What do we learn about the culture, life, views, thoughts, etc., of early Christians from their non-literary remains? This is an area foreign to many of us Evangelicals. However you approach it, studying the iconography (‘art’) of early Christians somehow sheds light on the life, views, thoughts, and things of importance for early Christians—just as does the study of texts.
I wanted to post the following from Graydon F. Snyder’s monograph Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine. These summary comments might be quite striking to us—
Jesus does not suffer or die in pre-Constantinian art. There is no cross symbol nor any equivalent. Christians did find themselves in difficult circumstances, including death. Yet the symbols show them being delivered from those circumstances, or at peace despite them. Their faith in Jesus Christ [as revealed iconographically] centers on his delivering power (p. 56).
From 180 to 400 artistic analogies of self-giving, suffering, sacrifice, or incarnation are totally missing. The suffering Christ on a cross first appeared in the fifth century, and then not very convincingly (p. 165, pages from 1985 edition).
With our interests in contextual theology, theology serving mission, and the need of theology to be articulated with a view to the pressing issues of shifting contexts, how do we assess what these quotes tell us? Do we catch a glimpse of how Jesus and the gospel take different forms for people in different contexts? If so, what do we think of this? In what ways do we see such Christians tapping into rich ways of understanding, encountering, and living out Jesus?
Conversely, should we view this through the lens of the classic Protestant theory that ‘the early church’—after the death of the last apostle—somehow basically lost the gospel and the doctrines of grace, becoming mired in “legalism”?
This is certainly not to say that no Christians from this period focused on the death of Jesus and his suffering(s), and how to wrestle with their soteriological significance. It is true that, in general, various early Christians approached these things differently than do we. Perhaps we can even see in the emphases of the iconography (mentioned by Snyder) a way early Christians did engage Christ’s sufferings and death—but, again, approaching it differently than do we?
I was alerted to this book by Snyder while reading Jonathan Z. Smith’s excellent work, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. At some point soon I hope to make some comments on this excellent book by Smith.
November 27, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Not sure how early in church history this conversation means to discuss, but a cross appears to be a part of established Christian iconography well before Constantine’s vision – Clement, Tertullian, et al.
For quick reference, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism#Early_Christian_symbols
August 1, 2008 at 6:03 pm
John, thanks for the (unwarranted) vote of confidence
You know, a fair bit of work has been done by art historians on the sociology behind early Christian art and the implications for how we understand the artists and viewers. You might check out Jas Elsner’s _Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph_ for starts. Elsner is fantastic. His work, as well as JZ Smith’s, has been quite influential on my own work on “Jewish” art–particularly, the so-called “synagogue” mosaics from Bet Alpha, Sepphoris, etc. (hint: I think calling them Jewish hugely over simplifies matters, even calling them “pagan-Jewish”).
FTH: If you wanted, we could team up on RR. You know, a short post every couple weeks or something. Email me if you want to discuss.
July 31, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Very interesting stuff John!
I wonder what sociologists and anthropologists would have to say with regard to how people groups understand and depict their heroes. Perhaps the early Christian church did not feel the need to depict Jesus’ gruesome suffering in order to remember it. Just knowing what happened was sufficient. Or, more importantly, seeing the blessedness of one who righteously endures in faith was sufficient.
What would cause such a community to remember the sufferings so dramatically (thinking of crucifixion scenes, specifically)? Could it be that the decrease in persecution beginning with the 4th century made it necessary to connect the community of faith to the brutality that Christ suffered because they were less equipped to relate to that kind of physical suffering?
July 31, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Up front, I admit to being out of my element here, especially with FTH and JD in the mix. However, having attended the ancient (and proud of it) Coptic Orthodox Church for a number of years, I think I can shed some light.
The Coptic Orthodox Church’s self-identity is rooted in martyrdom, with martyrology being a staple of church teaching. It understands itself as a suffering church. Yet, the iconography of the martyrs does not at all depict them as sufferers, but with serenity and luminosity. This is because the image does not stand alone but is inextricably connected to a narrative, whose high point is the martyr’s suffering and death. It is not a stretch to say that the reason he is serene and luminous is because he suffered and died for the sake of Christ and his gospel and his church.
For example, St. Mina (Mena) – late 3rd
-early 4th century – is one of the most celebrated saints/martyrs in Coptic Church history. Below is a link to a page of Coptic icons, with Mina at the bottom of the page. As you can see, the icons do not depict him as one tortured to death, even if they are central to his story. Gotta love icongraphy that contains camels. Now that’s authentic.
http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/gallery/index.php?pageType=folder&currDir=./Saints
July 30, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What about them deliberately using icons that could not be easily interpreted by the outsider for fear of being subject to persecution. I find the notion, that the essence or meaning of the cross was not depicted in their iconography, a difficult notion. I find it difficult when one bears in mind that someone like Tertullian could write (De Corona) in 204 that it was customary for Christians to trace the outline of a cross on their foreheads.
I suppose one would have to do a study of the inherent meaning attributed to the various icons that were common.
July 30, 2008 at 9:36 am
JD,
I am actually about to start reading his collected essays, Relating Religion. I have really enjoyed reading Smith’s work.
I have been pondering how to discuss and/or introduce Smith’s work here on this blog sometime. Any thoughts? Perhaps that is an email conversation…
July 30, 2008 at 9:33 am
Stephen,
Thanks for your comment. While I appreciate your point about early Christians not using much iconography, it remains that we do have early iconographic materials from them beyond what you mention. Furthermore, what we have emphasizes not the cross, or Jesus’ suffering, etc.—as JD mentioned, this is fairly well studied.
July 30, 2008 at 5:27 am
The peacocks are actually a pretty ubiquitous trope. They’re not uncommon in various circumstances throughout the ancient Mediterannean from funerary to domestic spaces (as lions, boars, garden scenes, Medusa heads, the seasons, hunting scenes etc.). I’m pretty sure they would have meaning to the viewer, but not necessarily religious meaning. I even found some on a Christian building in Priene (there were two on opposite sides of a cross). For what it’s worth.
I believe the shift in Christ-iconography has been pretty well studied. I think–and I could be wrong–the ultimate shift to depicting Christ on a cross didn’t actually happen until sometime later, and what I understand is that it ulimately had to do with emphasizing a Christological point: Jesus suffered, was human, etc. It came in the wake of the christological controversies. Beforehand, of course, the artistic message was much different. I think the interesting thing to me, as you point out, is that early Christians did deliberately change which aspects of Christ they chose to emphasize pictorally for theological and political purposes.
BTW, thinking of JZ Smith: when you get a chance you should check out his new book of collected essays, _Relating Religion_. He kinda laments that since he’s more of a writer of articles than of books that people basically stopped reading his stuff after _Drudgery Divine_. I’ve only started. It’s a good book.
July 28, 2008 at 2:50 am
I’m not sure it tells us as much as we’d like. I did some research on this subject a few years ago at university and from what I could see Christians used very little iconography at all. They used identification symbols like peacocks and the icthus which both had inherent meaning for them but wasn’t obvious to the outsider – which was the point because of the persecution they were undergoing.
Interestingly one outsider ridiculed the christians by depicting Jesus as a man with a donkey’s head on a cross – it might also be helpful to see how they view the christians and their message at the time.