Saturday, May 05, 2007

A Little Is Better Than Nothing

Advocates of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy sometimes respond to patristic contradictions of their beliefs by dismissing the patristic sources in question as representative of only a small number of people. Even if we were to accept that characterization, we ought to ask why even a minority of people would oppose something if that something is supposed to have been an apostolic tradition always held by the church, a church to which the minority in question supposedly belonged.

However, what if we have no reason to think that these people were in the minority? What if an Evangelical’s citation of, say, five or ten patristic sources is countered with one patristic source or none from the same timeframe? Objecting that five or ten isn’t everybody doesn’t change the fact that it is more than one or none. If you’re claiming that your denomination is the one true church, to which all or almost all of the earliest Christians belonged, and you’re claiming that your denomination has always taught the same things, isn’t it problematic if Evangelicals can cite more patristic support for their belief on a relevant issue than you can cite for yours?

Roman Catholics disagree among themselves, and Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other, regarding the history of their beliefs. One Eastern Orthodox will appeal to something like the popular Roman Catholic arguments for development of doctrine, whereas another Eastern Orthodox will argue that the doctrine in question was always understood and accepted by the early Christians. The anonymous Eastern Orthodox layman who posts here and goes by the screen name Orthodox is an example of the latter. After I mentioned some examples of opposition to the veneration of images during the patristic era, Orthodox ignored some of those examples and tried to dismiss the remainder with the following comment:

“Yes we know about Spain, and a couple of ECFs, and your favourite scholars."

In contrast to the sources I’ve cited, including both Christian and non-Christian sources from the ante-Nicene era, Orthodox hasn’t cited any from the earliest centuries. He’s cited some support for the use of images among some ante-Nicene sources, but use and veneration are different issues. His argument for the veneration of images focuses on patristic sources from the fourth century onward, and even in that timeframe he’s mentioned fewer sources than I’ve mentioned against his position. He could add more names to his list, as I could add more to mine, but if he thought that I was naming too few sources, then why has he named fewer in response?

Similarly, in another thread he claimed that the church had historically agreed with his interpretation of Acts 15. I asked for documentation, and he thought that producing one source (John Chrysostom) was sufficient. After I documented that even that one source actually didn’t agree with him, he left the thread without responding. Apparently, one (mistakenly cited) source is enough for him, but it’s not enough for me to cite far more than one in support of my position on an issue.

When Orthodox refers to “Spain” in the quote above, he has in mind the council of Elvira, which opposed the hanging of images of Christ in churches in the early fourth century. The council was attended by dozens of church leaders, including nineteen bishops. One of those bishops was Hosius of Cordova, who was prominent at the Council of Nicaea. Concerning him, the Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin writes:

“Hosius was also adviser to the emperor Constantine from 313 to the time of the Council of Nicaea I (325)….Because of his high reputation, Constantine sent him as a personal delegate to Alexandria to investigate the dispute between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria. His report became the basis for the arrangement of the Council of Nicaea. The tone was set in advance by an anti-Arian synod at Antioch in 325 where Hosius presided. He was an important speaker at Nicaea, and is thought by many to have originated the idea of inserting the term homoousion into the creed. Hosius presided over the anti-Arian Council of Sardica in 343” (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], p. 172)

It doesn’t seem likely that Hosius would have been ignorant of some apostolic tradition of venerating images that had always been held by the church. If Eastern Orthodoxy was the only denomination in the first millennium of church history, and people like Hosius belonged to that denomination, as Orthodox has claimed, then why didn't that denomination discipline Hosius for what he and dozens of other church leaders did at the council of Elvira? Why was Hosius unaware of the apostolic tradition of venerating images in the first place?

We can ask similar questions about why non-Christian sources like Celsus and Caecilius spoke as if they perceived Christians in general as opposed to the veneration of images. Why did ante-Nicene fathers from a wide variety of locations, backgrounds, personalities, etc. oppose the veneration of images in various contexts? Dismissing somebody like Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius, or Hosius as an opponent of something that almost everybody else accepted isn’t a good explanation of their behavior, nor does it explain the many other sources who seem to have agreed with them. If this sort of evidence against an early patristic belief in venerating images is to be dismissed as too little, then at least our little is better than what’s offered from the other side.

7 comments:

  1. Part of the problem in these discussions is that protestants have little conception of what Orthodox veneration is about. Jason wants to draw a large line between mere use of images, which he seems to approve of, and veneration which he doesn't approve of.

    But protestants venerate images too. They just aren't physically demonstrative about it like the cultures of the East. Most likely Jason would be offended too if I walked up to him and kissed him on the cheek. But that's a cultural issue. If Jason were Greek or Russian that would be a normal greeting. Similarly, if an Orthodox kisses an icon what is going through his mind is no different to what is going through a protestant's mind when he merely looks at an icon. When a protestant looks at an icon he will most likely have positive thoughts about Christ, or whoever is depicted, or the story that is depicted in the icon. The debate is not about veneration, it is about cultural demonstrativness.

    As to the question of how this played out in the early church, nobody can say for sure. We know from the catecombs and the images in them that they must have treated them with much care and reverence. Whether the more demonstrative form of reverence was a later development is of little consequence as far as I'm concerned, but it is one possible explanation for some of the pieces of evidence. Jason tries to make much milage of quotes where images were banned like Elvira, but we know this was not standard from the archeology.

    Jason asks why I have named fewer sources for the veneration of images, acknowledging that I could name more. Well, I guess the point is that there is so darned many of them it would be kinda hard to know where to start. I guess I assume that everyone is familiar with them, but I guess many are not. A good place to start is always St John of Damascene's apologetic:

    http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_damascene/icons/icons1.html
    http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_damascene/icons/icons2.html
    http://www.stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_damascene/icons/icons3.html

    I always find it puzzling that protestants frequently quote approvingly people like Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and so forth, and then speak so disparagingly to modern Eastern Orthodox. They were the same as us, venerating the icons. Why do they deserve respect, yet we do not?

    Since St John is Eastern we would have to quote the Western Fathers separately. Augustine refers to the images in the churches and refers to people "adoring" them (De mor. eccl. cath.", xxxiv, P. L., XXXII, 1342) . Jerome says that images of the apostles are well known ornaments in churches (In Ionam, iv)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Notice that Orthodox ignores the ante-Nicene sources I've cited, continues to focus on sources from the fourth century onward, and continues to ignore other sources from the same timeframe who disagreed with him. Yet, he claims that the veneration of images was always practiced by the church and that all Christians of the first millennium were members of his denomination. Why does he have to be so selective in what he cites if the circumstances were as he's claimed?

    He writes:

    "I always find it puzzling that protestants frequently quote approvingly people like Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and so forth, and then speak so disparagingly to modern Eastern Orthodox."

    If we shouldn't cite them approvingly on issues we agree with them about, then why don't you apply that standard to yourself? You disagree with Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Basil on some issues, as I've documented, yet you cite them on other issues you agree with them about. Eastern Orthodox disagree with men like Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Epiphanius on the veneration of images, yet they cite such sources approvingly on other issues. You keep applying standards to Protestants that you don't apply to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >Why does he have to be so selective in what he cites
    >if the circumstances were as he's claimed?

    Why do you selectively cite ante-Nicean fathers who agree with your position on the canon? Why don't you approvingly cite all the ECFs regarding their differing canon?

    You see, there is pure hypocrisy at work here. When it suits Jason, he recognizes the value of the Church coming to agreement over time. But when it doesn't suit him, he rejects it. Sola self.

    >You disagree with Athanasius, Chrysostom, and
    >Basil on some issues, as I've documented, yet
    >you cite them on other issues you agree with
    >them about.

    There's a big difference in that I don't speak disparagingly of Athanasius or his church when I disagree with him. You on the other hand are part of this Triablogue cabal which is openly hostile to Eastern Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Orthodox writes:

    "Why do you selectively cite ante-Nicean fathers who agree with your position on the canon? Why don't you approvingly cite all the ECFs regarding their differing canon?"

    Because I don't make claims such as that all Christians of the first millennium belonged to my denomination and that my canon of scripture is a tradition always held by that denomination. As we've explained to you many times, different claims require different evidence. Since we make different claims than you do about church history, it doesn't make sense for you to expect us to defend something comparable to your view of church history.

    You write:

    "You see, there is pure hypocrisy at work here. When it suits Jason, he recognizes the value of the Church coming to agreement over time. But when it doesn't suit him, he rejects it. Sola self."

    The hypocrisy is yours. You claimed that the veneration of images is an apostolic tradition always practiced by the church. You claimed that all Christians of the first millennium were members of your denomination. You claimed that it's unacceptable for Protestants to disagree with each other even on minor issues, such as how often to celebrate communion, and you contrasted such Protestant disunity with the alleged unity of the Christians of the first millennium. I, on the other hand, have not made comparable claims, but instead have repeatedly said that the church fathers held a variety of views on the veneration of images and other issues. But the popular view of the veneration of images among the earliest patristic Christians was opposed to your view. That's why you keep ignoring the ante-Nicene evidence I cited and keep focusing on later centuries instead.

    And your appeal to "the value of the Church coming to agreement over time" is misleading, since you've contrasted such a view on the veneration of images with your own view in previous discussions. You said that some Eastern Orthodox view the veneration of images as such a gradual development, whereas you don't. That's another example of Eastern Orthodox disunity. But now you're appealing to that view that you formerly denied that you hold. And you're giving us no reason to believe that a later acceptance of the veneration of images should be followed rather than the earlier rejection of the practice.

    To the contrary, you argued earlier that a consensus that arises later in church history can't overturn an earlier consensus supporting an opposing view. Yet, now you're arguing that we should accept a later popularity of the veneration of images while rejecting the earlier popularity of the opposite view.

    You write:

    "There's a big difference in that I don't speak disparagingly of Athanasius or his church when I disagree with him. You on the other hand are part of this Triablogue cabal which is openly hostile to Eastern Orthodoxy."

    Athanasius wasn't a member of your denomination. And he's not the only person we were discussing. You've repeatedly made negative comments about men like Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius. Yet, you claim that they were members of your denomination, and you cite them approvingly on other issues. So, why can't we cite somebody like Athanasius approvingly on one issue while disagreeing with him on another?

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>Why don't you approvingly cite all the ECFs
    >>regarding their differing canon?
    >
    >Because I don't make claims such as that all
    >Christians of the first millennium belonged to my
    >denomination

    So you don't cite certain ECFs that disagree with your canon because you don't make claims about your denomination.

    That doesn't make any sense. You keep waffling on about this, but it never computes in helping your inconsistency.

    >I, on the other hand, have not made comparable
    >claims, but instead have repeatedly said that the
    >church fathers held a variety of views on the
    >veneration of images and other issues.

    There is no contradiction whatsoever between claiming that something is and always was an apostolic tradition and recognizing that the church fathers held a variety of views. I could in theory hold the position that say, only 10% of fathers held my view, and 90% didn't. It doesn't mean the 10% were wrong when the church was led to recognise the truth. I wouldn't generally argue this was the case, but it matters not if that's how it played out. You keep failing to recognize that I don't need all the early church to agree with me.

    >You said that some Eastern Orthodox view the
    >veneration of images as such a gradual
    >development, whereas you don't. That's another
    >example of Eastern Orthodox disunity.

    The details of history are not a matter of dogma.

    >To the contrary, you argued earlier that a
    >consensus that arises later in church history
    >can't overturn an earlier consensus supporting
    >an opposing view. Yet, now you're arguing that
    >we should accept a later popularity of the
    >veneration of images while rejecting the earlier
    >popularity of the opposite view.

    Popularity is not consensus. Arianism was "populuar". Monophysiteism was "popular".

    >Athanasius wasn't a member of your
    >denomination.

    How do you figure that?

    >And he's not the only person we were discussing.
    >You've repeatedly made negative comments
    >about men like Eusebius of Caesarea and
    >Epiphanius.

    I don't automatically extrapolate personal failings of Epiphanius to their whole chuch being "corrupt". If these ECFs were part of a "corrupt" church, you don't have any cause to be citing them at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Orthodox writes:

    "So you don't cite certain ECFs that disagree with your canon because you don't make claims about your denomination. That doesn't make any sense."

    It doesn't make any sense to think that people who don't belong to my denomination might disagree with me on some issues? Why doesn't that make sense?

    You write:

    "There is no contradiction whatsoever between claiming that something is and always was an apostolic tradition and recognizing that the church fathers held a variety of views. I could in theory hold the position that say, only 10% of fathers held my view, and 90% didn't. It doesn't mean the 10% were wrong when the church was led to recognise the truth. I wouldn't generally argue this was the case, but it matters not if that's how it played out."

    You keep ignoring some of the factors involved when addressing this issue, since explaining all of the factors wouldn't allow you to dismiss the evidence I've cited. In addition to claiming that the veneration of images is an apostolic tradition (a claim you've never proven), you've also said that the church always practiced it (citing sources like Clement of Alexandria and the catacombs, even though they're only relevant to the use of images, not their veneration), you contrasted your view with the view of other Eastern Orthodox who argue for a gradual development in understanding the concept, you argued that the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy would settle a misunderstanding of an apostolic tradition like the veneration of images once that misunderstanding arose, you argued that we should agree with any consensus the early church had on a doctrine (no later consensus can overturn an earlier one, according to you), you argued that all Christians of the first millennium were members of your denomination, and you contrasted their unity with the disunity of Protestants (defining even minor disagreements among Protestants as unacceptable). When we take all of those factors into account, your suggested scenario in which 90% of the fathers disagreed with you on the veneration of images doesn't make sense. Instead of selectively defending portions of what you've said while ignoring other portions, you need to defend the entirety of your previous claims. You can't do it. Your initial claims were false.

    If 90% of Christians were opposed to the veneration of images, as in your scenario above, then wouldn't such a consensus prove that such opposition is correct, according to your standards? How could a later popularity of the veneration of images overturn a 90% agreement against the practice in earlier times?

    You write:

    "The details of history are not a matter of dogma."

    Telling us that your disagreement with other Eastern Orthodox isn't a matter of dogma doesn't tell us how you reconcile your beliefs with the historical record.

    And why do Eastern Orthodox hold such contradictory views of church history? If one of you will argue that thousands of Christians around the world practiced the veneration of images in the earliest centuries, while another Eastern Orthodox will argue that these early Christians hadn't yet developed an understanding of veneration and in some cases even opposed the practice, those are two highly divergent, contradictory views of the nature of church history. That disagreement is relevant not only to "the details of history", but also to the nature of revelation, how the church leads its people, and other significant issues.

    You write:

    "Popularity is not consensus."

    If 90% of the people can agree on an issue, as in your scenario above, yet that doesn't qualify as "consensus", then what would? If you're saying that there must be more than 90%, then why did you never produce evidence for more than 90% when you made your arguments for consensus in earlier discussions? In previous discussions, you sometimes just cited something like four or five fathers to support your view. In our discussion of Acts 15, you only cited one father, and you were wrong about that one. What is your definition of "consensus", why should we believe that your definition is correct, and where can we get verification that such a consensus exists for every teaching for which you claim it? I need you to cite specific sources, not just make vague references to "Tradition", "history", etc.

    You write:

    "How do you figure that?"

    I'm not aware of any reason to consider Athanasius Eastern Orthodox, and he disagreed with you on some issues. It's not as if assuming that a historical figure was Eastern Orthodox is the default position.

    You write:

    "If these ECFs were part of a 'corrupt' church, you don't have any cause to be citing them at all."

    Whether I think that a church in ancient times was corrupt and to what degree it was corrupt are going to vary from one case to another. I've said that your denomination is corrupt, since it is. But I don't make the gratuitous assumption, which you make, that all of the church fathers belonged to your denomination.

    Since Israel was corrupt at the time of Isaiah and other prophets, for example, does that mean that you never cite Isaiah and the other prophets or mention that you agree with them on an issue? You never quote any philosophers, government leaders, or other historical figures who weren't Eastern Orthodox? Do you only quote Eastern Orthodox sources? When you recently quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in a discussion we had about Epiphanius, are you saying that you don't consider Roman Catholicism corrupt? The papacy, for example, isn't a corruption, but instead is an acceptable doctrine? When Roman Catholicism claims to be the one true church, that's not corruption? If Roman Catholicism is corrupt, on the other hand, then why is it acceptable for you to cite Roman Catholic sources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Epiphanius of Salamis, Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth

    Amazon link

    Epiphanius of Salamis, Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth represents a thorough examination of the dispute over the authenticity of five relevant texts of St. Epiphanius between iconoclasts and iconophiles in the 8th/9th century and between modern scholars in the 20th century: i) The postscript of a Letter of Epiphanius to John of Jerusalem; ii) The treatise of Epiphanius ... against those who make images of Christ, the Mother of God, the Angels and the Prophets; iii) The Dogmatic Letter; iv) The Letter to Epiphanius to the Emperor Theodosius; and v) The Will of Epiphanius addressed to the members of his Church. Following a brief introduction to Epiphanius' history, literary works, theology and the dispute over the alleged iconoclastic texts (ch.1), the author provides: an English translation of the above five documents (ch. 2); an analysis of the "Byzantine Controversy," which focuses on the arguments (against authenticity) of St. John Damascene, of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), of St. Nicephorus of Constantinople and of St. Theodore the Studite (ch.3); an analysis of the modern controversy focusing especially on the debate between Karl Holl (for authenticity) and George Ostrogorsky (against authenticity), including the reactions of several scholars (ch. 4); and, finally, a critical evaluation of the arguments for authenticity, which concludes that such arguments "are sufficient to justify their rejection." Fr. Bigham has convincingly argued that Epiphanius's so-called iconophobia, a notion that is present in the popular imagination and in scholarly works for nearly a century, is only a myth ... and, therefore, "the Christian tradition has been and remains fundamentally and essentially iconophile." This reexamination and reevaluation of the critical studies of the recent past is an excellent example of a post-modern criticism of criticism.

    ReplyDelete