The Four Paintings of Jesus
When we read the Gospels in the New Testament, we find rather quickly, that there are some great similarities as well as some obvious and stunning differences. Why is that? It has to do with the fact that the gospels are not written to be read as straight biographies. They are, instead, to be understood as faith-histories or faith-biographies. They were written by those who already believed in Jesus as the Christ and therefore reflect that belief.
They are also better understood as paintings rather than photographs. Here's why.
Imagine a room with three painters all looking at the same subject - say a bowl of apples. When they start painting, there is already an inherent difference in what they paint because they are all looking at the subject from different angles. Even if the painters are side by side, the angles will be different.
But let us suppose that they are separated by more than just a few inches. They are several feet apart. That shifts their views considerably. They are, however, still looking at the same bowl of apples. The angles have changed, though, as has the lighting. So even though the three are painting the same bowl of apples, to compare the three might reveal different sides of the bowl, the apples might appear different shades of color, and so forth. Putting the three together provides something of a nuanced view of the subject matter. Looking at them individually also tells us about what was or was not important for the various painters, but we also realize that from the paintings we can only guess or extrapolate an interpretive image of the original source material.
So it is with the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means similar) of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. They seem to be painting from the same source, but their interpretive images are quite distinct from one another.
Then, of course, there is the Gospel of John. If we were to compare the metaphorical painting of John's Gospel to the synoptics, we might wonder about the source materials. That's because John is so strikingly different from the other three that we find we aren't looking at the bowl of apples, but are instead looking at a painting that has some apples, but a lot of bananas as well. They just seem remarkably different - as if the source material had changed.
Yet to think of these works in the light of paintings is, I find, quite helpful. It prevents us from thinking of the Gospels as "pictures" that are far less interpretive than paintings. And it allows us to see that the stories themselves are presented as interpretations of the material instead of the source material itself.
And perhaps that's the blessing and curse of the New Testament. The source material of the person of Jesus can never be completely seen. It is all interpretive lenses through which we read the material. And not only do we find ourselves looking at interpretive material, we are also bringing our own interpretation to bear on the material.
So as we look at the paintings of Jesus in the Gospels, we are seeing four interpretations of Jesus as well as bringing our own interpretation of those paintings to the mix. Here's the kicker - not only are we seeing an interpretation, but as we look at only one of those paintings, the person looking at the painting next to us is also likely seeing something slightly different than what we are seeing.
This points to the richness of the painting, as well as the complexity of interpretation of that which we study.
They are also better understood as paintings rather than photographs. Here's why.
Imagine a room with three painters all looking at the same subject - say a bowl of apples. When they start painting, there is already an inherent difference in what they paint because they are all looking at the subject from different angles. Even if the painters are side by side, the angles will be different.
But let us suppose that they are separated by more than just a few inches. They are several feet apart. That shifts their views considerably. They are, however, still looking at the same bowl of apples. The angles have changed, though, as has the lighting. So even though the three are painting the same bowl of apples, to compare the three might reveal different sides of the bowl, the apples might appear different shades of color, and so forth. Putting the three together provides something of a nuanced view of the subject matter. Looking at them individually also tells us about what was or was not important for the various painters, but we also realize that from the paintings we can only guess or extrapolate an interpretive image of the original source material.
So it is with the synoptic Gospels (synoptic means similar) of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. They seem to be painting from the same source, but their interpretive images are quite distinct from one another.
Then, of course, there is the Gospel of John. If we were to compare the metaphorical painting of John's Gospel to the synoptics, we might wonder about the source materials. That's because John is so strikingly different from the other three that we find we aren't looking at the bowl of apples, but are instead looking at a painting that has some apples, but a lot of bananas as well. They just seem remarkably different - as if the source material had changed.
Yet to think of these works in the light of paintings is, I find, quite helpful. It prevents us from thinking of the Gospels as "pictures" that are far less interpretive than paintings. And it allows us to see that the stories themselves are presented as interpretations of the material instead of the source material itself.
And perhaps that's the blessing and curse of the New Testament. The source material of the person of Jesus can never be completely seen. It is all interpretive lenses through which we read the material. And not only do we find ourselves looking at interpretive material, we are also bringing our own interpretation to bear on the material.
So as we look at the paintings of Jesus in the Gospels, we are seeing four interpretations of Jesus as well as bringing our own interpretation of those paintings to the mix. Here's the kicker - not only are we seeing an interpretation, but as we look at only one of those paintings, the person looking at the painting next to us is also likely seeing something slightly different than what we are seeing.
This points to the richness of the painting, as well as the complexity of interpretation of that which we study.
Comments
Post a Comment