History of Icons

[Ignatius21]

For us its not, but for the wahabi protestants it is:

Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earthly beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Ex 20.4

They that make a graven image are all of vanity and their delectable things shall not profit, and they are their own witnesses, they see not, nor know, that they may be ashamed. Isaiah 44.9

I wonder if a gaming computer is the ultimate idol for the wahabis. I'm glad Im Orthodox that makes a distinction between idols and holy icons, a difference between what is an appropriate image and an inappropriate image, a difference between paying respect/reverencing and to absolute worship of God, a difference between ornamental images and sacred images. The understanding of differing usages based on culture, time and place.

something impossible to do with sola scripture unless your a hipocrite.

Wahabi Protestants? Either I'm missing something here, or you're being unnecessarily hostile toward their beliefs.

 

[prodromos]

That's insulting, btw.

It appears to be his MO. Its why he keeps referring to Orthodoxy as a denomination.

 

[ommnone]

It appears to be his MO. Its why he keeps referring to Orthodoxy as a denomination.

To offer another view, I'm not sure why the Eastern Orthodox churches wouldn't be considered one or several from a Protestant or sociological point of view. I grasp that this runs contrary to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, but it seems strange to assume that someone debating against Eastern Orthodox positions should defer to one.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

To offer another view, I'm not sure why the Eastern Orthodox churches wouldn't be considered one or several from a Protestant or sociological point of view. I grasp that this runs contrary to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, but it seems strange to assume that someone debating against Eastern Orthodox positions should defer to one.

Essentially, Eastern Orthodoxy happened (with Christ and the Apostles) before denominations became a "thing".

 

[ommnone]

Essentially, Eastern Orthodoxy happened (with Christ and the Apostles) before denominations became a "thing".

Yes, that's your church's position. But it's not anyone else's. People shouldn't be forced to phrase their wording in a way that doesn't actually conform to their own beliefs just because you all have strong a conviction on a particular subject. This especially true in a space explicitly defined as one of contest against your group's convictions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, if we are a denomination, we are the only one that is around because others left us at some point. so we are the only "denomination" that does not exist by breaking and starting something new, but rather by preserving what was given.

 

[buzuxi02]

Wahabi Protestants? Either I'm missing something here, or you're being unnecessarily hostile toward their beliefs.

Wahabis dont believe in having pictures in textbooks or magazine, just like hippocrite Calvin. Not only are protestants hipocrites, but they are heretics as well. They take away the experiences of generations of christians claiming that many times in history, christianity dies out until its revived by a sola scripturalists. They even despise those of the catacombs who have left images on the tombs.

 

[ommnone]

since he was the first, I don't think we can categorize his style the way we would a Byzantine or Georgian icon, but you can see for yourself on Cyprus.

Do you really think it's proper to reinforce your claim about history by simply repeating the claim? If you're going to define a set of allegedly Lukan icons as outside of the development of Christian and Byzantine art and thus make them immune from critical investigation, then you've a priori removed the matter from a context in which it can be historically substantiated.

the council said nothing to my knowledge of icons. this was the council that put the canonized NT together. the councils always looked to how they worshiped and what was always believed to define dogma. the Church at the time of the council had icons.

You're doing the same thing here. There's plenty of 4th and 5th century Christian art. That a particular council hosted that art, gave it any place of prominence in the proceedings, and viewed that art in the same or similar way to how Christians of later centuries viewed similar art (this is more or less what I understood by "the council that decided what the NT canon was one that had icons") are a set of claims that need to be substantiated with evidence, not just asserted.

Why should someone who doesn't believe in Eastern Orthodoxy's model of self identity when it comes to development of belief and practices accept that the aforementioned North African council held to beliefs about and made use of icons in a way comparable to someone like Theodore the Studite?

the OT images were venerated, and icons were always venerated. it strikes me as odd, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, that there would be a 300ish year break in icon veneration.

The ark was venerated (until the Babylonian destruction of the temple). The bronze serpent was venerated (until it was destroyed by Hezekiah). Torah scrolls were venerated. Figurative art in general was not. We see plenty of decorative art in Hellenistic Jewish synagogues for a couple centuries on either side of Jesus' life, but, to my knowledge we have no sources that imply this art was venerated in the way you are suggesting.

We do have examples, on the other hand, of Jews being insulted when figurative art was brought before them. Not wanting to further clutter the thread, I suggest you find a copy of Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and find the incidents when Pontius Pilate and Herod the Great brought images of humans into Jerusalem and caused uproar. Josephus is very clear that it was against Jewish custom at the time to even make such things.

There's plenty from church fathers who, when writing against the Jews, make a comparison between the reverence of the cross with the reverence of the ark, and the tablets of the law, or whichever Old Testament artifact, but you'll notice it's strange that such an argument would need to be made in the first place if Jews had been so wholeheartedly on board with image or object veneration. Post-Babylonian exile, apart from the Torah, object veneration was not a widespread or generally accepted practice within Judaism. The argument of a continuation of practice is, as such, poorly substantiated.

Again, no one is contesting that by the 4th century moderate image veneration was the norm within Christianity in the Eastern Roman Empire.

St Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary.

Ah, thank you.

I think that is the one from Edessa, but the earliest that we know of its veneration was in 595 I think, and that is long before Iconoclasm.

Note that there's a known development history of the Abgar of Edessa legend. The earliest sources don't mention an image, a hundred years later there's the inclusion that King Abgar sent a court painter to make an image of Jesus, then by Evagrius Scholasticus' account there's suddenly a miraculous image. As you well know, the image assumed to be from the story has been lost for at least 800 years, so we can't do much in terms of doing a stylistic analysis. My incredulity was concerned only with the origin of the image and the supposed documentation. We both seem to agree that the first time the thing pops up in record history in the form you accept it is at the very end of the sixth century.

 

[ommnone]

well, if we are a denomination, we are the only one that is around because others left us at some point. so we are the only "denomination" that does not exist by breaking and starting something new, but rather by preserving what was given.

That's hardly the point. JM was being attacked for writing as he believes rather than conforming his presentation to Eastern Orthodox expectations. It would seem both detrimental and undiplomatic to criticize someone for not agreeing with you in a place allegedly in existence for debate of such topics. This is not the topic of the thread anyway; apologies for taking this off topic.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

That's hardly the point. JM was being attacked for writing as he believes rather than conforming his presentation to Eastern Orthodox expectations. It would seem both detrimental and undiplomatic to criticize someone for not agreeing with you in a place allegedly in existence for debate of such topics. This is not the topic of the thread anyway; apologies for taking this off topic.

History is on our side, not on his.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

OO, EO & RCC are technically "pre-denominational" Churches.

 

[ommnone]

History is on our side, not on his.

I'm not sure why you're pursuing this. If you feel the need to make a case for the Eastern Orthodox Church generally, go ahead and make a different thread, and I'll read what you have to say.

I've reread my posts and I have no idea what therein prompted the two of you to have to reassure everyone that you believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is both correct and the only historically viable answer to whatever. I was under the impression that was a given from your affiliation anyway.

What is the point you're trying to make?

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

I'm not sure why you're pursuing this. If you feel the need to make a case for the Eastern Orthodox Church generally, go ahead and make a different thread, and I'll read what you have to say.

I've reread my posts and I have no idea what therein prompted the two of you to have to reassure everyone that you believe that Eastern Orthodoxy is both correct and the only historically viable answer to whatever. I was under the impression that was a given from your affiliation anyway.

What is the point you're trying to make?

Read the next post I posted, which should make it clearer that what I'm stating is not the strawman you're attempting to make of it here. EO, OO & RCC are typically considered "pre-denominational" Churches.

 

[ommnone]

Read the next post I posted, which should make it clearer that what I'm stating is not the strawman you're attempting to make of it here. EO, OO & RCC are typically considered "pre-denominational" Churches.

All you're doing is using a stipulative definition of "denomination" then getting annoyed when other people are using a more common definition. There's nothing offensive in noting that there are numerous distinct types of a particular thing or movement.

One could innocuously say that the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church are different denominations of Eastern Orthodoxy.

What is your point? Why should I as a non-Christian or JM as a Protestant be forced to used language in a way that is consistent with Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology?

 

[buzuxi02]

The problem with what he believes is that it makes no sense with what we believe or even with reality. Because of the invention of the gutenberg press they cut out the middleman ( the holy Spirit within the one church) and became trapped in their personal perception of 1st century christianity. They turned it into a static religion. Calvins view on images fell apart as soon as his fellow people embraced the camera and even before that the renaissance.

You cannot support your thesis from a few verses in scripture without backing your claims using the hymns, prayers, decrees, spiritual writings of those that all already agree with as a starting point. PROVE TO ME YOU ARE CORRECT BY USING THOSE FATHERS, PRAYERS, HYMNS, DEFINITIONS, CUSTOMS ALREADY ACCEPTED!

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

All you're doing is using a stipulative definition of "denomination" then getting annoyed when other people are using a more common definition. There's nothing offensive in noting that there are numerous distinct types of a particular thing or movement.

One could innocuously say that the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church are different denominations of Eastern Orthodoxy.

What is your point? Why should I as a non-Christian or JM as a Protestant be forced to used language in a way that is consistent with Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology?

Because the majority of Christians in this world (Catholics, EO & OO) consider themselves to be pre-denominational. It's as simple as that. The concept of denominations is also incredibly recent; these three Churches existed BEFORE denominations were a thing. Furthermore, as to your point about EO Churches, the different Churches within the EO Church are not different denominations because they don't have different beliefs; they're different jurisdictions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Do you really think it's proper to reinforce your claim about history by simply repeating the claim? If you're going to define a set of allegedly Lukan icons as outside of the development of Christian and Byzantine art and thus make them immune from critical investigation, then you've a priori removed the matter from a context in which it can be historically substantiated.

I am not, they are on Cyprus at the Monastery of St Lazarus and have been seen by many. if you really wanna know, go there and see for yourself.

You're doing the same thing here. There's plenty of 4th and 5th century Christian art. That a particular council hosted that art, gave it any place of prominence in the proceedings, and viewed that art in the same or similar way to how Christians of later centuries viewed similar art (this is more or less what I understood by "the council that decided what the NT canon was one that had icons") are a set of claims that need to be substantiated with evidence, not just asserted.

it's because the Church always had art. it was only brought up when it came into question. the EO asserts that iconography has always been around. someone coming on here would have to show a break between the use of imagery in the Temple and when folks started talking about the theology of the icon.

Why should someone who doesn't believe in Eastern Orthodoxy's model of self identity when it comes to development of belief and practices accept that the aforementioned North African council held to beliefs about and made use of icons in a way comparable to someone like Theodore the Studite?

they shouldn't. once we can agree on Who the Person of Christ IS, then we can start talking about all this other stuff.

The ark was venerated (until the Babylonian destruction of the temple). The bronze serpent was venerated (until it was destroyed by Hezekiah). Torah scrolls were venerated. Figurative art in general was not. We see plenty of decorative art in Hellenistic Jewish synagogues for a couple centuries on either side of Jesus' life, but, to my knowledge we have no sources that imply this art was venerated in the way you are suggesting.

and there was more in the Temple that was venerated other than the Ark (although the Ark was at the center). there were images on the walls and the curtain.

We do have examples, on the other hand, of Jews being insulted when figurative art was brought before them. Not wanting to further clutter the thread, I suggest you find a copy of Flavius Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and find the incidents when Pontius Pilate and Herod the Great brought images of humans into Jerusalem and caused uproar. Josephus is very clear that it was against Jewish custom at the time to even make such things.

right, because of the context of what Romans did with those images. Romans worshiped images and being Gentiles were unclean. so that makes total sense.

There's plenty from church fathers who, when writing against the Jews, make a comparison between the reverence of the cross with the reverence of the ark, and the tablets of the law, or whichever Old Testament artifact, but you'll notice it's strange that such an argument would need to be made in the first place if Jews had been so wholeheartedly on board with image or object veneration. Post-Babylonian exile, apart from the Torah, object veneration was not a widespread or generally accepted practice within Judaism. The argument of a continuation of practice is, as such, poorly substantiated.

you are right. the issue is not that images were used, but what images were used and why. to be hung from a Tree was a curse, so it makes perfect sense that this claim for the Messiah would throw the Jews in a tizzy.

Note that there's a known development history of the Abgar of Edessa legend. The earliest sources don't mention an image, a hundred years later there's the inclusion that King Abgar sent a court painter to make an image of Jesus, then by Evagrius Scholasticus' account there's suddenly a miraculous image. As you well know, the image assumed to be from the story has been lost for at least 800 years, so we can't do much in terms of doing a stylistic analysis. My incredulity was concerned only with the origin of the image and the supposed documentation. We both seem to agree that the first time the thing pops up in record history in the form you accept it is at the very end of the sixth century.

that is because we are coming from two points of view. as a member of the EO, I believe the EO have the fullness of God's Truth, so what the Church says is True is what is True. merely looking at history outside of that context it would make sense that there would be holes. especially looking at early Christian approaches to the Faith.

That's hardly the point. JM was being attacked for writing as he believes rather than conforming his presentation to Eastern Orthodox expectations. It would seem both detrimental and undiplomatic to criticize someone for not agreeing with you in a place allegedly in existence for debate of such topics. This is not the topic of the thread anyway; apologies for taking this off topic.

that is not why JM was being attacked. he talked down to a lot of us and showed a lot of ignorance concerning our faith.

 

[ArmyMatt]

OO, EO & RCC are technically "pre-denominational" Churches.

I think we would say the OO and RC were the first, since they broke away first sadly.

 

[prodromos]

To offer another view, I'm not sure why the Eastern Orthodox churches wouldn't be considered one or several from a Protestant or sociological point of view. I grasp that this runs contrary to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, but it seems strange to assume that someone debating against Eastern Orthodox positions should defer to one.

It's a simple matter of respect/being polite. When you are a guest in someone else's house, you do not go out of your way to antagonise your hosts.

 

[ommnone]

I am not, they are on Cyprus at the Monastery of St Lazarus and have been seen by many. if you really wanna know, go there and see for yourself.

How does the existence of an icon somehow indicate that Luke was the first iconographer? I don't doubt your word that there's an icon at a monastery in Cyprus that is claimed by some to be by the hand of Luke. I have no idea how simply going and looking at the icon will demonstrate that it's a genuinely Lukan icon. I don't think the claim can be substantiated.

it's because the Church always had art. it was only brought up when it came into question. the EO asserts that iconography has always been around. someone coming on here would have to show a break between the use of imagery in the Temple and when folks started talking about the theology of the icon.
...
they shouldn't. once we can agree on Who the Person of Christ IS, then we can start talking about all this other stuff.
...
that is because we are coming from two points of view. as a member of the EO, I believe the EO have the fullness of God's Truth, so what the Church says is True is what is True. merely looking at history outside of that context it would make sense that there would be holes. especially looking at early Christian approaches to the Faith.

So, would you agree that from the position of anyone who is not Eastern Orthodox, none of the three claims I initially addressed can be concluded to be accurate to a reasonable level of certainty? That was my original point. It calls into question why one would use those claims as evidence for an Eastern Orthodox position if the appreciation of their truth value is completely dependent on one already being in agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy.

and there was more in the Temple that was venerated other than the Ark (although the Ark was at the center). there were images on the walls and the curtain.

This would be the kind of thing you present from the Bible as an answer to the topic post.

right, because of the context of what Romans did with those images. Romans worshiped images and being Gentiles were unclean. so that makes total sense.

That's not what those passages are about.

On this account it was that Herod revolted from the laws of his country, and corrupted their ancient constitution, by the introduction of foreign practices, which constitution yet ought to have been preserved inviolable; by which means we became guilty of great wickedness afterward, while those religious observances which used to lead the multitude to piety were now neglected; for, in the first place, he appointed solemn games to be celebrated every fifth year, in honor of Caesar, and built a theater at Jerusalem, as also a very great amphitheater in the plain. Both of them were indeed costly works, but opposite to the Jewish customs; for we have had no such shows delivered down to us as fit to be used or exhibited by us; yet did he celebrate these games every five years, in the most solemn and splendid manner. He also made proclamation to the neighboring countries, and called men together out of every nation. The wrestlers also, and the rest of those that strove for the prizes in such games, were invited out of every land, both by the hopes of the rewards there to be bestowed, and by the glory of victory to be there gained. So the principal persons that were the most eminent in these sorts of exercises were gotten together, for there were very great rewards for victory proposed, not only to those that performed their exercises naked, but to those that played the musicians also, and were called Thymelici; and he spared no pains to induce all persons, the most famous for such exercises, to come to this contest for victory. He also proposed no small rewards to those who ran for the prizes in chariot races, when they were drawn by two, or three, or four pair of horses. He also imitated every thing, though never so costly or magnificent, in other nations, out of an ambition that he might give most public demonstration of his grandeur. Inscriptions also of the great actions of Caesar, and trophies of those nations which he had conquered in his wars, and all made of the purest gold and silver, encompassed the theater itself; nor was there any thing that could be subservient to his design, whether it were precious garments, or precious stones set in order, which was not also exposed to sight in these games. He had also made a great preparation of wild beasts, and of lions themselves in great abundance, and of such other beasts as were either of uncommon strength, or of such a sort as were rarely seen. These were prepared either to fight with one another, or that men who were condemned to death were to fight with them. And truly foreigners were greatly surprised and delighted at the vastness of the expenses here exhibited, and at the great dangers that were here seen; but to natural Jews, this was no better than a dissolution of those customs for which they had so great a veneration. 13 It appeared also no better than an instance of barefaced impiety, to throw men to wild beasts, for the affording delight to the spectators; and it appeared an instance of no less impiety, to change their own laws for such foreign exercises: but, above all the rest, the trophies gave most distaste to the Jews; for as they imagined them to be images, included within the armor that hung round about them, they were sorely displeased at them, because it was not the custom of their country to pay honors to such images.
2. Nor was Herod unacquainted with the disturbance they were under; and as he thought it unseasonable to use violence with them, so he spake to some of them by way of consolation, and in order to free them from that superstitious fear they were under; yet could not he satisfy them, but they cried out with one accord, out of their great uneasiness at the offenses they thought he had been guilty of, that although they should think of bearing all the rest yet would they never bear images of men in their city, meaning the trophies, because this was disagreeable to the laws of their country. Now when Herod saw them in such a disorder, and that they would not easily change their resolution unless they received satisfaction in this point, he called to him the most eminent men among them, and brought them upon the theater, and showed them the trophies, and asked them what sort of things they took these trophies to be; and when they cried out that they were the images of men, he gave order that they should be stripped of these outward ornaments which were about them, and showed them the naked pieces of wood; which pieces of wood, now without any ornament, became matter of great sport and laughter to them, because they had before always had the ornaments of images themselves in derision.

Herod introduces sports trophies with figurative art. The Jews get mad because of figurative art is against their laws. Herod takes the images off the trophies. The Jews are happy with the trophies.

But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.

Unlike the previous Roman governors of Judaea, Pilate doesn't respect the Jewish custom of not bringing figurative art into Jerusalem. The Jews get mad. Pilate doesn't care and threatens them. The Jews stick by their laws at pain of death. Pilate caves.

This one you might be able to make an argument using the fact that these were effigies of Caesar, a foreign pagan ruler who demanded subservience. But that would possibly be in contradiction with the fact that the temple authorities were generally subservient anyway. Regardless, it's rather difficult to get around "our law forbids us the very making of images".


And there's this later in the previous book:

...for Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images 6 or representations of any living creature. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; alleging, that although they should incur any danger, which might bring them to their deaths, the virtue of the action now proposed to them would appear much more advantageous to them than the pleasures of life; since they would die for the preservation and observation of the law of their fathers; since they would also acquire an everlasting fame and commendation; since they would be both commended by the present generation, and leave an example of life that would never be forgotten to posterity; since that common calamity of dying cannot be avoided by our living so as to escape any such dangers; that therefore it is a right thing for those who are in love with a virtuous conduct, to wait for that fatal hour by such behavior as may carry them out of the world with praise and honor; and that this will alleviate death to a great degree, thus to come at it by the performance of brave actions, which bring us into danger of it; and at the same time to leave that reputation behind them to their children, and to all their relations, whether they be men or women, which will be of great advantage to them afterward.

And these lines two chapter after the incidents regarding Pilate:

So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. But as he was marching very busily, and leading his army through Judea, the principal men met him, and desired that he would not thus march through their land; for that the laws of their country would not permit them to overlook those images which were brought into it, of which there were a great many in their ensigns; so he was persuaded by what they said, and changed that resolution of his which he had before taken in this matter.

These are military standards, reasonably assumed to be decorated with the animal emblem of the legion as well as the Roman aquila (eagle). Not only that, they were just passing through.

According to the most important Jewish historian of the era, a man from a priestly family in Jerusalem, it seems that there was something of a problem with figurative art in Judaea. It's also worth noting that the Roman procurators and prefects of Judaea made sure to issue coinage with no animals or humans depicted, as such a thing would have been considered offensive.

In contrast, you're probably familiar with the decorative art in Hellenistic Jewish synagogues in Syria, the Aegean, and North Africa.

you are right. the issue is not that images were used, but what images were used and why. to be hung from a Tree was a curse, so it makes perfect sense that this claim for the Messiah would throw the Jews in a tizzy.

Note that the cross wasn't a common image in Christian art until a generation or so after Constantine outlawed crucifixion. But that's not the issue. Your point is a fair one.

that is not why JM was being attacked. he talked down to a lot of us and showed a lot of ignorance concerning our faith.

Perhaps that's so. I can't much make a distinction between the character of the rhetoric from either side. However, I likely wouldn't pick up on things that would be particularly offensive to the Eastern Orthodox. I'm not familiar with any past behavior. I apologize for jumping the gun on what I thought was unnecessary hostility.