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?
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.
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?
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.
This is great stuff.
Just excellent! Your concise description of ‘prototypes’ is very helpful.