Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:19:24.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rembrandt Reads the Gospels: Form, Context and Theological Responsibility in New Testament Interpretation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Clive Marsh
Clive Marsh
Affiliation:
University College of Ripon and York, Lord Mayor's Walk, York, YO3 7EX, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Art is part of the history of the church, and relates to spirituality and to the practical expression of Christian faith. It illustrates theological loci and biblical themes. Often, the art which fulfils this function does so with the conscious intent of the artist; sometimes not. Attempts have been made, however, to argue that art not only illustrates theology, but also contributes to it. Even so, systematic theologians and biblical scholars — when they do talk to each other — still converse on the basis of largely word-centred approaches to their tasks. I am neither systematic theologian nor biblical scholar, precisely because I attempt to keep a foot in both camps. I am even less of an art critic. Yet it is clear that in the world of art there is a whole area of exploration yet to be ventured into not only historically (have we really sufficiently explored how biblical interpretation and doctrinal theology have been influenced by art?) but also from the perspective of constructive theology (what contribution can art past and present make to the very reformulation and expansion of Christian doctrine?). This paper offers a brief reading of three paintings by Rembrandt, of the Emmaus Road story in Luke 24.13–35. The theological significance of the changing interpretations of the passage is drawn out and the implications of the use of the paintings, in terms of the creative use of the Bible in Christian theology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , November 1997 , pp. 399 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See e.g Cappadona, Diane Apostolos ed. Art, Creativity and the Sacred (Continuum, rev.ed. 1996)Google Scholar and especially Dillenberger, JaneStyle and Content in Christian Art (SCM 1986)Google Scholar and Dillenberger, JohnA Theology of Artistic Sensibilities (SCM 1987)Google Scholar, both influenced by Tillich, whose writings on art are helpfully collected in On Art and Architecture (Crossroad 1989)Google Scholar. Further: Begbie, JeremyVoicing Creation's Praise (T & T Clark 1991)Google Scholar and die very different approaches of Miles, MargaretImage as Insight (Beacon Press, Boston 1985)Google Scholar and Dixon, John W. Jr.Art and the Theological Imagination (Seabury Press 1978)Google Scholar; ibid. Images of Truth: Religion and the Art of Seeing (Scholars Press 1996)Google Scholar. On this topic, see most recently Howes, Graham in Ford, David F. ed. The Modern Theologians (2nd edn.) (Blackwell 1997), pp669–685, and the bibliography found there.Google Scholar

3 For ‘art’ read also music, opera, theatre and film. I use the term ‘constructive theology’ here following Hodgson, Peter (Winds of the Spirit SCM 1994, 35–50)Google Scholar, bearing in mind the reservations he expresses about systems (ibid, 38–39). I am happy to continue talking about ‘systematic theology’ so long as the term serves as a reminder of the wide range of topics with which theology has dealt and must deal (in order to address life — divine and human — in all its diversity and richness) and not as a symbol of neat completeness.

4 A11 these figures are from Hooft, W. A. Visser'tRembrandt and the Gospel (SCM 1957)Google Scholar. For the Emmaus Road statistic, see p23, though Visser't Hooft himself includes a 1661 painting (listed as no.597 in the Bredius catalogue; Visser't Hooft ibid. p145) which is not usually regarded as authentic (on this see e.g. Schwartz, GaryRembrandt: His Life, His Paintings (Penguin 1991), p380).Google Scholar

5 The painting now hangs in the Jacquemart-André Museum in Paris. Reproductions can be found e.g. in Schwartz, op.cit. p51, and in Kitson, M.Rembrandt (3rd edn.; Phaidon 1992), p82.Google Scholar

6 Reproductions can be found e.g. in Schwartz, op.cit. p247, and in Partsch, S.Rembrandt (Weidenfeld and Nicholson 1991), p132.Google Scholar

7 For reproductions, see e.g. Schwartz ibid., Partsch op.cit. p133.

8 I am grateful to Alan Le Grys for pressing this point in conversation.

9 To quote telling words from Schwartz: ‘ …no one ever asked Rembrandt to be the godfather of their child, or even to witness a document for them. The only legacy he ever received, apart from those of his parents, was a share in the estate of a Leiden relative who had left the country when Rembrandt was nine years old and was presumed dead after fifty years. Both his wife and his sister Elisabeth re-wrote their wills to cut him out completely. He was never even called in as an expert to testify to the authenticity or value of paintings, except in one unusual instance… To sum it up bluntly: Rembrandt had a nasty disposition and an untrustworthy character.’ (Schwartz, op.cit. p363)

10 The most forceful argument for Rembrandt's merely dealing with stock Reformation themes in his art, and disclosing no above average biblical knowledge, can be found in Halewood, William H.Six Subjects of Reformation Art: A Preface to Rembrandt (University of Toronto Press 1982)Google Scholar

11 On this see Schwartz op.cit. p51.

12 ibid. p50.

13 For me to suggest which kind of Christian might buy which painting would be unwise and rather mischievous.

14 It is, however, worth reflecting further on the historical ancestors of liberation theology movements. Rembrandt may or may not have been a Mennonite, but he had close enough contact with them to have been influenced by their concerns. Rowland, C. (Radical Christianity Polity Press 1988)Google Scholar touches on the Radical Reformation in his study, but acknowledges also that a greater place should probably have been found for the Anabaptist tradition (p.v).

15 Watson, FrancisText, Church and World (T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1994)Google Scholar; Davies, Philip R.Whose Bible Is It Anyway? (Sheffield Academic Press 1995), esp. pp35–47Google Scholar; Watson, ‘Bible, Theology and the University: A Response to Philip Davies’ JSOT 71 (1996), pp3–16Google Scholar. See now also the comment on the debate in Fowl, S.E. ed. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Blackwell 1997), p.xxviii, n10.Google Scholar

16 My review is in Epworth Review 13/1 (Jan.1996), p111fGoogle Scholar; for the discussion see Reviews in Religion and Theology 1996/2, pp76–81Google Scholar. A fuller discussion of Watson's book can be found e.g. in SJT 48 (1995), pp507–522 (Rowland, C.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Davies op.cit. e.g. pp11–14, 33–35, 52–54.

18 Watson Text…, pp7–11, esp. p8, & p293

19 Like Fowl (op.cit.n 15), I am closer to Watson is pressing for theological interpretation of biblical texts as necessary and desirable, and agree with Watson (Bible…, pp4 and 7) that Davies' position strives for an illusory ‘sacred space’. But I also want to agree with Davies that there is an interpretative freedom which is needed to let the Bible do its business, even if I do not view that freedom in the same way as Davies.

20 Watson ibid. p6.

21 ‘There are, it is true, many theologies — even if we are thinking primarily or exclusively of Christian theologies’ (Watson ibid. p7).

22 Watson Text…, pp236–240, seems to allow for this. But the church seems to know God so well, that there isn't much it can be surprised by. Admittedly, I have to go to considerable lengths to make my point: am I denying the doctrine of the trinity myself by suggesting that, for example, the biblical interpretation of an agnostic such as Philip Davies might contribute, despite his wishes, to the expansion of Christian understanding of God? Not necessarily: but if I imply at the outset that any expansion of Christian understanding of God merely affirms what Christians, in effect, already ‘know’ then I devalue what the biblical interpretation of others might actually offer (whether undertaken with explicitly theological intent or not), and limit my theological development. It does seem to me methodologically necessary (in theology, and thus in the theological interpretation of scripture) to presuppose that the trinity is the best idea of God that we have, but that it may theoretically be superseded. It is a concept of God as dynamic relationality which makes sense of what Christians try to claim about the figure of Jesus Christ. But as a concept it, too, can be an idol.

23 Watson (Response to Marsh), p80. Watson could presumably respond that the question is irrelevant, as what matters is whether the church itself can make use of Rembrandt's readings, according to its own doctrinal criteria. Perhaps; but again there seems little scope for theological expansion and growth here.

24 It is, admittedly, highly likely that Rembrandt had quite orthodox beliefs, given the evidence of Rembrandt's proven church affiliation. But church affiliation and actual belief, and the way that belief affects life are, of course, different matters.

25 Which, we can safely assume, was the intent of Luke, even if we may not at all points be able to put our finger on Luke's theology.