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

Dec 5, 2022
With this ordination, it seems that ROCOR is declaring itself pro-LGBT. 🧵

orthodox-europe.org/content/ordina…
This newly-ordained Fr Alexander is apparently Stephen Groves, who has for many years been running a B&B with his same-sex partner, Paul Oxborrow.

telegraph.co.uk/finance/proper…
It's remarkable for a newly-ordained ROCOR priest to have previously appeared in the national press (in this case, the Daily Telegraph) with a same-sex partner.
Read 8 tweets
Nov 22, 2022
I was asked what I think this recent thread by @MilitantThomist (hereafter MT).

So here goes!
In this thread, MT sought to defend the statement “Father/Son/Spirit is not really distinct from the essence.”

He did so by arguing that the person–essence distinction in God is a distinction of the reason reasoned.
(I) Orthodox triadology understands the divine person to be in reality the divine essence + a unique property. (The Father is the divine essence + unbegottenness; the Son is the divine essence + begottenness; the Holy Spirit is the divine essence + procession.)
Read 21 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 on Twitter!

:(