Rijksmuseum researchers discover new painting by Rembrandt van Rijn

2026-03-0415:4213834www.rijksmuseum.nl

The Rijksmuseum uses cookies. A cookie is a small text file that a website stores on your computer or mobile device when you visit our site. Would you like to know more? Read our cookie policy.

Publication date: 02 March 2026 - 10:00

Researchers at the Rijksmuseum have demonstrated that the painting Vision of Zacharias in the Temple (1633) was made by Rembrandt. They examined the work with the same advanced techniques used in Operation Night Watch, and closely compared it with other paintings by Rembrandt from the same period. Materials analysis, stylistic and thematic similarities, alterations made by Rembrandt, and the overall quality of the painting all support the conclusion that this painting is a genuine work by Rembrandt van Rijn. The work is on long-term loan to the Rijksmuseum from a private collector and will be on view to the public from Wednesday 4 March.

Taco Dibbits, Director of the Rijksmuseum

The painting depicts a scene from the biblical story of high priest Zacharias. It shows the moment Zacharias receives a visit in the temple from the Archangel Gabriel. The angel tells Zacharias that, despite his and his wife’s advanced age, they will have a son: John the Baptist. The angel is not shown in the painting, but the light shining from the upper right corner heralds his arrival. Zacharias’ expression of surprise reflects his incredulity.

In 1960, the painting was excluded from Rembrandt’s oeuvre. After being purchased by a private individual in 1961, it disappeared from public view. Unaware of the picture’s whereabouts no experts had been able to study it since that time. Recently, however, the current owner contacted the Rijksmuseum, allowing the painting to be examined for the first time in 65 years.

This two-year study has revealed that all the paints used for the Vision of Zacharias in the Temple are found in other Rembrandt van Rijn works from the same period. The painting technique and the build-up of paint layers are also comparable to other early works by Rembrandt. Macro-XRF scans and visual inspection additionally revealed compositional changes that support the authenticity of the work. Research into the signature shows that it is original, and dendrochronological analysis of the wooden panel confirms that the date of 1633 on the painting is correct.

Thematically, the work also fits seamlessly into the oeuvre of the then 27-year-old artist, alongside Daniel and Cyrus Before the Idol Bel (1633, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles), Simeon's Song of Praise (1631, Mauritshuis, The Hague), and Jeremiah Lamenting the Destruction of Jerusalem (1630, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam).


Read the original article

Comments

  • By crote 2026-03-0812:101 reply

    Re-attributed, to be more accurate.

    The painting wasn't exactly unknown: its existence was reasonably well-documented and it was included in a variety of Rembrandt catalogues. However, in 1960 it was decided that it wasn't a Rembrandt, so people mostly stopped caring about it.

    This discovery is a re-analysis of the painting using modern methods, which revealed that the 1960 "not a Rembrandt" decision was a bit premature.

    • By skrebbel 2026-03-0812:395 reply

      > However, in 1960 it was decided that it wasn't a Rembrandt, so people mostly stopped caring about it.

      I'll never understand this about the art scene. Like, if Rembrandt was a shit painter, his works wouldn't have been so valuable today. But then, suddenly, one random painting of his is only interesting if it was actually made by him? If we can judge his entire oeuvre on quality, why couldn't we do the same with this one painting? How is it possible that people stop caring about a painting just because it wasn't made by Rembrandt?

      I mean, is it a good painting or not? If not, why do we suddenly care now? If it is, why didn't we before?

      • By elondaits 2026-03-0814:501 reply

        Because part of the price of a work of art is its perceived historic / cultural importance. Autographs are taking this to the extreme, where only the mark of the author exists, on its own, and still gets a high price. On the other end, fakes and very accurate reproductions, would never be as valued even if the effect as a visual piece is practically the same.

        • By lisper 2026-03-0822:04

          NFTs are an attempt to recreate this dynamic in the digital world.

      • By loloquwowndueo 2026-03-0813:262 reply

        How art is valued is entirely illogical and irrational. Like - that time an entire art installation was confused with trash and thrown out. https://i-d.co/article/museum-cleaners-thought-this-art-inst...

        • By kleiba 2026-03-0813:341 reply

          Similarly to why you can pay 7-digit prices for a watch.

          • By loloquwowndueo 2026-03-0816:021 reply

            At least that watch still tells the time.

            • By SR2Z 2026-03-0817:231 reply

              Yeah, but mechanical watches are so much worse at telling time than cheap digital watches that it's not even worth discussing.

              • By loloquwowndueo 2026-03-0817:492 reply

                Even a broken mechanical luxury watch is right twice a day. A broken digital watch with a screen is useless when it’s broken.

                (I’m just trolling at this point, let me know and we can stop this)

                • By SR2Z 2026-03-1023:48

                  Your watch won't tell you the time unless you drink a verification can

                • By pas 2026-03-0823:241 reply

                  obviously digital watch needs an eink screen that shows something even when it's broken :)

                  • By loloquwowndueo 2026-03-0910:32

                    It won’t be the time, it’ll be some scrensaver or an ad.

        • By anal_reactor 2026-03-0815:47

          I don't think it's illogical nor irrational. When you look at artworks below €5 000 then there should be correlation between artistic value and price in euros. Not exactly a linear function, but clear correlation. Above that you're not buying artwork - you're buying the prestige and social status of owning an expensive artwork. It's the rich people's equivalent of buying Supreme clothes just to impress the ladies.

      • By tasuki 2026-03-0816:15

        As someone who likes to hang things on walls, I'm rather happy the art prices are as insane as they are. The antiques shop down the street sometimes sells reasonably interesting and/or nice original paintings for 10-20 eur. If it's someone unknown it's gonna be dirt cheap, no matter how good. Imagine if art prices were rational, what would I do?!

      • By odyssey7 2026-03-0813:05

        Works of art are the original NFTs? Pricing is meme-like, though over longer timescales.

      • By bell-cot 2026-03-0816:12

        "It is a Rembrandt" carries heavy cache when rich men are trying to one-up each other.

  • By Tepix 2026-03-0811:185 reply

    The Rijksmuseum is amazing, reserve a day on your next visit to Amsterdam and take it all in!

    I also like their tech stack, they let you use your own phone + headphones for the guided tours.

    • By JoshTriplett 2026-03-0819:11

      The Rijksmuseum is incredible, but also huge; the kind of museum you pick a small fraction of to see in any given trip. There are also several smaller museums that you can see in a day.

      The Mauritshaus is a small museum in a converted manor, containing an incredible number of famous paintings, notably by Vermeer and Rembrandt.

      Folks here might also appreciate the M. C. Escher museum.

    • By ghaff 2026-03-0811:59

      Yes. Don't know if I'll make it again on my upcoming trip--missed the Van Gogh last time because it was sold out but have tickets this time. It always amazes me how quickly schedules fill up. Doesn't help that I'm also working.

    • By ninalanyon 2026-03-0823:05

      You need more than one day, more than one visit, for even much smaller art collections.

      Trying to take all that in in such a short time is just a recipe for visual, emotional, and intellectual indigestion.

    • By derektank 2026-03-0814:18

      Beautiful building too. The busker playing the accordion in the tunnel was a kind of magical addition to the experience

    • By drob518 2026-03-0814:19

      Definitely. This museum is great if you love Dutch masters, particularly Rembrandt. Highly recommended.

  • By ChrisMarshallNY 2026-03-0810:431 reply

    It’s a cool story.

    As a [former] artist, myself, the thing that comes to mind, is the model must have been in real discomfort, after about 3 minutes.

    • By Nevermark 2026-03-0811:23

      Yeah. Even with an "air" book! A couple support canes could help.

HackerNews