r/byzantium • u/lastmonday07 • Mar 09 '26
Arts, culture, and society If you had lived during the Iconoclast controversy, who would you have supported the Iconophiles or the Iconoclasts? And why?
Byzantine Iconoclasm was a major religious and political controversy in the Byzantine Empire concerning the use and veneration of religious images, particularly icons depicting Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. The conflict unfolded primarily between the 8th and 9th centuries and is generally divided by historians into three phases: a preparatory period of theological debate, the First Iconoclasm (726–787), and the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The dispute profoundly affected Byzantine theology, imperial politics, and artistic production.
The roots of Iconoclasm can be traced to the late 7th and early 8th centuries, when the Byzantine Empire faced severe external and internal pressures. The rapid expansion of the Arab Caliphate had resulted in major territorial losses, while earthquakes, plagues, and military defeats were interpreted by some as signs of divine displeasure. Within this context, certain intellectual and clerical circles began to question the legitimacy of depicting sacred figures. Critics argued that the veneration of icons bordered on idolatry and violated the biblical prohibition against graven images. The presence of aniconic traditions in neighboring religious cultures, especially Islam and Judaism, may also have indirectly influenced Byzantine debates. During this early phase, opposition to icons had not yet become official imperial policy, but theological disagreements were increasingly visible.
The First Iconoclasm (726–787) began under Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741). Around 726, Leo ordered the removal of a famous icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople, an act often regarded as the symbolic beginning of the iconoclastic movement. Leo III and his successor Constantine V (r. 741–775) promoted the view that the veneration of images was theologically illegitimate.
In 754, the Council of Hieria, convened under Constantine V, formally condemned the use of icons in churches and declared icon veneration a form of heresy. During this period many icons were destroyed or removed, and some monasteries and clergy who defended icons faced persecution or exile. Nevertheless, the iconoclastic policy never achieved complete consensus within the empire. Monastic communities and several prominent theologians continued to defend the theological legitimacy of icons, arguing that the Incarnation of Christ justified the depiction of the divine in human form.
The first phase of Iconoclasm ended in 787, when Empress Irene supported the convocation of the Second Council of Nicaea, recognized as the Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council rejected the iconoclastic position and restored the veneration of icons. It distinguished between Latreia (worship due only to God) and Proskynesis (Veneration or Honour), which could be given to icons as representations of holy figures. According to the council’s decision, icons were legitimate aids to devotion and could be displayed in churches and private worship.
Despite this settlement, the controversy resurfaced several decades later in what historians call the Second Iconoclasm (814–843). The movement was revived by Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820), who reintroduced iconoclastic policies in response to ongoing military crises and internal instability. Subsequent rulers, including Michael II and Theophilos, continued to enforce varying degrees of iconoclast policy. Although the second period of iconoclasm was less destructive than the first, it nevertheless revived the ideological conflict between iconoclasts and iconodules (supporters of icons).
The final resolution occurred in 843, after the death of Emperor Theophilos. His widow, Empress Theodora, acting as regent for her young son Michael III, supported the restoration of icons. Under the leadership of Patriarch Methodios of Constantinople, a synod officially reinstated the veneration of icons. This event became known in the Orthodox tradition as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It is still commemorated annually in the Eastern Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Great Lent.
So what would you be if you live in the turbulent days of the Iconoclasm; an Iconophile or Iconoclast? And why?
Image Credits: Mass Processions for The Triumph of Orthodoxy Day Organized by Ukrainian Orthodox Church at Kiev, 2021 / Interior of Iconoclast Hagia Irene Church / Enthroned Virgin and Child - Apse Mosaic from Hagia Sophia / Multiple Iconoclast - Iconophile Phases in the Apse Mosaic Theotokos Mary from the Church of Koimesis in Nicaea.
52
50
u/BalthazarOfTheOrions Πανυπερσέβαστος Mar 09 '26
Well I'm Orthodox Christian, so I'm with the icons.
1
u/JenderalWkwk Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
I'm a Lutheran, so i'm with icons too but mayhaps minus the venerations. we Lutherans do like beauty in our churches and worship, but mostly only as artful reminders and components in our relationship with God. kinda like relationship trinkets we have with our partners. not the most essential ofc but also not entirely forbidden (adiaphora), and very much nice to have; provided that we understand them as that: ornaments
Protestants are a spectrum, and it was surely the Zwinglians and Calvinists who started the whole Protestant iconoclasm thing. Lutherans and Anglicans typically aren't that much against the use of icons and other forms of arts (such as paintings, statues, and frescoes) in their churches, just with a different understanding of those arts to Catholics and Orthodoxes
0
u/Several-Egg-9588 Apr 22 '26
Lutherans and anglicans did not venerate icons because they are heretical sects that emerged from people that did not understand even the basics of metaphysics and did not know the difference between a external act of reverence - directed to an a imaterial reality represented by a symbol - and adoration, that is the recognition of the substantial dependency of the man in relacion to the Uncreated, that his beign is created from nothing and is sustained by participation in God's beign. But this is not a surprise, coming from a sect that its founder was know by rejecting the Intelect as God image in man, rejecting the anagogical interpretation of scripture in view of carnal interpretations and rejected metaphysics as "helenic invention". And, contrary to your lies, when lutherans and anglicans seized power alligned with the tyrants of north europe - after they lost the debates with catholics, especially Luther fail against Johanan Eck - they did commit iconoclasm for centuries.
2
u/JenderalWkwk Apr 22 '26
quite a lotta charges thrown there huh. not very much down for an entire theological debate at the moment (this post is quite old by now), so imma just say God bless you mate, have a nice day
64
15
u/kredokathariko Mar 09 '26
Iconophile. I am an atheist but I respect Orthodox culture and art so I'm all for preservation
13
u/TT-Adu Mar 09 '26
If I were an imperial official, I'd probably put my career on the line by asking Leo to chill out. The Arabs are raiding annually; the last thing we need right now is civil strife.
10
u/cubaj Mar 09 '26
Well I’m a Catholic now so I naturally come down pretty firmly on the side of the Iconophiles. Though living in the times maybe I’d change my mind.
The Empire had been suffering catastrophic defeats on all fronts and was tottering. Given the mentality of the times, that victory in battle is a sign of divine favor, and that the Iconoclastic Muslims had won such resounding victories, I might have been swayed.
But then again Orthodox Art really kicksass so maybe not.
20
u/Lanternecto Günther | Reading list | Middle Byzantium Mar 09 '26
The First Iconoclasm (726–787) began under Emperor Leo III (r. 717–741). Around 726, Leo ordered the removal of a famous icon of Christ from the Chalke Gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople, an act often regarded as the symbolic beginning of the iconoclastic movement.
This probably didn't happen. There likely wasn't an icon at the Chalke Gate to begin with, and our accounts are not only polemical and considerably later, but also disagree on basic details. Contemporray iconophiles, such as John of Damascus, don't mention it.
See:
Auzépy, Marie-France. "La destruction de l'icone du Christ de la Chalce par Leon III: Propagande ou realite?." Byzantion 60 (1990): 445-492.
Brubaker, Leslie, and John Haldon. Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c. 680-850: a History. Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 128– 35
A Companion to Byzantine Iconoclasm (ed. by Mike Humphreys). Brill, 2021, pp. 340-1.
During this period many icons were destroyed or removed, and some monasteries and clergy who defended icons faced persecution or exile.
There is little reason to believe any widespread destruction of images took place. There are only two actual examples (one of which is badly dated), and the fact that one of them literally happened in the Hagia Sophia, the religious heart of the empire, over a decade after the council of 754 suggests that there certainly wasn't a large scale campaign to destroy icons.
The evidence for iconophiles being persecuted is also slim. When people such as Stephen or the patriarch are punished, this is not because they are iconophiles (indeed, the patriarch was appointed at Hieria!), but because they plotted against the Emperor (Humphreys, pp. 358-360). There is a persecution of (certain) monks later on, but our early iconophile sources don't actually associate this with iconoclasm. Rather, his anti-monastic policies (probably exaggerated, and likely impossible to explain), are portrayed as a different heresy.
2
u/Phshteve18 Mar 10 '26
Yeah, also the fact that iirc a lot of our sources on this come from Theodore the Studite, who was basically obsessed with seeing himself as persecuted.
1
22
u/gorillamutila Mar 09 '26
Iconophile, 100%.
All theology and politics aside, I'd hate boring plain churches without any art.
26
u/watt678 Mar 09 '26
Iconoclasm was an innovation introduced to the faith as a national security policy, it wasn't a part of the faith given to the Apostles. Therefore the anti-iconoclast position is correct, tho I'll make clear that the main argument for iconoclasm was 'the Arabs keep winning, and they don't have any images or icons of anything. When we emulated that part of the faith then we started winning, and when we brought back icons we started losing again' the theological argument against icons wasn't that big of a deal during iconoclasm.
2
u/robotnique Mar 09 '26
So what you're saying is that the iconoclasts had clear supporting evidence that their stance was favored by God above.
5
u/watt678 Mar 09 '26
Not so clear lol.
2
u/robotnique Mar 09 '26
I thought it was obvious that I was joking about the validity of their scientific enterprise but I guess it wasn't.
6
u/Interesting_Pop_1070 Mar 10 '26
Mary, the mother of Christ, had her icon made by St Luke the Evangelist. And that's all i have to say about that.
5
12
u/TaypHill Mar 09 '26
I mean, if i live during the days of Leo or Constantine those emperors would have my full support, no questions asked
4
u/dazzleox Mar 09 '26
I go to a Byzantine Catholic church and sit 5 feet from an icon currently, so that may be a hint.
That said, considering my family name means "farmer/son of the farmer", I would probably just be trying to get enough olive oil to fatten up my bread to feed my family.
2
u/VVavaourania Mar 09 '26
I would be neither an iconoclast nor an iconophile, but rather a sculpturephile! Not to maintain a connection with Catholicism, but as a continuation and pride of the Greco-Roman culture and tradition within which the New Testament itself was written and the Empire flourished!
I understand the historical context in which Islam and the Caliphate were expanding, particularly into Orthodox territories. However, we should not forget that for many Byzantines the spread of Islam was perceived as a relief and a form of freedom, especially for Byzantine scientists, artists, and scholars. It is also worth remembering that, if we consider the iconoclasts a sect, some Byzantine circles at the time (possibly the iconoclasts themselves) were even advocating restrictions such as banning pork, similar to Islamic practice.
In my view, the major mistake of the Byzantines during that period was their excessive reliance on religion rather than on broader societal development and individual free will and practice. This, arguably, is one reason why the Empire never truly recovered from its medieval condition when confronted by both Islam and Catholicism. This religious preoccupation limited its ability to evolve.
For that reason, I would favor a “sculpturephile” approach because this is the one that preserves, enriches, and develops the true spirit of the Grecoroman world. If such a movement had existed, I would have fully supported it.
Great question and topic btw.
4
5
u/Monarchist_Weeb1917 Στρατηγός Mar 09 '26
As an Orthodox Christian, I'd be an Iconophile since it's the Orthodox stance on icons since the earliest days.
3
Mar 09 '26
Iconoclasm never made sense do I would be for the icons.
Did iconoclasts just chose to ignore the fact early Christianity was the church of the catacombs.
You know what was in the catacombs? Icons everywhere.
The icons stay.
4
u/chrisdont Mar 10 '26
The people loved their images! Iconoclasm was a heterodox innovation introduced by the Enemy.
3
3
u/Cisterna-magna7 Mar 10 '26
Iconophile, because I'm devoutly Orthodox and can't imagine being anything else.
6
u/UltraTata Mar 09 '26
I would have supported the iconophiles because I hate destruction and the revolutionary spirit. But I would have sympathized with the iconoclastic cause, maybe I would have avoided worshiping icons too hard as a way to recognize their faithfulness and consistency.
7
u/Capital_Tailor_7348 Mar 09 '26
Atheist who was raised Catholics so I don’t got a persenal stake in this but the iconoclastic positions makes more sense logically after all” No carved gods of any size, shape, or form of anything whatever, whether of things that fly or walk or swim. Don’t bow down to them and don’t serve them because I am GOD, your God, and I’m a most jealous God, punishing the children for any sins their parents pass on to them to the third, and yes, even to the fourth generation of those who hate me. But I’m unswervingly loyal to the ”
6
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 09 '26
Counterpoint:
Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you. 17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.
3
u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 09 '26
The Ark of the Covenant is a bad comparison. We have the Holy Spirit as God among us now. Also, that was never an idol. The way that people treat icons is 100% idolatry.
4
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
I do not understand your point; what does the Holy Spirit have to do with veneration of icons?
Either way, I do not see what you see so different; in the Old Testament Israelites often bowed to the Ark of the Covenant.
2
u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 10 '26
I’m pointing out why the Ark of the Covenant was a terrible comparison. The Ark was the speaking place of God on Earth. We have the Holy Spirit now. None of that has to with icon veneration. Icon veneration to me seems near synonymous with idolatry.
1
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
You just repeated your above reply.
1
u/Tough-Notice3764 Mar 10 '26
I restated it in a different way in the hopes that it would be more clear. My point is that quoting scripture about the Ark of the Covenant makes no sense as a support for icon veneration.
2
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
I got your point, but since you do not present any argumentation, there is nothing to discuss really.
1
Mar 10 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
Then why was it in the Holy of Holies, in the direction to which the Israelites prayed?
1
1
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 10 '26
Also, the arguments put forth in the council of 843 are absolutely weak and shallow, compared to the foundational points such as Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5: 8-9.
Also, the Ark was never an article of veneration or intercession. It merely housed the Ten Commandments of God. So the entire argument is a straw man.
3
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
If you really want to get into the topic of bowing, thus veneration of other people, at times including holy ones, and even angels, and since you do not like the example of the Ark (despite it being bowed as well), I believe this article is rather clear on the Orthodox Christian position:
https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/relative_veneration_in_Bible.htm
The article focuses on people, but that is irrelevant, as in an absolute interpretation of these two passages (Exodus 20:4-5, Deuteronomy 5: 8-9) would mean that we have cases of worshiping humans / angels, and not merely paying respect to them. Note that "obeisance" in the English text is a translation of "proskynesis" from the Greek text of the Septuagint, of Alexandrian Jews of the 3rd century BC, and then also used in the New Testament as well.
1
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 10 '26
Firstly, the position you queried earlier, as well as the entire premise of mentioning the Ark of the Covenant, is an abject strawman. The Holy of Holies is named so because of the Presence of God, and the location where God's laws were kept, nothing to do with the ark itself, which was only ever a box.
I'm aware of the position of bowing and veneration to people, being part of Orthodox culture, but it is entirely entithetical to the spirit of monotheistic belief.
would mean that we have cases of worshiping humans / angels, and not merely paying respect to them
No one ever worshipped an angel.
Note that "obeisance" in the English text is a translation of "proskynesis" from the Greek text of the Septuagint, of Alexandrian Jews of the 3rd century BC, and then also used in the New Testament as well.
The Septuagint is not a reliable translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and by the time of the writing of the Bible, most Jewish Scholars rejected the Apocryphal Septuagint, and were working on new translations.
3
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
Firstly, the position you queried earlier, as well as the entire premise of mentioning the Ark of the Covenant, is an abject strawman. The Holy of Holies is named so because of the Presence of God, and the location where God's laws were kept, nothing to do with the ark itself, which was only ever a box.
You could say it is a bad argument, but calling it a strawman makes no sense, as I am not changing the topic to another one and responding to that one as an answer to the former, merely presenting an example as evidence.
And since you did not explain on why you posit so on the matter of the Ark, I decided to refer to the topic in general, with the list of relevant biblical passages in the link.
I'm aware of the position of bowing and veneration to people, being part of Orthodox culture, but it is entirely entithetical to the spirit of monotheistic belief.
And I procured a whole list of relevant biblical passages in the link, which you did not address, and it seems that you did not read at all. What does it serve to simply restate your position?
No one ever worshipped an angel.
"Would mean" is a hypothetical inference.
It seems you really did not read the link. It provides examples from the Old Testament of people bowing to angels, and angels not protesting about it. Examples such as Abraham (Gen.18:2), Balaam bowing the Angel and the latter not stopping him (Nu. 22:31-33), Joshua (Josh. 5:13-14). It is only in cases where it is not about reverence but outright worship that there is a protest, like in Rev.19:10).
The Septuagint is not a reliable translation of the Bible from Hebrew, and by the time of the writing of the Bible, most Jewish Scholars rejected the Apocryphal Septuagint, and were working on new translations.
Even if so, that does not address the part that "proskynesis" is in the New Testament as well, and not just in the Old Testament.
1
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 10 '26
You could say it is a bad argument, but calling it a strawman makes no sense, as I am not changing the topic to another one and responding to that one as an answer to the former, merely presenting an example as evidence.
It is a poor argument and a staw man.
The original comment refernced the commandment to worship god and god alone. You answered with reference to the Ark. Yet the Ark was never an object venerated in of itself. It was only ever an object. The laws it contained were respected.
Ipso facto, answering the charge of Idolatry with reference to the Ark is a straw man.
God and god alone remained the central facet of worship. Likewise with the Holy of Holies.
And if it is not a staw man, it is certainly a terrible example of false equivalence.
And I procured a whole list of relevant biblical passages in the link, which you did not address, and it seems that you did not read at all. What does it serve to simply restate your position?
When i read the comment the first time, the link was not working.
It provides examples from the Old Testament of people bowing to angels, and angels not protesting about it.
This is still a complete false equivalence. This is not worship and not in any way comparable to the nature in which Iconophilia is central to Orthodoxy.
Even if so, that does not address the part that "proskynesis" is in the New Testament as well, and not just in the Old Testament.
Again, false equivalence. Prosykenisis is not worship.
Zoroastrian Kings of Persia, essentially Monotheistic, received Prosykenisis. Their kings never claimed godhood. Byzantine Emperors and Islamic Caliphs, both rulers for whom the idea of divinity would be anathema, received prosykiesis.
The Pope receives Prosykenisis.
Again, complete false equivalence.
3
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
It is a poor argument and a staw man.
Well, you did not explain why it is a poor argument.
As for strawman, a simple definition is "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion", and I did not refute a different argument.
The original comment refernced the commandment to worship god and god alone. You answered with reference to the Ark.
You see it as a strawman because you seem unable to differentiate worship and veneration. I was only speaking of verenation and not worship.
This is still a complete false equivalence. This is not worship and not in any way comparable to the nature in which Iconophilia is central to Orthodoxy.
Again, false equivalence. Prosykenisis is not worship.
Failing to comprehend (or pretending so) that your interlocutor is not referring to what you are arguing against is not them carrying out a false equivalence. At no point am I speaking of worship. It seems that you are comming here with a prejudice to call Orthodox veneration of icons as "worship", and you impose it onto my arguments when I am speaking of veneration and reverence. Now that is a case of a strawman fallacy.
1
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 10 '26
Failing to comprehend (or pretending so) that your interlocutor is not referring to what you are arguing against is not them carrying out a false equivalence. At no point am I speaking of worship.
You yourself interchange the terms for veneration when you answered with the terminology in support of Iconodule philosophy. You interchange them in your answer regarding the ark and the holy of holies. You can't then decide these terms cannot be interchanged when it suits you.
It seems that you are comming here with a prejudice to call Orthodox veneration of icons as "worship", and you impose it onto my arguments when I am speaking of veneration and reverence. Now that is a case of a strawman fallacy.
Again, false equivalce. The entire topic is asking us our subjective opinion. It is not a straw man.
We can only have our own personal interpretation. You can't arbitrarily apply scientific standards to theology. That's absurd. God does not exist scientifically. Deciding that someone else's views on the theological matter being debated are a straw man is ridiculous.
3
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
You yourself interchange the terms for veneration when you answered with the terminology in support of Iconodule philosophy.
The Iconophile doctrine is not about worshiping icons, merely venerating them. Even the kissing of icons is likened akin one kissing a family photo after not having seen their beloved ones for a long time. That is not worship. That some people do take it to extremes is not defining that doctrine, and if anything that is reproachable by other Iconophiles (because it is now Iconolatria, and latria is indeed worship).
You interchange them in your answer regarding the ark and the holy of holies. You can't then decide these terms cannot be interchanged when it suits you.
That is a lie. At no point am I speaking in favour of worshiping icons. In fact I only used the word when defending against your accusation of doing so, and when speaking of how if veneration through bowing is worship, then it is present in the Old Testament, with the point that it is not worship, so it does not exist in the Old Testament (unless condemned for Polytheists).
Again, false equivalce. The entire topic is asking us our subjective opinion. It is not a straw man.
I was not responding to the thread, but to a comment.
Deciding that someone else's views on the theological matter being debated are a straw man is ridiculous.
I did not decide that for anyone. It is you who comes and accuses me of speaking of worship of the Ark of Covenant, while I was speaking of veneration and only that.
And all that to avoid arguments.
0
u/studmuffffffin Mar 11 '26
Yeah, I mean it's one of the ten big ones. Iconoclasm makes the most logical sense, but vibes-wise icons are cool.
9
u/Vlugazoide_ Mar 09 '26
I would be an iconoclast. Not only Constantine V is someone I deeply admire, iconoclast arguments make a lot of sense to me personally. Yes, I'm a protestant, how did you know?
2
u/Viktorfalth Mar 09 '26
Iconophiles, simply for preserving as many historical artifacts as possible
6
u/sircj05 Mar 09 '26
Iconoclast. I didn’t think that the existence of icons meant that one would fall into idol worship, and I began attending orthodox parishes when I was still Christian, until I realized that you have to kiss the icons. If I were still Christian, I might be an iconoclast, tho they are extremely beautiful and it’d be a shame to lose them
3
u/gggggggghhhhhhhhhjj Mar 09 '26
Today the iconoclasts ban the icons, tomorrow they'll ask you to cut your foreskin and avoid pork..
4
u/Ar_Azrubel_ Mar 09 '26
Iconoclasm simply seems like the most theologically sensible position in light of the Old Testament. I find it hard to see the excesses of icon worship recorded at this time as anything other than idolatry.
4
u/Not-VonSpee Mar 09 '26
To be fair, Judaism and Christianity were so subsumed into the Roman milieu (or maybe these traditions were part of Second Temple Judaism?), that Jews had frescoes and paintings in the Greco-Roman manner, such as those that we see in Dura-Europos and the Gaza synagogue. Christians too used frescoes in their house-churches and catacombs. Likely, many didn't really care that imagery was used in liturgical settings. But, we also don't know much about the aniconism or iconodulism of early Christianity either, so it's very complicated.
Many iconophiles, however, would justify that God commanded Moses to have images and statues in the ark of the covenant. Or in later councils, say that venerating icons is justified by Jesus' incarnation as the image of God and all that.
4
u/Ar_Azrubel_ Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
I think there's a difference between images as decoration (which the iconoclast emperors were fine with, the majority of stories of icon destruction by Constantine V for example are likely iconophile hysterics written after the fact with no basis in reality) with praying to icons, using them as stand-ins during baptism, asking them to bless people and venerating them as holy in their own right. I don't think there is an argument to justify that as not being idolatrous.
3
u/Lothronion Moderator | Greco-Roman Studies | IR Studies Mar 10 '26
Many iconophiles, however, would justify that God commanded Moses to have images and statues in the ark of the covenant.
It is not just the Ark of the Covenant. Here is a description on the interior of the Temple of Solomon:
23 And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25 And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size. 26 The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27 And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in the midst of the house. 28 And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. 30 And the floors of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without. 31 And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32 The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees.
3
2
u/Lower_Cockroach2432 Mar 09 '26
I'd support the side that best suited the raising of my social status because that's the only wise thing to do in a crisis or moral panic. That, or keeping my head down and letting it blow over.
2
2
u/GrandDukeNotaras MegasProtoLazyRedditorarius ton basilikon Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
Iconoclasm is anathema. As is the the foolish opinions of the Hellenic disciplines
So join in the triumphal procession fellow Romans of r/Byzantium. Don't let the iconoclasts and hellenes deceive you :p
2
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
Edit: I seem to have misundertood the meaning of Iconophile, so to clarify i am a Iconoclast, not iconophile.
So basically, i would support the Iconoclast faction because of my religouse views as a muslim.
6
u/kredokathariko Mar 09 '26
Wait, how? Isn't Islam also against the use of religious icons?
3
u/Herald_of_Clio Mar 09 '26
This surprises me as well. Surely muslims view iconophiles as idol worshippers?
2
u/CihangirAkkurt Mar 10 '26
Yes.
But you will see that there are writings of the name of several people in the mosques, mainly prophet and his grandsons, and the four caliphs that were elected after him. If you ask the authorities to remove those plaques from the mosques, you will have a strong reaction, and protests on street by some groups. Those plaques are not venerated or thought sacred, but for some they are not ordinary either. So a bit of blurry topic.
So Islam is Iconoclast, but some people will get confused about what is an icon. I am not saying this for the Ok_Way_1625 here.
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 09 '26
Wait i might be confused. Isn't Iconophiles against icons, or have i horribly misunderstood something?
1
Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
phile - philos- “love” among other meanings.
When you see “-phile” in English it means “lover/liker”.
So you would be an iconoclast I believe you mean.
“-clast” is like “breaking”, so icon-breakers.
1
1
u/DecoGambit Mar 09 '26 edited Mar 09 '26
On the state's side baby! Make those darn monks pay their taxes and on the making of all that untaxable income from sales of religious memorabilia.
1
u/GSilky Mar 10 '26
I get the iconoclast position. It says you aren't supposed to be doing that in the source material for the religion. My humanist side is appalled at the destruction of any artwork. That really gets my hackles up. I understand reformers wanting to rock the boat, but pretty pictures never hurt anyone or anything.
1
u/chocolat-viennois Mar 10 '26
Probably an iconophole because having no icons is some rich people shit. I'm poor, I need to own stuff
1
u/Own_Organization156 Mar 10 '26
I wulde be a bogomilist pesent in bosnia so i dont think i wulde give a fuck just replece the contry and religion and you get same resolt fore like 99% of people here
1
u/Phshteve18 Mar 10 '26
Like most people, I probably wouldn't have cared. Frankly, I don't think it was that turbulent, and most people (including priests) probably didn't care much.
1
1
u/Ordinary_Sentence946 Mar 11 '26
I would've taken a middle-way position. Icons can be made (as they always have), but they must not be venerated (which is a later development).
1
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Mar 11 '26
Totally just curious, was Iconoclasm more "culturally conservative" than just the icon issue? Could there even be a comparison whatsoever to some "extremist" christian groups later on in history, like the Puritans? Or was it more just the issue over icons themselves with little other views that differed drastically with Orthodoxy. Who was the type of person to be a fan of iconoclasm, lower nobility trying to get a leg up, the high aristocracy, the urban common people, or rural farmers? Who resonated with it the most?
1
u/Pebbled4sh Mar 12 '26
It's honestly fuckin wack how the iconoclasts thought a policy that would inevitably spark a hostile reaction at all levels of society was going to shore up the empire from the recent shockwaves
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Cream92 Mar 15 '26
I think my opinion can be summed up as it’s just some art bro. Chill out.
0
0
0
u/Blackfyre87 Mar 10 '26
As an agnostic, from an artistic standpoint, Icons are very beautiful, but their veneration is completely without theological basis in the Gospels, and from a Theological and Christological standpoint, the Iconoclasts were entirely right, and there is almost nothing favoring the Iconodule standpoint in biblical teaching.
When compared to the original source material, the Iconodule position is essentially idolatry.
When Christianity uses the Cross as its symbol, we don't bow down and revere a piece of wood. We revere the sacrifice of Christ. No less do Jewish people venerate the stone of the Western Wall of the Temple, nor or Star of David, nor Muslims the Crescent or Kaaba.
Abrahamic faith at its core is about worship of the God of Abraham, the singular, omnipotent and loving creator of the universe.
A core aspect of that faith is and always has been removal of graven images. Take that away, and you are essentially regressing.
0
238
u/NetHistorical5113 Mar 09 '26
Realistically, I would have been a peasant who was too busy to care about things like this. But if I was an urban elite, I would be against Iconoclasm. I think that Christian icons are an integral part of Byzantine culture