Truth Unites - Icon Veneration in the Early Church? Response to Craig Truglia

Episode Date: January 25, 2023

In this video I respond to Craig Truglia on the veneration of icons in the early church. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

A few weeks ago, I put out a video on venerating icons. In this video, I want to interact with some of the responses put up by Craig Truglia. And hopefully maybe if some of these points will come up in other response videos that come out, that could also be productive for those as well. I have five specific points of data that I'll work through. Before diving in, I do want to take a second and just explain two reasons why I want to engage with these. The first is for relationship. man, it is so easy for, in the world of online apologetics, for things to escalate into negativity.

Craig and I had a talk on the phone this week, and we were, you know, we disagree on this topic pretty vigorously, but I think we're both trying to work at it because I think neither of us wants things to escalate into negativity. And unfortunately, that seems to be the norm. I mean, honestly, the world of apologetics, it tends to be that, oh, as the years, I don't know why this is, but sociologically and in terms of human nature, there's some reason for this, I'm sure. But we're very tribal, you know, and it tends to settle into mutual enmity. And that's not, none of us want that. We don't want to, so we're working at it.

So, you know, and the thing is, I'm a realist about this. I understand we're not necessarily all going to be best friends in our different traditions. But even if it's just neutral, you know, and it's not escalating into toxicity, that's a good thing because when we start attacking each other, hating each other, that's bad. Now, sometimes for that to retain that, you have to avoid people. I block people. I stop talking. I sometimes have to say, look, I don't think we should talk anymore about this because sometimes you realize productive dialogue is not going to be possible for whatever reason. But other times, talking helps, you know.

And Craig has expressed a concern that I haven't given his arguments enough consideration. And I've become more aware that he really, I think, you know, is concerned that I haven't kind of engaged with some of the things he said in a dialogue we had a little over a year ago. So I thought maybe it could help to just work through these, just talk through them, you know, and give my take on them. What I'll really try to do here is communicate respectfully so that we don't have any further escalation in terms of where we disagree in terms of it getting negative. But I also want to lay out my concerns and disagreements openly and honestly. And, you know, showing courtesy, see wherever you can, but also not shying away from working through things. That is what I have in mind

when I talk about ironicism, being aiming for peace. It's not an avoidance strategy. It's more, let's argue in the spirit of James 317. I'll put this verse up because it's so good as a target to aim for. Of course, we're all going to fall short in this. So I'm not saying this is what we're all already doing, but this is a great target to aim for. Okay, that's the first reason. The second reason is for those seeking along, seeking the truth about this topic, because Craig has claimed that I'm refusing to engage them, what some people experience this as is, oh, Gavin's not being honest with the data. He's being selective. He's giving a partial presentation of the data. He's only showing what supports his view. And so you find people in the comments saying Gavin's being dishonest. Now, I don't,

I never take that personally. That's just a part of the dynamics. Again, one of those other tough sociological dynamics is the suspicion that comes in, undue suspicion. Man, Satan really gets us with that. When you start being unnecessarily suspicious, that's not good. But that happens in all directions, by the way. I'm not saying this is for one side or the other. This is just human nature. So I don't take that personally.

I totally understand how that is just going to be inevitable for anyone publicly saying anything. I mean, if you say anything about anything in the year 2023, I'm recording this in January, 2003, and you say it publicly, you know, you just look out, you know. But that's fine. That's the way it is. But here's the thing is I just, for the sake of the truth, for the sake of people understanding the honest, because people aren't going to go through and buy Ernst Kitsinger and buy the book by Brubaker and Haldon and Richard Price and read through the acts and so forth. And so if people get this idea that Gavin's misrepresenting the data, that allows them to dismiss me.

and honestly, they're not getting the truth because I am not misrepresenting the scholarship on this. And so I think it's unhelpful if people get that impression. Now, Craig's not said that specifically. So that's what I'm saying right now isn't on Craig so much specifically or directly. It's more just the general, because I think people experience this and they're seeing Craig bring up like, oh, this point from Tertullian or something like this. And Gavin didn't talk about that. So is Gavin being, you know, that's the concern.

But I just want to, so that's why I work through each of these points. But I do want to explain that, again, reiterate this, what I am saying, what I said in my initial video, which I was painstakingly careful to try to be fair in that, is thoroughly conventional in the scholarship. I'm not misrepresenting the scholarship. There is a massive gap between what's just status quo accepted, non-controversial in the scholarship on this, and then the popular level awareness and consciousness of this issue. I quoted Richard Price in my opening video who said the iconoclast claim that reverence toward images did not go back to the golden age of the father.

that's between Nicaa 1 and Chalcedon, still less to the apostles, would be judged by impartial historians today to be simply correct. The iconophile view of the history of Christian thought and devotion was virtually a denial of history. What I pointed out is that is thoroughly standard fare. I referenced the 2021 Brill book, lots of different multi-author edition. The initial essay by Mike Humphreys, long essay, references a scholarly consensus about the emergence of eye-concerns. conventoration in the sixth and seventh century. I referenced the older view by Ernst Kitzinger, Peter Brown, and others that it's sixth century, and then the more recent view by Brubaker and Haldon and others that it's seventh century. So for those who want to say, Gavin, you're

misrepresenting the scholarship, I would like to ask if I am being misleading with the data, then the entire scholarship on this point is being misleading on the data, or at least the mainstream bulk of it. Maybe there's an obscure book here or there. In fact, what I did in my opening video is just work through the data points that are the standard front and center issues in the literature. If you read Robin Jensen, he's got another article and then a contribution to the Brill book, the topics he goes through are almost exactly parallel with the ones I go through. So I'm not trying to like consciously pass over something in no way. I think the reality here is that the five data points that Craig mentioned in our dialogue and some of the other ones he's written about are not mainstores.

And I do not mean that as an insult. Not saying it's not main, I think Craig would probably agree with that. That is not mainstream in the scholarship. I think he'd agree with that. Again, there's this big gap between the scholarship and then what you'll get more in like online apologetics type contexts. And that's not a slight to either. I don't mean to be too, I don't know, like highbrow in referencing the scholarship.

I'll say more about that in a second. But just to be clear, like the scholarship has weaknesses. I've talked about this before, that apologetics and scholarships. scholarship, both have different strengths and weaknesses. Neither realm is entirely good or entirely bad, but they can actually be really good for each other. They can hold each other and check in some ways. So I'm just saying, I think the reason Craig's arguments haven't really come up yet is honestly, it didn't really even occur to me because I was just working through kind of what's front and center in the scholarship, the main issues that are generally at play in this discussion and so forth.

And there really is a gap here. I mean, it's just sort of just obvious, I think, in the scholarship that Icon veneration doesn't go literally back to the apostles. And even so, this is why, you know, most will argue for it as a development. So Roman Catholics typically will use development of doctrine as a way to explain this, sometimes Anglo-Catholics as well. And Eric Yubara had a great Facebook post talking about this. Even some of the top Eastern Orthodox scholars will argue for icon veneration as a kind of doctrinal development. Maybe it's not full-blown John Henry Newman type development, but it's something,

you know. Ed Sachinsky is a fantastic Orthodox scholar. I've interviewed him on my channel. He wrote an article about this. He was gracious enough to send me. He commented on Eric's Post. Great article, really clear, helpful. He's talking about Yaroslav Pelican and the extent to which there can be some degree of development of doctrine, even in Eastern Orthodoxy. So that's sometimes how people will argue. So I'm just trying to explain why Craig's arguments wouldn't really come up. But, having said that, I'm totally happy to address them here. And I'm trying to do this as a courtesy so he doesn't feel like I'm just, because he said I'm refusing, so I don't want him to feel like I, and I'm trying not to be dismissive toward those arguments, but I'll try to just work through them carefully here, okay,

and explain why I don't find them compelling. One last comment before I dive in. When I talk about the scholarship, sometimes people accuse me of making an argument from authority or something like this. I just want to clarify that. That is not true. It depends on how you wield scholarship. It's an argument from authority if you say, here's the scholarship, therefore, case closed. It's not an argument from authority if you say, here's the scholarship. Now let's see why they say that, which is what I did in my opening video. You talk about the scholarship and you work through why. Merely referencing the scholarship and then doing a deep dive in it is not an argument from authority. But I think, by the way, the reason I reference scholarship a lot is not just to like,

I don't know, not to be more academic just for the sake of being academic, but it's because people love to dismiss my scholarship. What I experience a lot, and this again is not Craig himself. I like Craig. God bless Craig. I'm not talking about him right now. But what people do is they dislike what I'm saying and therefore they accuse me of being a bad scholar and of being slip-shod and uncareful, things like this. And the people who say this usually don't have any scholarly credentials themselves. So I find it very odd. And I don't mind good faith criticism, but when you get the sense that someone is just trying to attack you just to have to, you know, to dismiss your argument, you know, that's not. So what I do is I reference a scholarship

to show what I'm saying is just standard fare. It's not about Gavin Ortland. I'm just a tiny person in a large world. I'm just, it's honestly amazing to me because of this gap between the scholarship and the popular level knowledge, when I just regurgitate what is standard consensus, people see me as like the bad guy. And I'm, you know, what I'm saying is, so I'm referencing the scholarship to show this is not just me. That makes it harder for people to just triangulate me and dismiss me. So that's why I do that. Okay. Now let me walk through these five points he made. These are the five data points that he mentioned in the dialogue we had a little over a year ago. He recently put these out again in a, like, a video that had spliced out those sections of the

dialogue, so I just rewatch that and got them all to make sure I get them all. Origin, Turtullian, Eusebius, an inscription in the grotto in Nazareth and Epiphanius. Those are the five data points we'll work through here. Number one is origin. Here's what happens with origin. As I mentioned in my initial video, especially as is evident in his interactions with the pagan critic of Christianity Celsius. He is thoroughly opposed to cultic use of images, and he just makes it very clear. He's just explicit, emphatic, and repeated. As I say, I use the words resounding and unanimous to describe the early church in their rejection of cultic use of images. And he's saying this is the hallmark, this is a hallmark distinctive difference between pagan worship and Christian worship.

But then in Contra-Seltum 820, he speaks of our statues, altars, and temples. So people latch onto that and say, ah, see, he can't be meaning it literally that we don't use any images. And, you know, therefore, Ortland is being misleading and taking him out of context because he's only showing one passage or not the others. Craig has said something like this a couple of times in his response article to Josh Schuping. he quotes this passage and basically says, this is why you can't take these statements at face value when he says we're against images. But all you have to do is just read through the rest of 820. Over and over, the whole point is, and this is clear starting at 817 and then the next two chapters and then into 820, where he is repeatedly explicit that when he speaks of statues, temples,

and altars, these are not literal statues, temples, and altars that Christians use. They're metaphors for prayer, for virtues, for the Christian body. Okay, the temple is the body. He says, Christians are those who regard the spirit of every good man as an altar, from which arises an incense, which is truly and spiritually sweet smelling, namely the prayers ascending from a pure conscience. Statues, Christian statues, as opposed to the pagan statues, the pagan statues are literal statues, but our statues are virtues. Quote, the statues and gifts which are fit offerings to God are the work of no common mechanics, but are wrought and fashioned in us by the word of God, to wit, the virtues in which we imitate the firstborn of all creation, who has set us an example of

justice, of temperance, of courage, of wisdom, of piety, and of the other virtues. These excellences are their statues they raise, in which we are persuaded that it is becoming for us to honor the model and prototype of all statues, the image of the invisible God, God the only begotten. So the contrast here is between the pagan statues and altars, which are literal, and the Christian ones, which are metaphors. Here's another term where he really uses the word altar repeatedly in making this point. Quote, this is from 818, and in general, we see that all Christians strive to raise altars and statues as we have described them, and these not of a lifeless and senseless kind, and not to receive greedy spirits intent upon lifeless things,

but to be filled with the spirit of God, who dwells in the images of virtue of which we have spoken, and takes his abode in the soul, which is conformed to the image of the Creator. Let anyone, therefore, who chooses, compare the altars which I have described with those spoken of by Celsius, and the images in the souls of those who worship the most high God

with the statues of these various pagan people, and he will clearly perceive that while the latter are lifeless things and subject to the ravages of time, the former abide in the immortal spirit as long as the reasonable soul wishes to preserve them. He says the same thing for temples and the Christian body in 819, and then the climactic point of all of this. The whole point in 820 is to say, this is why Christians have rejected literal statues, altars, and temples because we have learned from Jesus Christ to the true way of serving God, and we shrink from whatever under a pretense of piety, leads to utter impiety those who abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ.

So I find it funny when people say I'm being misleading with origin, because it's the exact opposite. Those who want to say origin, well, no, he affirms, he does affirm Christian statues, Christian altars. It's like, no, he's using those as metaphors. So the bottom line, others will want to dismiss origin because they say he's a bad theologian and so forth. But origin is a historical testimony in lockstep with all the other. historical testimonies from the early church that the cultic use of images is a distinctive point of contrast between Christian worship and pagan worship. Second, Eusebius.

Craig brings up Eusebius' Church History 718. I had referenced this passage in my initial video at the 38-minute 14-second marker. It does not support image veneration for two reasons. First, it says nothing about veneration. And second, what it does describe about images and statues is understood by Eusebius. to be a holdover from paganism. He interprets this as basically it's according to the habit of the Gentiles. So he says, I'm not surprised because they're just holding on to a little bit of their former practices. Now, my friend Scott Cooper put up a really good comment on one of Craig's videos

about this. I think it was actually the most recent dialogue spliced clips that he put up. And what he does is he gives four translations of this passage. I'll put up one of them here, the one I have been working with from Philip Schaff. And what he points out is that when the word veneration is never used, and the word honor in the last sentence is used in reference to Peter, Paul, and Christ themselves, not any images of them. And also that it's clearly attributed as a pagan practice. He's just describing this, okay?

This is a church history book. He's describing what happened. He's not saying this is good. In the paragraph just before this, he discusses supposed miracle. by a seducing demon in this same city, which seems to be what prompts him to record this story. So he's not saying this is good, and it has nothing about veneration of icons. Here's how Robin Jensen summarizes this. Eusebius seems troubled by the existence of these portraits,

but assuming they were honored by newly converted pagans, who may not know better, he is not surprised at their existence, nor does he condemn them outright. Elsewhere, Jensen says that the statue of Christ was most likely original, depicting an emperor in the posture of extending clemency, but then later came to be interpreted by Christians as representing Jesus, healing the woman who was hemorrhaging. So there's a couple different things there that are problematic, but let me just stem out to make a more methodological concern about where I would respectfully disagree with Craig's

general argumentative strategy to try to jam icon veneration back into like second, third century this time frame is there's a massive problem with trying to use Christian condemnation of image veneration as supportive evidence when the basis for the condemnation is its associations with paganism. So I think part of the strategy here is to say, oh, well, it's being condemned, therefore it must be in existence. But if it's being condemned as pagan, as a holdover from paganism, or some of the other things I'll get to in a second, it's even worse, then that's not a good support of evidence that this is a Christian practice. Let me reiterate what Eusebius' own position is, which I cited in my original video,

when he's responding to the request from Constancia, Sister of Constantine, her request for a portrait of Christ, and he says, can it be that you have forgotten that passage in which God lays down the law that no likeness should be made either of what is in heaven or what is on the earth beneath? Have you ever heard anything of the kind, either yourself in church or from another person? Are not such things banished and excluded from churches all over the world? And is it not common knowledge that such practices are not permitted to us alone? What I pointed out is that Eusebius is often called the father of church history. He knows the early

church better than anybody. If he's saying it's common knowledge that this is universally condemned, then this is going to result in a problem. If you're trying to use his recording of this as a result of a holdover from paganism in this one particular location to try to say, oh, this actually goes back to the apostles. There's the same methodological concern in some of the other examples that come up in Craig's argumentation. Iranaus and the Acts of John, both of the same thing. They're both condemning it as heathen or pagan.

And the Acts of John itself is a spurious text that itself is Gnostic or quasi-nostic. Brewbreaker and Haldon discussed those two passages, and they say, in both cases, the venerators are condemned as acting like heathen. And that's the same problematic methodology. You're trying to get a positive out of a negative. Christians are condemning icon veneration. And so you're trying to say, well, they're condemning it, therefore it must be there. But you have to look at the nature of their condemnation.

They're condemning it as an encroaching of paganism. This will come up again with Epiphanius a bit later. And, you know, I think this shows why most people don't, why these passages are not really mainstream in the discussion about this topic. Third, tertullian, this is another person that Craig brought up in our dialogue. That's come up in various other places. Perhaps others who will make response videos will engage with him as well. So I'll just make some comments on Turtullian.

This is a little different. He's an interesting figure. Now, one of the things that happens is I'll focus on what I think is the strongest passage in Turtullian for the other side. Some of the passages have nothing to do with veneration. They don't say anything about veneration. For those following along in this debate, let me encourage you to be discerning in this respect,

to be on the lookout for this pivot that happens between iconography and the veneration of iconography. You can't just leap from one to the other without a warrant. But this happens over and over again. It's like clockwork where we'll say there's no veneration of images in the Bible or the early church, and the response relentlessly will be, what about the catacomb paintings, what about the temple iconography? Over and over this mistake is made, but you can't just pivot from icons to venerating icons. Similarly, some of the passages in Tritullian aren't about icons.

So, and this is another one of the pivots you'll see, is from relic veneration to icon veneration, or from the respect or honor given to some other physical object to icon veneration. Now, these are not the same. Many of the iconoclasts in the seventh and eighth centuries and into the ninth century were fine with relics. As I explained to my initial video, icons have a very specific theology associated with them concerning figural representation. So, you know, what is given to the image passes on to the prototype. This is the idea.

So this is a very specific practice. And you can't just, without warrant, pivot from relics to icons back and forth like this. So that addresses some of those other passages in Tritullian that people might want to bring up. But let me address the one that Craig can point to in his book on Identification. idolatry that I think is a, you know, a reasonable point that should be interfaced with here. Everybody admits Tertullian himself is thunderingly against images, but what Craig points out is he notes opposition to his view from people quoting scripture. So here's from chapter 5.

Tratullion says, we will certainly take more pains in answering the excuses of artificers of this kind, who ought never to be admitted into the house of God, if any, have a knowledge of that discipline. They have the hardihood to bring even from the scriptures. Let the church, therefore, stand open to all who are supported by their hands and by their own work. If there is no exception of arts which the discipline of God receives not. But someone says, in opposition to our proposition of similitude being interdicted, Why then did Moses in the desert make a likeness of a serpent out of bronze? And this is a really old-fashioned translation, but hopefully you can see the basic idea that people who are building

he calls, well, he calls them artificers. People who are building statues, for example, are appealing to this, to Scripture, like the serpent with Moses. So Craig writes, what is interesting here is that Tortellian is responding to people who are quoting to him the scriptures. In this, he betrays that his position is not that of the whole church, and that his proposition of similitude has notable opposition. This means there are others with less rigorous stance.

on religious art. Trutalian even exclaims idle artificers are chosen even into the ecclesiastical order. That's from later, two chapters later, on idolatry. Now, I have several points of respectful disagreement. One is that I think there's a lot of reading into the text to say it's notable opposition. By that reasoning, you could say anything that pops up that needs to be addressed, any heresy that is appealing to scripture that needs to be addressed by the early Christians is a notable feature of early Christianity. But that's just a small point. The main thing is that my concern is that it seems to me

that Craig is assuming that Turtullian's opponents were iconophiles. But these are people, not who are wanting to bow down to statues in the context of a Christian worship service. These are people who are building literal statues, literal idols, for their vocation. And Craig talks about that, so I know he's an agreement on that that's, the context here. He can correct me if I misunderstand him on that. But I'm just trying to clarify, I don't think I'm giving him any new information here. I know he knows that. But still, so the

assumption, though, is, you know, and this is, this was a real issue. Hipolitus was another early writer who had to address this. Basically, when you become a Christian, you can't keep building idols. So the notable opposition, which I think is an overstatement, is not from people venerating icons as in the context of Christian worship or in the context of prayer, bowing down to images in a church building. It's not as people whose vocation is to literally build them. And Turtolian saying, you can't do that anymore. So this is a problem that I have, a concern that I have that will come up again is assuming with Epiphanius. And the problem is you can't assume that opposition to the most extreme forms of an iconism must be iconodulia that obviously does

not follow. It's like if on a spectrum, you know, Tertullian is on the far rigorous end of the spectrum. Let's say Tertullian is a 10 and the iconophiles are a one. You can't assume that if you're against the 10, you're a one. You could be a five. You could be a seven. You could be a three on the spectrum. You see what I'm trying to say? There's lots of people who would, I mean, I would disagree with Tertullian and I'm a Baptist. Like Tertullian is way out there. He's extreme. He's against all images. He doesn't even think the bronze servant Bronze serpent was literal in the Old Testament. That's how an iconic he was.

So there's a spectrum of an iconism. So yeah, there's squabbles between people on that spectrum, but that doesn't mean that they're iconophiles. Or if it does mean that, you need some evidence. All right, number four, I'm trying to go quick because I'm squeezing this video in at the end of my day, but I'm not short-circuiting anything. I'm trying to be thorough with my notes here.

Okay, in the grotto in Nazareth. So the enunciation is used to refer to the passages in Luke 1 where Gabriel announces to the Virgin Mary about the birth of Christ. And there's, according to tradition, the location where this occurs, there's a church there, and in the church there's a grotto or a cave. And in that, there are a bunch of different things, but one of them is there's some remains of an inscription on one of the columns. Okay.

Now, Craig referenced this in our dialogue. I didn't know anything about it at that time. so I've done gone, I'm still not an expert on this. I'm not, you're going to see, I'm not trying to claim more knowledge than I have here on this, but I've studied it enough now to give some context, I hope. So basically, here's what Craig says in his article, as recorded by Bigam, that's one of the scholars, at the traditional site of the enunciation under the Byzantine chapel, that is, the location of the original church, a second or third century image of M, likely Mary, contemporary to both Irhenius,

and the Acts of John has an inscription which states that the image was adorned. He translates the Greek verb there. Now, this is misleading. And so I'd like to try without, I'm sure, look, sometimes we, I'm not saying it's intentionally misleading. You know, we all say things that are misleading at times, but I'd like to give a little more context to what the scholarship is on this. What Craig doesn't say in that passage is that even Bigam, who's very sympathetic, to the iconophile cause, in my opinion, way too sympathetic in his judgments to the iconophile

cause, notes that this is simply one possible way of filling in the missing text and interpreting the words here. He gives multiple translations, not just one, though Craig just shares one of them. Here's what Bigam actually writes. I'll put this up if I can find it on, yeah, I can find it. I'll put it up on the screen. He says, an incomplete Greek inscription on a column in the grotto can be interpreted, can be interpreted according to Bagati as an indication of the presence of an image of Mary. Now, Bagotty is the scholar who's basically given us this reconstruction of the text that Biggum is drawing from, and then Craig is drawing from Biggham. I know this gets kind of complicated. And then, so then he shows the words and what Bogati's reconstruction is. And then he says, basically,

he says, you know, they have the letter M, so we're extrapolating and saying maybe that's Mary. that would make a lot of sense. And then he gives two possible translations for the fourth line. A is I arranged well that which suits her, and B, is I adorned well her image. Now, it also doesn't come up in Greg's summary that other scholars will render this phrase very differently without any reference to an image.

My friend Damien Jejitz sent me a couple of pieces of scholarship on this. There's an Italian scholar named RICO. I've not read his whole book. I've just read this section of the book that was sent to me. So again, I'm not claiming I have this all figured out. I'm just trying to share what I've discovered thus far. And then let's let the conversation keep going on this particular point of data. But I'll share with you his translation of the graffito. That word just means an engraving on a wall. And I'll put up this passage from him first where you can pause the video and read it if you

want. He's basically saying he references Bogati and he says that's one possible way to reconstruct the text, but he favors another way. And then I'll put up his translation in the holy place of M, possibly Mary, I wrote, I adorned. There's no references to images in that. Here's another article by a Polish scholar that a friend sent to me, which points out this. The rest of the graffito aroused controversy in the way it was read. Unfortunately, the end of the inscription is damaged. However, it has been supplemented. The reading of Icos, Greek word for image or icon, is not unambiguous because it involves incorrect spelling and a different conceptual scope of this term at the time. Depending on the ICOS translation, the surviving fragment of the inscription was

interpreted, I honored her image, or I honored her as befits. Now, again, I'm not claiming to know. I have no idea what the truth is about this. I'm just trying to give you everybody a fuller picture of the scholarship, because all this ambiguity and all these multiple possibilities are shaved off in, if you just read through this one paragraph on Craig's article, and it makes it sound like, oh, it's just this. This is what it says. It's like, no, what we have is a couple of of words on this column and people are trying to reconstruct what it might have said. Okay. And the other thing that is really important to understand is that the date is not certain. Craig says it's second or third century, but that is not established. Bigam, who himself is way

optimistic about trying to push Iconodulia back, is honest enough to basically say this is just a possibility that it goes back that far. So he, you know, he summarizes a bunch of archaeological points of data, including this one, and then he says, quote, our study has hopefully shown that nothing stands in the way of supposing, that the artistic development that took place in the post-Constantinian centuries has roots that go far back into the pre-Constantinian period. We say supposing because the literature and works of art themselves are so fragmentary on the subject of ancient Christian art that we must limit ourselves to suppositions. So he's just saying this is a supposal.

It could be, you know. So I am not trying to close the door on this. I'm trying to open it and say, let's keep working at it. But in the meantime, I'm really concerned that people get a misleading impression. In fact, this is very ambiguous data, very fragmentary, both in terms of what it says and when it says it. I don't know enough to really have an opinion on it, but I want people to know that's out there, that's being discussed. Okay, last thing I want to talk about is epiphanius. He's a little later than Tertullian.

Well, yeah, later, but I meant to say a little different than Tertullian, and then he's later on, which is why I'm treating him differently or separately, not just clumbing him together. There are some passages in Epiphanius where there's a similar dynamic as with Tertullian, where Epiphanius, like Tertolian, is one of those total rigorists wanting to tear down the images. He's also pretty controversial in how he goes about things. So there's a passage where he talks about how he advised people to tear down images, and he says, not everyone paid attention, in fact, only a few paid attention. So people try to derive a lot out of that, but the thing is it's not clear who he's talking about, how many people he's talking about.

And more importantly, just as with Dertullian, you just can't assume that because people are not listening to Epiphanius's extreme rigorous view, that therefore they're iconophiles. That's the same thing we've already kind of, especially when you look at his sort of bombastic approach at times. But there is another passage in Epiphanius, which is why I need to treat this a little differently. It's a little different here. And this is where, again, it's a fair point that Craig brings up and needs to be commented upon, hence my trying to make this video. Now, I can only find a translation of this in Stephen Biggham, and I'd like to see another translation, but in the meantime, here's the one I can access. Basically, Epiphanius is railing against image veneration on and on, and then he anticipates this response. But you will say to me, the fathers detested the idols of the nations, but we make images of the saints in their memory, and we prostrate ourselves in front of them in their honor.

Precisely by this reasoning, some of you have had the audacity after having plastered a wall inside the Holy House to represent the images of Peter, John, and Paul with various colors, as I can see by the inscriptions written on each of the images which falsely bear the name. image. These inscriptions have been written under the influence of the painter's insanity and according to his twisted way of thinking. And first of all, as for those who believe they are honoring the apostles by doing such things, let them realize that instead of honoring the apostles, they are dishonoring them even more. So again, Epiphanius is, you know, he doesn't leave you to wonder what his view is, you know. But here's a couple of things to comment on this, because Craig's right that, okay, it looks like there's somebody who's talking about venerating images here. Now, this would fit with my historical timeline. Remember, I gave three phases. So Epiphanius is in phase two,

late fourth century. This is where there is a temptation that does need to be addressed, and Epiphanius is doing so. But here's the problem with trying to say, okay, so now we've got proof that icon veneration is happening because Epiphanius is condemning it. The problem with this argument is the whole appeal of Epiphanius' condemnation of Icon veneration is who has ever done this? Let me read to you what he says right before this passage. He says, who among the Holy Fathers ever prostrated himself in front of a representation made by men's hands or allowed his own disciples to prostrate themselves in front of it? Who among the saints, having abandoned the inexhaustible treasure, that is the hope in the knowledge

of God, ever had his portrait painted and ordered people to prostrate themselves? in front of it. This is, of course, contrary to the claims of Nicaa 2, which are saying, no, it does go back to the apostles. Here's what he says a little later. During his time on earth, when did Christ ever give the order to make an image of his likeness, to prostrate oneself in front of it, and to look at it? The order itself comes from the evil one so as to dishonor God. So one of the things you can note is Epiphanius has no sense of this idea that the incarnation somehow changed the rules with respect to the Second Commandment. That's not even on his radar screen as something to address. In fact, he assumes the opposite and asserts the opposite. He says, quote, how can anyone say that God,

incomprehensible, inexpressible, ungraspable by the mind, and incirccribable, can be represented, him whom Moses could not look at? Some people say that since the word of God became man, born from the ever-virgin Mary, we can represent him as man. Did the word become flesh so that you could represent by your hand, the incomprehensible one, by whom all things were made. He also has no awareness of the distinction between veneration and worship. He uses the word prostrate, doesn't seem to even feel a need to defend this or address this. He says, quote, may the gangrene not spread for God in all the Old Testament and the New Testament suppressed these things, saying exactly, you will prostrate yourself in front of the Lord and you will worship him alone. He goes on and on. You can read this

online. You can feel the severity of his concern. He talks about Don't bat on to images of angels. He says this is not the apostolic practice. So my point is this. It's a really weak form of argumentation in my opinion to say, well, it must be condemned, therefore it's happening when the specific condemnation proceeds along the lines of nobody's ever done this before. What that suggests is we have an innovation here starting to be warned against at this time,

but one that does not take root, does not become mainstream. as I pointed out all the way to 600 AD, you see Gregory the Great's counsel as kind of the dominant strand of teaching. Use images for didactic rather than cultic purposes. They're for teaching, but don't adore them. So it's the contrast at that time for Gregory is still like that. So hopefully that helps people kind of follow along with these points in the discussion. Okay, final comment. This is unrelated to Craig, but just I've seen it elsewhere. I thought, hey, I'm making this video. Other people are going to be engaging with this topic. I've seen this in a lot of comments. Totally fair point. So I wanted to address it here, just throw it out here at the

end. What about the Oriental Orthodox? Now, I am absolutely fascinated by these other Eastern traditions. One of my great goals is I'd love to just learn more. If anybody knows an Oriental Orthodox priest or theologian who'd be willing to come on my channel purely for the purposes of dialogue and listening and learning, I would love to do that. If there's somebody who's a menical in their approach, and it would take a respectful approach, because I'm fascinated by these Eastern traditions. I'm not enough of an expert to say, are there differences of nuance? You know, I've heard people say that the Assyrian Church has some differences in how this issue plays out in that context, but I don't know. So here's, but here's the point out, so what I don't

know is, are there little differences of nuance in terms of how this is understood among the Oriental Orthodox icon veneration? Because what people say is, Oh, if this isn't a legitimate practice, why would it develop in a church that isn't yoked to an I see it too, right? So let me address this with a metaphor, and the point of the metaphor is to say, formal division does not preclude common development, common culture, common practice. Suppose that California were to split into three states, Northern California, central California, southern California. So you've got three different states, okay? And then you wait 50 years or you wait 200 years and you look and study all three. Of course it will not be surprising

if they retain lots of similarities of culture, of practice, you know, they're still going to have common trade, they're still going to have common history, common culture, common contact, they're still right next to each other. So this would be basically my way, just to, if people are curious how I address this, to address this point about the development of icon veneration in other Christian traditions, in addition to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and then, of course, the Anglo-Catholics, is just not surprising at all. Because again, as I said, idolatry is the perennial temptation of the people of God, it's ubiquitous in the surrounding pagan cultures, so forth.

So hopefully, I don't know, you know, somebody might be curious about that. All right, I hope this won't give any undue offense to Craig. God bless you, Craig. Let's keep talking, okay? I hope this would be helpful. I think the people who are following along deserve to know that these arguments here are pretty out there. The whole argumentative strategy of trying to say, oh, something's being condemned, even if it's being condemned as pagan, therefore it must be, it's not a good case. It's not a good foundation for saying icon veneration. I think in other videos

that will come out, if other people respond to this, I think that what would be fascinating to get into is development of doctrine. To me, this issue is just a flashpoint. That's a great way to have a test case on how do we understand development of doctrine. That's a really interesting question. I'm not persuaded you can in this. I think it's a U-turn, not a development. But I understand that would be the way to defend it that I think would be a really fruitful conversation to get into. Well, how much can you squeeze in with doctrinal development? That'd be a fascinating discussion to have. All right, hope this is helpful for people watching the video.

I got to sign it off because I got to go hang out with my family. It's the end of the day. God bless you. Thanks for watching. Let me know what you think in the comments. We'll see you next time.