In Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome’s oldest and largest basilica devoted to the Virgin Mary, above the main altar sits a fifth-century triumphal arch featuring scenes not found in canonical sources. While consensus holds that the iconography found on this arch must have been influenced by early Christian apocryphal writings on the early life of Mary and the infancy of Jesus (e.g., Protevangelium of James, Pseudo-Matthew, Nativity of Mary, etc.), some scholars have questioned interpreting the arch in light of non-canonical sources. For instance, in her 1979 study, Suzanne Spain dismisses the possibility of apocryphal influence by arguing that “the presence of apocryphal elements in an Infancy cycle in a church sponsored by the papacy is inconceivable, given the caution with which the popes treated the canonical corps of biblical writing.”[1] And yet some of the details found on the arch cannot be explained without consideration of apocryphal sources. Indeed, the iconography remains extraordinary precisely because of its complete divergence from canonical sources. While most scholars have rejected Spain’s interpretations,[2] her assertions regarding the treatment of canonical and non-canonical sources invites us to rethink the place and function of apocryphal literature and art given the certainty of apocryphal influence on the mosaics. Moreover, it makes us question our presumptions of the papacy even into the fifth century CE. In other words, were the bishops and popes necessarily as conservative or uniform in their interpretations, influences, and options as Spain assumes? Although most of the Roman empire had converted to Christianity by the fifth century CE, Rome continued to display intra-religious competition amongst its Christian communities as evident in the rival claimants for the See of Peter among Roman bishops, and in the divergent conventions, practices, and countless customs of Christian worship throughout the city.[3] Additionally, even if a strict canon were in place, can we assume that the rules applied to literature were similarly applied to art? While there may be books that “should not be read,” does that injunction necessarily equate to art that should not be painted or viewed? This paper attempts to contribute to the conversation over the interpretation of the highly debated mosaics and more broadly to the role and use of apocryphal stories in the early church. I suggest that considering the Protevangelium of James (Prot. Jas. hereafter) and its specific views of the Jerusalem temple alongside a focus on the buildings depicted in the mosaics can offer important insights into several of the more difficult scenes. Moreover, while this and other texts are commonly categorized as non-canonical today, the mosaics problematize the view of strict boundaries between canonical and non-canonical sources. The triumphal arch, which sits prominently at the head of the nave some 16-19 meters over the main altar, features four registers that can be divided into eight sections. This paper will focus primarily on the top register, since it has stirred significant controversy, particularly regarding the identities of the subjects and the scenes themselves.
The Top Left Register
This scene features a seated woman dressed in a wide-sleeved gold tunic, crowned by a pearl encrusted diadem, with similarly decorated earrings, necklace, and belt. In her hand she holds scarlet yarn pulled from a basket that sits at her feet. Surrounding her are six winged angels with varying levels of yellow hued halos all dressed in white pallia. The two angels standing slightly behind her on the left stretch out their right hands, indicating their focus on her. The remaining four angels appear to the right of the woman, one of whom flies above her head among blue skies streaked with unnatural rays of red and yellow, perhaps indicative of or used to reinforce Mary’s divine status. A descending dove also appears directly above the woman’s head. The standing angel closest to her right also stretches out his right hand indicating his desire to address her. The last two angels standing to the far right angle their bodies and heads towards a man dressed in a knee length white tunic with a short red-yellow mantle over his left shoulder and white boots with red straps wrapped in a horizontal-lines design. His hair and circular beard are dark, short, and relatively straight and he holds a rod in his left hand. The two angels raise their right hands in the direction of the man as if speaking and the man’s right hand is lifted with a finger pointing to himself as if acknowledging the angels’ address.
The entire scene is framed by two buildings to the far left and right of the scene. Both structures are similarly designed: rectangular with concrete blocked walls and brown-yellow pitched roofs. Underlying the pediment and around the side are shaded rectangles or squares reminiscent of triglyphs and metopes but may also be simply decorative friezes, since the triglyph markings are not clearly visible. Both edifices have two dominant pillars at the entrance in the style of Corinthian columns (given that the bases at the bottom of the shaft separate them from the stylobate, and there are hints of flowering leaves or acanthus at the capitals); however, they could also resemble the lily-work of the pillars at the front of Solomon’s temple (as described in 1 Kings 5-7, esp. 7:19). The building on the left displays a closed golden gate positioned before a white curtain decorated with a crisscross pattern. The building on the right, on the other hand, lacks a gate and instead depicts a partially open curtain with a hanging lamp.
Many critics describe this register as a double annunciation scene whereby the woman in gold is identified as the Virgin Mary and the man with the short dark hair as Joseph, since angels appear and address them both.[4] Most scholars attribute Mary’s regal appearance to Roman and imperial influence commingling with the theological message of the mosaic. One of the most convincing details linking this woman to Mary and to the apocrypha in particular is the scarlet skein of yarn she holds in her hand, a detail of Mary as a weaver explicitly narrated in Prot. Jas.10:8. Similarly, the dark-haired man on the right’s identity as Joseph is linked to the rod he holds in his left hand, used in the Prot. Jas. 9:5 to determine Joseph’s selection as Mary’s new guardian, an identifying attribute for Joseph in many early Christian apocrypha, as noted by Rainer Warland.[5]
While these details surely point to the influence of the apocrypha, esp. the Prot. Jas., two key parts of the scene rarely discussed are the stone buildings that frame the section, traditionally identified as the Jerusalem temple, and the six angels that surround Mary. Certainly, the temples in the top register (the two under discussion and a third on the far right discussed below) are not the only buildings depicted in the arch. In fact, what is striking about the triumphal arch is that every register has at least one structure that functions as a frame or postmark indicative of a specific time and space for the scene. For instance, five more structures appear in the lower registers: walled cities feature in the background of the Adoration of the Magi and what most scholars have interpreted as the Holy Family’s entrance into Egypt (second register, left and right respectively) as well as the scene in which Herod instructs the magi to locate the child (third register, right). Additionally, a cityscape of both Jerusalem and Bethlehem (fourth register, left and right respectively) are depicted below the scenes that feature Herod’s massacre of innocent children and his commanding of the magi (third register, left and right respectively). By paying attention to the buildings in the scene and examining the Prot. Jas. as a more meaningful source, I will challenge the traditional view that this is a double annunciation scene and offer alternative suggestions for interpreting the six angels and the stone buildings.
A Double Annunciation in the Top Left Register?
Traditional interpretation holds this scene as a double annunciation since angels appear to be addressing Mary and Joseph, despite the absence of any literary source that supports Joseph’s annunciation in the form of a simple visit from angels. In fact, Joseph’s annunciation scene via an angelic visit in his dream (as described both by Luke 1:20 and Prot. Jas 14:5) is already found, I suggest, in the top right register of the arch itself, an odd repetition in a basilica devoted to Mary if one maintains the double annunciation interpretation. Thus, I propose a different scenario for Joseph’s interaction with the angels, and once again, the key to the interpretation is in Joseph’s position before the temple and placement of his hands. In the Prot. Jas. when Joseph is chosen by lot via the flowering rod (Prot. Jas. 9:6), he is shocked and resistant to the idea, claiming old age and previous children as reasons to be disqualified for taking Mary on as a wife (cf. Joseph has a cane to reinforce his old age in the Arm. Inf. Gospel). But of course, he is still chosen as his rod represents divine providence. Thus, Joseph’s left hand, which holds a rod, and his right hand, pointing to himself, more accurately seem to be a response to the angels’ selection of him as Mary’s husband. This scene of selection by lot rather than an annunciation is reinforced by the open door of the building on the right before which Joseph stands, since according to the Prot. Jas., the high priest Zechariah entered the temple to pray for guidance on what he should to do with Mary, resulting in his requirement that all men in the town meet at the temple with rods, a gathering in which Joseph participates.[6]
While I propose that the angelic interaction with Joseph in this section is not an annunciation, I maintain that it continues to be for Mary, albeit as influenced specifically by the Prot. Jas. Significantly, the annunciation scene in the Prot. Jas. is broken up into two parts, both of which start with Mary spinning the scarlet threads. In the first part, pausing from her weaving, Mary goes out to fetch water when she encounters a bodiless voice that tells her she is blessed and favored among women (Prot. Jas. 11:1-4). Frightened, Mary returns to her threads, but then a physical angel appears before her to announce his message (Prot. Jas. 11:5). The image in the register of the angel directly addressing the woman with the scarlet threads in her hand seems to reflect this specific moment in the Prot. Jas.; however, what are we to make of the additional five angels who heavily guard Mary? Again, the Prot. Jas.’s focus on the temple may offer us some important insights.
The Two Temples: The Six Angels between Closed and Open Gates
The First Temple with the Closed Golden Gates (top left register on the far left) and the Six Angels
The Prot. Jas.’s descriptions of Mary’s childhood and upbringing can be divided into three parts (birth and infancy, childhood, and adulthood) and all are marked by their relationship to the Jerusalem temple.[7] As a narrative interested in depicting Mary’s exceptional purity, the story goes to great lengths to describe the outstanding character of her parents as qualifications for raising the child who would be the mother of Jesus. In fact, they repeatedly offer proper sacrifices at the temple and are acutely aware of their state of ritual purity (Prot. Jas. 1:1). Their characterization as righteous people lead to their proper and strict upbringing of their daughter. For instance, after Mary at six months walks her first seven steps, Anna sweeps her up and promises that her child will never again step on common ground (Prot. Jas. 6:3). Mary’s bedroom is made into a sanctuary of sorts to ensure her purity is protected until she is delivered to the Jerusalem temple to live. What Mary’s home-made sanctuary and the Jerusalem temple provide is protected and secure space, since Mary’s purity must necessarily remain unquestioned.
Thus, given that the Prot. Jas. describes several prophesies regarding Mary’s special role in salvation history, the hyper concern for her protection and the need to keep her indoors and safeguarded may be reflected in the closed gates of the temple on the left as Mary herself is a closed holy vessel while under the watch of the angels and temple priests. Additionally, the closed gates might also be interpreted as her move from the temple to the care of Joseph in Pro. Jas. 8:3-9:11 when, at the age of 12, she is removed from the temple precinct. If so, it may explain why there are six angels who heavily guard Mary – five more than necessary if this were a simple canonically influenced annunciation scene. Although the Prot. Jas. does not explicitly describe six angels, the necessity of multiple protectors fits in well with the text’s overarching interest in protecting Mary’s exceptional purity. Mary’s necessary move from one secure locale (i.e., the Jerusalem temple) to another (i.e., Joseph’s home) requires her to travel through public, unprotected space especially dangerous for those with something to lose (e.g., virgins, Roman matrons, etc.). Mary’s move from the temple to Joseph’s home (if we are convinced that the man with the rod is indeed Joseph being chosen by lot to receive Mary), places her purity in jeopardy, making the extra angels not only logical but a necessity for ensuring that Mary’s purity remains intact and reflects the Prot. Jas.’s primary concerns.
The Second Temple with the Open Curtains (top left register on the right)
The second temple that frames the top left register sits to the right of the dark bearded man wearing a belted tunic with a red-yellow mantle draped over his shoulder. Its structure almost mirrors the first building with its simple pitched roof and masonry-blocked base, but with some important distinctions. Namely, the drawn curtains that sat behind the closed golden gate is now partially opened in the structure to the right, with no gate discernible, but rather a lamp now hanging in front of the open doorway. Additionally, the columns in front of this building are more elaborate (and perhaps fluted?) than the smooth columns found on the building on the left. Given that little interpretation has been offered to understand this second building, what are we to make of these two temple-like structures?
Symbolically, the scene can readily reflect the major transition in Mary’s life thematically expressed in the Prot. Jas.: just as she was a closed holy vessel while under the care of angels and priests in the temple, she is now an open holy vessel depicting the holy treasure that is about to be contained within when she is given over into Joseph’s care. But the scene can also be interpreted in light of the descriptive details found in the Prot. Jas., namely, the scarlet yarn Mary is said to have woven for the temple precinct (Prot. Jas. 10:10), undeniably depicted in the hands of the seated woman. In Prot. Jas. 10:1-5, after requiring that Mary leave the temple precinct, the temple priests decide to locate daughters from the tribe of David in order to weave the temple veil. Although the temple gates were once closed to Mary upon her departure, they are now reopened to her as one of the descendants of David who is asked to return to the temple to weave the veil. Akin to God’s choosing of Joseph to care for Mary, the red (and true purple threads) are assigned to Mary by lot. It is possible to read Mary’s positioning and gaze towards the open temple doors as her invitation to return to the temple for the special task of weaving, which would explain the open doors and lighted lamp of the second temple.
The Top Right Register: A Third Temple
While the top left register can be viewed as a single scene, it is difficult to ignore the similar temple-like structure appearing once again in the corresponding register to the right. If one were to view the top right and left registers as a single continuous scene, what frames but also unifies them are the three similar temples. As structures are indicative of both geographical and temporal space and location (as mentioned, all four registers depict at least one structure), the third temple is an important component to the entire register and cannot be interpreted in isolation from the other two. Indeed, of the three buildings, the structure featured in the far-right register has garnered the most scholarly interest. While maintaining some distinct similarities to the structures found in the top left register, as one of the grand edifices it differs the most from its companions. Much like the other two structures, the temple in the top right register is made of the same stone and yellow pitched roof and includes white curtains and a hanging lamp. However, unlike the other two temples, this structure has four thin pillars that drop straight into the stylobate, framing the door that sits before an arcade with nine visible arches. Most striking and surprising are the rows of heads that decorate the temple’s entablature and the figure with a rod and orb that appears in the tympanum of the temple, whom some scholars identified as the goddess Roma.[8]
Scholars who maintain that this structure is the Jerusalem temple (given the setting and the pairs of doves and pigeons that sit at the temple’s steps) have not offered compelling explanations of its purpose or function in the scene. In support of Andre Grabar’s unpopular suggestion that this building is not the Jerusalem temple, but rather the templum Urbis (the temple of Venus and Roma in Rome),[9] Rainer Warland looks to the rows of heads on the temple’s entablature and suggests that they allude to the frieze of Gorgon heads uniquely characteristic of the Temple of Venus and Roma,[10] and, as such, proposes that the group of men in front of the building are in fact Romans. In contrast to Grabar who proposes they are twelve priests who belonged to the Temple of Roma, Warland instead argues that they represent an innumerable crowd since only eight of the twelve men are visible, while the three in the back are only represented by the shadows of their heads. He does, however, identify the leader of this group who steps towards the Christ child as Peter, the leader of the Roman converts to Christianity. For Warland, this scene does not represent traditional biblical allegorical allusions but rather presents an innovative narrative of the infusion of Rome’s history (empire) and Christian faith (church). Thus, through this lens he reads Mary’s imperial garb, the imperial seat, and the inscription in which Sixtus offers the dedication: XYSTUS EPISCOPUS PLEBI DEI (“Bishop Sixtus to the People of God’) as specifically linked to Roman tradition. Moreover, his identification of the building as the temple of Roma, the twelve men as Peter leading the Roman converts, and the woman in blue found in the second left register (right of the sitting Christ child) as the Roman sibyl associated with the prophesy of the birth of Jesus, are also read as an infusion of “biblical hopes of salvation” with “Roman historical self-awareness.”[11]
While there is much to be considered in Warland’s interpretation, especially with regard to the infusion of biblical and Roman imperial contexts, I disagree with his identification of the building as the Temple of Venus and Roma[12] in Rome and his assessment that beyond the two depictions of the pairs of doves and pigeons, “biblical and apocryphal sources have almost come to an end.”[13] To my first objection, my reading is dependent upon interpreting the third temple in light of the other two and our expectations of what a Roman artisan would have known of the Jerusalem temple long after it was destroyed. While the third temple may indeed look like a Roman temple, that does not necessarily mean that a Roman temple was what the artisan had in mind, only that that was the only kind of temple (Roman not Solomonic) with which he was familiar or had actually seen.[14] If art is for the viewer, then the artisan’s priority would be to ensure that his Roman viewers could interpret a building as a temple if they saw one. The other two similar structures on the left, while less Roman than the third, still do not offer a consistent depiction of the Jerusalem temple either, but without dispute are interpreted as that temple given the context. Again, these two temples display what the artisan believed his viewers would interpret as the temple, since he could only depict elements from temples he had seen or the limited literature he may have read; thus, I suggest that these depictions were meant to simply represent the Jerusalem temple, albeit a Romanized Jerusalem temple. In the first two temples, the columns of the structures are smooth and fluted, feature ornate capitals with elaborate foliage (esp. acanthus leaves), and have distinguishable bases which are characteristic of Corinthian style temples, but also display other features that seem to indicate Doric and Ionic influences. As described above, the entablatures of both temples portray friezes with shaded squares or rectangles in a pattern reminiscent of triglyphs and metopes (characteristic of Doric temples), but the triglyphs and metopes are not actually illustrated. The amalgamation of various artistic styles typical of temple structures reinforce the idea that the differing depictions of the three temples in the first register reflect more the artisan’s thematic concerns in his artistic retelling of the life of Mary, than it does his desire to present the most accurate portrait of the Jerusalem temple.
To my second objection, I suggest that there are still more promising interpretations of difficult scenes when interpreted with the Prot. Jas.’s focus on the temple in mind. For instance, the third temple which sits to the far right and is at the end of a long arcade seems to feature two story lines. One appears to the side of the temple and features the same man with the red-yellow pallium reclining while an angel to the left appears above him. The man’s eyes are closed and his head rests upon his left hand indicating he is sleeping. This scene has unanimously been interpreted as Joseph’s dream in which an angel warns him to flee with his family to Egypt. I suggest, however, that this might be better interpreted as Joseph’s annunciation scene whereby an angel explains Mary’s condition whilst in a dream as described in detail at Prot. Jas. 14:5 and Matt 1:20 (as opposed to the interaction between the man with the red-yellow pallium and the angel in the top left register, which I have argued does not represent an annunciation scene). Given that the top register is already framed and balanced by the temple structures, it is possible to imagine that the two annunciations are as well – Mary on the left and Joseph on the right of the top register. The more difficult scene in the top right register involves the woman in the gold and pearl dress carrying the Christ child, so identified by the cross that sits above his head (see below). She is preceded by two angelic figures whilst she stands before two groups of people. The first group directly to the right is a man and woman who are positioned in front of each other, whilst an angelic figure hovers between them. The man is dressed in a white robe with a red-yellow pallium over his shoulder, the very same one worn by the figure identified as Joseph in the top left register. The woman wears a red robe and both figures appear to reach towards one another.
A number of interpretations have been offered for this scene; the two most popular are a marriage or presentation scene. If we consider the importance of the temple as emphasized in the Prot. Jas. and look to the two doves and pigeons that are positioned in front of this third temple as specifically mentioned in Luke 2:21-24 and Pseudo-Matthew 15.1, the more persuasive reading is Jesus’ presentation at the temple. For those who have interpreted the scene as a marriage or betrothal between Mary and Joseph, it is more difficult to identify the woman in the red robes. If she is Mary, then the woman in gold holding the Christ child, the same one identified as Mary in the top left register, cannot be. Again, the key to interpreting this scene may be in hand positions and the focus on the temple. In the direction of the temple, the woman in gold holds out the Christ child towards the two figures standing together, with all eyes on the Christ Child. The justification for interpreting the two figures before the angel as a couple about to marry is based on their positioning and the fact that their hands are in close proximity, thus leading some to interpret it as an exchange of vows. However, these two figures on a closer look are not holding hands; rather the woman seems to be gesturing a blessing to the child as her right hand is lifted and her index finger is prominently featured allowing for her thumb and third finger to touch, typical of hands gesturing a blessing. For these reasons the scene is more readily interpreted as Mary and Joseph’s presentation of Jesus at the (Romanized) Jerusalem temple (Luke 2:22), whereby the woman holding the Christ child is Mary, the man in the red-yellow robe is Joseph, and the woman offering the blessing is Anna, the prophetess as cited in Luke 2:36-38. While Joseph stands before the woman in red, his focus is on the Christ Child and Mary and his hands motion the child towards the woman.
Buildings and Structures as Temporal and Spatial Locations
While many have interpreted the mosaics as a theological and dogmatic response to the Council of Ephesus’s establishment of Mary as theotokos, Robin Jensen has perceptively observe that the mosaics on the arch “display the Virgin’s role in the economy of salvation through a cycle of stories rather than in a single, monumental portrait,” and that “while the declarations of the Council of Ephesus regarding the Virgin Mary have prompted the building of the basilica, they did not guide the iconography of its triumphal arch.”[15] As cycles of stories that contributed and reinforced faith and piety of early Christians, what then did these mosaics and the buildings in particular convey to the viewer? The focus on the temples in the top register may provide us with new insights into or added support for various interpretations of the specific scenes, but artistically depicted buildings are also indicative of geographical and temporal space; as such, they offer concrete associations and historical marks for the pious and thus contribute to a specific kind of Christian identity-making. If the buildings in the mosaic communicate to viewers concrete spaces, places, and time, rather than abstract beliefs, the mosaics tell a story about the Virgin Mary who was closely connected to the Jerusalem temple, a receiver of divine message, and the mother of a child who would be the Son of the Most High not only in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but to all of Rome.
Some More Concluding Thoughts
In his study of the canonization process of the New Testament, Michael Kruger writes: “The story of the New Testament canon is a bit of a conundrum.”[16] The traditional narrative holds that despite its long and complicated history, the contours of the NT canon were determined, for the most part, by the fourth century. Indeed, the early church father and bishop, Athanasius of Alexandria, sent out a letter to the churches of Egypt in 367 CE, writing down for the first time those books that should be considered authoritative and those deemed “heretical” and not read, thus indicating that “in these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them.”[17] And yet, the Vulgate of 383 CE, commonly viewed as the final word, still did not prevent continued debates regarding what should be deemed authoritative, as not everyone was either Catholic or literate, and artisans certainly had interpretive space regardless of who their patron was. The triumphal arch found in Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome’s oldest and largest basilica devoted to Mary, contributes to this complicated narrative. As I hope to have shown, the triumphal arch is more meaningfully interpreted in light of the apocryphal Prot. Jas. and other apocryphal narratives on the early life of Mary. If a strict canon were in place by the fourth century, our material culture simply does not support it. Sanctioned and financially supported by Pope Celestine and Sixtus in the fifth century,[18] a century after the so-called closing of the canon, the arch attests to the necessary problematizing of the canonization process and to the complicated relationship between literature and art. If the canon were concretely set, why would there be support by the papacy to finance and prominently feature art and iconography influenced by the apocrypha? To be sure, the popularity of apocryphal narratives among early Christian circles should give us pause regarding our presumptions about the power of the papacy and its dealings over and against the desire of the masses. While I have raised more questions than I have answered, what the triumphal arch attests for us is the important ways in which the apocrypha have influenced the imaginations of early Christians, and continue to complicate the interplay between canonical and noncanonical status and art and literature in the development of early Christianity.
[1] Suzanne Spain, “‘The Promised Blessing’: The Iconography of the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore,” Art Bulletin 61 ed.
[2] I.e., Spain identifies the woman in gold not as an imperialized Mary but rather as Sarah, the wife of Abraham; Spain, “The Promised Blessing.”
[3] E.g., Jacob Latham, “Battling Bishops, the Roman Aristocracy, and the Contestation of Civic Space in Late Antique Rome,” (ed. J. Rosenblum, L. Vuong, and N. DesRosiers; Religious Competition in the Third Century, CE: Jews, Christians, and the Greco-Roman World, 2014), 126-37.
[4] E.g., Beat Brenk, Die frühchristlichen Mosaiken in S. Maria Maggiore zu Rome (Wiesbaden: Framz Steome, 1975), 11-12; Victor Saxer, Sainte-Marie-Majeure (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2001), 49-54.
[5] Rainer Warland, “The Concept of Rome in Late Antiquity Reflected in the Mosaics of the Triumphal Arch of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome,” Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 17 (2003): 129.
[6] If one were to interpret the scenes from top to bottom, left to right, it may seem as though the two images are out of order (since Joseph is chosen before Mary weaves in the Prot. Jas.). However, given that this break in chronology also occurs in the bottom two registers with regard to Herod’s presiding over the massacre of children and his instruction to the Magi to report to him upon finding the child, the compositions were likely not meant to be read in sequential order. Of course, we again see the mis-order in the scene in which Joseph’s annunciation dream scene occurs after the presentation in the temple.
[7] Lily Vuong, Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).
[8] E.g., André Grabar, L’Empereur dans l’art byzantine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1936), 216-27; Warland, “Concept of Rome in the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore,” 130-32.
[9] Grabar, L’Empereur dans l’art byzantine, 216-17.
[10] Warland, “Concept of Rome in the Mosaics of S. Maria Maggiore,” 130-32.
[11] Warland, “Rome in the Mosaics of the Triumphal Arch,” 133.
[12] Warland, “Rome in the Mosaics of the Triumphal Arch,” 130-34. Warland does not explain why the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple would take place at the Temple of Venus and Roma.
[13] Warland, “Rome in the Mosaics of the Triumphal Arch,” 130.
[14] To be sure, 1 Kings 5-7 gives an extensive description of the temple, for instance, but it only lingers specifically on the two columns in front.
[15] Robin Jensen, “The Apocryphal Mary in Early Christian Art,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha (ed. Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett; Oxford: OUP, 2015), 303-304.
[16] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 15.
[17] Bruce M Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament : Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 212; Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (Cary: Oxford University Press, 2003), 230.
[18] On Sixtus’ dedication, see Jensen, “Apocryphal Mary,” 289-290.
Lily Vuong is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Studies "Beyond Canon" at the University of Regensburg, and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Central Washington University.