Friday, March 20, 2015

The Evangelists' Symbols: Man, Lion, Ox, Eagle

            Notice, in the frontispiece to the 1611 King James Bible pictured here, the four seated men outlined in yellow.  Each one is holding a pen, and each one has a companion:  a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle.  They represent the four authors of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
            Very frequently, when the four Evangelists are pictured in manuscripts of the Gospels, each one is accompanied by his symbolic representative – A man (or angel) accompanies Matthew, a lion accompanies Mark; an ox accompanies Luke, and an eagle accompanies John.  These particular symbols correspond to the faces of the cherubim in visions found in the Biblical books of Ezekiel and Revelation:
            In Ezekiel 1:10, as the prophet describes a vision of the throne-chariot of God, revealed as the sovereign Ruler of all nations, he states that each of the four living creatures moving the throne (some interpreters might say that the creatures themselves are the throne) had four faces:  “Each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle.”
            In Revelation 4:7, as John describes a vision of God’s heavenly throne, he states that four living creatures were there:  “The first living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle.”  These seem to be the same angelic beings described by Ezekiel, perceived by John in a form that is different but nevertheless recognizable.  Ezekiel called them cherubim; John referred to them as living creatures, or zōē, the Greek word from which we get the word “zoo.”
Christ enthroned, surrounded by the cherubim,
as pictured at the beginning of Ezekiel
in the Bury Bible (MS 21-II) at the Parker Library.
            In the 180’s, the Christian bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (in east-central France; back then it was Lugdunum in Gaul) proposed that the fourfold pattern of angelic faces implied that God similarly ordained that four Gospels would be written to describe the incarnation of Christ.  In Against Heresies, Book Three (preserved in Latin, but composed in Greek), 11:8, Irenaeus explained the basis for this idea in some detail, beginning as follows:
            “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.  For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out eternal life on every side, and endowing men with new life.”
            He seems to be using two analogies, both drawn from Scriptural models.  First, in Ezekiel 37, in a vision in which God miraculously revives the people of Israel – pictured as a valley of dry bones which, in the vision, stand up like a skeleton-army and are then clothed with flesh – the breath of life is brought to them “from the four winds.”  Second, in Revelation 21, as John records his vision of the heavenly city, New Jerusalem, he mentions its shape:  “The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth . . . Its length, breadth, and height are equal.”  Like the Holy of Holies, it thus has four corners at its base.
            Irenaeus continues:  “From this fact, it is obvious that the Word – the Designer of everything, who sits upon the cherubim, and in whom are all things – He who was revealed to mankind – has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.  Just as David says [in Psalm 80:1] when asking for God to manifest His presence, ‘You who dwell between the cherubim, shine forth!’  For the cherubim were four-faced, and their faces represented how the Son of God was revealed.  For it says, ‘The first living creature was like a lion,’ symbolizing His effective working, His leadership, and royal authority.  ‘The second was like a calf,’ symbolizing His sacrificial and priestly role.  ‘The third had, as it were, the face of a man,’ which clearly describes his coming as a human being.  ‘The fourth was like a flying eagle,’ indicating the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church.”
             So far, Irenaeus’ main point is that a divine pattern, in which men (namely, Ezekiel and John) have been brought into God’s presence with four cherubim in heaven, is expressed when men read about God’s presence in the four Gospels on earth.  But which angelic face represents which Gospel?  Irenaeus proceeds to resolve this question:
A statue of Irenaeus of Lyons,
a bishop in the 100s, in
La Madeleine Church in Paris.
            “Thus the Gospels fit the same pattern shown by the creatures among which Jesus Christ is seated.  For the Gospel according to John describes his original, effectual, glorious generation from the Father, as he declares [in John 1:], ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’  And [in John 1:3], ‘All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.’  And for this reason, that Gospel is full of all confidence, for such is His person.
            “But Luke’s account, emphasizing priestly responsibility, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God.  For now the fatted calf was prepared, about to be slaughtered due to the return of the younger son.  [Irenaeus is referring to the fatted calf in the parable of the Prodigal Son, in Luke 16:23 – a parable which only Luke has preserved.]     
            “Matthew relates His generation as a man, saying, ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,’ [in Mt. 1:1] and also [in Mt. 1:18], ‘The birth of Jesus Christ was as follows.’  This is therefore the Gospel represented by a man, and the thematic depiction of a humble and meek man is maintained through the entire Gospel.
            “Mark, however, commences with the spirit of prophecy descending from on high to men, saying [in Mark 1:1 ~ notice the textual variants here!], ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet’ – indicating the winged aspect of the Gospel.  And for this reason, he made a summarized and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical theme. 
             “Now, before Moses, the Word of God personally conversed with the patriarchs, in accordance with Hid divinity and glory.  Under the Law, He ordained a priestly and formal order of worship.  Afterwards, when He had become man for us, He sent the gift of the heavenly Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings.  In this respect the course followed by the Son of God is like the form of the living creatures, and the form of the living creatures is like the character of the Gospel.  The living creatures are squarely arrayed, and the Gospel is squarely arrayed, and so is the course that God has taken.  For there have been four principal covenants given to the human race:  first, before the Flood, under Adam; second, after the Flood, under Noah; third was the giving of the Law, under Moses.  And the fourth is the one which renovates mankind, and sums up everything else through the Gospel, carrying men and bearing them upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.”   
          Irenaeus thus links John with the image of the confident lion, Matthew with the image of the humble man, Luke with the image of the sacrificial ox, and Mark with the image of the speedy eagle.

Augustine of Hippo
(Hippo was a city in North Africa.)
Augustine, writing in
North Africa in the year 400, agreed that the four cherubim establish a pattern of divine expression that is maintained in the divine inspiration of the four Gospels, but he did not agree completely with Irenaeus about which Gospel went with which image.  In The Harmony of the Gospels, Book One, 6:9, Augustine wrote as follows:
            “It appears to me that among the various parties who have interpreted the living creatures in Revelation as a symbolic pattern of the four Evangelists, those who have taken the lion to point to Matthew, the man to Mark, the calf to Luke, and the eagle to John, have made a more reasonable application of the figures than those who have assigned the man to Matthew, the eagle to Mark, and the lion to John.  For the second set of identifications has been chosen in accordance with just the beginnings of the books, rather than according to the complete design of each Gospel in full view, which is what should be the chief consideration. 
            “For surely it is much more appropriate that the writer who has brought the kingly character of Christ to our attention should be understood to be represented by the lion.  Accordingly, we find the lion mentioned in a reference to the royal tribe itself, in that passage of Revelation [5:5] where it is said, ‘The lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed.’  And in Matthew’s account, the wise men are recorded to have come from the east, searching for the King, in order worship Him whose birth was revealed to them by the star.  There, too, Herod, who was also a king, is stated to have been afraid of the royal Child, and it is reported that he killed so many little children in order to ensure that the one might be slain. 
            “No one questions that Luke is signified by the calf, which refers to the pre-eminent sacrifice made by the priest.  For in that Gospel, the narration begins with Zacharias the priest.  It also mentions the relationship between Mary and Elisabeth, and it records the performance of the proper ceremonies [i.e., circumcision] being carried out by the earthly priesthood in the case of the infant Christ.  With careful examination, we would notice a variety of other points in this Gospel which made it apparent that Luke’s purpose was to deal with the role of the priest. 
            “Accordingly, it follows that Mark is plainly indicated by the man among the four living creatures.  For he has undertaken neither to describe the royal lineage, nor to go into detail about the priesthood, either concerning priestly status or consecration; he addresses the things which the man Christ did.
            “Those three living creatures – lion, man, and calf – have their course upon this earth.  Likewise, those three Evangelists chiefly describe the things which Christ did in the flesh, and report the precepts which He delivered to men who bear the burden of the flesh, in order to instruct them in the rightful exercise of this mortal life.  John, on the other hand, soars like an eagle above the clouds of human weakness, and gazes upon the light of permanent truth with those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart.”

            Epiphanius of Salamis (on the island of Cyprus), who lived from about 315 to about 405, and who took the office of bishop in 367, found a reason to comment on the Gospel-symbols in the 35th chapter of his Treatise on Weights and Measures.  Epiphanius stated the following:
            “There are four rivers out of Eden, four quarters of the world, four seasons of the year, four watches in the night . . . . and four spiritual creatures which were composed of four faces, signifying the coming of the Messiah.  One had the face of a man, because Christ was born a man in Bethlehem, as Matthew teaches.  One had the face of a lion, as Mark proclaims him coming up from the Jordan, a lion king, as also somewhere it is written, ‘The Lord has come up as a lion from the Jordan.’ [Epiphanius is recollecting Jeremiah 49:19 and 50:44, but these passages refer to personifications of Edom and Babylon, not to the Lord.]  
Jerome, prolific writer
and translator.
            "One had the face of an ox, as Luke proclaims (and not him only, but also the other Evangelists) about He who, at the appointed time of the ninth hour, like an ox on behalf of the world, was offered up on the cross.  One had the face of an eagle, as John proclaims the Word who came from heaven and was made flesh and flew to heaven like an eagle after the resurrection with the Godhead.”

            The influential translator-scholar Jerome adopted the same identifications that Epiphanius proposed.   In the preface to his Commentary on Matthew, Jerome wrote as follows:    
            “The book of Ezekiel demonstrates that these four Gospels had been predicted much earlier.  Its first vision has the following description:  ‘And in the midst there was a likeness of four animals.  Their countenances were the face of a man and the face of a lion and the face of a calf and the face of an eagle.’  The first face of a man represents Matthew, who began his narrative as though about a man:  ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham.’  The second, Mark, in whom the voice of a lion roaring in the wilderness is heard:  ‘A voice of one shouting in the desert:  Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.’  The third, of the calf, which prefigures that the evangelist Luke began with Zacharias the priest.  The fourth, John the evangelist, who, having taken up eagle’s wings and hastening toward higher matters, discusses the Word of God.”  [This rendering was based on pages 55-56 of Thomas P. Scheck’s Saint Jerome:  Commentary on Matthew,  Copyright © 2008 The Catholic University of America Press.]
Thomas P. Scheck's
English translation
of Jerome's commentary
on Matthew.
            Jerome’s explanation – Matthew=man, Mark=lion, Luke=ox, John=eagle – was applied by most artists from the 400s onward, whether they were illustrating manuscripts or decorating churches.  This is why these symbols often accompany the Evangelists in miniatures (framed illustrations) in medieval Gospels-manuscripts.    
           (The term “miniature” in this context does not have anything to do with the size of the picture; the origin of the term seems to have something to do with the use of deep red ink saturated with lead, called minium, to sketch out the framework and outlines of the picture before the more detailed drawing or painting was done.)
            Sometimes, all four symbolic creatures are depicted with wings (as in the Lindisfarne Gospels).  And, sometimes, all four images have human bodies, and only the faces are different, with the result that Mark’s symbol looks like a Kzin, Luke’s symbol looks like a minotaur, and John’s symbol looks a bit like the ancient Egyptian deity Horus.  Occasionally, in Armenian manuscripts of the Gospels, the initial letter at the beginning of a Gospel will itself be transformed into the Gospel-symbol.
This preparatory sketch
of Matthew in the
George Grey Gospels
(GA 1273) shows the
use of minium.
            Although practically all Greek manuscripts that contain the Gospel-symbols use Jerome’s arrangement, in a few Old Latin copies, Mark is represented by the eagle, and John is represented by the lion.  This may be an effect of the “Western” order of the Gospels, in which the accounts by the two apostles (Matthew and John) were placed before the accounts by the apostles’ assistants (Luke and Mark).  
           One possible explanation for this is that somewhere in the Old Latin tradition, the Gospels were in the order Matthew-John-Luke-Mark, accompanied accordingly by the symbols man-eagle-ox-lion, but when Vulgate copies invaded, so to speak, copyists conformed their local texts to the Vulgate standard but did not change the order of the illustrations.  This has resulted in yet a fourth arrangement (consisting of Irenaeus’ identifications, but not in the “Western” order), found in the Book of Durrow (made in about 675):  Matthew=man, Mark=eagle, Luke=ox, and John=lion.   
            Another possibility is that the arrangement found in the Book of Durrow represents the application of Irenaeus idea about how the Gospels correspond to the four faces of the cherubim.  Before Jerome produced the Vulgate translation, Fortunatianus, bishop of Aquileia (in upper eastern Italy) from 343 to 355, expressed the same idea in his Latin commentary on the Gospels.  For a long time, scholars assumed that his commentary no longer existed, but a copy was recently discovered; its contents are being prepared for publication by Lukas J. Dorfbauer. 
            On fol. 10v of the only surviving copy of Fortunatianus’ commentary, Fortunatianus offers an interesting casual comment:  “Non inmerito, ut supra exposuimus, aquilae gerit imaginem, quia eum ad caelum volasse demonstrate,” that is, “It is not without reason that he [Mark] is holding the image of the eagle, as I explained before, because he declares that he [Jesus] flew up to heaven.”  This not only shows that Fortunatianus assigned the eagle-symbol to Mark, but also seems to indicate that Fortunatianus’ text of Mark – a witness as old as Codex Sinaiticus – included 16:19.  Earlier in his commentary, Fortunatianus identifies the symbols as follows:  Matthew=man, John=lion, Mark=eagle, and Luke=ox.
The Evangelists'
symbols in the
Book of Durrow.
Similar imagery
is used in the
Book of Birr,
but the symbols
for Mark and John
are reversed.
            Sometimes, when an Evangelist and his Gospel-symbols appear in a miniature, one or the other will hold a scroll; these scrolls typically contain the text of the opening lines of the Gospel, or, in the case of Luke, the first phrase of the fifth verse of chapter one (because the first four verses of Luke were considered a preface, rather than the beginning of the narrative).  Sometimes they simply contain the Evangelists names.

            So, the following proposals have been made regarding which angel, or angel-face, corresponds to which Evangelist:

Irenaeus (using the “Western” order), Fortunatianus, and the Book of Durrow (using the “Non-Western” order:
Matthew = man
John = lion
Luke = ox
Mark = eagle

Matthew = lion
Mark = man
Luke = calf
John = eagle

Epiphanius and Jerome (using the “Non-Western” order):
Matthew = man
Mark = lion
Luke = ox
John = eagle

Christ surrounded by symbols of the Gospels
in the Landvennec (Harkness) Gospels
(Yes, that lion looks like a duck.  

But it's a lion.)
            Augustine’s identification-scheme was his own personal idea; it never became popular.  Irenaeus’ proposal persisted in the “Western” tradition for a while, but examples of its artistic representation are rare.  The arrangement advocated by Epiphanius and Jerome (which probably is earlier than them both) was subsequently adopted by almost everyone who artistically depicted the Gospel-symbols, in Greek manuscripts and in Latin, Ethiopic, and Armenian manuscripts. 
             In closing, three points may be drawn from all this.  First, we see that even the most influential patristic writers of the early church disagreed among themselves regarding some of the finer points of Biblical interpretation; yet they did not castigate each other because of this.  Regarding such a minor concern, there was liberty.    
            The false claim that the unique authority of the four canonical Gospels was only established in the fourth century can be found at high levels of academia – even at the website of the British Library – but it is nevertheless a fictitious claim, and Christians who financially support the educational institutions where it is promoted ought to cringe at the thought that their gifts are being used to promote a pernicious fabrication.     
            Second, we see that as far as the Gospels were concerned, the canon was firmly established before the end of the second century.  On this major concern, there was unity.  Those who try to give the impression that the apostolic Christian church ever accepted dozens of heretical works, such as the so-called Gospel of ThomasGospel of PhilipGospel of Truth, etc., are either terribly misinformed, or else they are belligerent liars.
The Symbols of the Evangelists
in the exquisite Book of Kells
(fol. 27v) at Trinity College, Dublin.
           Third, we see the drawbacks and benefits of looking for typological lessons in the Biblical text.  On the one hand, it is clear that the early interpreters who interpreted the faces of the cherubim as representative of the four Gospel-writers could, with a little imaginative exercise, find reasons to justify whatever specific identifications they asserted.  On the other hand, the appeal of the basic point being conveyed is difficult to deny.  God’s heavenly manifestation, as revealed to Ezekiel and John, was accompanied by four cherubim, and God’s earthly incarnation, as revealed in Christ, was portrayed in four Gospels:  the Synoptic Gospels in one way or another thematically depict Christ as a human being, as a royal lion, and as a sacrificial ox.  John emphasized the heavenly aspects of Christ’s ministry, looking back from a greater distance of time than the others, like a sharp-eyed eagle looking down on events from a high altitude.  
            And since we are called to be Christ-like, and to be messengers of the good news, may we have a fourfold aspiration:  to be humble people, and to still be bold like the lion, to bear burdens like the ox, and to still fly toward the presence of God, perceiving lessons which our physical eyes cannot see, squinting in the light as we approach the Scriptures.


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam said...

I prefer the Revelation order corresponding to the modern gospel order,
Revelation 4:7
“And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.”

Matthew = lion of Judah/Jews, King of Israel, reason of the Abrahamic and Davidic genealogy, also attested that Matthew was written first in Hebrew
Mark = ox, servant of Rome, many attest that Mark was written first in Latin
Luke = man, perfect man of the Greeks, reason of the Adamic genealogy and that the Greeks looked for the perfect man with their myths, Luke's works are the only ones we know for sure was Greek first
John = eagle of God, the Son of God, because John has the highest view of Christ, John's works are purported to be written first in Aramaic

Andrew said...

I also prefer the modern Gospel order combined with the Revelation order. The way that I have always seen it explained is that 1) The lion and Matthew represents the "royalty" of Christ. He is the lion of the tribe of Judah, and this matches His fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 49:9-10. This Gospel starts out with the royal genealogy of Christ descending through the kings. 2) The ox and Mark represents the "servanthood" of Christ. This contrasts and complements the "royalty" of Christ. He is also the greatest servant in addition to being the King of Kings; Lo and behold. The ox is capable in particular, since it has the most power output of beasts capable of being tamed and doing work on the field. Mark's Gospel in turn focuses on the Lord Jesus being a servant to others (e.g. Mark 9:35 and 10:44), including the extended focus on several of His healing miracles. One could argue it has a focus on servitude in other ways, for example its unique parable in Mark 4:26-29 is about God causing the seed to grow, and thus doing the real brunt of the work for us (see also 1 Cor. 3:7). 3) The man and Luke represents the "humanity" of Christ. This one goes without saying. The genealogy in Luke 3 focuses on the descent of Christ from the woman. This matches His fulfillment of what is foretold in the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 about the seed of the woman. We see the focus in early part on His childhood, and how He "increased in wisdom and stature" and in favor with God and man. And 4) The eagle and John represents the "divinity" of Christ. He is also fully God in addition to being fully man. And John's Gospel focuses the most on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, from the prologue onward. Briefly, among other doctrines, there is a lot of discourse on the nature of His relationship with regard to the Holy Trinity and on His eternal pre-existence. His miracle in chapter 2, with the six water pots signifies the six literal days of creation, both of these represent acts of Creation, and represent His first miracle. These four Gospels can certainly all be seen to focus on certain aspects of the same Christ Jesus. One can find each of these aspects in other Gospels, of course, but I suggest this as a possible explanation.