Fig. 1. 4th cent. fresco: Jonah (Catacomb of Priscilla) Anchors Aweigh! The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation The nature of visual art sometimes permits it to do a better job of spiritually interpreting the Bible than can text. b y M a t t h e w M i ll i n e r 82 C O M M E N T M A G A Z I N E | www.cardus.ca/comment  matthew milliner W alter Hook, a nineteenth-century group experience, to Moody Bible Institute, Dean of Chichester Cathedral in Wheaton College, and then Princeton southern England, once related an un- Theological Seminary, Ehrman describes usually eventful study session. He was read- how serious Biblical study relieved him of his ing Britain’s first taste of German historical faith. (Interestingly enough, for the legend- criticism, that rigorous scholarly project to ary Biblical scholar to whom Misquoting Jesus find out what the Bible “really” meant. Just is dedicated, Bruce Metzger, serious Biblical then, Hook paused to look out his window to study appears to have had the opposite effect, admire the Cathedral’s central Gothic tow- but I digress.) er that had stood for 450 years. At that very moment (1:30 p.m., February 21, 1860), the Having had a born-again experience in high impressive spire—weakened by subsidence— school which also took me to Wheaton collapsed. Dean Hook pronounced the event College and Princeton Seminary, I share some God’s judgment on what he was reading. steps of Ehrman’s journey. But times, as they say, have changed, for to study Biblical schol- The anecdote serves as an alarming meta- arship today is very often to undergo the re- phor for how the scholarly project of histor- verse of the Dean Hook’s disturbing experi- ical criticism seemed to threaten the church, ence, not to mention Ehrman’s. In fact, it is to as it still does today, as evidenced by popular see the church spire being beautifully recon- Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman’s autobiograph- structed (as indeed the collapsed Chichester ical reminiscence in the beginning of his book spire soon was by the great Victorian archi- Misquoting Jesus. From a born-again youth tect, George Gilbert Scott). This is because Fig. 2. 4th cent. fresco: Moses striking the Rock (Catacomb of Callixtus) fall 2012 83 Anchors Aweigh! The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation the project of higher criticism has in many Briggs’s predecessors in historical criticism ways run its course, being challenged by a new have lost most of his lingering confidence in movement known as theological interpreta- divine inspiration, but they shared his zeal for tion, which—in brief—enables Christians to attaining what the Bible “really” meant, de- read Scripture as the church without surren- tached from (or in defiance of) Creedal com- dering their academic integrity. “There is a mitments. The quest may have some academic pervasive sense,” writes Craig Bartholomew, value, but many scholars have come to the real- summarizing the new scholarly situation, “that ization that the historical-critical quest was an the historical-critical paradigm can no longer impossible mission. Generations of indisputably be taken for granted, and if it is to be adopted brilliant and disciplined minds had produced li- then it will have to be argued for in competi- braries full of commentaries and lexicons, but tion with alternative hermeneutics.” How did the “real Bible” promised by Briggs was still this come to pass? at large. The apparent “rockbed” of scholarly agreement turned out to be unreachable, be- It is important to emphasize that the new situ- cause—brace yourself for this revelation— ation is not simply a product of postmodern- the conflicting presuppositions of scholars fre- ism. Indeed, the roots of theological inter- quently cause them to fundamentally disagree. pretation are roughly three thousand years deeper. That said, the postmodern ethos has Bart Ehrman tells us that his defining semin- much to do with what enabled theological in- ary moment came when one of his Bible profes- terpretation to catch on. A more direct ex- sors refuted his attempt to defend Mark’s gospel planation for the shift I am describing is the with the words “maybe Mark made a mistake.” longstanding dissatisfaction with the above- After this, Ehrman tells us, “The floodgates [of mentioned historical-critical method, which, doubt] opened.” By contrast, a defining sem- after its devastating stop in Chichester, quick- inary moment for me and many of my peers ly crossed the Atlantic thanks to its many tire- came with the discovery that Biblical scholars less American evangelists. Among them was of unquestionable rank, themselves thorough- the great Presbyterian Bible scholar Charles ly trained in historical criticism, were happily Augustus Briggs, who nicely encapsulated the frontloading their faith commitments in their premises and presumptions of historical criti- academic work. “It is really only through an ap- cism in 1899: preciation of the original idea of Scripture, and the apprehension of God that underlies it,” The valleys of biblical truth have been concluded the Jewish scholar James Kugel from filled up with the debris of human dog- his (then) post at Harvard, “that those [histor- mas, ecclesiastical institutions, liturgical ical-critical] difficulties can be put in proper formulas, priestly ceremonies, and casuis- perspective.” Likewise, the late Brevard Childs tic practices. Historical criticism is digging contended from Yale that “the role of the Bible through this mass of rubbish. Historical is not being understood simply as a cultural ex- criticism is searching for the rockbed of pression of ancient peoples, but as a testimony the Divine word, in order to recover the pointing beyond itself to a divine reality to real Bible. which it bears witness.” 84 C O M M E N T M A G A Z I N E | www.cardus.ca/comment  matthew milliner Fig. 3. 9th cent. manuscript: Vision of Isaiah (Vatican Cod. gr. 699, fol. 72v) Such pronouncements were particularly per- the most intimidating set on the shelves suasive because no one could accuse Kugel was the “Anchor Bible Commentary,” rec- or Childs of not having mastered Biblical ognizable by its blue (Old Testament) and languages or the political exigencies of the red (New Testament) covers, each embla- Ancient Near East. Context, mind you, was zoned with an unmistakable Anchor, as if still profoundly important for these scholars. to signify the weight of scholarly authority. But context must extend to the future as well, The anchor may have once been a vener- to our own contexts—including contemporary able symbol of faith for the early church, but communities of faith. Which is to say, maybe this Anchor was different. The Anchor re- Mark was right. To read Kugel or Childs was minded us that the Pentateuch, thought to to break the powerful historical-critical spell be have been authored by Moses, had been that had sadly, and unnecessarily, generated so fractured by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) much disbelief. And then, to borrow Ehrman’s into the scribal schools of J, E, D and P; or metaphor, the floodgates opened. that what was once simply “Isaiah” was now first, second, and third Isaiah, with different Perhaps the library’s reference section tells authors and historical situations posited for the story best. To browse the Biblical sec- each segment; or that the book of Ephesians tions at an American theological seminary was no longer written by Paul, but by “Paul”; a decade ago was to encounter the standard or that the epistles of John were written not commentary options, all of which—to one by the Apostle John but by something known extent or another—took historical-critical as the “Johannine community.” approaches. Among this bewildering variety, fall 2012 85 Anchors Aweigh! The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation Theological interpretation is here to stay not because it is new but because it is normal. Fig. 4. Early 13th cent. manuscript: Creation (Vienna, cod. 1179, fol. 1v) This is not, of course, to say that this information necessarily undermines faith. Father Raymond Brown’s Anchor commentary on John was anything but skeptical, even while it was an exemplar of historical-critical method. Still, one never quite knew what the dreaded Anchor, which claimed to offer an objective, universally agreed upon “literal” meaning of Scripture, might reveal. In effect, the Anchor symbolized everything that caused evangelical pastors to warn their tender sheep that seminary could often be the cemetery of faith. 86 C O M M E N T M A G A Z I N E | www.cardus.ca/comment  matthew milliner But oh how those bookshelves have al- aside as much as recognized to be a curious tered! A walk through those same intimi- constriction of the Bible to its literal sense, dating reference shelves today shows that unnecessarily neglecting broader horizons of new interpretive methods have crowded out Scripture’s moral, allegorical, and anagogic- the Anchors. Commentary series that high- al meanings. Karlfried Froehlich, a Princeton light earlier methods of interpretation have Seminary professor well schooled in ancient emerged (the Ancient Christian Commentary methods of interpretation, delightfully trans- on Scripture or the Reformation Commentary lated the famous Latin rhyme that charted on Scripture). Others have permitted theolo- those wider horizons: gians, inspired by exegetical pioneers such as Karl Barth on the Protestant side and Henri The letter tells the deeds of the past de Lubac on the Catholic one, to write their Allegory, what to believe thou hast own commentaries that frontload matters The Moral tells what thou must do of faith (The Church’s Bible, Blackwell Bible Anagogy the higher Path to pursue Commentaries, and The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible). The once-intimi- In addition, conservative critics of theologic- dating weight of historicist questions has al interpretation, who have inherited the been lifted, and the ship of the church, one Reformation’s justifiable concern with allegor- might melodramatically suggest, is again ical flights of fancy, have been met with con- free to sail happily on the Spirit-swept seas. vincing and eloquent defenses of theological So long as it remembered that theological interpretation from within evangelicalism, es- interpretation is no excuse not to grapple pecially from Kevin Vanhoozer. In short, it is seriously with original languages and his- fair to suggest that theological interpretation torical study, one motto of recent Biblical is here to stay not because it is new but be- studies might be “anchors aweigh!” cause it is normal. *** And yet, there is reason to think the norm has been underestimated. Spiritual interpretation The gains and setbacks of theological in- of the Bible has been so pervasive in the his- terpretation as a movement have been tory of Christianity that its more recent ad- well rehearsed elsewhere (for example, in vocates, primarily Biblical scholars and theo- Dan Treier’s Introduction to the Theological logians, have failed to notice that one of the Interpretation of Scripture or Peter Leithart’s most widespread examples of this way of read- Deep Exegesis). Suffice it to say here that the ing Scripture is, surprisingly enough, not ver- movement is maturing. Even historical-critic- bal. Which is to say, one of the theological in- al scholars such as Walter Brueggemann have terpretation movement’s blind spots is a literal graciously conceded its importance, and its in- one, for few scholars associated with the move- ternal advocates have freshly emphasized the ment have pointed out the method’s promin- fact that attention to the literal is (and always ence in the realm of visual art. Amidst attempts has been) necessary, which vindicates any to cast off historical-criticism and imitate pre- (legitimate) historical-critical gains. In other critical modes of interpretation, scholars appear words, historical criticism has not been tossed to have left the modern (and quite artificial!) fall 2012 87 Anchors Aweigh! The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation disciplinary divide between words and images intact. To avoid the sloppy scholarship of what Christological he calls “Biblical Criticism Lite,” James Kugel’s interpretation of Mosaic advice is to “keep your eye on the ancient inter- preters.” But doing this necessitates using those passages in mosaic form eyes to see that their manner of interpretation was not limited to words. seems to have been the inspiration for sermons. I issue this complaint because after seminary I enrolled in a secular university for further enough, these two famous instances of theo- graduate study in the history of art. I did not ex- logical interpretation are also two of the most pect to revisit theological interpretation, which common themes in early Christian art of the seemed—by its very self-definition—an intra- catacombs. Jonah appears ten times more confessional matter. And yet, theological in- often than any other Biblical figure, in what terpretation kept appearing again and again in is obviously a veiled reference to the resur- the seminar room and in my research. It is not rection of Christ (Fig. 1). And while Moses that art historians have suddenly taken to in- at the burning bush or crossing the Red terpreting the Bible through the Nicene Creed. Sea would seem to be more obvious candi- Instead, it is that art historians, who generally dates for frequent illustration—the scene know little and care less about the theological from Moses’s life interpreted theologically interpretation debate, are stewards for some of by Paul appears instead (Fig. 2). Another the greatest evidence for this normative mode popular motif is Abraham sacrificing Isaac, of reading the Bible—even if they have not which signified the crucifixion long before been consulted by Biblical scholars. A.K.M. this subject became common in Christian Adam was on the right track when he sug- art. In the catacombs, the Old Testament gested we might “break out of the circle of texts appears in visual form four times more often interpreting texts, into a world in which every than the New, because the Old Testament sphere of human action expresses our biblical was read theologically. Such images, further- interpretations and invites critical analysis. more, may very well have inspired the verbal Biblical interpretations formulated as stained- interpretations of these texts by Christians glass windows or paintings.” But Adam’s sug- with which we are so much more familiar. In gestion does not seem to have been taken fur- her extraordinary work in this area, the art ther. It’s as if the entire art historical tradition historian Robin Jensen calls this underesti- was borne to enhance the dust jackets of theo- mated method of early Christian interpreta- logical literature, and nothing more. tion “Visual Exegesis.” One of the reasons that spiritual interpreta- Perhaps there is one exception to my ob- tion of the Bible is so convincing is because servation that the recent literature on the method is used by the Bible itself, specific- theological interpretation neglects art. ally Christ’s interpretation of Jonah (Matthew Ireneaus’s comparison of biblical interpreta- 12:40) or Paul’s suggestion that “the Rock was tion to the art of mosaic-making is frequent- Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4). Interestingly ly cited. Tesserae can be recklessly arranged 88 C O M M E N T M A G A Z I N E | www.cardus.ca/comment  matthew milliner to make a fox or a dog—or properly pos- Christological interpretation of Mosaic pas- itioned to display the image of king. In the sages in mosaic form seems to have been the same way, argues Ireneaus, Biblical inter- inspiration for sermons. preters either distort the Bible to serve vari- ous agendas, or properly arrange it to give Gregory the Great’s quip that art is the Bible glory to Christ the king. But the historical of the illiterate is well-known assertion— record goes much further than this oft-cited but it often serves to undermine art’s abil- reference. Theological interpretation is just ity to speak to the learned as well. Of the as easily found in the mosaics themselves as surviving early Christian manuscripts of the in Irenaus’s analogy to the practice of mo- Old Testament, the frequent illuminations saic-making. Robin Jensen cites Eusebius of do not just illustrate; they constantly inter- Caesarea, who even goes so far as to defer pret. “Art’s advantage,” writes art historian to a mosaic as his primary proof for see- Herbert Kessler, “is precisely that it permits ing Christ in the Old Testament. To sup- both the Old Testament prefigurement and port his suggestion that the three visitors its Christian realization to operate simultan- that appeared to Abraham was a vision of eously.” In other words, the nature of visual Christ, Eusebius describes the way one of art sometimes permits it to do a better job of the angels was more prominent than the spiritually interpreting the Bible than can text. other two in a (no longer surviving) mosaic. Fig. 5. Late 13th cent. fresco: Christ in "Another Form" (the Protaton, Mount Athos) 89 Anchors Aweigh! The Neglected Art of Theological Interpretation For example, the table of showbread in the this is no place to offer a catalogue of instan- Temple is depicted as a Christian altar to fore- ces, there might be one art historical moment shadow its fulfillment in the Eucharist. In the that is representative, even offering a guiding Byzantine Octateuchs (manuscripts of the first image for theological interpretation’s task. I 8 books of the Old Testament) Christ constant- first saw the painting I am referring to on a ly appears where, according to historical criti- research trip to Mount Athos, that all-male cism, he should never be: Giving a promise enclave of Orthodox Monasticism in north- to Abraham and Sarah, or presiding over the ern Greece. In the centre of the peninsula is angel of the Lord’s interference with Balaam’s a town called Karyes, where one can still find unfortunate donkey. In one Byzantine illumin- an ancient church called the “Protaton,” the ation of the prophet Isaiah’s commissioning vi- monastic republic’s primary church. Within sion, the artist interpreting the text was well its hallowed walls is the famous Axion Estin aware that the embargo on the depiction of (worthy it is) icon, sparkling both with its sil- God was still valid. But because God had been ver revetment and votive offerings of men’s legitimately depicted in Christ, depictions watches. But what surrounds the image often were now legitimate; consequently, the vision leaves a grander impression: A majestic inter- of Isaiah was retroactively interpreted as a vi- ior painted around the year 1300 by a figure sion of Jesus himself (Fig. 3). Western medi- retroactively named “Manuel Panselinos.” As eval versions of the Old Testament, known his name reveals, Panselinos (which means as the Bible Moralisée, without so much as a “full moon” in Greek) reflected the light of spoiler alert, luxuriously revel in depicting Christ and the saints just as a full moon re- Christ as the architect of the Universe on the flects the sun. The Protaton frescoes have Old Testament’s opening page! (Fig. 4). This been described as the final flowering of is less a confusing of the Persons of the Trinity Byzantine art. The artist not only embod- as much as a reminder that “through him all ied the best of the tradition before him, but things were made” (John 1:3). pushed that tradition forward as well (giving the lie to the notion that Byzantine art is stat- Such depictions are a far cry from the kind ic and unchanging). In one apse he painted of Biblical illustration on offer in nineteenth- an image that, so far as I know, is unique. The century realism or in diagrams of the Temple title is “Christ in another form,” an image of in modern study Bibles, nearly all of which Christ at Emmaus (Fig. 5). tend to operate (problematically) on the lit- eral level. Instead, early Christian, Byzantine, The iconographer was faced with a dilemma. and medieval art shows us spiritual interpret- Depictions of Christ in Byzantine art were ation in visual form. Might Christian artists, the result of a hard-won struggle, a struggle schooled in these ancient methods, cautious- which determined he be depicted with regu- ly take up the same kind of visual interpreta- lar, recognizable features. But the text of Luke tion today? where this appearance of Christ is recorded is clear: “But their eyes were kept from recogniz- In short, Christian art is a neglected well- ing him” (Luke 24:16). Interestingly enough, spring that further confirms the liberating re- Panselinos was guided by Scripture to buck turn to theological interpretation. And while Byzantine convention and depict Christ in an 90 C O M M E N T M A G A Z I N E | www.cardus.ca/comment  matthew milliner unrecognizable way. To stand before this image, wondering who it might be, is to recapitulate the experience of the apostles before Christ on the Emmaus road (to say nothing of our daily fail- ures to recognize Christ in the “least of these”). Likewise, to read the Bible theologically is to walk to Emmaus all over again, with this man: Christ the interpreter, who unfurls the very Bible that Panselinos has him hold: “Then, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he in- terpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). Many Christians, Protestants in particular, have refused typology and allegory lest it de- tract from Scripture’s literal sense. But as Jason Byassee persuasively argues in Praise Seeking Understanding, for readers like Augustine the literal sense was frequently Christ himself! To surrender allegory, furthermore, is to surrender our liturgies and to surrender Emmaus. It is, in Byassee’s words, to give up “the chance to see Jesus anew, now refracted through the words not only of the New Testament, but of the Old as well.” On that road, the disciples walked with Jesus whom they did not recognize as he showed them all the places in Moses and the prophets where he was not recognized as well: in the Garden’s Tree of Life, in Joseph’s rising from pit to throne, in the bush that did not burn, upon the smoking mountain, in every slain offering, in the Holy of Holies itself, and in the words of all the prophets. This is the way the Christians have long read the Bible, and are beginning to read it again. But Panselinos’s painting, and countless other places in the neglected history of Christian art, remind us that they saw it that way as well. Because beauty and truth are united, it might be a rule of thumb to suggest that any historical movement lacking extensive and exquisite witness in art and architectural history might not be true. Theological interpretation easily meets this criterion, in ways that this short essay can only begin to relate, and which merits further explora- tion. Has historical criticism afforded art and architectural testimony? Apart from a ruined spire, not so much. Matthew Milliner (Ph.D., Princeton University, M.Div., Princeton Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of Art History at Wheaton College (IL). fall 2012 91