Talk:Aniconism in Christianity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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.John B. Carpenter, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, pp. 107-122. Hence, early Christians were accused of being "atheists" by Romans who assumed the absence of images meant the absence of belief in gods.For example, Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 9; cited by John B. Carpenter, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 111. Origen (184-254) responded to the charge of "atheism" by admitting that Christians did not use images in worship, following the Second Commandment.Origin, Contra Celsus, Book VII, Chapter 64; according to John B. Carpenter, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 112. 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."David M. Gwynn, From Iconoclasm to Arianism: The Construction of Christian Tradition in the Iconoclast Controversy [Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007) 225–251], p. 227.  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.”John B. Carpenter, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, p. 118. 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.Carpenter, ibid., p. 121.
- Removed from iconoclasm etc. Most covered already. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff that might be used 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Care about developing an argument from silence 

message: 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)
thread_title: Schaff+

message: * Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  book link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified