A few days ago Steven W. gave a brief, but admirable summary of some earlier Patristic witnesses against the veneration of icons in the early church. Granted, he wasn't writing a monograph and I think some of the claims could be developed a bit further, but as it stands it does provide a window into some aspects of church life.
It has since come to the attention of a few Eastern Orthodox apologists. In my post I plan to 1) consider the claims of both Wedgeworth and the EO interlocutor, and 2) offer my own historical conclusions on the matter. Note: I said historical conclusions, not dogmatic assertions. If in response I am labeled "Nestorian" or "Monophysite," so what? My interest is in examining some early church witnesses, not in the larger theology behind iconodulism.
What Calvinist International Actually Said
CI simply notes a handful of pre-Nicene fathers and councils that express either reticence or disapproval with the use of icons. Perhaps they could have further clarified their terms by saying some parts of the earlier church disapproved of icons. I think such a clarification would have blunted future criticisms. Be that as it may, Steven has produced incontrovertible evidence that Tertullian, Council of Elvira, Gregory the Great, and Epiphanius disapproved of the veneration of icons. Note the qualification of terms: we are not claiming that the early church fathers were Scottish Calvinists enforcing the RPW. Having a picture of Jesus and actively venerating it are two separate issues. Still, the fact remains that these historical witnesses disapproved of veneration. The import of this claim will be revealed below.
The Eastern Orthodox Response
The EO interlocutor responds:
I don't think Pr. Wedgeworth is actually claiming a continual and equal opposition. I have my own conclusions on the matter, but I think he is simply noting an early and substantial, although admittedly limited in scope opposition.
The interlocutor then responds to Wedgeworth's use of Peter Brown's scholarship. I am going to leave that aside for the moment. My own particular conclusions do not rest on Brown. The EO apologist notes that Rome, and thus the West, was represented at 2nd Nicea. True, and I have my own thoughts on that as well.
He goes on to write,
No one denies that Orthodoxy has been iconodulic since the 9th century. His sentence in that quote, though, does not follow. He asserts that Steven's inquiry is ahistorical, yet he is the one casually dismissing Brown's evidence. Who's acting ahistorically? Further, he simply precludes (without epistemological warrant) any historical investigation into the matter. This is ultimately what turned me off to anchoretism. Whenever historical, biblical, or logical anamolies were brought into the equation, they are simply dismissed.
Continuing,
The irony is that the easy access all traditions have to Patristic literature today is largely a result of the "reconstruction" of the German Calvinist Phillip Schaff.
The problem, though, is "what counts as outcry?" Evidently, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Gregory the Great, not to mention Elvira, do not. Why not?
My Own Historical Conclusions
One of the apologetic claims of many Anchorites is that they have the faith once delivered to the saints, which faith is evident "everywhere, at all times, and by all." Of course, no one means this literally. We certainly account for folks here and there dissenting. My contention, however, is that the above-cited men do function as reliable historical witnesses to the life of the earlier church. Yes, Tertullian slipped into heresy, but few deny his value as a historical witness. It has been pointed out that the Council of Elvira was only a local council and not binding on all Christians. True, but the fact that it was a Council and not merely an individual, does indicate that it reliably reports the church practices of a significant amount of Christians in a time and place. This is particularly devastating to the traditional argument for icons: we have here a noticeable example of counter-evidence.
The historical problem becomes thus: if iconodulism is part of the faith once delivered to all the saints, and if Vincent's canon applies, then we must account for the fact that we have a substantial section of the church ruling against icons and no one says a word about it. The EO interlocutor says that if icons were forbidden, then why wasn't there an outcry? Well, there was. See: Elvira, Epiphanius, and Gregory, not to mention the Council of Heira. Yes, it might have been a robber baron's council, but it was still a noticeable outcry.
Rome and Icons
He notes that Rome supported the conclusions of 2nd Nicea. True, but Rome applied it differently. The Carolignian Church was hesitant about venerating icons. Charlemagne was suspicious of the East at this time (see Joseph Farrell's work).
Some Notes from Augustine
Granted, Eastern Orthodox guys do not like Augustine. The fact remains, though, that Orthodox councils have called him a saint. Regardless, he functions as a good historical witness. He writes,
If this were not the case (e.g., the reasoning faculty is in no way subordinate to human authority) there would be no heretics, no schismatics, no circumcised in the flesh, no creature- and icon worshippers (The True Religion, 24.45-25.47, quoted in Vernon Bourke, The Essential Augustine, 33).
Again,
For it is unlawful for a Christian to set up any image of God in a temple... (On Faith and the Creed, ca. 8, NPNF Series II: vol. 3: 327)
It has since come to the attention of a few Eastern Orthodox apologists. In my post I plan to 1) consider the claims of both Wedgeworth and the EO interlocutor, and 2) offer my own historical conclusions on the matter. Note: I said historical conclusions, not dogmatic assertions. If in response I am labeled "Nestorian" or "Monophysite," so what? My interest is in examining some early church witnesses, not in the larger theology behind iconodulism.
What Calvinist International Actually Said
CI simply notes a handful of pre-Nicene fathers and councils that express either reticence or disapproval with the use of icons. Perhaps they could have further clarified their terms by saying some parts of the earlier church disapproved of icons. I think such a clarification would have blunted future criticisms. Be that as it may, Steven has produced incontrovertible evidence that Tertullian, Council of Elvira, Gregory the Great, and Epiphanius disapproved of the veneration of icons. Note the qualification of terms: we are not claiming that the early church fathers were Scottish Calvinists enforcing the RPW. Having a picture of Jesus and actively venerating it are two separate issues. Still, the fact remains that these historical witnesses disapproved of veneration. The import of this claim will be revealed below.
The Eastern Orthodox Response
The EO interlocutor responds:
Does the evidence put forth by Pr Wedgeworth demonstrate that there has always been an equal opposition to icons and their veneration within the Orthodox-Catholic Church? Is that evidence being properly represented and understood? Were they isolated voices, or part of a large opposition to icons in the history of the Church?
I don't think Pr. Wedgeworth is actually claiming a continual and equal opposition. I have my own conclusions on the matter, but I think he is simply noting an early and substantial, although admittedly limited in scope opposition.
The interlocutor then responds to Wedgeworth's use of Peter Brown's scholarship. I am going to leave that aside for the moment. My own particular conclusions do not rest on Brown. The EO apologist notes that Rome, and thus the West, was represented at 2nd Nicea. True, and I have my own thoughts on that as well.
He goes on to write,
While the iconoclastic controversy itself was originally rooted in the eastern part of the empire, its resolution was an ecumenical one; a resolution that had the full support of the entire Catholic Church (as shown in Basil’s confession). The life and witness of the Orthodox-Catholic Church since the 9th century confirms this to be the case, over and against any ahistorical or abstract inquiries into isolated statements, both before and after that time. (emphasis added)
No one denies that Orthodoxy has been iconodulic since the 9th century. His sentence in that quote, though, does not follow. He asserts that Steven's inquiry is ahistorical, yet he is the one casually dismissing Brown's evidence. Who's acting ahistorically? Further, he simply precludes (without epistemological warrant) any historical investigation into the matter. This is ultimately what turned me off to anchoretism. Whenever historical, biblical, or logical anamolies were brought into the equation, they are simply dismissed.
Continuing,
When attempting to understand both Patristic writings and the Holy Scriptures, it is necessary to do so within a right context; and that right context is the life of the Church, not our best guess at its reconstruction
The irony is that the easy access all traditions have to Patristic literature today is largely a result of the "reconstruction" of the German Calvinist Phillip Schaff.
then there would’ve been a palpable outcry of opposition at the very onset of their introduction. By most standards, the introduction of iconography into the usage of the Church is seen to have occurred between the first and fourth centuries AD. As a result, any evidence related to icons during this period should be examined with this kept in mind. If icons were introduced during this time frame, and there is not an overwhelmingly violent reaction to such innovation and idolatry in the writings of the Fathers, what could one be led to conclude?
The problem, though, is "what counts as outcry?" Evidently, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Gregory the Great, not to mention Elvira, do not. Why not?
My Own Historical Conclusions
One of the apologetic claims of many Anchorites is that they have the faith once delivered to the saints, which faith is evident "everywhere, at all times, and by all." Of course, no one means this literally. We certainly account for folks here and there dissenting. My contention, however, is that the above-cited men do function as reliable historical witnesses to the life of the earlier church. Yes, Tertullian slipped into heresy, but few deny his value as a historical witness. It has been pointed out that the Council of Elvira was only a local council and not binding on all Christians. True, but the fact that it was a Council and not merely an individual, does indicate that it reliably reports the church practices of a significant amount of Christians in a time and place. This is particularly devastating to the traditional argument for icons: we have here a noticeable example of counter-evidence.
The historical problem becomes thus: if iconodulism is part of the faith once delivered to all the saints, and if Vincent's canon applies, then we must account for the fact that we have a substantial section of the church ruling against icons and no one says a word about it. The EO interlocutor says that if icons were forbidden, then why wasn't there an outcry? Well, there was. See: Elvira, Epiphanius, and Gregory, not to mention the Council of Heira. Yes, it might have been a robber baron's council, but it was still a noticeable outcry.
Rome and Icons
He notes that Rome supported the conclusions of 2nd Nicea. True, but Rome applied it differently. The Carolignian Church was hesitant about venerating icons. Charlemagne was suspicious of the East at this time (see Joseph Farrell's work).
Some Notes from Augustine
Granted, Eastern Orthodox guys do not like Augustine. The fact remains, though, that Orthodox councils have called him a saint. Regardless, he functions as a good historical witness. He writes,
If this were not the case (e.g., the reasoning faculty is in no way subordinate to human authority) there would be no heretics, no schismatics, no circumcised in the flesh, no creature- and icon worshippers (The True Religion, 24.45-25.47, quoted in Vernon Bourke, The Essential Augustine, 33).
Again,
For it is unlawful for a Christian to set up any image of God in a temple... (On Faith and the Creed, ca. 8, NPNF Series II: vol. 3: 327)
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI'll be brief, since you haven't read all 5 parts yet, and most of your comments above are dealt with at length.
The reason for my post is due to the drive-by assertions (conclusions) of Wedgeworth, implying that (what will be shown as) flimsy evidence taken out of context does not even HINT AT a "Patristic" opposition to icons. Not even close. In fact, the claim is laughable, when all are actually examined from an historical, scholarly standpoint. Ironic. I'm not appealing only to Tradition, but to reality -- to the reality of the Church both here and then. That's the Patristic consensus, not our novel re-imaginings of it in the 21st century.
You said:
"Steven has produced incontrovertible evidence that Tertullian, Council of Elvira, Gregory the Great, and Epiphanius disapproved of the veneration of icons. Note the qualification of terms: we are not claiming that the early church fathers were Scottish Calvinists enforcing the RPW. Having a picture of Jesus and actively venerating it are two separate issues. Still, the fact remains that these historical witnesses disapproved of veneration."
This is absolutely false, and shows you haven't done the research, either. Tertullian objected to all images, as Part 2 demonstrates. He was far more hardcore than Wedgeworth or the ancient Iconoclasts. For him, image=idol.
Elvira has a number of issues, not the least of which is relying upon a bad translation of the Latin (more on that in Part 3), as well as making a mounting out of a blurry mole hill.
Claiming that St Gregory the Great was opposed to the veneration of icons (based on what? Wedgeworth's conclusion?) is laughable, as I demonstrate in Part 4. He venerated icons, as did everyone else at the time, as I will show. He paraded them through Rome with incense and chanting. They were not for "reading" alone.
Epiphanius is a well-documented forgery of the eighth century. Damascene, Theodore the Studite, the 7th Council, and Nicephorus of Constantinople, as well as recent scholars all note the same, and at length. He was buried in a church full of icons by his disciples. His relics were venerated there. Laughable.
You wrote:
"I think he is simply noting an early and substantial, although admittedly limited in scope opposition."
Substantial? Really? A heretic, an out of context canon that no one knows what it meant, an out of context quote from St Gregory, and a forgery are "substantial?" Interesting. Only one's presuppositions that the Church is a disjointed mess, without any help from Christ or the Spirit, could conclude such a thing. Really.
As far as Brown, even Wedgeworth takes *him* out of context (not surprising). Brown's work will be responded to soon enough (not by me), but without reading his work in context, any claims about that one document are less-than-compelling, to say the least. Either way, it is not "ahistorical" to claim that iconodulism was the norm prior to Nicaea, as there was no Patristic outburst against it, and we know for a fact that it existed. For a fact. Not just from Tradition, but from archaeology, external sources of the empire, historians, and more.
...
I don't really know what to say in response. You are taking the words of these sources and making them not mean what they are saying, and you conclude each response with snide remarks.
ReplyDeleteI know Tertullian is a heretic, but he is a valuable historical witness and is being utilized on those lines.
The bulk of my comment was lost since there's a length restriction here, so I won't be responding to any of your posts here in the future. If you still have questions after the full series of posts is live, feel free to interact with them at O&H or my blog. We allow comments, unlike "forums" such as The Calvinist International, so don't be shy. :)
ReplyDeleteMy remarks are snide, but the same can be said for everything you write (anchorites, e.g.). This is a fruitless angle to take, so I won't belabor it. Calvin certainly didn't mind being snide. :)
It is one thing to assert that I'm making these "sources" to say something that they aren't, and another to demonstrate it. You have only made assertions. You also (like most iconoclasts) muddy the waters by at times speaking of an objection to images, at others speaking to an objection of their worship, and at others speaking of an objection to their veneration. The quotes selected by you (and Wedgeworth) show this, as well. There's no consistency to your approach, making it difficult to discuss. If you believe images are allowed, that's one thing. If you're against their veneration, that's another. If you're against their worship, that's a third. Continually speaking of all three simultaneously is frustratingly confusing and unhelpful.
The Reformation tradition has held to a variety of those positions at various times, depending on the source. This is easily demonstrable as well. The Reformed tradition was not a rediscovery of some purer, earlier form of Christianity, but was a variety of opinions on every issue possible, and even on this issue, they disagree.
Yes, Tertullian is an historical witness -- a witness of extremism, deficient Christology, and outsider viewpoints. Not a witness to the Patristic consensus. That's my whole point, after all. It is worthy of discussion, of course, but not as a "Church Father" or some sort of significant, Patristic opposition. Wedgeworth's assertions along these lines have sparked the discussion, not the quotes themselves.
Take care,
Gabe
Anchorite was not intended to be snide. When the EO site Monachos names the entire site off the Anchoretic aspect of ancient Christianity, is that snide? Anchorite is simply shorthand for a unique expression of some Roman Catholic and EO spiritual practices (I say "some" because Joseph farrell, in his Orthodox days, rejected Anchoretism).
ReplyDelete