Talk:Byzantine Iconoclasm

Comments

 * "It was also seen as a departure from ancient church tradition, of which there was a written record opposing religious images."

This is very POV and unsupported. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary being that their are images of Christ dating back to 70 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.181.54 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is neither of these that this was the view of the iconoclasts. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is rather POV, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Not only is there that church discovered from 70 AD containing images, but their are quotes from St. Basil and others on iconography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.161.40 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the POV of the Iconoclasts, which has to be reported here. They were not without evidence on their side. St Basil is not from the early church. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Question
How is it possible that an article of this nature should not at least mention the Jewish prohibition against religious images of any kind? While not controlling by any stretch of the imagination, one must wonder whether the ancient Byzantines at least had nominal contact with Jewish thought and projected that on to then current iconography. That would also help explain the deep schism between Italians and Greeks, who had a long and distinguished career creating religious iconography and sculpture, and the Jews who ritually forbade it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bg53 90069 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Really an issue in an earlier period, see Aniconism in Christianity. The Dura Europos synagogue actually shows Jewish and Christian attitudes to sacred art pretty close in the 3rd century. In so far as "semitic aniconism" is regarded as a factor in Byzantine iconoclasm, it is generally considered to have been the Islamic version that was relevant. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Awful introduction
This article doesn't even state what iconoclasm is, when that should be the first thing the article does. It just jumps straight into specifics. In fact, the entire article could do with restructuring. 92.10.193.29 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * fair point - more of the intro from Iconclasm added. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro still reads a bit choppy, with Haldon's challenge upfront, then the 4th paragraph still explaining things. If you trim/streamline it a little may help. I still had a hard time grasping the connections in one reading. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Haldon stuff was all added, too prominently, by a fan, which there was discussion about at the time, & things still need sorting. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, that was what I thought too. So perhaps the Haldon item should just move to the 4th parag and the rest get trimmed. And actually per WP:LEDE Haldon can not just sit there in the lede if not explained in the body, and not clear how he challenged mainstream ideas anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done that anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've read some reviews of B&H (should have seen the original but the library booking system was permanently temporarily unavailable) & actually a) they get far from universal praise, and b) they seem to actually stress the push from the top in the Imperial Court, & downplay any wider movement, rather contrary to what the fan said. "Basixc assumptions" seem unrocked in fact. Not sure what to do in the absence of better info on them, but I can add from the various sources I do have. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with where this has gone. Yes we could define Iconoclasm, but NO, I would not have a whole long paragraph defining related words etc. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Church/Western Church Mix-Up
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Eastern and Western Church are confused in the intro of this page. The Eastern Church today (the Orthodox Church) still uses images of Christ and the saints to this day in worship, while most Western churches don't. So why is the Eastern Church being shown as the iconoclasts and the Western Church as the defenders of icons, when it is clearly the other way around today? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajjer21 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are wrong! Have you read to the end? Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

More comments
Hi, I have added couple of sentences to try and clear up a little bit of the paragraphs. I've read Byzantium by John Julius Norwich and added a bit saying that Leo III could have been influenced by Islamic beliefs and practises. I've also added a sentence saying that it was Leo III who said that icons were against Mosaic Law. HistoryBud (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi HistoryBud, thanks for your edits to the article – good to see some of those citation needed tags being dealt with. The article is certainly better off now and more balanced. I didn't realise that 'Muslim territories became havens for iconophile refugees', a very interesting point. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Destruction of Images
— Assignment last updated by Llgilpin03 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)