Editing Iconoclasm (section)

=== Byzantine era ===
{{Further|Council of Constantinople (843)|Byzantine Iconoclasm}}[[File:Clasm Chludov detail 9th century.jpg|thumb|[[Byzantine Iconoclasm]], [[Chludov Psalter]], 9th century<ref>{{cite web|title=Byzantine iconoclasm|url=http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/slides/14islam/iconoclasm.JPG|access-date=2013-04-30}}</ref>]]The period after the reign of [[Byzantine Emperor]] [[Justinian]] (527–565) evidently saw a huge increase in the use of images, both in volume and quality, and a gathering aniconic reaction.{{Citation needed|date=January 2024}}

One notable change within the [[Byzantine Empire]] came in 695, when [[Justinian II]]'s government added a full-face image of Christ on the [[obverse]] of imperial gold coins. The change caused the [[Caliph]] [[Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan|Abd al-Malik]] to stop his earlier adoption of Byzantine coin types. He started a purely Islamic coinage with lettering only.<ref name="RC">[[Robin Cormack|Cormack, Robin]]. 1985. ''Writing in Gold, Byzantine Society and its Icons''. London: George Philip. {{ISBN|0-540-01085-5}}.</ref> A letter by the [[Patriarch Germanus I|Patriarch Germanus]], written before 726 to two iconoclast bishops, says that "now whole towns and multitudes of people are in considerable agitation over this matter," but there is little written evidence of the debate.<ref>[[Cyril Mango|Mango, Cyril]]. 1977. "Historical Introduction." pp. 2–3 in ''Iconoclasm'', edited by Bryer & Herrin. Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine Studies, [[University of Birmingham]]. {{ISBN|0-7044-0226-2}}.</ref>

Government-led iconoclasm began with Byzantine Emperor [[Leo III the Isaurian|Leo&nbsp;III]], who issued a series of [[edict]]s between 726 and 730 against the [[veneration]] of images.<ref>[[Warren Treadgold|Treadgold, Warren]]. 1997. ''A History of the Byzantine State and Society''. [[Stanford University Press]]. pp. 350, 352–353.</ref> The religious conflict created political and economic divisions in Byzantine society; iconoclasm was generally supported by the Eastern, poorer, non-Greek peoples of the Empire who had to frequently deal with raids from the new Muslim Empire.<ref name=":1">[[Cyril Mango|Mango, Cyril]]. 2002. ''The Oxford History of Byzantium''. [[Oxford University Press]].</ref> On the other hand, the wealthier Greeks of [[Constantinople]] and the peoples of the Balkan and Italian provinces strongly opposed iconoclasm.<ref name=":1" />
<!-- this should come out since there is a main article on the subject - it just needs to be introduced here
===The first iconoclastic period: 730–787===
Sometime between 726 and 730, the Byzantine Emperor [[Leo III the Isaurian]] began the iconoclast campaign.<ref>Cf. (ed.) F. GIOIA, ''The Popes – Twenty Centuries of History'', Libreria Editrice Vaticana (2005), p. 40.</ref>  He ordered the removal of an image of [[Jesus]] prominently placed over the [[Chalke]] gate, the ceremonial entrance to the [[Great Palace of Constantinople]], and its replacement with a cross.  Some of those assigned to the task were killed by a band of [[iconodules]].<ref name="theoph1">see Theophanes, ''Chronographia''.</ref>

Over the years conflict developed between those who wanted to use the images, claiming that they were "icons" to be "venerated", and the iconoclasts who claimed they were simply idols. [[Pope Gregory&nbsp;III]] "convoked a synod in 730 and formally condemned iconoclasm as heretical and excommunicated its promoters.  The papal letter never reached Constantinople as the messengers were intercepted and arrested in Sicily by the Byzantines".<ref>Cf. (ed.) F. GIOIA, ''The Popes – Twenty Centuries of History'', Libreria Editrice Vaticana (2005), p. 41.</ref> The Byzantine Emperor [[Constantine&nbsp;V]] convened the [[Council of Hieria]] in 754.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chinstitute.org/index.php/chm/eighth-century/icons/ |title=Issue 54: Eastern Orthodoxy &#124; Christian History Magazine |publisher=Chinstitute.org |access-date=2013-04-30}}</ref> The 338 bishops assembled concluded, "the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation—namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods&nbsp;... If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc&nbsp;... let him be anathema". This Council claimed to be the legitimate "Seventh Ecumenical Council".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754.asp |title=Internet History Sourcebooks Project |publisher=Fordham.edu |access-date=2013-04-30}}</ref>

===Second Council of Nicaea 787===
[[File:Seventh ecumenical council (Icon).jpg|thumb|An [[icon]] of the [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] (17th century, [[Novodevichy Convent]], Moscow).]]
{{Main|Second Council of Nicaea}}
In 780, Constantine&nbsp;VI ascended the throne in Constantinople, but being a minor, was managed by his mother Empress [[Irene of Athens|Irene]].  She decided that an ecumenical council needed to be held to address the issue of iconoclasm and directed this request to [[Pope Adrian I]] (772–795) in Rome.  He announced his agreement and called the convention on 1 August 786 in the presence of the Emperor and Empress.  The initial proceedings were interrupted by the violent entry of iconoclast soldiers faithful to the memory of the prior Emperor Constantine&nbsp;V.  This caused the council to be adjourned until a reliable army could be assembled to protect any proceedings. The council was reassembled at [[Nicaea]] 24 September 787.  During those proceedings the following was adopted:

{{quote|... we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit.  For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message.

 ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men.  The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects.<ref name="Tanner, Norman P. p. 132–136">Tanner, Norman P., Alberigo, G., Dossetti, J. A., Joannou, P. P., Leonardi, C., and Prodi, P., ''Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Volume OneNicaea I to Lateran V'', pp. 132–136, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, London and Washington, D.C., {{ISBN|0-87840-490-2}}</ref>}}

(Note:see<ref name="Tanner, Norman P. p. 132–136"/> also for the original pretranslation text of this council in Greek and Latin)

===Views in Byzantine iconoclasm===
Accounts of iconoclast arguments are largely found in iconodule writings.  To understand iconoclastic arguments, one must note the main points:
# Iconoclasm condemned the making of any lifeless image (e.g.,&nbsp;painting or statue) that was intended to represent Jesus or one of the saints. The "Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum" ([[Synod of Hiereia]]) held in 754 declared:<ref name="hieria1"/>

{{quote|Supported by [[the Holy Scriptures]] and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the [[Christian Church]] every likeness which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters&nbsp;... If anyone ventures to represent the divine image (χαρακτήρ, ''charaktēr'') of the Word after the Incarnation with material colours, let him be anathema!&nbsp;... If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!}}

#  For iconoclasts, the only real religious image must be an exact likeness of the prototype—of the same substance—which they considered impossible, seeing wood and paint as empty of spirit and life.  Thus for iconoclasts the only true (and permitted) "icon" of Jesus was the [[Eucharist]], which was believed to be his body and blood.
#  Any true image of Jesus must be able to represent both his divine nature (which is impossible because it cannot be seen nor encompassed) as well his human nature.  But by making an icon of Jesus, one is separating his human and divine natures, since only the human can be depicted (separating the natures was considered [[nestorianism]]), or else confusing the human and divine natures, considering them one (union of the human and divine natures was considered [[monophysitism]]).
#  Icon use for religious purposes was viewed as an innovation in the Church, a Satanic misleading of Christians to return to pagan practice.

<blockquote>Satan misled men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Law of Moses and the Prophets cooperated to remove this ruin.&nbsp;... But the previously mentioned demiurge of evil&nbsp;... gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity.<ref name="hieria1">{{citation |title=Epitome of the Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754 AD |url=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/icono-cncl754.html |publisher=[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html Internet Medieval Sourcebook] |postscript=,}} also available from [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.x.html Christian Classics Ethereal Library]</ref></blockquote>

It was also seen as a departure from ancient church tradition, of which there was a written record opposing religious images.
[[File:Triumph of Orthodoxy.jpg|thumb|288px|Triumph of Orthodoxy]]
The chief theological opponents of iconoclasm were the monks Mansur ([[John of Damascus]]), who, living in Muslim territory as advisor to the Caliph of Damascus, was far enough away from the Byzantine emperor to evade retribution, and [[Theodore the Studite]], abbot of the [[Stoudios]] monastery in Constantinople.  John declared that he did not venerate matter, "but rather the creator of matter".  However he also declared, "But I also venerate the matter through which salvation came to me, as if filled with divine energy and grace". He includes in this latter category the ink in which the gospels were written as well as the paint of images, the wood of the Cross, and the Body and Blood of Jesus.

The iconodule response to iconoclasm included:
#  Assertion that the biblical commandment forbidding images of God had been superseded by the incarnation of Jesus, who, being the Second Person of the Trinity, is God incarnate in visible matter. Therefore, they were not depicting the invisible God, but God as He appeared in the flesh. This became an attempt to shift the issue of the incarnation in their favor, whereas the iconoclasts had used the issue of the incarnation against them.
#  Further, in their view idols depicted persons without substance or reality while icons depicted real persons. Essentially the argument was "all religious images not of our faith are idols; all images of our faith are icons to be venerated". This was considered comparable to [[Old Testament|the Old Testament]] practice of offering burnt sacrifices only to God, and not to any other gods.
#  Moses had been instructed by God according to Exodus 25<ref>{{bibleverse||Exodus|25:18–22|NKJV}}</ref> to make golden statues of [[cherubim]] angels on the lid of the [[Ark of the Covenant]], and according to Exodus 26<ref>''Bible'', {{bibleverse||Exodus|26:31|NKJV}}</ref> God instructed Moses to embroider the curtain which separated the [[Holy of Holies]] in the [[Tabernacle]] with cherubim. Moses had also been told by God to embroider the tent walls of the Tabernacle with cherubim angels according to Exodus 26<ref>''Bible'', {{bibleverse||Exodus|26:1|NKJV}}</ref> and Exodus 36.<ref>''Bible'', {{bibleverse||Exodus|36:8|NKJV}}</ref>
#  Regarding the written tradition opposing the making and veneration of images, they asserted that icons were part of unrecorded oral tradition (''parádosis'', sanctioned in Christianity as authoritative in doctrine by reference to Thessalonians 2<ref>''Bible'', {{bibleverse|2|Thessalonians|2:15|NKJV}}</ref>, [[Basil the Great]], etc.).
#  Arguments were drawn from the miraculous [[Acheiropoieta]], the supposed icon of the Virgin painted with her approval by St.&nbsp;Luke, and other miraculous occurrences around icons, that demonstrated divine approval of Iconodule practices.
#  Iconodules further argued that decisions such as whether icons ought to be venerated were properly made by the church assembled in council, not imposed on the church by an emperor. Thus the argument also involved the issue of the proper relationship between church and state. Related to this was the observation that it was foolish to deny to God the same honor that was freely given to the human emperor.
 -->