St. Epiphanius and Iconoclastic Story?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madaglan

Guest
I recently came across a reference, posted by a modern-day iconoclast, to a letter of St. Epiphanius that supposedly supports the iconoclastic prohibition of images. I looked up the letter, read the relevant passages, and at first read it does seem that St. Epiphanius has a fervent objection to the depiction of Christ and the saints. Since I have not researched the letter much further, I was wondering if others here can give me more insight into the context of the letter, whether the letter is in fact legitimate, and how it can be understood in relation to orthodox Christian teaching on the legitimacy of icons (and statues).

Here is the letter (evidently translated into Greek by St. Jerome). The relevant account is the last paragraph:
newadvent.org/fathers/3001051.htm

I seem to recall St. Epiphanius’ name in relation to the Iconoclasm controversy (perhaps I came across it while reading St. John of Damascus), but I am not really familiar with St. Epiphanius’ life except that he opposed the heresy of Origenism.
 
I too have recently just come across this from somewhere and I was wondering the same thing…I have not done too much research yet into this…but I intend to look into this more. One thing must be said is that according to the Catholic Encyclopedia there were some who were “Forerunners of the Iconoclasts” and Epiphanius is mentioned here along with the incident that took place…but not much else is said.
newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

All in all…Icons won out…due to the tremendous acceptance by many Christians throughout the centuries. It even appears from his own letter that St. Epiphanius didn’t become popular among them for doing what he did. The reason why I am going to look more into this is because I came across a work done by an Orthodox Priest that tries to clear his name…well here is that link too…
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/store/books/bigham_epiphanius_salamis.html
 
Madaglan said:
I recently came across a reference, posted by a modern-day iconoclast, to a letter of St. Epiphanius that supposedly supports the iconoclastic prohibition of images. I looked up the letter, read the relevant passages, and at first read it does seem that St. Epiphanius has a fervent objection to the depiction of Christ and the saints. Since I have not researched the letter much further, I was wondering if others here can give me more insight into the context of the letter, whether the letter is in fact legitimate, and how it can be understood in relation to orthodox Christian teaching on the legitimacy of icons (and statues).

Here is the letter (evidently translated into Greek by St. Jerome). The relevant account is the last paragraph:
newadvent.org/fathers/3001051.htm

I seem to recall St. Epiphanius’ name in relation to the Iconoclasm controversy (perhaps I came across it while reading St. John of Damascus), but I am not really familiar with St. Epiphanius’ life except that he opposed the heresy of Origenism.
Click to expand...
A defense of St. Ephiphanius’s behavior in shredding the image should probably include the possibility that the image in the church there was being used as an idol. Or, what is more probable, that he was acting out of right concern, even if he didn’t properly understand the legitimacy of honorable imagery in a church. Once I saw an essay by St. John of Damascus which was a commentary on the (older) Church Fathers. He drew from them special passages where they talked about imagery and wrote in his own notes about how they support the use of images and icons in the churches. The essay can be found here, and the best portion of it is under the subtitle “Authentic Testimony of Ancient Fathers in Favour of Images”. Another good part is “Testimony of Ancient and Learned Fathers Concerning Images”.

Some of the best examples of pro-image early Fathers are these:

St. Eusebius of Caesaria, Proof of the Gospel, Book 5 (completed before 311 A.D.): “Hence, even now the inhabitants cherish the place where visions appeared to Abraham, (Gen 18.1) as divinely consecrated. The turpentine tree is still to be seen, and those who received Abraham’s hospitality are painted in picture, one on each side, and the stranger of greatest dignity in the middle. He would be an image of our Lord and Saviour, whom even rude men reverence, Whose divine words they believe.” St. Athanasius, The Hundred Chapters, chapter 38 (written between 328 and 373 A.D.): “We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection.” St. Basil of Caesarea, On the Spirit, chapter 18 (A.D. 375): “The image of the king is also called the king, and there are not two kings in consequence. Neither is power divided, nor is glory distributed. Just as the reigning power over us is one, so is our homage one, not many, and the honour given to the image reaches back to the original. What the image is in the one case as a representation, that the Son is by His humanity, and as in art likeness is according to form, so in the divine and incommensurable nature union is effected in the indwelling Godhead.” I think the following is an alternative translation of the same, since it is said by others to come from the same chapter: “The honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.” St. Basil also praises a certain martyr, whose statue he admired, with these words: “I contemplate the hand put out to the flames, more powerfully dealt with by you. I see the struggle more clearly depicted on your statue.” St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Formation of Man, chapter 4 (A.D. 379): “For as, in men’s ordinary use, those who make images of princes both mould the figure of their form, and represent along with this the royal rank by the vesture of purple, and even the likeness is commonly spoken of as a king, so the human nature also, as it was made to rule the rest, was, by its likeness to the King of all, made as it were a living image, partaking with the archetype both in rank and in name.” In addition, when I read St. Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” which comes from 180 A.D., I noticed several positive comments about images. Book II, chapter 32, paragraph 2 goes through a list of “virtues” and includes “the arts” and specifies “the art of painting and sculpture, brass and marble work, and the kindred arts.” Thus he calls making images a virtue. Also book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 5 uses the analogy of a king painting an image of his son as an example of something God did, and he says nothing disparaging about it. And in book 3, chapter 17, paragraph 3, he uses the denarius in an analogy, mentioning particularly its image and inscription of Caesar, which he likens to the fact that God gives us His Son and a new name – and he says nothing disparaging about the coin.
 
dmar198 said:
A defense of St. Ephiphanius’s behavior in shredding the image should probably include the possibility that the image in the church there was being used as an idol. Or, what is more probable, that he was acting out of right concern, even if he didn’t properly understand the legitimacy of honorable imagery in a church. Once I saw an essay by St. John of Damascus which was a commentary on the (older) Church Fathers. He drew from them special passages where they talked about imagery and wrote in his own notes about how they support the use of images and icons in the churches. The essay can be found here, and the best portion of it is under the subtitle “Authentic Testimony of Ancient Fathers in Favour of Images”. Another good part is “Testimony of Ancient and Learned Fathers Concerning Images”.

Some of the best examples of pro-image early Fathers are these:

St. Eusebius of Caesaria, Proof of the Gospel, Book 5 (completed before 311 A.D.): “Hence, even now the inhabitants cherish the place where visions appeared to Abraham, (Gen 18.1) as divinely consecrated. The turpentine tree is still to be seen, and those who received Abraham’s hospitality are painted in picture, one on each side, and the stranger of greatest dignity in the middle. He would be an image of our Lord and Saviour, whom even rude men reverence, Whose divine words they believe.” St. Athanasius, The Hundred Chapters, chapter 38 (written between 328 and 373 A.D.): “We, who are of the faithful, do not worship images as gods, as the heathens did, God forbid, but we mark our loving desire alone to see the face of the person represented in image. Hence, when it is obliterated, we are wont to throw the image as so much wood into the fire. Jacob, when he was about to die, worshipped on the point of Joseph’s staff, not honouring the staff but its owner. Just in the same way do we greet images as we should embrace our children and parents to signify our affection.” St. Basil of Caesarea, On the Spirit, chapter 18 (A.D. 375): “The image of the king is also called the king, and there are not two kings in consequence. Neither is power divided, nor is glory distributed. Just as the reigning power over us is one, so is our homage one, not many, and the honour given to the image reaches back to the original. What the image is in the one case as a representation, that the Son is by His humanity, and as in art likeness is according to form, so in the divine and incommensurable nature union is effected in the indwelling Godhead.” I think the following is an alternative translation of the same, since it is said by others to come from the same chapter: “The honour paid to the image passes on to the prototype. Now what in the one case the image is by reason of imitation, that in the other case the Son is by nature; and as in works of art the likeness is dependent on the form, so in the case of the divine and uncompounded nature the union consists in the communion of the Godhead.” St. Basil also praises a certain martyr, whose statue he admired, with these words: “I contemplate the hand put out to the flames, more powerfully dealt with by you. I see the struggle more clearly depicted on your statue.” St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Formation of Man, chapter 4 (A.D. 379): “For as, in men’s ordinary use, those who make images of princes both mould the figure of their form, and represent along with this the royal rank by the vesture of purple, and even the likeness is commonly spoken of as a king, so the human nature also, as it was made to rule the rest, was, by its likeness to the King of all, made as it were a living image, partaking with the archetype both in rank and in name.” In addition, when I read St. Irenaeus “Against Heresies,” which comes from 180 A.D., I noticed several positive comments about images. Book II, chapter 32, paragraph 2 goes through a list of “virtues” and includes “the arts” and specifies “the art of painting and sculpture, brass and marble work, and the kindred arts.” Thus he calls making images a virtue. Also book 4, chapter 17, paragraph 5 uses the analogy of a king painting an image of his son as an example of something God did, and he says nothing disparaging about it. And in book 3, chapter 17, paragraph 3, he uses the denarius in an analogy, mentioning particularly its image and inscription of Caesar, which he likens to the fact that God gives us His Son and a new name – and he says nothing disparaging about the coin.
Click to expand...
I have been looking for this. Bookmarking this thread and thank you for sharing. Love the St. Basil quotes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top