UNDERSTANDING EARLY

CHRISTIAN ART

Understanding Early Christian Art integrates the motifs and subjects of early
Christian art with the symbols and themes of early Christian literature and
liturgy.
The book begins with an analysis of the non-narrative subjects of early
Christian art, for example, the Good Shepherd, the praying figure, and fish
and birds. The book then explores the narrative images, portraits and
dogmatically oriented figures found in Roman catacomb painting, sarcoph-
agus relief sculpture, and early mosaics, ivories and manuscript illumination.
The parallels between biblical exegesis as found in early homilies and cate-
chetical documents and images portraying particular biblical figures are also
discussed. Finally, the book examines iconographic themes such as Jonah,
Daniel, Abraham offering Isaac, and Adam and Eve.
Understanding Early Christian Art offers an insightful, erudite, and lavishly
illustrated analysis of the meaning and message of early Christianity as
revealed in the texts and images of the early Christians.

Robin Margaret Jensen is Associate Professor of the History of Christianity

at Andover Newton Theological School. She specializes in the history and
character of the early Christian Church, particularly as it is revealed in its
architecture and iconography.
UNDERSTANDING
EARLY CHRISTIAN
ART

Robin Margaret Jensen

 First published 2000
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group
Transferred to Digital Printing 2011
© 2000 Robin Margaret Jensen
The right of Robin Margaret Jensen to be identified as the Author of this
Work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988
Typeset in Garamond by Taylor & Francis Books Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Jensen, Robin Margaret, 1952–
Understanding early Christian art / Robin Margaret Jensen.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Art, Early Christian. 2. Christian art and symbolism–To 500.
I. Title.
N7832.J46 2000
704.9'482' 09015–dc21 99–41887

ISBN 0–415–20454–2 (hbk)

ISBN 0–415–20455–0 (pbk)
FOR LIBBY AND BOBBY
 CONTENTS

List of illustrations viii

Acknowledgments xi
Abbreviations xii

Introduction 1

1 The character of early Christian iconography: issues and

problems of interpretation 8

2 Non-narrative images: Christian use of classical symbols and

popular motifs 32

3 Pictorial typologies and visual exegesis 64

4 Portraits of the incarnate God 94

5 Images of the suffering redeemer 130

6 Born again: the resurrection of the body and the restoration

of Eden 156

Notes 183
Select bibliography 214
Index 216

vii
 ILLUSTRATIONS

1 The Good Shepherd, Catacomb of Callistus. 10

2 Jonah thrown into the water, Catacomb of Sts Peter and
Marcellinus. 11
3 Anchor and fish from a titulus in the Catacomb of Priscilla. 18
4 Adam and Eve, peacock, and orant, Via Latina Catacomb. 33
5 Jesus teaching, late fourth-century sarcophagus now in the
Musée de l’Arles Antique (Arles). 34
6 Rams’ head sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano,
c.250–75. 34
7 Fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano. 37
8 Orpheus, Catacomb of Domitilla. 41
9 Christ as Helios, Mausoleum M (of the Julii) beneath St Peter’s
Basilica, Rome. 43
10 Fragment of a fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Musée de
l’Arles Antique (Arles). 44
11 Jesus as philosopher, Catacomb of Domitilla. 46
12 Fish and loaves, Catacomb of Callistus. 47
13a Sarcophagus of Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome (front frieze). 49
13b Sarcophagus of Sta. Maria Antiqua: right end. 49
13c Sarcophagus of Sta. Maria Antiqua: left end. 49
14 Banquet, Catacomb of Callistus. 52
15 Banquet on sarcophagus fragment now in the Vatican
Museo Pio Cristiano. 52
16 Grape harvest sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo
Pio Cristiano. 60
17 Moses striking the rock, with Noah, Lot and the multiplication
of the loaves and fishes, Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus. 65
18 Noah, Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus. 66
19 Abraham and Isaac, and Balaam with his ass, Via Latina Catacomb. 67
20 Jonah under the gourd vine, Catacomb of Callistus. 69
21 Daniel and lions, Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus. 73

viii
 I L L U S T R AT I O N S

22 Jesus raising Lazarus, Catacomb of Peter and Marcellinus. 76

23 Three youths in the furnace, Via Latina Catacomb. 80
24 Three youths and Noah, on a fourth-century sarcophagus now
in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano. 81
25 The three magi, fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Vatican
Museo Pio Cristiano. 81
26 Three youths on sarcophagus end now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano. 83
27 Late fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano. 86
28 The Christian baptistery at Dura Europos (c.245). 88
29 Peter striking the rock, Catacomb of Commodilla. 91
30 Fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo
Pio Cristiano. 96
31 Late fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Musée de l’Arles
Antique (Arles). 96
32 Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, c.359. Treasury of St Peter’s
Basilica, Rome. 98
33 Late fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Musée de l’Arles
Antique (Arles). 100
34 Portrait medallion of Jesus with Peter and Paul, Archepiscopal
chapel, Ravenna. 104
35 Apse of the Basilica of Sta. Pudenziana, Rome (c.400). 109
36 Transfiguration with Apollinaris, S. Apollinare in Classe,
Ravenna. 111
37 Jesus giving the law to Paul, Apse of Sta. Constanza,
Rome (c.325). 113
38 Jesus giving keys to Peter, Apse of Sta. Constanza,
Rome (c.325). 114
39 Christ curing the man born blind, S. Apollinare Nuovo,
Ravenna. 115
40 Christ before Pilate, S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. 116
41 Jesus entering Jerusalem, sarcophagus now in the Vatican
Museo Pio Cristiano. 117
42 Traditio Legis sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano. 117
43 Passion sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano
(late fourth century). 118
44 Mosaic dome medallion, so-called Arian Baptistery,
Ravenna. 118
45 Mosaic dome medallion, Orthodox (Neonian) Baptistery in
Ravenna. 119
46 Busts of Apollo, Jupiter, and Serapis now in the British Museum,
London. 120

ix
 I L L U S T R AT I O N S

47 Second-century figure of Dionysus-Bacchus now in the British

Museum, London. 121
48 Fifth-century ivory diptych now in the Victoria and Albert
Museum, London. 122
49 Crucifixion from the wooden door of Sta. Sabina, Rome. 131
50 Pilgrimage ampullae, Monza, Italy. 132
51 Jesus holding the cross on a fourth-century sarcophagus now
in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano. 133
52 Third- and fourth-century funerary inscriptions, S. Lorenzo
fuori le Mura, Rome. 139
53 Jesus and apostles in a boat. Sarcophagus fragment now in the
Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano. 139
54 The binding of Isaac, Synagogue of Beth Alpha. 144
55 Miracle sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano. 144
56 Lamb of God on sarcophagus, S. Apollinare in Classe,
Ravenna. 147
57 Peacock, Catacomb of Praetextatus. 160
58 Good Shepherd, S. Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. 161
59 Fifth-century ivory diptych (now in Milan) – detail of women
at the empty tomb. 163
60 Ascension of Elijah, from the wooden door of Sta. Sabina,
Rome. 165
61 Fourth-century sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano. 168
62 Miracle sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio Cristiano. 169
63 Detail of Jonah Sarcophagus now in the Vatican Museo Pio
Cristiano (late third century). 172
64 John baptizing Jesus from sarcophagus now in the Musée de
l’Arles Antique (Arles). 176
65 Trinity creating Adam and Eve now in the Musée de l’Arles
Antique (Arles). 179
66 Detail of Trinity sarcophagus, Arles. Lower left, adoration of the
magi. 181

x
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This manuscript has evolved over a long time, from many lectures and bits
of articles. I am deeply grateful to the many students and colleagues over the
years who have encouraged me to pull all the fragments together into one
place. I have learned, from them, that the visual dimension of learning and
teaching is effective, fascinating, illuminating, and delightful.
Special thanks must be given, however, to those who have supported my
work in particular ways. The Association of Theological Studies provided a
grant for a semester’s release from teaching in the spring of 1995, which
gave me the time to begin this project and provided for my mentoring by
Professor Thomas Mathews, who read the original drafts of this work. My
doctoral dissertation advisor, Richard Brilliant, has provided some impor-
tant prodding and always answered my questions along the way. Mary
Charles Murray has been an inspiration for more than two decades. Four very
valued colleagues, J. Mary Luti, Rosamond Rosenmeier, William Tabbernee,
and Mark Burrows, read all or part of this manuscript in draft, making
many editing suggestions along the way. Graydon Snyder has given me his
support and supplied many photographs, even after many years’ worth of
friendly arguments about the ways each of us (differently) interpreted some
of the same materials. The staff of the International Catacomb Society have
been extraordinarily generous with their time, both helping me find illus-
trations and providing photographs for inclusion here. Sarah Hubbell helped
me to index this volume in its final form. My colleagues in the Boston area,
particularly those who regularly attend meetings of the Patristica
Bostoniensia, have provided lots of ideas and constructive criticism over the
years as well.

xi
 ABBREVIATIONS

AB Art Bulletin
ACIAC Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana – Atti
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
ANRW Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt
ARTS Arts Religion and Theological Studies
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BibArch Biblical Archaeologist
BibInterp Biblical Interpretation
BR Bible Review
CH Church History
DACL Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
EEC Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
HistRel History of Religion
HTR Harvard Theological Review
JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JJA Journal of Jewish Art
JRel Journal of Religion
JThS Journal of Theological Studies
LCI Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie
NPNF Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers
NTS New Testament Studies
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
PTR Princeton Theological Review
RAC Revista di archeologia cristiana
VChr Vigiliae Christianae
ZNTW Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

xii
 INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice (who is bored by

“sitting by her sister on the bank and of having nothing to do”) takes a peek
into her sister’s book and exclaims: “what is the use of a book … without
pictures or conversations?”1
This study is written for readers who (like Alice) want pictures with their
prose, and who suspect or believe that a study of ancient art objects or arti-
facts offer a different kind of engagement with the study of history than
texts alone could provide. In fact, even more than merely adding pictures to
traditional text-based history books, these persons might argue that non-
textual evidence offers an equally valuable testimony to the character of
religious or social life in the past, although it may not seem as accessible or
apparently eloquent as available written records, especially to historians
trained to consult ancient documents for their evidence. Those historians
who wish not only to balance their texts with visual images but also to inte-
grate the two will find that such integration offers new depth, or dimension,
to their view of the past.
Although this might sound simple or even obvious, the distinct methods
and objective goals of text historians and art historians have sometimes
undermined efforts that are necessarily interdisciplinary. There are several
reasons for this. First, the training of specialists and the practical need for
professional focus have contributed to what is often an unfortunate but
understandable estrangement between the two scholarly worlds. The data
often have been divided between text and art historians, even though sepa-
rate analyses of material objects and ancient texts miss crucial parallels and
relationships between the two fields that would aid in the interpretation of
both. This division is understandable, however, because scholars from one
field rarely master the vocabulary, tools, or techniques of research belonging
to the other, and so each is left to the experts for study and interpretation.
Efforts to bring the two fields into dialogue are both time-consuming and
also fraught with professional risk, requiring that individual scholars be
willing to step over disciplinary lines and daringly enter another’s field,
often as kind of interested and eager, but hapless, amateurs.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Thus while many intellectual historians find visual art beautiful, inter-
esting, and even provocative, they may be fearful of trying to interpret it or
incorporate it into their own research. The highly specialized methods and
scientific apparatus employed by art historians and archaeologists intimi-
dates them. Alice-like, they might even prefer a book with pictures, but will
safely limit their use of those images to mere illustration of the points made
in the words on the page, thus unfortunately (and unwittingly) putting art
works into a secondary position as service to their own prose.
Art historians, of course, have been trained to analyze material objects as
essential and primary (never secondary) monuments of culture. However,
because of the restrictions on their time or the emphases in their training,
these scholars sometimes have a parallel gap in their understanding of the
tools and techniques of text historians, or lack detailed knowledge of the
essential documentary sources that might correspond in time and place with
the art works they were studying. And even if that were not the case, merely
keeping up with new scholarship in the field is nearly impossible.
Beyond the problems of time and training, however, is the slightly more
vexing issue of inclination or interest. Scholars working in one field may
overlook, or simply be uninterested in, questions that would occur to their
colleagues in another discipline, and while preoccupied with their own ques-
tions may miss something that appears to be blatantly obvious, profoundly
meaningful, or tantalizingly curious from the vantage point of those others.
Thus the need for interdisciplinary research and dialogue makes its case.
Questions that arise in one field of study sometimes must be directed to
another for consideration and analysis. This is particularly true for scholars
engaged in the interpretation of art, in its meaning or significance for the
social group or religious community – something broadly labeled the “study
of iconography.” Those scholars who fit into this category do, in fact, work
in the intersection between text and art history and have carved out a
distinct field, although in most cases they began with the mastery of a
“home discipline” and acquired a broad working knowledge of another.2
Such interdisciplinary adaptability is getting harder and harder to sustain,
for all the reasons stated above. A more practical future model may be that
of scholars from different disciplines working as teams, informing and
critiquing one another.
But further complicating the matter is the subtle but definite disparage-
ment of images by many of those who come at history through texts. This
disparagement may have a philosophical or even theological basis, or it may
be nearly unconscious. Church historians’ efforts to understand or credit
significance of visual art often parallel the famous response of Gregory the
Great to the bishop Serenus, who reported a case of iconoclasm in Marseilles
in the early seventh century. Gregory rebuked Serenus for destroying images
of the saints by asserting that: “what writing presents to readers, a picture

2
 INTRODUCTION

presents to the unlearned who view it, since in the image even the ignorant
see what they ought to follow; in the picture the illiterate read.”3
This statement may sum up one traditional Western perspective on reli-
gious art – that religious pictures are the “Bible of the Unlettered” – a good
thing for those who have no better way to learn the stories of the faith.
Although it sounds well-meaning, such a perspective actually views visual
art as inferior or subservient to verbal expression and suggests that images
are the “food” for childlike minds, whereas theological treatises, homilies, or
verbal arguments contain the meat of adult intellectual formation. The func-
tion of art in religious contexts is thus seen as primarily didactic and as such
dependent on and interpretive of what can be found in written form else-
where. Not recognizing that visual art can be as deeply theological or
intellectually sophisticated as literature consigns even the most refined
examples of artistic production to the category of “popular culture” for a
mass audience and erroneously opposes it to “higher” forms of theological
discourse carried on from pulpits, lecterns, and in the bookstacks of libraries
in churches, universities, and theological schools.
This study will provide evidence that visual art often serves as a highly
sophisticated, literate, and even eloquent mode of theological expression.
Viewers from the past or the present certainly cannot fully appreciate the
subtlety of most of the surviving early Christian art objects without at least
a basic familiarity with the biblical narratives, liturgical practices, and the
common traditions of scriptural interpretation. But in addition, this study
also demonstrates the mutual dependence of verbal and visual modes of reli-
gious expression. Visual images are neither necessarily distinct nor divergent
from images found in written texts. Although the verbal and visual idioms
are not equivalent in any sense, art presented as disconnected from literature
or theological writing. In fact, early Christian visual metaphors usually have
direct parallels in early Christian literature. Viewers, like readers, are
allowed, even expected, to be familiar with the many layers of the faith
tradition as passed down in different forms, whether homilies, liturgies,
dogmatic writings, or pictures.
However, since little documented, theoretical reflection on the use of art
exists from the early Christian period itself (unlike the later period encom-
passing the debate on icons), such a conclusion can only be reached by
analogy and comparison. For instance, scholars have studied the theory of
creation in the image of God as a basis for a Christian philosophical view of
the image’s participation in the archetype. Others have undertaken a careful
analysis of the theories of vision in the early Church.4 This study’s goal may
be somewhat simpler – to demonstrate the concrete points of similarity
between verbal and visual reflection on the substance of the early Christian
faith. By collecting and comparing the parallel metaphors and typologies,
one could then go on to build a theory that would argue that visual and
verbal theologies are equally valued and necessarily related to one another.

3
 INTRODUCTION

This work requires an interdisciplinary approach, using the methods of

art historians in conjunction with the study of early Christian texts. A crit-
ical intersection between these two is in the ways both use metaphors, types,
or allegories as ways of indirectly conveying meaning. As such, the function
of symbols will be a primary focus of this work, especially when symbols in
text and art overlap and reinforce one another. Whether a particular symbol
as it appears in a text can be used to interpret a figure in art is a thesis worth
testing. However, given the lack of absolutely congruent times and spaces,
the work of comparison must be generalized to explore the ways certain
symbols worked in texts or in art, not to demonstrate some kind of strict
one-to-one relationship.
Each of these scholarly fields (art history and intellectual history) bears a
certain degree of healthy skepticism about the other. Text historians may
worry about the degree of subjectivity brought to the examination of the
artistic evidence. Such work seems to move into “soft fields,” which include
analysis of symbols and signs as well as their effect on long-dead, relatively
silent viewers. Although theological treatises themselves always require
subjective analysis and interpretation, so long as words are involved, histo-
rians may think they can apply enough scientific analytical tools eventually
to discern what the original author meant, or intended. Art, unfortunately,
often comes without captions or attached written explanations and, as such,
may seem frustratingly ambiguous or dauntingly mysterious.
For different reasons, art historians might worry about over-reliance by a
trained text historian on the documentary evidence as a means to interpret
something essentially non-textual or to overly apply familiar theological
categories as labels on artistic images. These scholars are trained to begin
with the images and avoid turning to texts as a primary source for their
analysis or interpretation, valuing art objects for themselves, apart from the
documents, for their essential beauty and independent significance. However,
this often means art historians concentrate on comparative, formal analysis of
art-historical materials and thus overlook questions of meaning, or of the
relevance of the image to the faith arguably reflected and fostered in the art.
Finally, there are the ever-present problems of point of view (author vs.
reader/artist vs. audience), transmission, and tradition – each of which under-
mines any firm pronouncements about how any extant text or art object
might have been received by any particular person or group. Reconstructing
the responses of readers or the significance of texts through tradition is a
thorny matter and text historians may well wish to avoid the equally vexing
problem of theorizing about the perspective of an ancient viewer, a perspec-
tive that may seem even more inaccessible than that of the ancient reader.
Looking at art has always been a process conditioned first by the partic-
ular situation and the character of the viewer, which is, of course, affected by
the object in view. In other words, viewers interpret the art work for them-
selves, but the object has its own reality by virtue of being seen (over time)

4
 INTRODUCTION

by different people with different reactions based on concrete experiences

within particular communities. Thus the image can be said to have a pres-
ence and power that is both stable in itself and transformed by and through
its audience. Both image and viewer are conditioned by their interaction,
and may be each time a single viewer returns to the same object. Since
multiple messages may be communicated by a single image to a single
viewer in a single glance, one might wish to avoid considering what could
happen in a room full of viewers, or over a span of generations. As with all
history, nothing is ever objectively clear. All we have are slants, angles, and
points of view that affect in variant ways the reality we experience.5
This is made harder for text historians, because few records exist that
record specific responses to art by particular ancient Christian viewers.
Neither do we have ancient reviewers offering their perspectives on whether
an art object is beautiful or inspirational, or whether it fulfilled its function
(as defined by the reviewer, patron, or artist). And although art critics
existed in the pagan world, ancient Christian writers apparently made little
attempt to interpret specific art works.6
Given this state of affairs we must rely on the resources available, and
these include the writings that belong to the same general context as the
images. Texts must be treated as sources of information to aid in interpreta-
tion. At the same time we also must consider certain characteristics of the
objects themselves. These characteristics include the stylistic aspects of the
images, whether the art is expressionistic or naturalistic, and whether of
high or low quality. Another characteristic is the composition or content of
the works. We might speak of their composition as abbreviated and simple
or more detailed and complex. The frequency of a particular theme in an
entire decorative program might also be significant, as well as the proximity
of other motifs or themes. Once certain images appear together interpreters
might begin to speculate about meaning as much as about patterns or
motifs. The context of the art is also extremely important. Whether the
work was created for a church wall or a tomb wall must have some influence
on the choice of subject matter and give us some clues about the meaning of
the whole compositions.
But more basic than trying to understand what individual art works
meant in late antiquity is the question of how art itself functioned as both
constructive and expressive factors in religious belief. We may discover that
some images preceded texts and the texts then provided commentary on the
visual symbols. However, at the very least visual imagery never merely
retold or condensed a text into corresponding pictorial language, but rather
made meaning in its own right – by using symbols and allegories already
present in written expression (narratives, commentaries, etc.) in such a way
as to become a communication mode in itself – one that paralleled,
commented upon, and expanded the text, rather then simply amplifying or
serving the text. Learning to “read” art works, therefore, means learning to

5
 INTRODUCTION

read a visual language, to become familiar with an unfamiliar idiom. Nor is

the visual idiom any less historical, contextually determined or theologically
sophisticated than the verbal. Any such assumption returns us to the stereo-
type that art is for the unlearned, while texts are for the elite or belong
specifically to the “high culture.” Similarly we will need to dismiss the char-
acterization of art as inherently part of “popular” or “unofficial” religion
while written documents tend to reflect the “official” statements of the reli-
gious authorities. Images and words together constitute sacred symbols, and
neither has inherent primacy over the other. Understanding this might
require that we transcend modern culture’s tendency to disengage symbols
and words, and to value words as better or clearer communicative devices.
So how do we begin? By taking into consideration what we can – looking
simultaneously at these two modes of communication of meaning, texts and
images. We cannot presume that these are inevitably or even often in
conflict, and we cannot privilege either word or picture as being prior or
more authentic. As I have already said, assuming that the image merely
serves the word underestimates the importance of art as a powerful and basic
element of communication. But to assume that the word is one or more
steps distant from visual expression is to cut off a valuable resource for inter-
pretation. Both word and image must be viewed as evidence of
meaning-making either in a culture or in a religious faith, and must be seen
as partners in the process.
Visual art has many different functions in the expression and develop-
ment of the religious tradition. Among these are the decorative, illustrative,
and didactic uses of art, but added to these are functions that might be char-
acterized as exegetical, symbolic, liturgical, and iconic. The former are not
to be denigrated. Beauty offers glory, and education brings illumination.
However, the latter four functions assume that visual art is capable of medi-
ating or even manifesting more complex theological ideas – including the
incarnation and the presence of the divine in creation without necessarily
being straight-jacketed by the prevailing (authorized) dogma or catechesis.
These functions are more subjective or complex in a way that direct
discourse might not be. As exegesis, art interprets scriptures on many
different levels, from the literal to the allegorical. As symbol, art acts as a
bridge between a familiar reality and one that transcends ordinary expres-
sion. As liturgy, art may have a performative function and belongs to
particular space, time, and ritual actions. Finally as icon, art brings the
viewer into direct contact with the holy, providing the mechanism for
epiphany.
Another distinction exists between the content of religious images.
Although we may make too false a distinction between narrative and iconic
expression, these two distinct forms clearly must have divergent purposes.
The former may be more directly dependent on memory and familiarity
with the tradition (and story) while the latter may be shaped by quite

6
 INTRODUCTION

different cultural factors. But the eye and mind must be trained to read
certain motifs and this will always be culturally determined, a particular
viewpoint we may not be able to recreate across time and space. Although
what we see today was, at one time, as familiar to ancient viewers as the
most conventional signs or symbols are to us. Narrative images depend
particularly on memory and use a kind of sign language to remind us of
what we already know. They are not meant to be taken literally, but rather
only serve as openings to a far more complex set of layered meaning and
significations.
Iconic images are not so related to memory or to textual referents. The
icon functions as a kind of stepping-stone or mediator between the invisible
realm of the divine and the more direct world of the senses. In a sense the
image both presents and protects the divine, in the same way that apophatic
theology does. Icons proclaim that the divine cannot be known in its
essence, but only in its effect – the way we know without being told. Direct
engagement with the divine is difficult to withstand. The icon therefore
both reveals and protects both the viewer and the holy mystery.
The following chapters return to these questions and examine them in far
more depth. The first chapter raises core questions about the history of
scholarship. Chapters 2 through 6 are organized around selected basic motifs
characterizing early Christian art. Chapter 2 considers symbols which are
not drawn directly from biblical narratives (philosopher, praying figure,
etc.); Chapter 3 examines the ways in which biblical narratives are inter-
preted in both text and image; Chapter 4 considers the development and
significance of portraits of Christ and the saints; while Chapters 5 and 6
examine theological or dogmatic aspects of art, especially as the art inter-
prets the crucifixion of Christ or presents a belief in the resurrection of the
dead. Each of the motifs discussed is juxtaposed with selected textual or
liturgical parallels in an effort to show the relationship or even mutual
dependence of picture and word in the construction of sacred symbols.
Thus every chapter of this book in some way attempts to integrate partic-
ular textual and visual modes of expression into a coherent discourse. As
such, this project is meant to be a demonstration of how this might be done
with a number of case studies. The goal of the project is to introduce
scholars or students whose view of the past is often mediated primarily
through written documents to the power, subtlety, and beauty of sacred
images, as well as to counter any belief that art is a substitute “text” for the
uneducated or primarily representative of those whose theology remains at
the level of “popular religion.” By considering texts together with visual
images, art historians may discover certain documents or theological trea-
tises that illuminate their understanding of and deepen their appreciation
for the monuments they study.