Charles Freeman notes that the sarcophagus of the Roman aristocrat Junius Bassus depicts Jesus “entering Jerusalem as if he was an emperor entering a city, and above this image he is shown sitting in glory on an imperial throne set above a representation of heaven.” He cites Sabine MacCormack’s comment that “Once an image of majesty had been applied to Christ it was impossible to apply it again to the emperor,” and claims that this is an illustration of “the process by which Christ becomes integrated into the iconography of imperial government.”
Well, maybe. Given the misreadings I’ve found elsewhere in Freeman, I’m suspicious. I don’t have MacCormack’s book, but the quotation Freeman provides can be read in nearly the opposite way he suggests. Instead of being an example of coopting Jesus, it could be an illustration of the emperor’s submission to Jesus. Jesus, in short, is the new conqueror, the King above the Roman king. Perhaps the emperor won’t depict himself like Jesus anymore because he’s acknowledging that only Jesus fulfills the imperial role.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.