Excellent work, Hillary! I do think we might need a word for what we properly do with works of art that are not icons. If we have worship and veneration, we might also have…inspiration? Or something.
Hi Hilary! I’ve been following your Substack for some time as a free subscriber and this is my first time commenting. I’m not Orthodox or Catholic (at this time), but over the past two years I’ve developed a significant interest in Eastern Christianity. Among others, I’ve read John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, and Leonid Ouspensky, and I find the theology of icons beautiful and compelling.
With that said, many Protestant commentators on the subject are usually able to pull out a large amount of contrary evidence from the ante-Nicene period, referencing authors such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, whose strong language against the use of images in a pagan context seems to indicate the unlikelihood of their use at the time by Christians. At the same time, we do have archaeological evidence from the Roman catacombs and sites from Dura Europos showing that at least some groups of ante-Nicene Christians painted scenes from the Bible as well as symbolic motifs like the Good Shepherd. The latter seems to have had at least some liturgical significance given that Tertullian actually mentions it painted on sacramental chalices and it’s actually painted over the baptistery at the Dura-Europos site.
I guess I would maybe like to hear more from you on the historicity of “veneration” practices. My own theory at this time is something like the following:
The church does not appear to have had a codified practice of veneration but treated these images as they felt appropriate (being led by the mind of Christ). Later on, they became recognized as a true means of grace in the liturgy of worship and a codified practice was established at Nicea II—both in response to the opposition of the iconoclasts and to cut off the abuses that had sparked the dispute. The dichotomy between merely “didactic” and sacramental images may not have been as pronounced in earlier times (especially if we conceive of iconography being a visual subset of the “Sacrament of the Word”).
Would this view be in line with what the Eastern Church teaches about icons?
"With that said, many Protestant commentators on the subject are usually able to pull out a large amount of contrary evidence from the ante-Nicene period, referencing authors such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, whose strong language against the use of images in a pagan context seems to indicate the unlikelihood of their use at the time by Christians."
I wanted to address this point in particular. There's an old understanding among history scholars that if you find someone in a particular time period who is taking a great deal of time to denounce something, then that something must be happening to some degree. But... If you don't read anything about a practice, then you have no evidence from surviving writings either for its occurrence, or its non-occurrence, and must look elsewhere for evidence pro or con. Protestant critics here are therefore making some assumptions. They are also in murky waters if they are relying too heavily on Tertullian, as he went off into hyper-rigorism, and also with Origen as he went off to weirder places (neither are considered saints in either East or West). There is also a tendency among many Protestant apologists on this subject to start with an assumption about what the early Church *should* look like, assuming things that don't fit must be "accretions" (as opposed to natural outgrowths of faith and praxis coupled to cultural expression), and then cherry pick evidence to make their case. This has always struck me as hammering the facts to fit the thesis.
There are a lot of different trails one could go down on this subject, and it looks as though you have already explored quite a few. I think you're on the right path - that the understanding and usage of icons was something that emerged over time in the church, as the joining together and blending of different strands of theology and praxis.
For instance, with regards to veneration of icons of specific saints, you see quite clearly that the surviving early icons (say at St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai, and a few others much older - the Cleveland Museum of Art has an Egyptian tapestry icon of Mary, surrounded by angels, from perhaps the early 4th century), were using already existing pagan Greco-Romano-Egyptian forms and types - a visual language which all at that time clearly understood. The nimbus, certain background colors to indicate transcendence or divinity, Egyptian funerary portraiture, even making family visits and pilgrimages to necropolis catacombs to honor the dead - these were pre-existing forms, which the early Christians repurposed and directed to other ends. Icons and their veneration matured in this milieu, informed and corrected by Christian theology as it too matured.
A more modern parallel exists in the Inuit and Yupic Orthodox populations in Alaska. They already had a pre-Christian practice of building small house-tombs for the dead, and of families and clans tending and visiting them to seek out the prayers of their ancestors. The Orthodox missionaries, encountering that, said "Great idea! You are already close to the truth, here's how you can adapt that practice." And so, Alaskan Orthodox continue the practice, with some Christian redirection.
Regarding codification of practice - there are many jokes that Orthodoxy is anything but an organized religion (you'll never find an official Orthodox catechism, for instance), but Orthodox theologians rather say that as the Church has aged and grown, its practices and theological understandings of itself have been formed by that growth and adaptation, and what has been settled has been done often only in direct response to challenges raised, and (more importantly) time tested by what has endured in the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit. A council's pronouncements are not considered true if they were in time rejected by the believers (there were, for instance, councils called that made very iconoclastic declarations, just as there were councils that in prior centuries declared for forms of Nestorianism or mono-physitism, but these were all rejected in practice). I recommend Fr. Alexander Schmemann's book "The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy" as he fleshes that out rather well (much better than I could).
I've been told you can find a similar argument made by the Roman Catholic St. John Neumann's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."
“There are a lot of different trails one could go down on this subject, and it looks as though you have already explored quite a few.” Probably a bit too much. Right now, I have multiple theological debates going on in my head at all times.
The ("good news"? if that's the right term here) is that most of those debates have been going on for a long time, have been hard fought by others time and again, and really a lot of problems come from letting these debates go on too much in our own heads. But we don't live entirely up there, and need to be in communion and community with others. And salvation is not just getting all the right ideas and arguments banged out in our heads.
The best advice I can give here is "Come and See!" And then stick around a while and live it out - it makes more sense when you see it done, or try it yourself. Be sure too, that you're looking for Christ as it's easy also to be caught up in the praxis or theology as an ends instead of means, and miss to whom it is directed.
I made the leap into Orthodoxy (before it was "cool"), but have friends and family who went West too.
I’m not at the point where I’d be ready to leave the church I’m currently part of. But I have added this to my morning prayers:
“Lord, hear my prayer, that thou wouldst gather in one thy children which are scattered abroad and raise up again thy one holy, catholic and apostolic church in the fullness of word and faith and sacrament. Heal her wounds, and bring down the walls which men have erected over them. Teach all thy children the true meaning of the Lord’s Day and of the Holy Eucharist. Hear me, O Lord, and grant that I, thy lowly servant, may partake together with my brethren of thy true Body and Blood, not just one day of the year, but every Lord’s Day. Amen.”
Also, you may enjoy what I consider to be the best theological defense of icons that I've come across: Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's work, "Icons and the Name of God." Admittedly, this book also contains some theological arguments in defense of the imiaslavie movement, which is still certainly debatable within Orthodoxy, but the theological defense of icons given is quite good (and also fixes several holes in the classical arguments given by the Fathers at the time, which did not, in my opinion, adequately answer the Christological concerns of the iconoclasts). Evdokimov's book on icons is also lovely; it's not so much a theological defense as a beautiful set of meditations thereon.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do. (I keep saying that I'm only learning about these things and writing it down as I'm learning it, but no one seems to believe me). If you find out more, let us know.
The only dogmatic teaching on the matter in the (Orthodox) Eastern Church is that icons can be given proskynesis; the history of icon veneration is not ruled upon whatsoever. So, there are some Christians who believe that St. Luke painted icons, while others believe like you do — neither is prescribed or proscribed, though only one view is historically sensible, I think.
Excellent work, Hillary! I do think we might need a word for what we properly do with works of art that are not icons. If we have worship and veneration, we might also have…inspiration? Or something.
Holy Icons reveal Grace. 📿🕯️❤️✨😌☦️
Jesus became human, he got dirty feet.
⛪☘️🔥🕊️⛲All truly Holy Icons are, in effect, icons (images) of Christ as reflected by the Light of Grace IN his saints and Feasts.🌙🌴
Saint John of Damascus, pray for us!✍🏼☀️
(and yes, I was raised as an Iconoclast😑)
O'Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and save us! Grace and peace to you!
Great summary, and I appreciate the download. Gotta love St John of Damascus!
Hi Hilary! I’ve been following your Substack for some time as a free subscriber and this is my first time commenting. I’m not Orthodox or Catholic (at this time), but over the past two years I’ve developed a significant interest in Eastern Christianity. Among others, I’ve read John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite, and Leonid Ouspensky, and I find the theology of icons beautiful and compelling.
With that said, many Protestant commentators on the subject are usually able to pull out a large amount of contrary evidence from the ante-Nicene period, referencing authors such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, whose strong language against the use of images in a pagan context seems to indicate the unlikelihood of their use at the time by Christians. At the same time, we do have archaeological evidence from the Roman catacombs and sites from Dura Europos showing that at least some groups of ante-Nicene Christians painted scenes from the Bible as well as symbolic motifs like the Good Shepherd. The latter seems to have had at least some liturgical significance given that Tertullian actually mentions it painted on sacramental chalices and it’s actually painted over the baptistery at the Dura-Europos site.
I guess I would maybe like to hear more from you on the historicity of “veneration” practices. My own theory at this time is something like the following:
The church does not appear to have had a codified practice of veneration but treated these images as they felt appropriate (being led by the mind of Christ). Later on, they became recognized as a true means of grace in the liturgy of worship and a codified practice was established at Nicea II—both in response to the opposition of the iconoclasts and to cut off the abuses that had sparked the dispute. The dichotomy between merely “didactic” and sacramental images may not have been as pronounced in earlier times (especially if we conceive of iconography being a visual subset of the “Sacrament of the Word”).
Would this view be in line with what the Eastern Church teaches about icons?
"With that said, many Protestant commentators on the subject are usually able to pull out a large amount of contrary evidence from the ante-Nicene period, referencing authors such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, whose strong language against the use of images in a pagan context seems to indicate the unlikelihood of their use at the time by Christians."
I wanted to address this point in particular. There's an old understanding among history scholars that if you find someone in a particular time period who is taking a great deal of time to denounce something, then that something must be happening to some degree. But... If you don't read anything about a practice, then you have no evidence from surviving writings either for its occurrence, or its non-occurrence, and must look elsewhere for evidence pro or con. Protestant critics here are therefore making some assumptions. They are also in murky waters if they are relying too heavily on Tertullian, as he went off into hyper-rigorism, and also with Origen as he went off to weirder places (neither are considered saints in either East or West). There is also a tendency among many Protestant apologists on this subject to start with an assumption about what the early Church *should* look like, assuming things that don't fit must be "accretions" (as opposed to natural outgrowths of faith and praxis coupled to cultural expression), and then cherry pick evidence to make their case. This has always struck me as hammering the facts to fit the thesis.
There are a lot of different trails one could go down on this subject, and it looks as though you have already explored quite a few. I think you're on the right path - that the understanding and usage of icons was something that emerged over time in the church, as the joining together and blending of different strands of theology and praxis.
For instance, with regards to veneration of icons of specific saints, you see quite clearly that the surviving early icons (say at St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai, and a few others much older - the Cleveland Museum of Art has an Egyptian tapestry icon of Mary, surrounded by angels, from perhaps the early 4th century), were using already existing pagan Greco-Romano-Egyptian forms and types - a visual language which all at that time clearly understood. The nimbus, certain background colors to indicate transcendence or divinity, Egyptian funerary portraiture, even making family visits and pilgrimages to necropolis catacombs to honor the dead - these were pre-existing forms, which the early Christians repurposed and directed to other ends. Icons and their veneration matured in this milieu, informed and corrected by Christian theology as it too matured.
A more modern parallel exists in the Inuit and Yupic Orthodox populations in Alaska. They already had a pre-Christian practice of building small house-tombs for the dead, and of families and clans tending and visiting them to seek out the prayers of their ancestors. The Orthodox missionaries, encountering that, said "Great idea! You are already close to the truth, here's how you can adapt that practice." And so, Alaskan Orthodox continue the practice, with some Christian redirection.
Regarding codification of practice - there are many jokes that Orthodoxy is anything but an organized religion (you'll never find an official Orthodox catechism, for instance), but Orthodox theologians rather say that as the Church has aged and grown, its practices and theological understandings of itself have been formed by that growth and adaptation, and what has been settled has been done often only in direct response to challenges raised, and (more importantly) time tested by what has endured in the Church by the grace of the Holy Spirit. A council's pronouncements are not considered true if they were in time rejected by the believers (there were, for instance, councils called that made very iconoclastic declarations, just as there were councils that in prior centuries declared for forms of Nestorianism or mono-physitism, but these were all rejected in practice). I recommend Fr. Alexander Schmemann's book "The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy" as he fleshes that out rather well (much better than I could).
I've been told you can find a similar argument made by the Roman Catholic St. John Neumann's "Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine."
“There are a lot of different trails one could go down on this subject, and it looks as though you have already explored quite a few.” Probably a bit too much. Right now, I have multiple theological debates going on in my head at all times.
The ("good news"? if that's the right term here) is that most of those debates have been going on for a long time, have been hard fought by others time and again, and really a lot of problems come from letting these debates go on too much in our own heads. But we don't live entirely up there, and need to be in communion and community with others. And salvation is not just getting all the right ideas and arguments banged out in our heads.
The best advice I can give here is "Come and See!" And then stick around a while and live it out - it makes more sense when you see it done, or try it yourself. Be sure too, that you're looking for Christ as it's easy also to be caught up in the praxis or theology as an ends instead of means, and miss to whom it is directed.
I made the leap into Orthodoxy (before it was "cool"), but have friends and family who went West too.
I’m not at the point where I’d be ready to leave the church I’m currently part of. But I have added this to my morning prayers:
“Lord, hear my prayer, that thou wouldst gather in one thy children which are scattered abroad and raise up again thy one holy, catholic and apostolic church in the fullness of word and faith and sacrament. Heal her wounds, and bring down the walls which men have erected over them. Teach all thy children the true meaning of the Lord’s Day and of the Holy Eucharist. Hear me, O Lord, and grant that I, thy lowly servant, may partake together with my brethren of thy true Body and Blood, not just one day of the year, but every Lord’s Day. Amen.”
Also, you may enjoy what I consider to be the best theological defense of icons that I've come across: Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's work, "Icons and the Name of God." Admittedly, this book also contains some theological arguments in defense of the imiaslavie movement, which is still certainly debatable within Orthodoxy, but the theological defense of icons given is quite good (and also fixes several holes in the classical arguments given by the Fathers at the time, which did not, in my opinion, adequately answer the Christological concerns of the iconoclasts). Evdokimov's book on icons is also lovely; it's not so much a theological defense as a beautiful set of meditations thereon.
It sounds like you know more about it than I do. (I keep saying that I'm only learning about these things and writing it down as I'm learning it, but no one seems to believe me). If you find out more, let us know.
Hope
The only dogmatic teaching on the matter in the (Orthodox) Eastern Church is that icons can be given proskynesis; the history of icon veneration is not ruled upon whatsoever. So, there are some Christians who believe that St. Luke painted icons, while others believe like you do — neither is prescribed or proscribed, though only one view is historically sensible, I think.
This is great stuff.
Just excellent! Your concise description of ‘prototypes’ is very helpful.