Dear Subscribers,
Today on the Orthodox liturgical calendar is Sunday of Orthodoxy or Triumph of Orthodoxy, where the Church celebrates the end of the iconoclast controversy and the restoration of the icons. In honor of this day, I’m linking to my past letters on iconography. In addition, I will make those letters that are typically behind a paywall (Replies 1-3) available for free for this week only.
Below are links and descriptions. For those looking for a summary of John of Damascus’ defense of images, I recommend the first link. The second, Reply 1, offers a useful statement on iconography and the earliest Church fathers, as well as a discussion of the early Christian distinction between dogma and charygma ("teaching" and "preaching"). The second reply is to a highly idiosyncratic question, in my opinion. However, I’m rather fond of Reply 3, since it deals in matters of symbology that are rarely discussed. I recommend it.
So, there you have it. Read as you like. And to all my readers, enjoy!
Sincerely,
Dr. Jacobs
--
Nathan A. Jacobs, Ph.D.
Scholar in Residence of Philosophy and Religion in the Religion in the Arts in Contemporary Culture Program (RACC)
Vanderbilt University, Divinity School
http://nathanajacobs.com
https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobs
John of Damascus' Defense of Icons
A Catalyzing Article
Departing from the normal format, where I post my responses to emails on various topics, I am posting instead an article I wrote for a popular journal. The reason for the divergence is that this article prompted a trio of emails to which I responded. I will post my letters on the topic shortly. However, because the inquiries and my responses presume the content of this article, I thought it would be worth posting the article here. The trio of letters to follow can be read by paying subscribers. The first two will be posted today, along with this article; the third will follow later this week. If you are not yet a paying subscriber, please consider supporting my work.
John of Damascus' Defense of Icons (Reply 1 of 3)
Were the Earliest Christians Iconoclasts? On Clement, Origen, Irenaeus, and the Synod of Elvira
“Pagoda,” a Presbyterian minister, wrote to me after hearing me on a popular radio show and reading my article on John of Damascus. Though belonging to an iconoclast tradition, “Pagoda” had rediscovered his love of Byzantine art. Despite having profound spiritual experiences beholding such images, “Pagoda” could not shake his training that such images are impermissible. He asked me specifically about objections he had read, suggesting that Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and the Synod of Elvira all opposed icons — the implication being that the iconodule position is a late development, divergent from the earliest Christian practices. Below is my reply. If you’re reading this letter, then you must be a paying subscriber. Thank you for your support! (If somehow you’ve accessed this and you’re not a paying subscriber, please consider subscribing and supporting my work.)
John of Damascus' Defense of Icons (Reply 2 of 3)
On the Divine Liturgy and Images of New Realities
After reading my first reply, “Pagoda” asked a followup question. Specifically, he asked about an argument he once heard in seminary. The claim was that icons of Christ are “an example of an over-realized eschatology,” by which he means that they wish to see Christ face to face, but this is something for the eschaton; we are currently to live out this future hope by faith, not sight (John 20:29). Below is my reply. If you’re reading this letter, then you must be a paying subscriber. Thank you for your support! (If somehow you’ve accessed this and you’re not a paying subscriber, please consider subscribing and supporting my work.)
John of Damascus Defense of Icons (Reply 3 of 3)
Are Inaccurate Images of Christ Not Images of Christ?
“Dusty” wrote to me with an objection to icons that he heard in a Presbyterian Sunday School class. The minister insisted that icons are a violation of the second commandment. “Dusty,” having read my article on John of Damascus, offered replies in line with John’s case. The minister replied by saying that we don’t know what Christ looked like, so images of Christ are not in fact of Christ. He drew the comparison with carrying around a photo of a woman to whom I’m not married and telling people she’s my wife. “Dusty” thought on the reply and, days later, realized that this objection does not address the points he was raising (i.e., the Incarnation means the Son of God is now visible). Nonetheless, “Dusty” was curious what I would say to the objection, despite it missing the point. Below is my reply. If you’re reading this letter, then you must be a paying subscriber. Thank you for your support! (If somehow you’ve accessed this and you’re not a paying subscriber, please consider supporting my work.)