Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Duplicity of Iconophiles in the Byzantine church

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Duplicity of Iconophiles in the Byzantine church

    So I'm a huge podcast listener, and one of my favorite podcasts is the History of Byzantium by Robin Pierson, which, if you're familiar with historical podcasts, is the successor of the hugely popular History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan.

    In the podcast, which, as far as I can tell, is secular and denominationally unbiased, Pierson brings up the point that the use of icons, especially the portable ones and their dissemination in the church and home, is mostly an innovation of the late 7th century. He doesn't deny that there existed earlier examples of religious iconography before this period, but that their widespread proliferation and cultural acceptance didn't exist till much later.

    But one of the most interesting points made in the podcast is that, to argue their points for the use of icons in the ecumenical councils that followed, iconophiles would regularly forge, alter and interpolate earlier church writings to make it appear as though iconography was a very common and regular ancient church practice. Apparently this didn't convince many people during the first iconoclast period, but by the time the second iconoclast period the forgeries met less resistance.

    Pierson uses a number of sources for his podcast, but it appears much of his reference material on the iconoclast period comes from the book, "Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: A History" by scholars of Byzantium, Leslie Brubaker (University of Birmingham) and John Haldon (Princeton). So, for instance,


    Source: Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, C. 680-850: A History by Leslie Brubaker, John Haldon, Cambridge University Press, 2011

    There is thus little support for a 'cult of sacred images' in pre-iconoclast Byzantium. The textual and the material evidence agree that sacred portraits existed, but there is no indication that these images received special veneration in any consistent fashion before the late seventh century. In texts that assuredly date before c. 680, sacred images were identified and described; they are present but passive when saints perform miracles; and they allow people to identify saints whom they have seen in dreams or visions. By the second half of the sixth century they can be miraculously produced acheiropoieta (like the Edessa image); and by the end of the century they have assumed the old role of Roman palladia, protecting a city from assault. Little then seems to have changed for a century: even were all the apparently interpolated texts that refer to images actual seventh-century creations, there would be very few references to sacred portraits at all, and the sacred portrait would remain far less important than relics or visions as a means of accessing holy presence.

    . . .

    It is during the last decades of the seventh century that holy portraits seem to have been absorbed into the cult of saints, and to have become widely recognized as mediators between humanity and divinity. But while the balance of the evidence suggests that the holy portrait assumed this responsibility by the end of the seventh century, the theology and codification of its roles surfaced only during the debates between iconoclasts and iconophiles during the eighth century. What we might legitimately call a cult of images did not lead to iconoclasm; it was generated by the discourse of the debate about iconoclasm itself. In this context, the iconoclasts of 754 were right when they condemned image veneration as an innovation that ran counter to the venerable traditions of the church: holy portraits were not new, but their magnified role was an ongoing contemporary development and their veneration was a recent phenomenon.

    © Copyright Original Source



    They go on and talk about a number of case examples of documents that were fabricated or interpolated by iconophiles to spin the facts in their favor.

    Below, I believe, is where the podcast starts getting into the subject of icons, and it carries on for a number of episodes afterwards,
    https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...71-iconoclasm/
    Last edited by Adrift; 07-15-2016, 02:01 PM.

  • #2
    I took a class on early Christian art and architecture in college. One of the assigned readings was of a sermon celebration the addition of icons the the Hagia Sophia; the sermon called it the restoration of icons, but the church wasn't built with icons in mind and didn't have them at any point prior to the "restoration."
    Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      So I'm a huge podcast listener, and one of my favorite podcasts is the History of Byzantium by Robin Pierson, which, if you're familiar with historical podcasts, is the successor of the hugely popular History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan.

      In the podcast, which, as far as I can tell, is secular and denominationally unbiased, Pierson brings up the point that the use of icons, especially the portable ones and their dissemination in the church and home, is mostly an innovation of the late 7th century. He doesn't deny that there existed earlier examples of religious iconography before this period, but that their widespread proliferation and cultural acceptance didn't exist till much later.

      But one of the most interesting points made in the podcast is that, to argue their points for the use of icons in the ecumenical councils that followed, iconophiles would regularly forge, alter and interpolate earlier church writings to make it appear as though iconography was a very common and regular ancient church practice. Apparently this didn't convince many people during the first iconoclast period, but by the time the second iconoclast period the forgeries met less resistance.

      Pierson uses a number of sources for his podcast, but it appears much of his reference material on the iconoclast period comes from the book, "Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: A History" by scholars of Byzantium, Leslie Brubaker (University of Birmingham) and John Haldon (Princeton). So, for instance,


      Source: Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, C. 680-850: A History by Leslie Brubaker, John Haldon, Cambridge University Press, 2011

      There is thus little support for a 'cult of sacred images' in pre-iconoclast Byzantium. The textual and the material evidence agree that sacred portraits existed, but there is no indication that these images received special veneration in any consistent fashion before the late seventh century. In texts that assuredly date before c. 680, sacred images were identified and described; they are present but passive when saints perform miracles; and they allow people to identify saints whom they have seen in dreams or visions. By the second half of the sixth century they can be miraculously produced acheiropoieta (like the Edessa image); and by the end of the century they have assumed the old role of Roman palladia, protecting a city from assault. Little then seems to have changed for a century: even were all the apparently interpolated texts that refer to images actual seventh-century creations, there would be very few references to sacred portraits at all, and the sacred portrait would remain far less important than relics or visions as a means of accessing holy presence.

      . . .

      It is during the last decades of the seventh century that holy portraits seem to have been absorbed into the cult of saints, and to have become widely recognized as mediators between humanity and divinity. But while the balance of the evidence suggests that the holy portrait assumed this responsibility by the end of the seventh century, the theology and codification of its roles surfaced only during the debates between iconoclasts and iconophiles during the eighth century. What we might legitimately call a cult of images did not lead to iconoclasm; it was generated by the discourse of the debate about iconoclasm itself. In this context, the iconoclasts of 754 were right when they condemned image veneration as an innovation that ran counter to the venerable traditions of the church: holy portraits were not new, but their magnified role was an ongoing contemporary development and their veneration was a recent phenomenon.

      © Copyright Original Source



      They go on and talk about a number of case examples of documents that were fabricated or interpolated by iconophiles to spin the facts in their favor.

      Below, I believe, is where the podcast starts getting into the subject of icons, and it carries on for a number of episodes afterwards,
      https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/20...71-iconoclasm/
      Is there a typo in there? 680 is rather AFTER the sixth century.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        Is there a typo in there? 680 is rather AFTER the sixth century.
        Nope. Not a typo. They're referring to sacred imagery before c. 680.

        Comment

        Related Threads

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 07-31-2020, 09:36 AM
        65 responses
        2,664 views
        0 likes
        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
        Working...
        X