translation mistake could occur from hebrew. again my only problem in the implied _intent_ of jerome. Jlb071 17:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Jerome's translation

What evidence is there for the assertion that "[Jerome] avoided [implying Moses had a halo] by translating the phrase into Latin as "cornuta esset facies sua" (his face was horned)"?

This mistake in translation is one of many mistranslations of Hebrew words in Bibles that have their origin in the Latin translation. The Hebrew word "karan"'s translation is "radiance" but when the root letters, K-R-N (kuf, resh, nun; in Hebrew letters) are vowelized differently it would mean "horn". In the passage, the radiance of Moses's face is called "karan ohr", which means "rays of light", not "horns of light".

What do we know of Jerome's intentions in that? Later the article cites that change as a "mistranslation," even describing the ease in confusing the Hebrew "K-R-N" between "horns" and "radiance"?

This seems like opinionated self-scholarship to me.

--Alekjds 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More innocent babble

I haven't removed the following naive text, apparently written by an editor far, far from a library:

"Round halos are typically used to signify saints — i.e., people considered as spiritually gifted. A cross within a halo is used to represent Jesus. Triangular halos are used for representations of the Trinity. Square halos are used to depict unusually saintly living personages."

Very charming. But wouldn't this article actually be more interesting if it had a more informed historical discussion? I've added the briefest introductory text about the halos in Hellenistic and Roman art. --Wetman 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interjection

I have moved the following irruptive ejaculation here to talk. (Wetman 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(Sorry but I have to interject) Some believe that קרנ or (QRN) does represent the Hebrew word/image/concept of "horn" in this passage. With this interpretation, Moses' hornyness at this point of the story is simply a symbol of his connection with the divine. QRN, it should be noted, is a three radical root that means "horn" in every other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible.

There are Hebrew words that mean "rays" and "rays of light". The author does not use these words in this passage, he chooses to use the word "horn".

Horns, throughout the Bible are often used symbolically to denote power or divinity.

Horns were a common symbol denoting power and divinity both when Exodus was written and when Jerome was translating. In other words, being "horned" to their eyes and ears would have seemed as normal as "enlightened" seems to us. Remember having real rays of light shooting from your face is as odd an image as sprouting real horns.

Indeed the author was probably trying to communicate Moses' state as something greater than "enlightened". To him, Moses was Horny

The description of horns, however, was taken literally by Medieval and Renaissance artists, who depicted Moses with small horns growing from his forehead. Especially noteworthy in this respect is Michelangelo Buonarroti's statue of Moses in San Pietro in Vincoli. ... As far as this statue, we can't be sure what Michelangelo was thinking when he made this piece of art. Did the "horns" still glorify Moses in the eyes of his contemporaries? Some say yes and some say no. At this point of history, the Christian Communities were beginning to use "horns" as both a symbol of the Devil and a symbol of the "devil Jew". Unfortunately, this is the image that stuck which has caused some, like the original author of this piece, to invent "Jerome's mistake" to explain away the unsettling image of the Horned Moses.

(Please write me if you have any questions or disagreements with my take, but I warn you - I wrote my Masters thesis on this subject, and while I have spared the Wikipedia audience the length of it, I won't hesitate to use it on ya!) jaycakes@hotmail.com

By all means, use your knowledge to further the scope of this article, but please don't interject on the mainpage Wikipedia. I would recommend signing up for an account too, it takes about five seconds to do. Thanks for the input, Alekjds 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses cut

I have cut the whole Moses passage, salvaging most of it at Moses. It is not about haloes, and the "hook" was that giving Moses one would "cause a problem" for Christian artists because only Christian saints, not OT prophets, had them in Christian art. This however is completely untrue - it is standard to give them to prophets in Transfiguation scenes (like the one I've added to the article), Jesse Trees and many other contexts. See for example the Transfigurations in figs 405-422 in G Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. I,1971 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 853312702.

Plus the discussion below had already resulted in a correct amendment to make it clear this was not the motive for the mistranslation. So it had no place here. Johnbod 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subscript to an image

In the part "spiritual relevance" or so at the end of the article, I wonder whether the subscript to the shown image is correct or not: "Eastern Orthodox icon of Christ 'Not Made by Hand' with the Greek letters ώ Ό Ν. Simon Ushakov, 17th century". I guess the greek letters should be read top-down, not only left-right: That would result in "Ο ων" which meens "The being/existing". Could anyone proove that probable correction? Thanks! FZiegler (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the main text: "In Byzantine and Orthodox images, inside each of the bars of the cross in Christ's halo is one of the Greek letters ώ Ό Ν making up I AM—literally, "the Existing One" — indicating the divinity of Jesus. "

-The caption does not mean the letters read 'Not Made by Hand' Johnbod (talk)

You (FZiegler) are absolutely right. I've put them in the first top-down, then left-right, reading order. Also, it is not Ό; if a spiritus is given at all, it should be spiritus asper. --Lambiam 08:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking at Tetragrammaton, that could maybe do with additions too. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tu di gong

Is the pattern in Tu Di Gong a "true" halo, despite the flower? I was thinking to add the image but I'm not sure where it would fit in.

File:IMG 0090.JPG

Wnt (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. The commons category is probably the best place to add it, as there's really no room here. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thin-ring halos?

When I hear the word halo, I think of the Simon Templar kind of halo - a thin white/pale ring hovering above the head, sometimes glowing. This is the modern conception of what a halo is, but it isn't represented in this article. All the pictures are from art history. When was first 'thin ring'? Strangerstome (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These were originally denoting the edge of a translucent disk - see the text & eg the Leonardo da Vinci. But I agree something could be added about the later development of just a ring, which dates back to the 19th century at least. But modern religious use still tends to mean discs. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit; anyone know any more modern ring-only pics? Preferably secular. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different types of halo

The halo for God or Jesus is usually segmented. Is it possible to include a picture of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.231.137 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion: halo vs aureola

The intro fails to make me wiser as to the difference between topics Halo and aureola. If you read the intro only, you have an impression that the articles should be merged. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complexity of the issue, there is not room in the lead. I trust you made it to the last section, where the differences are I hope explained. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar discs and the shining of Pisthetaerus are not haloes

The halo article currently starts off with mention of solar discs, sun crosses (cross in a circle) and of an unnamed character in Aristophanes "The Birds" which I assume to be Pisthetairus.

Solar discs are images of the sun above the head. They show radiance of an external object and by association the close relationship ascribed by Egyptian ancients to their gods. They are not haloes and are not a good opening on the subject.

Sun crosses are circular. This does not mean they are haloes. End of.

The rather terse reference to Pisthetairus presumably is referring to this passage, taken from "The Comedies of Aristophanes" by Aristophanes, William James Hickie (p.385): may happy winged birds your sovereign in his wealthy mansion For he is approaching 2 such as no bright shining star in the gold gleamiug [sic, OCR error] dome of heaven has shone forth to view nor has3 the far shining brilliancy of the rays of the sun blazed forth such as is the ineffable beauty of the woman he comes with brandishing the thunderbolt the winged weapon of Jove And an indescribable odour penetrates to the height4 of heaven's vault a beautiful sight And gales of incense blow away5 the wreaths of smoke But see here he is himself Come it behoves us to commence a sacred auspicious song of the goddess Muse Enter Pisthetairm [sic, OCR error] and Basileia gorgeously apparelled . Whilst I applaud the editors knowledge of Greek comedies this is surely close to the least convincing reference to a halo (an emanating light showing saintliness or divinity) ever - it is Aristophanes metaphorical piss take.

If someone feels these bits need to stay in then they need to make clear that they're not haloes but a comedic metaphor and differing religious emblems. I can see someone is trying to develop a continuum, but it doesn't appear to be there. Pbhj (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perseus and Medusa vase - doesn't show halo

The reference to a red figure vase from the MET attributed to Polygnotos appears almost certainly to be that shown in this image showing Perseus IDed by his talaria (an Italian site showing MET artworks). I couldn't find the piece on the MET site though I found a reference to it in a pdf on "Museum Hunts", p.162, where it says "Another important feature here, although no longer easily visible, are the rays that surround the hero’s head, indicating special stature or power, or perhaps representing the cap of invisibility given to him by the nymphs.".

I was at a complete loss in tracking down the Louvre's toiletry box. That aside I'd imagine that references to Perseus must be assumed to show his special helmet rather than a halo unless their is far better evidence than that shown here. If other Greek figures of the period are shown with the same artistic device who do not have helmets with magic powers then I'd readily concede this to be a type of halo. Weak at best. Pbhj (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bimaran Casket

The Bimaran Casket page say the date is between 30BC and 200AD and that the Brit.Mus. date it at 60AD. I'll amend to reflect this. Pbhj (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist/Hindu/Oriental art references

The page on Amida Buddha states the earliest known depictions are 180CE and come from the Kushan. That's the same source as the Bimaran casket, in modern day Afghanistan. Indeed I can't find any real Buddhist imagery from early than about 100-200AD despite there being lots of handwaving talk of haloes being adopted from Buddhism and from ancient Chinese, etc.. Is there any evidence of halo imagery that is undisputed as BC?? Pbhj (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

I followed the reference link to the Tate gallery website and had a scout around to find the pertinent information but could find no evidence for the following passage at the end of the "Decline of the Halo" subsection:

"By the 19th century haloes have become unusual in Western mainstream art, although retained in iconic and popular images, and sometimes as a medievalising effect. When John Everett Millais gives his otherwise realist St Stephen (1895) a ring halo, it seems rather surprising."

Could this be original research? If so, would it be possible for someone to either reference this properly or remove the statement? Mr fanshaw (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is clearly just a link to an image. I think the point came from the catalogue to their Millais exhibition, 2009?, which I don't have to hand. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility Section

Of all the things on Wikipedia that get my goat this one found it's way to the top of the list. If it ends up biased in the opposite direction then I done messed up, and someone else will need to fix it. Problems:
1) "popular piety": In other words not official church doctrine but rather the sort of thing silly laymen come up with. I do not know what the latins tell people, but the Orthodox (Christians) accept the testimonies that bear witness to the visages of saints becoming luminous, (for their witness is true) this then is church doctrine rooted in scripture itself, not "popular piety".
2) "this practice has led to the literal belief that..." : I don't know who says icons led people to think saints have actual halos rather than there being occasions where saints' faces shining caused iconographers to paint (please don't turn this into a discussion about writing vs. painting icons) saints that way, but it's POV. It's objectively false, but I can't prove it, so both sides should be given equal weight.
3) ^{[citation needed]}: The citation request is highly appreciated but also highly ambiguous, I can only assume it's referring to the statement that it's changing so I'm ousting it.
4) I don't think I'm very comprehensible right now, I apologise for this, I am writing this at 2 AM.
Fema (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best just to cut this unreferenced and problematic section. I suggest you avoid POV & potentially offensive language in your posts. Johnbod (talk)