Talk:Aniconism in Christianity

Byzantine iconoclasm
Why don't we have anything on the iconoclastic movement in Byzantine religious life? That was arguably a more significant aniconic movement than the Protestant Reformation (in terms of how significant its aniconism was, not in terms of the total impact of the movement, obviously). I don't really know enough about the subject to write this myself, but if need be I bet I could synthesize something from other Wikipedia articles. I'm hoping that with the influx of traffic from the Muhammed Cartoons thing, someone better suited to the task will fix this omission for me, though. Zabieru 05:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you can find more information about that at Iconoclasm. Possibly the articles could be merged.  Schizombie 02:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that article. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this case, as per my vote below.  I'd like to see a 'Byzantine Iconoclasm (main article at)' section...  In fact, I'll go work on that right now.  If the vote comes out in favor of a merge, it shouldn't be too much work to pull.  Zabieru 06:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, no merger. Iconoclasm includes destroying other people's images.  That's what the Taliban did to the Buddha statues in Afghanistan.  Aniconism is a regulation imposed by a religion on its followers (or its god(s)) but not necessarily imposed on others.   Granted, some groups have done both (such as early biblical Hebrews destroying Canaanite statues or Christian missionaries destroying Native American Indian items) but I think the distinction shoud be retained.  Rooster613 14:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Rooster613


 * Section's in. If anyone can improve it, I'd love to see that.  My sentence structure is a bit turgid, I'll be the first to admit.  Also, while I'm opposed to a total merge, I think we should merge the section here on the Reformation, which contains some information not in the one on the Iconoclasm page, with the section on the Reformation at Iconoclasm, and re-do the section here in line with what I just did for Byzantine iconoclasm.  I'm reluctant to do any more cross-editing between the two pages while the merge vote is still going on, though.  Comments?  Zabieru 07:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like to see important topics like Byzantine iconoclasm submerged into more general summary articles: the information starts getting lost. It is also inevitable that overviews bring a certain amount of POV perspective, so shouldn't suck in more focused articles. If you want to know about Byzantine iconoclasm in its historical context, you should be able to find it out without wading through a load of stuff about the Reformation (or the Taliban); you can then move on to this useful general discussion of aniconism if you want to. Myopic Bookworm 10:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Aniconism
It's a curious and obscure page title for what was probably universal early Christian practice, till pagan syncretism gathered pace. The first two sentences inaccurately depict the origin and nature of opposition to pictures that might be adored, a practice all early Christian writers who wrote on the subject considered idolatrous.Cpsoper (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And all subsequent Christian writers - the issues is whether anyone actually does adore them! The text does describe very Early Christianity as a period of aniconism, which is slightly more than we know for sure. There are very few Early Christian comments on the matter of images at all, and these do not all go the same way. What we have is mostly the snippets that have survived from the Byzantine controversy, and the main surviving writings don't mention the matter. Evidence of opposition to the use of images is also evidence of the use of images. The Murray reference is interesting - one doubts that he actually objected to Bible picture books (he would have been unusual in his church if he did), but like most Calvinist writers after the 16th century he does not actually address the issue. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but your views Cpsoper are clearly a few centuries off. Catholics love to use images all over the place, and the sale of religious depictions is pretty high. And the veneration of icons is a key element of Eastern Orthodox doxology and is deeply weaved into their religious practices. Your perception of the situation seems trapped in an Amish secluded world. Reality is different. By the way guys, don't you think this page could do with a few images? It looks blank. Maybe some from Christian art perhaps? Half-kidding, of course. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just added the first one, but the idea (like the equivalent Muslim page) was to keep it image-free, not least for any who are offended. I've now added a Woodcut of 1563 from [[Foxe's Book of Martyrs]] to keep Rev Soper happy. Personally I'm interested in the near-collapse of Protestant aniconism since the Reformation, which I suspect parallels the collapse of Early Christian aniconism in some ways - Protestants don't really think that Catholics worship images, and the opposition to images is essentially based on opposition to idolatery. In parts of the Muslim world continuing idolatery, or what can be interpreted as it, is close enough to hand to keep Muslim aniconism strong. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to prolong this discussion, but as an aside let me say that there may be underlying reasons and in many cases depictions actually helped conversions, e.g. I recall a study somewhere of how depictions in early California missions would help those who could not read remember what they heard from the pulpit and relate to it and were useful in that sense (one sentence, but a long sentence), now I will stop. History2007 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about centuries, but I am clearly hours out of sync, this side of the pond. Ribaldry aside, gents, I see no shame in being shoulder to shoulder with the apostles and the earliest disciples on a matter as close to the major commands as this, or as erudite a scholar as John Murray . You move in different circles perhaps, but here in the UK, most independent evangelicals still avoid the use of images of Christ. Johnbod, you've done some excellent work here, but I suspect you're reading too much into Irenaeus' silence, unless you can quote an unfamiliar passage supporting icons. I've suggested some tweaks on Epiphanius - I doubt 'asunder' means the image at Bethel was ripped down. It is interesting he seemed to take it for granted that Bishop John would still feel the thrust of his argument against icons in the late C.4th. By the way, for the record I disagree with his iconoclasm - he was out of his jurisdiction. Tares should be left till later.Cpsoper (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm in the UK also, though I keep rather New Yorkish hours. Your experience is no doubt wider than mine, but I'd expect that "most independent evangelicals still avoid the use of images of Christ" does not extend to children's picture book Bibles etc, and very often not to NT pictures and films in missionary work. Obviously one doesn't expect to see paintings hanging in churches, or normally the home. Or maybe the UK independent evangelicals are more restrictive in this area than the US, perhaps because the Moravian influence is much less. Modern Protestant aniconism seems pretty nuanced to me, and not very forthcoming in explaining its nuances in sources I've been able to find. I don't think the Irenaeus passage was me - I'm far from the only author here, & I wouldn't normally refer to him as "St".  Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fair comment.Cpsoper (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How many "independent Evangelical" people are there in the UK? Rough estimate?


 * As another point, I have found the work of Rowan Williams, say Dwelling of the Light: Praying with Icons of Christ (2003) as well as his Marian version very interesting. And in his introduction in the Dwelling of the Light book, he explains why he teaches that. I think he is a clever and very knowledgeable fellow and has a few followers in the UK, as well as elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are over 500 churches in the fellowship of independent evangelical churches, then there are Grace and Strict Baptists, many Baptist churches who are in fellowship with but not organisationally tied to any of these bodies, like Spurgeon's Tabernacle (attendance there alone c 1,000) and my own fellowship, then free churches of various colours on all four provinces, most of whom would still be evangelical, then there are the evangelical Presbyterian 'denominations' like the Free Church of Scotland (continuing), Irish Covenant Presbyterians, and a smaller group of English Evangelical Presbyterians which are independent and separate from what they would consider the apostate major denominations. It has been claimed that taken together they dwarve the mainline Protestant groupings, I claim no expertise on this. They probably number in the 100,000s. Cpsoper (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So less than a million at best. There are at least 70 million in the Philippines who just love religious icons and post them all over the place from buses to houses, not to mention the over 6 million people who "over the weekend of December 11 to 12, 2009" visited the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe to venerate it. That is a few more than the 1000 people who go to Spurgeon's Tabernacle. So by and large aniconism is a drop in the ocean among the over 2 billion Christians at large and not a controversial issue. And by the way, you may have accidentally deleted some of my talk page post. I restored it. History2007 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you start with the UK, not known for Evangelicals etc these days. I believe there are the odd one or two in the US, plus growing numbers in Latin America, etc etc. Though as I've said above their aniconism is rather nuanced these days imo. The Orthodox like flat icons but are still very anti sculpture. Then there's the Anglican Diocese of Sydney ....  Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As to numbers, in Gideon God started with one. The || Downgrade confirms the lesson. My apologies for the trouble with your talk page, H07.Cpsoper (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction doesn't seem to be accurate. Are there any documented examples of orthodox church writers defending icons or images before Constantine and the subsequent descent? Was it not universal practice to oppose images, statues and icons for worship, except among the heretics opposed by Irenaeus? Please correct me if I err. Cpsoper (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are, but I am no expert - there is more in Mango & Bryers I haven't read. It certainly seems the case that, as I added today, the church allowed use of types of images on its own property well before what you call the "descent" after Constantine. As with much more recent writers, it is necessary to try to work out what a condemnation of "images" actually refers to. If huge cult images in sculpture are meant, then yes, but small paintings, including those depicting Christ, were clearly well-established in use, including in churches, well before Constantine, and if there was serious controversy about them, I suggest we would have much more evidence than just Eusebius. I have removed your misleading first sentence; exactly when has any Christian group used images for worship?  "In worship" is weaselly and misleading. Schaff is frankly too old an authority to use for an overview, when better ones are around. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is marked difference between us. Is the present age so much more enlightened than Schaff, or perhaps more indifferent to the sympathies of the fathers? They themselves serve as much plainer sources about their views, than many modern commentators. Do I confine myself to Eusebius? Reread Lactantius extended arguments against images - he writes for pages. Consider Irenaeus' firm association of images with heretics only. Pore over Athanasius or Justin's diatribes against images and it is easy to see how quickly they would rebound upon them, if there were images of the Divine in their assemblies, worshipped or not. I could continue. Where is one catholic, trinitarian writer who is prepared to defend them before the Roman Emperor's conversion? Many groups use icons or statues 'for worship', especially within Rome and amongst the Oriental churches - even if it is excused as a focus for concentration, rather than as their ultimate object, but this has always been the pagan idolators' justification too. Hindus use this line today to defend their idols, reasoning the prophets and early church writers rejected utterly - is Lactantius being obtuse when he writes, 'It is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image'? I grant there are many, perhaps most, churches who do not go so far, though they too act contrary to the counsel of the writers listed. Why is there not one orthodox apologist for images of Christ before Constantine, and many against? I will not expend much more effort on correcting a profoundly tendentious introduction, I have other commitments, but I record here my strong dissatisfaction with it - 'every man must carry his own burden' in the Day. May also I press you for justification of your insistence on characterising all evangelical opponents of images as fundamentalists - a term many use perjoratively and improperly to connote obscurantism or fideism? Do you think John Murray was a presuppositionalist? If you cannot evidence this, please remove this particular reversion. Cpsoper (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure "fundamentalist" is not from me. Lactantius was writing about pagan images, especially cult images, and only makes a few remarks about images in general. Since the evidence is that by his time Christian images were all around him, isn't it odd that his "extended arguments" never I think refer to them specifically? Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Overreliance on a tendentious source?
Johnbod, I am concerned about the inclusion of lengthy quotes from PC Finney. I confess I have not read him, but his thesis appears to represent a marginal view. Why posit a Greek philosophical source for an idea rooted in the scriptures upon which the NT is founded, and which it very frequently takes pain to repeat? The early church writers were much more familiar with contemporary philosophical writings, and whilst I accept they interacted with and were influenced by them considerably, they were several writers who were also quite hostile to them, it seems strange then this argument was not raised at the time. Can you find other independent sources who take the same view? If not, please prune these quotes back. Cpsoper (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not marginal - I have read these reviews: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 109-110, The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 161-162, The Classical World, Vol. 92, No. 1, (Sep. - Oct., 1998), pp. 57-58, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 82, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 674-675, all of which praise the book, and most very highly. His book is available free on Scribd.com - why don't you read it first before dismissing the conclusions? I'm not sure what "them" you are referring to. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree you have documented your edit adequately. The 'them' refers to Greek philosophical writers. If I have time, which is unlikely at present, I would very much like to study the work. Of course, it's likely writers like Xenophanes who blazed the trail for later anti-anthropomorphic writers, which probably contributed to the apophatic tendencies of some early Hellenic theologians, was himself influenced by descriptions of image makers and adorers like this, to which he would have had access:
 * 1 Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.
 * 2 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?
 * 3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
 * 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
 * 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
 * 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
 * 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
 * 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.


 * 16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.
 * 17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
 * 18 But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the LORD. (Psalm 115)  Cpsoper (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's a lively read, though the material is often dense. His point (or a main one) is that Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Tatian et al refrain from using the "Jewish" argument that "although humans could see God they were best advised not to look, and were strictly forbidden to represent what they had seen", and instead concentrate on the "greek" arguments that it was fallacious/ridiculous to attempt to depict him, let alone worship the images. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stuff that might be used
John B. Carpenter argues that the early church inherited the opposition to icons in second temple, Talmudic Judaism, and opposed icons through the fourth century. Hence, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods. Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of "atheism" by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment. Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira (c. 305) states, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” About the year 327 the early church historian Eusebius (c. AD 263 – 339) wrote, "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." Epiphanius (inter 310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus wrote, in Letter 51 (c. 394), to John, Bishop of Jerusalem about an incident of finding an image in a church in his jurisdiction: "I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loath that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person." He goes on to tell John that such images are “contrary to our religion” and to instruct the presbyter of the church that such images are “an occasion of offense.” The issue of icons in eastern Christianity was only settled at the second "Seventh Ecumenical Council," in 787, leading Carpenter to conclude that that council marks the true beginning of Eastern Orthodoxy with it's prominent use of icons. - Removed from iconoclasm etc. Most covered already. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Care about developing an argument from silence
Johnbod, it is reasonable argue that arguments against images suggest that they are being used, but in face of the complete silence of advocates before the 4th century, and universal condemnation by the orthodox, it is difficult to argue that it was earlier anything other than an illicit and secretive practice. Iraenaeus witnesses that the only advocates in his day were Arians, and we might well see why. Doulia to a creature is acceptable, depicted or not, whereas latria is not. Cpsoper (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'm relying on the RS. There is also, as the Kitzinger quote just added nicely conveys, an equal degree of silence from opponents who are specifically talking about Christian images, until the 4th century. That the catacombs & Dura Europas etc represented "an illicit and secretive practice" is a view rejected by Kitzinger, Toynbee, Finney & others, which I hope the article makes sufficiently clear. The issue really centres around a)what type of images (which clerical writers through the ages are reluctant to be clear about) and b) what use is made of them. I will be continuing to add from Kitzinger, covering the development of more questionable types and uses of images, which he sees as largely a development of the period from roughly Justinian's reign onwards. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, complete silence? Reliable sources? What about the fathers? Can they not speak for themselves?

Justin Martyr (100-c.165) ‘And often out of vessels of dishonour, by merely changing the form, and making an image of the requisite shape, they make what they call a god; which we consider not only senseless, but to be even insulting to God, who, having ineffable glory and form, thus gets His name attached to things that are corruptible’

Irenaeus (?130- 202) They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225) All things, therefore, does human error worship, except the Founder of all Himself. The images of those things are idols; the consecration of the images is idolatry.

Cyprian (c.200 – 258) Believers, and men who claim for themselves the authority of the Christian name, are not ashamed—are not, I repeat, ashamed to find a defence in the heavenly Scriptures for the vain superstitions associated with the public exhibitions of the heathens, and thus to attribute divine authority to idolatry. For how is it, that what is done by the heathens in honour of any idol is resorted to in a public show by faithful Christians, and the heathen idolatry is maintained, and the true and divine religion is trampled upon in contempt of God?

Athanasius (c.297 – 373) Nor have they escaped prophetic censure; for there also is their refutation, where the Spirit says, “they shall be ashamed that have formed a god, and carved all of them that which is vain: and all by whom they were made are dried up: and let the deaf ones among men all assemble and stand up together, and let them be confounded and put to shame together..” While those who profess to give still deeper and more philosophical reasons than these say, that the reason of idols being prepared and fashioned is for the invocation and manifestation of divine angels and powers, that appearing by these means they may teach men concerning the knowledge of God; and that they serve as letters for men, by referring to which they may learn to apprehend God... Such then is their mythology,—for far be it from us to call it a theology.

Lactantius (c.240 – c.320) But the image of the ever-living God ought to be living and endued with perception. But if it received this name from resemblance, how can it be supposed that these images resemble God, which have neither perception nor motion? Therefore the image of God is not that which is fashioned by the fingers of men out of stone, or bronze, or other material, but man himself, since he has both perception and motion, and performs many and great actions. Divine Institutes Book 2 (Origin of Error) Ch.2. (The work is an extended examination of the folly of idolatry.)

Thus they delude the credulity of men by lying divination, because it is not expedient for them to lay open the truth. These are they who taught men to make images and statues; who, in order that they might turn away the minds of men from the worship of the true God... Divine Institutes Book 2 (Origin of Error) Ch.17

Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. Divine Institutes Book 2 (Origin of Error) Ch.19Cpsoper (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, as WP:PRIMARY sources, no they can't "speak for themselves", at least on Wikipedia. Many of these quotes are extracted from long polemics against pagan idolatry. If you are happy to assume that all use of images, or religious images, constitutes idolatry, or that the Church Fatthers thought it did, then the case is pretty complete, only leaving the puzzle of why they spent so much time condemning pagan idolatry while not bothering to mention Christian idolatry under their own noses. If not, not. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a common concern with wiki, that has been raised elsewhere, sometimes by living authors on the inaccuracy of their own biographies! If you and the sources you rely on really doubt the fathers would see little difference between Roman images of Jupiter and Diana or Egyptian pictures of Isis and Horus, or Greek images of Aphrodite and Dionysius etc (indeed the pictorial similarity is often striking) and pseudo images of Messiah and Mary, I am not sure what evidence would persuade you. Making images for adoration is not Christian. Its rarity amongst the orthodox is the reason for the relative (though not complete) lack of condemnation of Christian images till the early 4th.

This indeed is a transformation Hippolytus charges Simon with, ' "And they have an image of Simon (fashioned) into the figure of Jupiter, and (an image) of Helen in the form of Minerva; and they pay adoration to these." But they call the one Lord and the other Lady. And if any one amongst them, on seeing the images of either Simon or Helen, would call them by name, he is cast off, as being ignorant of the mysteries. (Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies (Book VI, Chapters XIV, XV)'. Cpsoper (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Making images for adoration is indeed not Christian, and un-Orthodox. The question is, when did that happen? There was already better coverage, in the right place, on similarities with non-Christian iconography, so I have just kept a couple of your refs there. The article does need more the relationship with imperial imagery, which is probably more prominent and significant. Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but very prevalent - a true image of Christ should command worship from His disciples, as in the face of water, a mirror or a video, as a true sight of Him. A false image could only mislead (Hab.2.18). Of course, these writers do not primarily refer to imperial images, but to the transformation of pagan idols to a new name, Dr Jesse Hurlbut writes for example, 'About 405 A.D. images of saints and martyrs began to appear in the churches, adored, worshiped. The adoration of the Virgin Mary was substituted for the worship of Venus and Diana'. I remember witnessing this vividly in Alexandria's Graeco-Roman museum, the images of Isis in one century were remarkably similar to Mary in a succeeding one. I accept the move of place is proper though, and I can appreciate why you've removed 'the golden bough'.Cpsoper (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Schaff+
I remain concerned that the overall tenor of the page does not represent historical Christian opinion or at least a substantial portion of it adequately. I have added a short block quote from Phillip Schaff's work to counterbalance this.Cpsoper (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also added a short quote from a mainstream and still very popular Puritan author on the second commandment, Thomas Watson. Cpsoper (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

book link

 * Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aniconism in Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130303064734/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090506_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090506_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)