Baptism and the interpretation of early Quistian art

Baptism and the interpretation of early Christian art The aim of this article is to stress the necessity of interpreting early Christian art in its context and with due respect to its deep structure or primary notion. It often happens that scholars base their arguments on the superficial features of a work of art, but they fail to understand the notion which these features convey. This will be illustrated by examples of baptismal scenes. It will be shown how these scenes of art are misused and misinterpreted by modem scholars because the above-mentioned principles are disregarded. Though the term 'text' is generally used to refer to a w ritten form of com m unication, it can consist of any sign or group of signs (cf Louw 1984: 18). As such the term 'text' can also be used to refer to a work of art. M ost people are fully aware of the danger of interpreting a small unit in a linguistic text w ithout paying proper attention to its whole context. However, when it comes to an art text, people are often less careful. They often build their arguments on a m inor aspect of a depiction, w hile ignoring its wider context. M oreover, the actual m eaning of any w ritten com m unication lies in its notion, linguistically called its deep structure. In order to convey this notion, the original writer selects, orders and arranges his material around this notion. O ne should realise, however, that the way and m anner in w hich a notion is expressed (= surface structure), is always secondary to its deep structure (cf Louw 1973). But these linguistic principles can also be applied to an art text. In a work of art too, there is a deep structure or a notion which the artist wants to express. He can do this in various ways ( = surface structure), but again the m anner is secondary to the basic m eaning. It often happens that scholars base their arguments on the superficial features of a work of art, but they fail to understand the underlying and primary notion w hich these features convey. This leads to many erroneous conclusions. The purpose of this article is to indicate the necessity of interpreting 316 ISSN 0259-9422 = HTS 43/3 (1987) art, too, in its context and with due respect to its primary notion. This will be illustrated by examples of particularly baptismal scenes. It will also be shown how these scenes of art are misused and misinterpreted by modern scholars because the above-mentioned principles are disre­ garded.

Though the term 'text' is generally used to refer to a w ritten form of com m unication, it can consist of any sign or group of signs (cf Louw 1984: 18).As such the term 'text' can also b e used to refer to a w ork of art.M ost people are fully aware of the danger of interpreting a small u nit in a lin guistic text w ithout paying proper attention to its w hole context.H ow ever, w hen it com es to an art text, people are often less careful.They often build their argum ents on a m in or aspect of a depiction , w hile ignoring its w ider context.
M oreover, the actual m eaning of any w ritten com m unication lies in its notion , linguistically called its deep structure.In order to convey this notion , the original w riter selects, orders and arranges h is m aterial around this notion.O ne should realise, how ever, that the w ay and m anner in w hich a notion is expressed ( = surface structure), is always secondary to its deep structure (cf Louw 1973).But these lin gu istic principles can also be applied to an art text.In a work of art too, there is a deep structure or a notion w hich the artist w ants to express.H e can do this in various ways ( = surface structure), but again the m anner is secondary to the basic m eaning.It often happens that scholars base their argum ents on the superficial features of a w ork of art, but they fail to understand the underlying and prim ary notion w hich these features convey.T h is leads to m any erroneous conclusions.
The purpose of this article is to ind icate the n ecessity of interpreting art, too, in its context and with due respect to its primary notion.This will be illustrated by examples of particularly baptismal scenes.It will also be shown how these scenes of art are misused and misinterpreted by modern scholars because the above-mentioned principles are disre garded.
In their interpretation of scenes such as these, scholars usually draw attention to the boyhood of Jesus (or of the baptismal candidate), the affusion of the water, and the fact that the water is merely ankle deep.Du Preez (1985: 7), for example, who defends the sprinkling of babies, says that these depictions do tell us something about the mode of baptism as practiced in the time of the artist.Moller, on the other hand, wants to account for these depictions, which don't suit his theological views, and thus he says: 'Die feit dat in die onderaardse katakombes te Rome prente is van die besprinkeling in die eerste eeu, sê nog niks.Dit kan nie bewys word dat daardie prente in die eerste eeu geskilder is nie' (Moller 1976: 201).But the dating of these pictures is not the question at issue.These scholars are m issing a very importaitt point: Early Christian art was neither illustrative or narrative, it was symbolic.To regard any scene as being a pictorial representation of reality is quite risky.It was never the intention of the artist to portray an actual scene, but rather to convey its notion or meaning (deep structure).This very important aspect of early Christian art will become clear when we look at other popular Biblical scenes in early C hristian art.Let us take, for exam ple, depictions of N oah and the ark, such as is show n in Figures 4 and 5.
There are m ore than forty depictions of Noah in the ark in the catacom bs in Rom e alone, dating from 200 AD until the end of the fourth century.All these d epictions are very sim ilar: The ark is always a square box, som etim es w ith little feet.Noah is represented in the posture of an 'o ran s', som etim es clearly fem inine in appearance, standing upright in this boxlike ark.Usually there is also a dove, bearin g an olive branch in its beak or in its claws, and it is depicted as flying tow ards Noah.The ark is never depicted as a three-storey boat, nor are there any anim als present.The reason is, of course, that the artist did not intend to illustrate every detail of the story of Noah.He only w anted to convey the m eaning w hich the narrative of N oah and the ark had for him .The saving of N oah from the flood was probably seen as a type of salvation of a believer through baptism , as in 1 Peter 3: 2 0 -21.(For other possible interpretations of the Noah narration in early C hristian theology, see the article of M aritz 1983.)H aving realised the sym bolic nature of early C hristian art, we can now return to the baptism al scenes: The artist is m erely portraying all the persons/elem ents w hich are present at a baptism al cerem ony, nam ely the one who baptizes, the one w ho is b ein g baptized, the w ater and the dove (sym bol of the Holy G host, w hich was conferred on a believer at h is baptism , according to patristic theology).Thus these scenes do not in any respect bear testim ony to the m ode of baptism in the tim e of the artist.If one in sists on interpreting the w ater pouring over the candidate as evidence for sprinkling, one should likew ise conclude that baptism s w ere effected w ith w ater com ing from the beak of a dove.
N ote also that Jesus w as depicted as a little boy w hen He was baptized.T h is is also contrary to historical facts.As in the case of the w ater com ing from the beak of a dove, the age of Jesus is not the issue.But how then should one explain the relative sm allness of the baptism al candidates in the pictorial representations of baptism ?It was com m on practice am ong the early C hristian artists to depict a benefactor as m uch larger in size than the recipient.Thus w hen Jesu s is depicted as healer.H e is alw ays m uch larger in size than those w ho experience h is healing.Figures 6 and 7 serve as exam ples of this.
In Figure 7 Jesu s heals the paralytic (m iddle), a blind m an (right) and He raises Lazarus (far right).In Figure 8 Jesus again heals a blin d man

'T T T T f F I ^I
ÏA XX (left) and raises Lazarus (right).Note the relative sm allness of the blind m an, the paralytic and Lazarus (the recipients) com pared to the size of Jesus (the benefactor).Likew ise, the person who baptizes is seen as the benefactor, and the candidate as the recipient.But w hen one pleads for the interpretation of art in its context, it m ust be understood in a very w ide sense.W hen one interprets (say) a verse from the B ible, one should take into consideration not only its place in the pericope, but also its place in the chapter, as well as the place of the chapter in the book as a w hole.As a m atter of fact, even the place of the book in the Bible as text can contribute to one's interpretation.Sim ilarly, one should not only interpret an art text as a w hole, but one should also take note of the place w here it is found, as well as its relationship to other scenes in its environm ent.This principle can be well illustrated by the baptism al scenes w hich are found in the room of the D ura-Europos house-church on the Euphrates.
O ne of the room s in this house, w hich was enlarged for the use of a C hristian congregation, has a baptistry in one corner.A bove and alongside the bath there are several w all-paintings.Let us now discuss three of the pictures in this baptism al cham ber w hich have been preserved for us: In the scene directly above the bath, we see Jesu s, depicted as a Good Shepherd , as well as Adam and Eve.Bearing in m ind the w ider context of this depiction (viz that it is found in a baptism al cham ber), the m eaning of these portrayals becom es clear.The artist has depicted Adam and Eve because they were responsible for brin gin g sin into the world.Jesu s, depicted as the Good Shepherd, takes away these sins.Thus the underlying notion of this scene is the rem ission of sins, and specifically, original sin.As is evident from early C hristian literature, it w as believed that one's sins were rem oved through baptism .It is quite rem arkable that the Church Fathers initially linked baptism to the rem ission of sins, and not to circum cision.
In the next picture Jesus heals the paralytic.But Jesus is pointing w ith his hand, and it is clear that He is saying som ething.W e read in the G ospels that w hen Jesus healed the paralysed m an.He said: 'M y son, your sins are forgiven' (Mk 2: 5).Thus the artist again touches upon the them e of the forgiveness of sins, w hich was linked to baptism .In the third scene we see Jesus stretching out his hand to Peter, who sinks in the w aves of the sea.The significance of this scene is the w ater, w hich is an im portant elem ent of baptism .Thus it is clear that all these pictures, found in a baptism al cham ber, are carefully selected to high ligh t one aspect or another of baptism .This show s how im portant it is to interpret art in its w ider context.
To conclude: W hen one interprets any aspect of an art text, one should pay careful attention to its context, setting and deep structure (or underlying notion).A disregard of these principles has led to erroneous conclusions concerning the practice of baptism of the early C hristians, as depicted in their art.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: The baptism of Christ.A wall-painting in the catacomb o f Calixtus.Third century.Figure 2 is used with permission from Société royale d'arch éolo gie d e B ruxelles.

Figure 3 :
Figure 3: The baptism o f Christ.Sarcophagus, Rome.Santa Maria antique.Figure 3 is used with permission from Floris Books (Christian Community Press), London.

Figure 4 :
Figure 4: Noah in the ark.Third century.Catacomb of Saint Peter and Saint Marcellinus, Rome. Figure 4 is used with permission from Andre Held, Paris.

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: The healing o f the paralytic and o f the man bom blind, the transformation o f w ater into wine and the raising o f Lazarus.Sarcophagus, Lateran museum, Rome. Figure 6 is used with permission from Floris Books (Christian Community Press), London.

Figure 7 :
Figure 7: The healing o f the blind and the raising o f Lazarus.An ivory casket from the Church o f Santa Giulia.Second half o f the fourth century.Figure 7 is used with permission from Hirmer Verlag, Miinchen.