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,
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/
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,
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/
Comment