Maksimologija Profile picture
Jan 25, 2023 11 tweets 4 min read Read on X
In his recent polemic against Orthodox iconography, @gavinortlund has argued that "for hundreds of years the early Christians were clear and vigorous in their opposition to the veneration of icons".

Here's why I don't think his argument works.🧵

Ortlund argues for his claim with 7 quotations, drawn from the writings of, respectively, Municius Felix, Origen (×2), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, & Arnobius.

However, in each case, I think, he depends on either a serious mistranslation &/or misinterpretation.
1. Ortlund quotes Minicius Felix, Octav. 10 (PL 3.264A) as asking why Christians have "no images".

However, in fact, the text does not say "images", but "simulacra" — i.e. statues or idols (εἴδωλα).

This passage says nothing about icon-veneration.
2. Ortlund quotes Origen, Contr. Cels. 7.41 (PG 11.1480BC) saying that Christians have "rejected all images and statues".

However, in fact, the text does not say "images" but «ἱδρύματα» — i.e. shrines or statues.

So this passage too says nothing about icon-veneration.
3. Ortlund quotes Origen, Contr. Cels. 7.64 (PG 11.1512D) saying that Christians "avoid temples, altars, and images".

However the text does not say "images", but rather «βωμοί» — i.e. a type of pagan altar.

Hence this passage too says nothing about icon-veneration.
4. Ortlund quotes Clement, Strom. 7.5 (PG 8.436Bff.) saying that works of art "cannot be sacred and divine".

However, the context of the quotation (which, remarkably, is not mistranslated) makes clear that Clement means only that, by nature, material artifacts cannot be God.
So, once again, this passage says nothing about icon-veneration.

5. Next Ortlund quotes Tertullian (PL 1.664Df.) describing the devil as having introduced into the world "artificers of statues and of images" whose works became idols.

Again, nothing about icon-veneration here,
6. Ortlund quotes Lactantius, Inst. 2.19 (PL 6.344Bf.) saying that "there is no religion in images".

But, once again, this is a mistranslation. In fact, Lactantius says that "religion is not in simulacra" — i.e. not in statues or idols.

This text says nothing about icons.
7. Finally, Ortlund quotes Arnobius, Adv. gent. 6.9 (PL 5.1180B) criticizing those who "pray to an image" in such a way that they are praying to "something else", other than God (rei alteri supplicare).
But to venerate an icon is not to pray to something else other than God; rather, it is to pray to God via the icon.

So here too, what is being criticized by Arnobius is not icon-veneration, but a form of idolatry, in which the terminus of the prayer is something other than God.
Overall then, we can see that quite literally none of the texts Ortlund cites in evidence of "early Christian opposition to icon-veneration" provide any evidence for his position.

His iconoclastic thesis is left floating in mid-air as an unsupported assertion.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Maksimologija

Maksimologija Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @maksimologija

Feb 20
Since @SifiReturned is determined to obfuscate, let's look more carefully at Patriarch Bartholomew's claim that, in the Orthodox Church, the Greek race is superior to Slavs. Image
First of all Patriarch Bartholomew's words are very clear.

Den antechontai i adelfoi mas i Slavi, to provadisma to opion echei to Ikumeniko Patriarcheio kai kata synepeian to yenos mas, mesa stin pankosmia Orthodoxia

Hear his words; there's no mistake in the transcription:
Secondly, the grammar and meaning of his words are equally clear, and present no difficulties.

Here they are: Image
Read 21 tweets
Feb 18
Do you agree with Patriarch Bartholomew's declaration that, within the Orthodox Church, Slavs are racially inferior to Greeks? Image
Patriarch Bartholomew's comments were widely reported in the Greek media, but without any objection to his racial inferiorization of Slavs. Image
Image
Image
Image
Is it really possible to belong to a Church whose leading hierarch openly proclaims his own racial superiority over other ethnic groups, and whose racist claims are accepted unchallenged within that Church?
Read 8 tweets
Jul 4, 2024
We often hear universalists tell us that there could be no everlasting hell, because no creature could finally resist God as the ultimate good.

However, their argument suffers from more problems than they admit, and in fact we should reject it firmly and finally.

A 🧵 Image
According to the universalist:

—God has ordered things so that man will finally be unable to freely persist in the rejection of God.

—By nature, man longs for satisfaction through particular "configurations and resources". His freedom is subordinate to this. Image
Here, there are three main problems:

— the conception of freedom;
— the conception of God; and
— the absence of Christ.

Let's take a look.
Read 25 tweets
Feb 2, 2024
Since it's come up again, let's remember the Orthodox doctrine of the divine-human hypostasis of Christ.

A 🧵
1. Through the incarnation, the hypostasis of the Divine Logos assumed human nature.

— So the incarnate Logos is not only God by nature, but also man by nature.
2. Through the incarnation, the divine nature and the human nature are united without confusion.

— So the divine nature and human nature are not fused into some new hybrid “synthetic nature.”
Read 9 tweets
Dec 15, 2023
Does St Basil the Great say that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit?

A friendly critique of @MilitantThomist's recent apologetic. 🧵

youtube.com/live/hVTk-HXOc…
1. Recently, @MilitantThomist has been arguing that, in Contra Eunomium 3.1, St Basil the Great states the Son to be a cause of the Holy Spirit—& hence to affirm a filioquist triadology.

This argument has been effective against Dyerites, who have struggled to respond to it.
2. However, as MT's claim not only attacks Dyerism, but also poses a challenge to genuine Orthodoxy. So it seems worth offering a response to MT's claim.
Read 21 tweets
Aug 10, 2023
This is an interesting post about the Greek term Logos in the Gospel of John.

However, I see things rather differently, and so I'm going to present here a somewhat different account.

A critical 🧵:
1. In fact, the basic meaning of λόγος is not to do with speech at all. Rather, most basically and originally, a λόγος is a "gathering" or "collection".

(Indeed, the very element "...lect..." in "collection" is etymologically cognate to λόγος.)

Cf. λέγειν in Homer, Il. 23.239: Image
In this basic sense, a λόγος has a twofold aspect: it is both an assembly of things and a laying them out, so that they are both united and distinguished.

(Cf. how a coin collection is not just a unity of coins, but also a unity which displays the coins in their differences.)
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(