-=< O >=-
-=< O >=-
Have you
ever seen this
image before
???
It’s
called
‘Simeon
in the Temple’,
a painting by
Rembrandt
.
It’s
a scene
based on these
Bible Verses
:
Now there
Luke 2: 25-33
was a man in
Jerusalem, whose
name was Simeon,
and this man was
righteous and
devout,
waiting for
the consolation
of Israel, and the
Holy Spirit was
upon him
.
And
it had been
revealed to him
by the Holy Spirit
that he would not
see death before
he had seen the
Lord’s Christ
.
And
he came in
the Spirit into
the temple,
and when
the parents
brought in the
child Jesus, to do
for him according to
the custom of the Law,
he took him up in his
arms and blessed
God and said,
“Lord, now you
are letting your
servant depart
in peace,
according
to your word;
for my eyes have
seen your salvation
that you have prepared
in the presence of all
peoples, a light for
revelation to
the Gentiles,
and for glory to
your people Israel.”
And his father and his
mother marveled at
what was said
about him.
So
Simeon,
who would not
see death until
he had seen
Jesus,
has
not only
seen him, but
also held him
in his arms
!!!
That’s
what’s shown
in the painting
…
-=< O >=-
…
but the
image above
is different than
the painting hanging in
Stockholm’s Nationalmuseum
,
and it looks different than
every other image of it
you will find on
the internet
.
Here is
what those
look like
:
-=< O >=-
Did you spot the difference?
Here’s a slider if it helps:
-=< O >=-
Yeah, after
Rembrandt died,
someone added the
character of Anna, a
prophetess who
was at the
temple
that
day
.
Would
Anna really
photo-bomb
Rembrandt
if she had
a choice
???
I can
understand
someone declaring
the painting to be
improved by the
addition of
Anna,
but the
bible story is
about the fulfillment
of a promise to
Simeon
.
When
I first heard
the story of Anna
being added to the
painting, I was outraged,
but had to temper myself
with the fact that artists
frequently worked
together in
that time
.
-=< O >=-
As
I was
removing
Anna for the
first image in this
article, I felt uneasy
about my ‘editing’
.
I
felt
that I
was doing
something
wrong
.
Did
someone
alter the story
by changing
the image
?
Did they
improve the
painting
?
what do
YOU
think
???
Feel Free to
Leave a Comment
below if you have an
opinion about it
So here I am, commenting on my own post (…I suppose this is a bizarre form of talking to oneself, ha)
Anyway, the only historical reference I found related to this painting states, “Allaert and Cornelis van Everdingen saw Rembrandt working on a painting representing ‘Simeon’ in the months prior to his death” in 1669, so the painting could have been unfinished, or was declared to be, implying that Rembrandt may have intended to paint Anna but never finished it.
My opinion is;
If Anna’s inclusion in the painting wasn’t known to be in Rembrandt’s plan,
I don’t think she should have been added to it after his death.
–
This is from the Rembrandt Database at Explore:
Rembrandt’s “Simeon” now in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm is probably identical with the painting mentioned in a statement of 12 Mai 1671 by Allaert and Cornelis van Everdingen. In this statement both painters testify that they had seen Rembrandt working on the “Simeon” in the months prior to his death and that he had explained them that the painting was meant for Dirck van Cattenburgh. The document was first published by Bredius in 1909 (Bredius 1909, p. 238-240)
https://rkd.nl/en/explore/images/51422