V. Baranov (Novosibirsk). The Theology of Early Iconoclasm as found in St.

John of Damascus’ Apologies // Христианский Восток IV (X) (2002) 23-55

The Theology of Early Iconoclasm as found in St. John of Damascus' Apologies

In the absence of Iconoclastic theological writings prior to the Peuseis of Emperor Constantine V, who reigned from 741 to 775, most scholars believe that he was the one who created Iconoclastic theology, to provide an "ideological background" for his policies which had little to do with theology.[1] Yet a close examination of the Apologies of St. John of Damascus may be the key to unwinding the true source of Iconoclasm. If there existed an iconoclastic theology to which St. John was responding in the beginning of the Controversy, then the assumptions of the primacy of political, or economic, or social reasons for Iconoclasm, on the part of most scholars must be modified, if not rejected.

I will proceed to the task that I set in two steps. First I will present the parallels between the Apologies of St. John of Damascus, the first two of which are dated to the beginning of Iconoclasm in the late 720s – first half of the 730s, and the most important Iconoclastic source – the Horos of the Council of Hiereia, dated to 754. As an intermediary conclusion of step one, I will attempt only to prove the connection between these two sources. As a second step, it will be important to interpret the results of step one, because the demonstration of a plausible connection between the two documents must be put in a wider framework in order to modify our knowledge about early Iconoclasm. On the basis of the parallels, I will propose the hypothesis that the Apologies of St. John of Damascus may contain a refutation of an early Iconoclastic source, which may have been available to St. John of Damascus, and that this early Iconoclastic source could have been later used by the committee preparing the layout of the official Iconoclastic theology for the Council of Hiereia.

Dating the Apologies of St. John of Damascus

Before addressing the problem of the theology of early Iconoclasm, it is necessary to review the approximate date of the Apologetic Treatises against Those Who Calumniate Divine Images (henceforth: Apologies) by St. John of Damascus, since these three treatises constitute the most important sources on the early stage of the Iconoclastic Controversy in which we may find the traces of what may be called "the early" Iconoclastic theology. The adjective "early" needs to be placed in quotation marks for, as we will see, the "early" Iconoclastic theology, in fact, is essentially the same as that theology which is well attested in the later sources and primarily in the Horos of Hiereia. It is precisely this fact (to be demonstrated in what follows) that constitutes the strongest indication of a pre-existent Iconoclastic theology that must have constituted the target of St. John's Apologies.

In the first Apology, St. John of Damascus directs his treatise to the "royal priesthood, together with the good shepherd of Christ's rational flock."[2] It was suggested that the treatise was directed at the Constantinopolitan Church with its head, Patriarch Germanus.[3] If this is so, then the first Apology must have been written before the silentium of 730, when Patriarch Germanus refused to approve the Imperial edict against images and was deposed.[4] Bonifatius Kotter, the editor of the critical edition of the Apologies, proposes another chronology, based on V. Grumel's general assumption that the "good shepherd," mentioned by St. John, is Patriarch John of Jerusalem (705-735), at that time the bishop of St. John of Damascus.[5] However, whether the first Apology was dedicated to the community of Constantinople or to that of Jerusalem, the difference between the datations will only be several years and the Apologies testify to the positions held at the initial stages of Iconoclasm. Moreover, we know that the first Apology is certainly earlier than the second one, since at the beginning of the second Apology, St. John of Damascus thus justifies his decision to write the second treatise: "some of the children of the Church advised me to do this because the first one was not completely understandable for many."[6]

The present day general conviction is that there is little, if any, evidence that the Apologies of John of Damascus were known in Constantinople,[7] and, if so, the Iconoclasts must have known about St. John's staunch Iconodulic position most likely indirectly and not from his own writings. However, their special hatred of John of Damascus, expressed in four anathemas pronounced against him by the Iconoclastic Council of Hiereia, as opposed to one anathema against other Iconodulic champions, like Patriarch Germanus, or George of Cyprus, demonstrates that their attitude toward him was not of an abstract nature.[8]

In the Apologies of St. John of Damascus there are indications pointing to the polemics against certain Iconoclastic doctrines: the first two Apologies are of special interest, since they testify to the earliest stages of the Controversy. The comparison of the Apologies with later texts may show that St. John of Damascus argued there against the positions which are attested to have been held by the later Iconoclasts of the time of Constantine V after St. John's death. This may presuppose the existence of some early non-extant Iconoclastic source used both by St. John of Damascus for its refutation in the Apologies, and by the bishops of the Council of Hiereia, possibly by the mediation of the Peuseis of Emperor Constantine V, who seems to have held a special animosity towards St. John of Damascus.[9]

In many places in the Apologies, St. John introduces his argument with a reference to the doctrines propagated by certain people.[10] Even though the Apologies are, indeed, polemical tracts and although these expressions may possibly be a mere rhetorical device, several doctrinal positions which are consonant with later sources can be safely deduced from the Apologies. From this fact we may draw the conclusion that these positions were held by the Iconoclasts before the articulated Iconoclastic theology of the time of the zenith of Constantine V's reign, in the 750s.

There are several levels of similarity between the Apologies and later Iconoclastic sources (the Peuseis and the Horos of Hiereia); sometimes it is possible to show a textual similarity, sometimes a similarity in theological questions asked with deliberately, as I argue, different answers, and, finally, the same Scriptural passages discussed by both sides. In the following, I will attempt to address certain positions of the Horos and then to show the parallels in the earlier writings of St. John of Damascus.

An Early Iconoclastic Florilegium? First Parallel

Alexander Alexakis in his recent thorough comparative research on the Iconodulic florilegia came to the conclusion that a florilegium or florilegia in favour of images must have existed from the very outbreak of the controversy in the late 720s.[11] The role which Patristic testimonies played in theological debates, especially after the sixth century, is well known.[12] In the following, I will present additional arguments to the hypothesis of the existence of a similar florilegium of Patristic citations against images from the same early period.

In the first Apology, St. John of Damascus explicitly refers to a certain text attributed by his unnamed Iconoclastic adversary to St. Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus,[13] evidently one of the texts which was later included in the florilegia of Constantine V's Peuseis, of the Council of Hiereia,[14] and of the Council of Saint Sophia.[15] In the second Apology, St. John refers to a Scriptural florilegium as well.[16] Moreover, it is possible to argue that the traces of such Scriptural part of an early Iconoclastic florilegium may be found in the Apologies of St. John of Damascus: out of ten Scriptural quotations from the Iconoclastic florilegium of Hiereia, six are used and refuted in the Apologies, and one more is clearly discussed there without direct quoting. Here is the list of corresponding places where the same Scriptural quotations are used in the Apologies and in the florilegium of the Council of Hiereia.

Citation	Apologies[17]	Horos of Hiereia
John 1, 18	Apology II, 7, 37f.; Apology III, 18, 8f; Apology III, 26, 27f.	Mansi 13, 280DE
John 4, 24	Apology III, 118, 4f.	Mansi 13, 280E
John 5, 37	Apology I, 7, 3; Apology I, 8, 27f.	Mansi 13, 280DE
Rom. 1, 25	Apology I, 4, 54f.; Apology I, 6, 1f; Apology II, 8, 17f; Apology II, 9, 21f., and 25f.	Mansi 13, 285BC
Rom. 10, 17	Cf. Apology I, 17, 3f.	Mansi 13, 285BC
Deut. 4, 12	Apology I, 5, 22f.	Mansi 13, 284C
Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8	Apology I, 58, 9-12; Cf. Apology III, 84, 11f. Apology I, 4, 7f.; Apology I, 5, 5f.; Apology II, 7, 3f.; Apology II, 9, 1f; Apology II, 9, 20.	Mansi 13, 284C

If we attempt at further analysis of the occurrences of these overlapping Scriptural quotations in the Apologies, [18] the most striking observation will be that in all three treatises the quotations are concentrated predominantly in a small part of the whole text, namely, in a cluster of 5 chapters out of 27 chapters of the first Apology (according to Kotter’s critical edition); in 3 chapters out of 23 of the second Apology, and in 6 chapters[19] out of 42 of the third Apology:

Apology I, 4, 7f. Apology I, 4, 54f. Apology I, 5, 5f; cf. Apology I, 20, 13. Apology I, 5, 22f. Apology I, 6, 1f. Apology I, 7, 3. Apology I, 8, 27f.	Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Rom. 1, 25 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Deut. 4, 12 Rom. 1, 25 John 5, 37 John 5, 37
Apology II, 7, 3f. Apology II, 7, 37f. Apology II, 8, 17f. Apology II, 9, 1f. Apology II, 9, 20. Apology II, 9, 21f., and 25f.	Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 John 1, 18 Rom. 1, 25 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Rom. 1, 25
Apology III, 4, 3f. Apology III, 4, 37f. Apology III, 5, 17f. Apology III, 6, 7f. Apology III, 6, 54f. Apology III, 7, 5f. Apology III, 7, 22f. Apology III, 8, 27f. Apology III, 9, 1f. Apology III, 9, 20. Apology III, 9, 21, 25f. Apology III, 18, 8f. Apology III, 26, 27f.	Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 John 1, 18 Rom. 1, 25 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Rom. 1, 25 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Deut. 4, 12 John. 5, 37 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Exod. 20, 4/ Deut. 5, 8 Rom. 1, 25 John 1, 18 John 1, 18

If St. John of Damascus had written his anti-Iconoclastic Apologies without any reference to an Iconoclastic florilegium, it is very likely that the Scriptural quotations would have been spread more or less evenly throughout the whole treatise. However, the density of the quotations in limited parts of the Apologies may suggest that St. John of Damascus had an early Iconoclastic Scriptural florilegium in front of his eyes, used the quotations from it, and refuted the Iconoclastic usage of them as proof-texts against icons in a few subsequent chapters of his Apologies, or – a weaker hypothesis – the quotations had been already collected in an anti-Iconoclastic text that St. John of Damascus read and knew.

Certainly, we may look back to the Judeo-Christian polemics in the previous century where the image question occupied considerable attention of the polemists. In the polemical treatises such Scriptural quotations might have been collected and used in a subsequent century.[20] Yet the examination of the Scriptural evidence which the Jewish side adduces from the chapter on images from the Trophies of Damascus shows that none of the quotations from Hiereia appears there.[21] In another tract, the Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew, only one quote, namely the text of the Second Commandment from Ex. 20, 4/Dt 5, 8 (in a bit wider citation of Ex 20, 2-Ex 20, 4/ Dt 5, 6-Dt 5, 8) can be found cited by the Jewish side which overlaps with the florilegium of Hiereia.[22] However, the prominence of the New Testament Scriptural citations in the Horos of Hiereia most likely points to an independent elaboration of an Iconoclastic florilegium since such quotations were very unlikely to have been cited in favour of aniconic worship by the Jewish side in the debates of the sixth-seventh centuries.

Vision against Hearing, Second Parallel

Although the Scriptural quote from Rom. 10, 17 ("Faith is from hearing, and hearing is through the word of God"), which is present in the florilegium of Hiereia as applied to the refutation of icons,[23] is not found in the Apologies in its original form, there is a clear allusion to it in the first Apology. As if refuting the Iconoclastic use of the Scriptural quote, John of Damascus argues thus:

And everywhere we set in a sensible manner the image of Him, I mean, of the Incarnated God the Word, and we sanctify the first of the senses (for the first of the senses is sight) in the same way as hearing is sanctified by words: for the icon is a reminder. And what the book is for those who are initiated into letters, that is the icon for the illiterate, and what is word for hearing, that is the icon for sight: we become unified with it in an intelligible manner.

Kai\ ai)sqhtw=j to\n au)tou= carakth=ra tou= sarkwqe/ntoj fhmi\ qeou= lo/gou proti/qemen a(pantach= kai\ th\n prw/thn a(giazo/meqa tw=n ai)sqh/sewn (prw/th ga\r ai)sqh/sewn o(/rasij) w(/sper kai\ toi=j lo/goij th\n a)koh/n:[24] u(po/mnhma ga/r e)stin h( ei)kw/n. Kai\ o(/per toi=j gra/mmata memuhme/noij h( bi/bloj, tou=to toi=j a)gramma/toij h( ei)kw/n: kai\ o(/per th=| a)koh=| o( lo/goj, tou=to th=| o(ra/sei h( ei)kw/n: nohtw=j de\ au)tw=| e(nou/meqa.[25]

In this polemical passage John of Damascus makes a clear allusion to Rom. 10:17. In all likelihood this Scriptural passage in the late 720s circulated among the Iconoclasts as a foundation for the denigration of sight as the principle of sense-perception of images and promotion of hearing. The quote from the Epistle to the Romans highlights the importance that the Iconoclasts placed on hearing as opposed to sight (or, accordingly, on discourse as opposed to image). This importance is further manifested in the second fragment of the last Iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus (837-843), edited by J. Gouillard from the anonymous refutation of his three fragments contained in the manuscript Scorialensis Y-II-7 (fols. 200-206v).[26]

It is impossible to characterise a concrete man by a concept unless by an explanation through words, by means of which one can comprehend and define each being. For the proper accidents of a concrete being by which it has been separated from those belonging to the same species and, in another manner, communicates to those [who belong to different species], do not contribute in any manner and in any aspect to the perception of sight. For one cannot derive one's race or mark one's country, the certain kind of profession one spends time with, the sort of company one keeps, and of the rest of the ways of conduct, be they praiseworthy or reproachable, are not known except by means of concepts coming from words, whereas it is impossible to truly distinguish a certain individual by means of some images.

)Amh/cano/n e)sti to/n tina a)/nqrwpon e)pinoi/a| tini\ carakthri/zesqai <ei)> mh\ th=| e)k lo/gwn u(fhgh/sei, di' h(=j e)/sti tw=n o)/ntwn e(/kaston o(ristikw=j kateilhfe/nai. Ta\ ga\r i)dia/zonta tou= tinoj sumbebhko/ta di' w(=n tw=n o(moeidw=n a)fe/sthke kai\ toi=j e)kei/noij e(te/rwj[27] kekoinw/nhken, ou)damw=j th=| th=j o)/yewj katalh/yei kat' ou)de\n a)nu/simon u(pa/rcei. Ou) ga\r ei) tou=de tino\j kata/getai to\ ge/noj h)\ th\n pa/tran i)di/an e)pigra/fetai, th\n poi/an metiw\n te/cnhn diatribh/n te, poi/aj kai\ e(tairei/aj eu)moirei= kai\ th=j loiph=j tw=n tro/pwn a)gwgh=j, di' h(=j e)paineto\j h)\ e)pi/yogoj crhmati/zoi di' e)pinoi/aj h(stinosou=n h)\ th=j e)k lo/gwn e)pignwst […] e)/stai, w(/ste to/n tina a)/nqrwpon ei)konismoi=j tisi diaginw/skein a)lhqw=j a)du/naton.[28]

According to the argument of Patriarch John the Grammarian, the precise identification of a certain person within the same species (Paul, John, etc. – that is, "hypostases" in the theological language) can be provided only by means of words, of a description which would separate the individual from other members of the same species on the basis of his particular characteristics (as that person's country, lineage or way of conduct). For such purpose image as the only means of identification is inefficient – in other words, looking at the image, one cannot be sure that this or that particular person is depicted.

J. Gouillard, the editor of the fragments by the Iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus, noticed certain traces of Evagrian vocabulary in the first fragment.[29] And it is in the writings of Evagrius of Pontos that we may find a clue to the Iconoclastic preference of hearing to sight. Evagrius distinguishes between representations, which come into mind by means of different faculties. According to Evagrius, vision is useless in rendering the contemplative (and, consequently, ultimately more genuine in the theological system of Evagrius) reality, since vision only provides the human mind with representations (noh/mata) in forms, only suitable for sensible reality. Hearing, however, may be preferred over vision: it may render contemplative reality along with the sensible one, since by hearing intellect can receive formless representations:

There are four ways through which the intellect receives representations: the first way is through the eyes, the second – through hearing, the third – through memory, the fourth – through the temperament. By the eyes, [the intellect] receives only those representations which provide a form; by hearing – both those which provide a form and those which do not, for both sensible reality and contemplatable reality are signified by the word. But the memory and the temperament follow hearing, for each of them can provide the intellect with forms and without forms, thus imitating the hearing.

Te/ssarej tro/poi ei)si\ di' w(=n o( nou=j lamba/nei noh/mata: kai\ prw=toj me\n tro/poj, o( dia\ tw=n o)fqalmw=n: deu/teroj, o( dia\ th=j a)koh=j: tri/toj, o( dia\ th=j mnh/mhj: te/tartoj, o( dia\ th=j kra/sewj: kai\ dia\ me\n tw=n o)fqalmw=n, morfou=nta mo/non lamba/nei noh/mata: dia\ de\ th=j a)koh=j, kai\ morfou=nta kai\ mh\ morfou=nta, tw=| to\n lo/gon shmai/nein pra/gmata ai)sqhta\ kai\ qewrhta/: h( de\ mnh/mh kai\ h( kra/sij a)kolouqou=si th=| a)koh=|: e(ka/tera ga\r morfou=si to\n nou=n kai\ ou) morfou=si mimou/mena th\n a)koh/n.[30]

This notion has parallels to Origen's epistemology, in which vision relates to the corporeal and necessarily provisional state and cannot convey true knowledge, which pertains to the timeless and incorporeal divinity.[31] Unfortunately, the fragment of Patriarch John Grammaticus speaks only about a definition of a concrete person and does not speak about general principles of Iconoclastic epistemology (though indeed, a certain epistemological approach is implied in the fragment). However, the notion of the impossibility of conveying a true definition by material representations (perceived by vision) but solely by discourse (perceived through hearing) might have been an application of the Origen's doctrine concerning knowledge of the divine as opposed to vision of the corporeals. St. John of Damascus replies to this, pinpointing the essence of the debate: in venerating an icon, there is no opposition between the sensible and the intelligible, "as the word is for hearing, the icon is for sight: we become unified with it in an intellectual manner (nohtw=j de\ au)tw=| e(nou/meqa)."[32]

Matter and "High and Immaterial" Contemplation. Third Parallel

The opposition between the sensitive and the intellectual is further combated by St. John of Damascus in his defence of matter, the ultimate basis of sensible reality. St. John of Damascus is known as one of the staunchest defenders of the doctrine of the deification of matter, the teaching that allowed the placing of an artificial icon in parallel to Christ's flesh connected with the Word in the hypostatical union, for both the icon and Christ's flesh are constituted of matter. In several places St. John rebukes those who deny the value of matter for salvation. Writing on the Old Testament Tabernacle, a common Iconodulic pre-figuration for artificial images, St. John argues thus with his Iconoclastic interlocutor: "Ou)k e)x a)ti/mou, w(j su\ fh/j, u/(lhj kataskeuasme/na,"[33] "mh\ ka/kize th\n u(/lhn: ou) ga\r a)/timoj."[34] And then St. John proceeds to the theological justification of his high esteem of matter:

I do not worship matter, I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake and accepted to dwell in matter and who accomplished my salvation by matter. I will not cease to honour matter by which my salvation has been accomplished.

Ou) proskunw= th=| u(/lh|, proskunw= de\ to\n th=j u(/lhj dhmiourgo/n, to\n u(/lhn di' e)me\ geno/menon kai\ e)n u(/lh| katoikh=sai katadexa/menon kai\ di' u(/lhj th\n swthri/an mou e)rgasa/menon, kai\ se/bwn ou) pau/somai th\n u(/lhn, di' h(=j h( swthri/a mou ei)rgastai.[35]

Is it possible to reconstruct the theology of St. John's adversary towards matter? Was it really the Manichaean view on matter as an evil principle, the view which was always associated with Iconoclastic rejection of material representations in all the Iconodulic writers, including St. John himself?[36] I think we should rather give a negative answer. In fact, John of Damascus even seems to testify to the doctrine presupposed by the rejection of images by his adversary. This doctrine is a kind of Christian Platonist teaching of a purely mental approach to the divinity:

If you say that one should unite with God in a purely intellectual manner, remove all corporeal things: lights, fragrant incense, the very prayer which [comes] from voice, all the divine mysteries which are celebrated from matter, the bread, the wine, the anointing with oil, the imprint of the Cross. All these are matter: the Cross, the sponge and the reed, the spear which pierced the life-giving side… Perhaps you, being high and immaterial, raised above the body, and, so to say, incorporeal, spit on all visible things, but since I am a man and wear a body, I desire to have intercourse with, and to see the holy things in a corporeal manner. Condescend to the humbleness of my thought, oh high one, so that you [may] maintain your height!

E„ de\ crÁnai le/goij noerîj mÒnon qeù sun£ptesqai, ¥nele p£nta t¦ swmatik£, t¦ fîta, tÕ eu)îdej qum…ama, aÙt¾n t¾n di¦ fwnÁj proseuc»n, aÙt¦ t¦ e)x Ûlhj teloÚmena qe‹a must»ria, tÕn ¥rton, tÕn oi)=non, tÕ tÁj cr…sewj e)/laion, toà stauroà tÕ e)ktÚpwma. Taàta g¦r p£nta Ûlh: Ð staurÒj, Ð spÒggoj kaˆ k£lamoj, ¹ t¾n zwhfÒron pleur¦n nÚxasa lÒgch... SÝ tucÕn ØyhlÒj te kaˆ ¥uloj kaˆ Øpe\r tÕ sîma genÒmenoj kaˆ oŒon ¥sarkoj kataptÚeij p©n tÕ Ðrèmenon, ¢ll' e)gè, e)peˆ ¥nqrwpÒj e„mi kaˆ sîma per…keimai, poqî kaˆ swmatikîj Ðmile‹n kaˆ Ðr©n t¦ ¤gia. Sugkat£bhqi tù tapeinù mou fron»mati, Ð ØyhlÒj, †na sou thr»sVj tÕ ØyhlÒn. [37]

However, this is only what an Iconodule says about an Iconoclast. If we extract the indications of the "wrong" theology from John of Damascus's scholion, we receive the following picture: 1) the adversary exhorts to connect with God in an intelligible manner, 2) he somehow has a negative attitude toward matter, and, finally 3) he is called "high" and "immaterial." Now what do the Iconoclasts say themselves concerning matter? Their attitude towards matter is thus expressed in the Horos of Hiereia:

[…] they [the Emperors] called together the entire sacerdotal congregation of God-loving bishops, in order that, after they gathered together into a council, and after they searched the Scriptures together concerning the fraudulent painting of likenesses which draws down the mind of men from the lofty worship befitting God to down-to-earth and material worship of creatures[…]

pa=san th\n ƒeratikh\n sunekale/santo tw=n qeofi/lwn e)pisko/pwn o(mh/gurin, o(/pwj sunodikw=j e)pi\ to\ au)to\ genome/nh grafikh/n te suzh/thsin poihsame/nh peri\ th=j a)pathlh=j tw=n o(moiwma/twn crwmatourgi/aj th=j kataspw/shj e)k th=j u(yhlh=j kai\ qew=| prepou/shj latrei/aj ei)j th\n camai/zhlon kai\ u(likh\n ktismalatrei/an […].[38]

If we compare this statement with the scholion of John of Damascus, we will find an even more complete correspondence: the Council 1) denigrates the representations made by means of matter; 2) the Council calls to the worship of God in intellect, and 3) it considers only such "immaterial and intellectual" worship as high and befitting God. The same attitude of the Iconoclasts towards matter is expressed in other passages of the Horos of Hiereia:

If anyone attempts to perceive the divine character of God the Word according to his Incarnation by means of material pigments and not to worship wholeheartedly with the eyes of the intellect Him who, above the brightness of the sun, has sat on the right hand of God on the throne of glory, let him be anathema!

Ei)/ tij to\n qei=on tou= qeou= lo/gou carakth=ra kata\ th\n sa/rkwsin di' u(likw=n crwma/twn e)pithdeu/ei katanoh=sai kai\ mh\ e)x o(/lhj kardi/aj proskunh=| au)to\n o)/mmasi noeroi=j u(pe\r th\n lampro/thta tou= h(li/ou e)k dexiw=n tou= qeou= e)n u(yi/stoij e)pi\ qro/nou do/xhj kaqh/menon, a)na/qema.[39]

The Council of Hiereia reconfirmed this doctrine, in a series of acclamations, as was the usual practise of closing the Council. Among the praises of Iconoclastic Emperors' Orthodoxy and wishes of many years to them, one acclamation especially deserves attention, since it summarises in one statement the whole Iconoclastic soteriology and clearly explains the Iconoclastic attitude toward material representations, showing that Hiereia was in full accordance with the position which John of Damascus mocked. Now the Iconoclasts themselves contrast the perception of God by means of material representations with a "correct" veneration in an imageless, or "intellectual" manner:

We all believe rightly! We venerate in an intellectual manner bringing worship to the intellectual divinity! This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox people. This is the way all of them have venerated and adored God!

Pa/ntej o)rqodo/xwj pisteu/omen. Pa/ntwj noerw=j th=| noera=| qeo/thti latreu/ontej proskunou=men. Au(/th h( pi/stij tw=n a)posto/lwn, au(/th h( pi/stij tw=n pate/rwn, au(/th h( pi/stij tw=n o)rqodo/xwn. Ou(/tw pa/ntej latreu/ontej tw=| qew=| proseku/noun.[40]

Probably the Iconoclasts meant this character of worship when they included the quote in their Scriptural florilegium: "God is spirit and those who venerate Him, must venerate Him in spirit and truth" (John 4: 24).[41] Daniel Sahas in his translation of the Sixth Session of the Council adopts the parallelism and thus renders the Iconoclastic acclamation: "When we worship God who is spirit, we all offer our veneration in spirit."[42] The translation of Stephen Gero is similar: "We all worship in a spiritual manner, serving a spiritual Godhead."[43] Unfortunately both translations miss a very important point: "in an intellectual manner (noerw=j)" is explicitly connected with "intellect (nou=j)" and it is to this imageless worship in the intellect (rather than in the "spirit" of the translations) that the Iconoclasts appeal.

By What Is an Icon Sanctified? Fourth Parallel

An interesting parallel may be noticed between the Apologies and the Horos of Hiereia concerning the question of the icons' "holiness." The Horos emphasises how "falsely called icons" (which remain in the realm of "profane" things, since they have not been consecrated by a priest in any liturgical rite) are opposed to the Eucharist, the true icon of Christ's body consecrated in Liturgical anaphora which is handed down by the authority of the Apostles (for example the Liturgy of the Apostles or of St. James) or by the authority of such Holy Fathers as St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil of Caesarea:

The bad name of the falsely called icons does not have any existence either by the tradition of Christ, or the Apostles, or the Fathers; there is no sacred prayer which consecrates it in order to transpose it from the realm of the profane to the realm of the sacred, but it remains profane and worthless, as the painter fabricated it.

(H de\ tw=n yeudwnu/mwn ei)ko/nwn kakwnumi/a ou)/te ek) parado/sewj Cristou= h)\ a)posto/lwn h)\ pate/rwn to\ ei)=nai e)/cei, ou)/te eu)ch\n i(era\n a(gia/zousan au)th/n, i(/n' e)k tou/tou pro\j to\ a(/gion e)k tou= koinou= metenecqh=|, a)lla\ me/nei koinh\ kai\ a)/timoj, w(j a)ph/rtisen au)th\n o( zwgra/foj.[44]

As if combating this position, St. John of Damascus argues that icons are holy things since they have foundation in the tradition of the Church, and are, indeed, sanctified by the name of the person depicted on each one:

…by the Ecclesiastical traditions, give way to the veneration of icons sanctified by the name of God and of God's friends, and, through that, overshadowed by the grace of the Spirit of God.

... paracw/rei th|= e)kklhsiastikh|= parado/sei kai\ th\n tw=n ei)ko/nwn prosku/nhsin qeou= kai\ fi/lwn qeou= o)no/mati a(giazome/nwn kai\ dia\ tou=to qei/on pneu/matoj e)piskiazome/nwn ca/riti.[45]

"Motionless Idols": Fifth Parallel

Before analysing another parallel between the early Apology of St. John of Damascus and the fragment by the last Iconoclastic Patriarch almost one century later in detail, it should be noted that, like in many other places, we cannot escape the feeling of déjà vu – and indeed, almost every point from the fragment of John Grammaticus’ argument is touched upon in the much earlier third Apology of St. John of Damascus. Without analysing in detail the contents of the fragment, it will suffice simply to indicate the textual parallel and it is thus worth presenting here the third fragment by the Iconoclastic Patriarch in its entirety:

However, we cannot even simply and in general examine man, if we do not use the same method.[46] For if man is defined as a rational mortal being, receptive of intellect and knowledge,[47] how is it possible to entrust soulless and motionless things with [the task of] demonstrating living motion, by which all that pertains to rationality has been enabled to be as it is[48] by God the Creator?! Thus, according to logic, the worshippers of the Word cannot call this colour-made monstrosity “mortal,” nor can they say that it is receptive of any intellect and knowledge […].

a)ll' ou)de\ a(plw=j kai\ kaqo/lou a)/nqrwpon e)no/n e)sti periskopei=n mh\ th=| au)th=| kecrhme/non meqo/dw|. Ei) ga\r au)to\n o(riou=ntai tw=| <<o)\n logiko\n qnhto\n nou= kai\ e)pisth/mhj dektiko/n,>> pw=j oi(=o/n te/ e)stin e)/rgoij a)yu/coij kai\ a)kinh/toij e)mpisteu/ein paradeiknu/nai th\n zwtikh\n ki/nhsin, u(f' h(=j katallhlo/teron ta\ th=j logiko/thtoj para\ tou= dhmiourgh/santoj Qeou= to\ ou(/twj e)/cein dedu/nhtai. Tau/th de/ ge kata\ to\ a)ko/louqon ou)/te qnhto\n ei)ko/twj prosagoreu/oito, a)ll'ou)de\ nou= tinoj h)\ e)pisth/mhj dektiko\n to\ crwmatourgiko\n tera/stion a)pokaloi=to toi=j Lo/gou proskunhtai=j. [...] toi/nun kat' ou)de\n a)fwmoiwme/na tisi [...] eik[...] pw=j a)/n kai\ ei)=en; [49]

John Grammaticus gives the general definition of man on the basis of the Aristotelian definition as a “rational mortal being, receptive of intellect and knowledge” and concludes that by means of “motionless” icons deprived of rationality, one cannot convey the essence of the depicted person to the beholder, and, thus, the icons are false as such. This argument is based on the assumption that the true image should render the essential qualities of its prototype or possess the quality of consubstantiality, which the Iconoclasts agreed to grant to only one “true image” – the Eucharist. As if refuting this argument, St. John thus gives his general definition of an icon:

In any case, the image is not like the prototype (i. e. that which is represented) in all respects – for one thing is the image and another is that which is represented – and certainly one sees a difference in them, given that the two are different from each other. I am saying the following: the image of a man, even if it bears the imprint of the bodily features, does not have the psychic powers, for it is not alive, nor does it reason, nor utter a sound, nor does it sense, nor move a limb.

p£ntwj de\ oÙ kat¦ p£nta e)/oiken ¹ e„kën tù prwtotÚpJ toute/sti tù e„konizome/nJ -- ¥llo g£r e)stin ¹ e„kën kaˆ ¥llo tÕ e„konizÒmenon -- kaˆ p£ntwj Ðr©tai e/n aÙto‹j diafor£, e)peˆ [oÙk][50] ¥llo toàto kaˆ ¥llo e)ke‹no. OŒÒn ti le/gw·: (H e„kën toà ¢nqrèpou, e„ kaˆ tÕn caraktÁra e)ktupo‹ toà sèmatoj, ¢ll¦ t¦j yucik¦j dun£meij oÙk e)cei:· oÜte g¦r zÍ oÜte log…zetai oÜte fqe/ggetai oÜte a„sq£netai oÜte me/loj kine‹.[51]

St. John of Damascus stresses (as if against the Iconoclastic doctrine of full congruency of an image’s and its prototype’s qualities) that, along with the similarities, an icon is necessarily dissimilar to its prototype in some aspect. After that St. John as if agreeing first with the main point of John Grammaticus’ argument that the icon depicts the external bodily features of a person and indeed does not have a soul and its activity, enumerates the differences of an image from the actual person; the image “does not have psychic powers, for it is not alive, nor does it speak nor sense not move a limb (t¦j yucik¦j dun£meij oÙk e/)cei:· oÜte g¦r zÍ oÜte log…zetai oÜte fqe/ggetai oÜte a„sq£netai oÜte me/loj kinei=).

This passage corresponds almost word by word to John Grammaticus’ argument that “if man is defined as a rational mortal being, receptive of intellect and knowledge, how is it possible to entrust soulless and motionless things with [the task of] demonstrating living motion… (Ei) ga\r au)to\n o(riou=ntai tw=| <<o)\n logiko\n qnhto\n nou= kai\ e)pisth/mhj dektiko/n,>> pw=j oi(=o/n te/ e)stin e)/rgoij a)yu/coij kai\ a)kinh/toij e)mpisteu/ein paradeiknu/nai th\n zwtikh\n ki/nhsin). John Grammaticus' "living movement," zwtiko\j ki/nhsij, can be identified with the human soul, since it is based upon the argument on the immortality of soul from Plato's Phaedrus where the soul is defined in terms of life and movement.[52] St. John of Damascus’ t¦j yucik¦j dun£meij oÙk e/)cei and oÜte me/loj kinei= corresponds to pw=j oi(=o/n te/ e)stin e)/rgoij a)yu/coij kai\ a)kinh/toij e)mpisteu/ein paradeiknu/nai th\n zwtikh\n ki/nhsin from John Grammaticus; whereas St. John of Damascus’ oÜte g¦r zÍ oÜte log…zetai corresponds to o))\n logiko\n qnhto\n of John Grammaticus. Moreover, if we take into account that in the original Aristotelian definition, man is classified as an “animated being (tÕ zùon),” and in this form the argument on the inadequacy of pictorial representations might have been seen by St. John of Damascus, we obtain a full correspondence with St. John of Damascus’ “nor does it live (oÜte g¦r zÍ).”

Gospels for the Iconoclasts and Liturgical Imagery in the Apologies: Sixth Parallel

Another precursor of the later polemics can be found in the examples which John of Damascus applied for his "hymn of matter" contained in the sixteenth chapter of his first Apology. We shall see that St. John's choice of examples, otherwise arbitrary, was, as a matter of fact, determined by a common liturgical context. In that passage John of Damascus used images of the Cross, the Book of Gospels and the Eucharist. Many contemporary sources too point out to them as a common ground for both the Iconodules and Iconoclasts.[53]

The emphasis that the Iconoclasts of the time of Hiereia put on the Eucharist as a true image of Christ's Incarnation is well known.[54] We may argue, however, that one can reconstruct from the text of St. John of Damascus the liturgical imagery which the early Iconoclasts considered legitimate. His apology for matter contains a long list of venerable material objects:

Is not matter the august and holy mount, the Place of the Skull? Is not matter the life-giving rock, the holy tomb, the source of our resurrection? Is not matter the ink and parchment of the Gospels? Is not matter the life-creating table providing for us the bread of life? Is not matter the gold and silver from which crosses and vessels are made? Is not matter above all those the body and blood of my Lord?

)=H ou)c u(/lh to\ tou= staurou= xu/lon to\ triso/lbio/n te kai\ trismaka/riston; )=H ou)c u(/lh to\ o))/roj to\ septo\n kai\ a(/gion, o( tou= krani/ou to/poj; )=H ou)c u(/lh h( zwhfo/roj pe/tra, o( ta/foj o( a(/gioj, h( phgh\ th=j h(mw=n a)nasta/sewj; )=H ou)c u)/lh to\ me/lan kai\ ta\ eu)aggeli/wn de/rmata; )=H ou)c u(/lh h( zwopoio\j tra/peza h( to\n a)/rton h(mi=n th=j zwh=j corhgou=sa; =)H ou)c u(/lh o( cruso\j te kai\ o( a)/rguroj, e)x w(=n stauroi/ te kai\ pi/nakej a(/gioi kataskeua/zontai kai\ poth/ria; )=H ou)c u(/lh pro\ tou/twn a(pa/ntwn to\ tou= kuri/ou mou sw=ma kai\ ai(=ma;[55]

Comparing the examples provided by St. John with a contemporaneous source, the liturgical exegesis of Patriarch Germanus,[56] we may understand that the "holy mountain" and the "holy tomb," mentioned by him, are, in a certain sense, interchangeable with the symbols of the altar table or the table of preparation of the Offered Gifts:

The proskomidia which takes place in the vessel room, reveals the Place of Skulls on which Christ was crucified.

(H proskomidh\ h( genome/nh e)n tJ= e)n tJ= skeuofulaki/J, e)mfai/nei tou= krani/ou to/pon e)n J=( e)staurw/qh o( Cristo/j. [57]

The sacrificial table relates to the Holy Tomb of Christ in which he brought himself as a sacrifice to God and Father by offering his body as the Sacrificial Lamb.

Qusiasth/rio/n e)sti kata\ to\ a(/gion mnh=ma tou= Cristou=: e)n J=( qusi/an e(auto\n o( Cristo\j prosh/gage tJ= QeJ= kai\ Patri\ dia\ th=j prosfora=j tou= sw/matoj au(tou=, w(j a)mno\j quo/menoj.[58]

The exegesis on the beginning of the anaphora in Germanus' text is rendered through the ontological reality of the Resurrection manifested in the Eucharist by means of Liturgical rite.[59]

Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum, the treatise against the Iconoclastic Emperor Constantine V dated after the Council of Hiereia, makes explicit Damascene's simile of the table of preparation by providing two essentially identical lists of holy objects, where Damascene's "Golgotha" and "tomb" correspond to the "table of preparation.":

You want to say that 'I do not venerate things made-by-hands:' and you do not know what you say or what you venerate. Tell me, is not the Church made-by-hands, and the Cross, and the Gospel, and the table of preparation, and the rest of the vessels of the Church?

Qe/leij le/gein, o(/ti )Egw\ ceiropoi/hta ou) proskunw=: kai\ ou) ginw/skeij ti/ lalei=j, h)/ ti/ proskunei=j. Ei)pe/ moi, h( e)kklhsi/a ou)k e)/sti ceiropoih/th, kai\ o( stauro\j, kai\ to\ Eu)agge/lion, kai\ to\ qusiasth/rion, kai\ ta\ loipa\ skeu/h th=j e)kklhsi/aj;[60]

Indeed, these parallels do not necessarily mean that only the Liturgical imagery was in St. John's mind while he was writing the passage. As a writer who fully inherited the traditions of Byzantine theological discourse, he operates with two layers of meaning: the similes themselves and their literal meaning.[61] However, if the theological connection between the Table of Preparation and the Tomb of Christ was commonplace for St. John's audience (both friendly or hostile) to which the number of texts cited testify, we may conclude that while arguing about the legitimacy of material images as a whole, John of Damascus used a set of liturgical images, accepted as legitimate by the Iconoclasts around the beginning of Iconoclasm.

The Book of Gospels was another object whose holiness was accepted both by the Iconodules and by the Iconoclasts, as Iconodulic polemics reveal. For the Iconoclasts, the Gospels corresponded to the criteria they set for the Eucharist at the Council of Hiereia (image manifesting Christ in non-anthropomorphic form, which Christ introduced in order to avoid idolatry). The Book of Gospels as the image of Christ has a very long history. For Origen the Scripture was a standard image of the manifestation in a temporary reality of the eternal Word wrapped in material letters the same way as in flesh and blood.[62] In the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church, Christ is presented in the book of Gospels which is kept on the altar and is replaced by the iliton (to\ ei)lhto/n )[63] for blessing the Holy Gifts after the Liturgy of the Word.[64] The Little Entrance with the book of Gospels in the Liturgy of the Word[65] is paralleled by the Great Entrance with the Offered Gifts preceding the Anaphora.[66]

Early Christian iconography also often represents Christ with the image of the Gospels. On the triumphal arch of S. Maria Maggiore (soon after 430) the book of Gospels on the Throne signifies the Son (Fig. 1). A similar image in S. Prisca at Capua Vetere (beginning of the fifth century) has a dove, signifying the Holy Spirit on the Book of the Gospels (Fig. 2).[67] In Ravenna, in the Baptistery of the Orthodox in the zone under the cupola, two altars with Gospels, alternating with two thrones with the Cross, are depicted (Figs. 3 and 4).[68] The three-fold manifestation of Christ as the Cross, the Sacrificial Lamb of the Eucharist and the Scripture can be found in a ninth-century mosaic in the apse of S. Prassede in Rome (Fig. 5).

We may ask a simple question: if the Iconoclasts were opposed to any kind of religious imagery, how did they perceive the Book of the Gospels which played such an important role during the Liturgy serving as a symbol of Christ's coming into this world? We do not have any evidence of the change of Liturgical rite by the Iconoclasts (and surely if any change was made, it would echo with harsh rebukes in the Iconodulic pamphlets), and thus, they had to accept all the Liturgical ceremonies where the Book of Gospels is the central object of veneration. Indeed, the Iconoclasts' attitude towards the Book of Gospels can be reconstructed from a source of Constantine V's time: the author of the treatise Adversus Constantinum Cabalinum reproaches the Iconoclasts' inconsistency:

And why do you venerate the Bible, yet spit on the boards? Tell me, O heretic, what is the difference between the two, since both proclaim the same message; and how do you venerate the one, but spit upon the other?

Kai\ dia\ ti/ th\n bi/blon proskunei=te, kai\ to\n pi/naka e)mptu/ete; Ei)pe/ moi, ai(retike/: ti/j h( diafora\ tw=n du/o, o(/ti a)mfo/teroi mi/an e)xh/ghsin eu)aggeli/zontai: kai\ o( me\n proskunei=tai, o( de\ e(/teroj e)mptu/etai; [69]

The Iconodulic author proceeds in the following way:

Tell me, what do you venerate in the Gospels, the matter or the interpretation? Of course you tell me: the interpretation of Christ's economy.

Ei)pe/ moi, ti/na proskunei=j e)n tJ= Eu)aggeli/w|; th\n u(/lhn h)\ th\n e)xh/ghsin; pa/ntwj e)rei=j moi th\n e)xh/ghsin th=j oi)konomi/aj Cristou=. [70]

The argument itself is not new: Leontius of Neapolis used it in his polemics against the Jews who revered the books of Scripture.[71] The employment of such argument against the Iconoclasts indicates that they must have accepted the Scripture as a venerable image, as did the Jews against whom the polemics of Leontius of Neapolis were directed.

The Iconodules of the Second Iconoclasm maintain the same line of argumentation. Thus, Theodore the Studite also accepts the Gospels as a legitimate image, but just as legitimate as an icon:

Should we not conceive of his corporeal appearance on the board as of the divinely engraved Gospels? For nowhere has He [Christ] said to engrave the "concise Word" (Is. 10: 23, cf. Rom. 9: 28). However, it is being engraved from the [time] of the Apostles until now. And what in this case is engraved by paper and ink, is in the same way engraved in the case of the icon by varied pigments, or whatever other materials that happen [to be used].

)\H ou)ci\ kai\ e)pi\ th=j e)n pi/naki swmatoeidou=j au)tou= qe/aj to\ au)to\ e)/stin u(polamba/nein, w(/sper kai\ e)pi\ tw=n qeocara/ktwn Eu)aggeli/wn; Ou)/ ti/ pou ga\r ei)/rhke cara/ttesqai to\n suntetmhme/non lo/gon: a)lla\ mh\n cara/ttetai a)po\ tw=n a)posto/lwn me/cri tou= deu=ro: kai\ o(\ e)ntau=qa dia\ ca/rtou kai\ me/lanoj, ou(/twj e)pi\ th=j ei)ko/noj, dia\ poiki/lwn crwma/twn, h)/ o(/ ti tu/coi a(\n a)/llwn u(lw=n e)gcara/ttetai.[72]

The "concise Word" is here the incarnate Christ, whose corporeal appearance is conceived in a way of a traditional metaphor, as the "résumé" of the immensity of his divine being.

Christological Argument on the Role of Christ's Flesh. Seventh Parallel

St. John of Damascus has been rightly credited with the reputation of a theologian who was the first to set the apology for icon into a Christological perspective. Yet if we look closer at the way St. John appeals to Christology, and more precisely to the role of Christ's flesh in the Christological union, we may see that, in fact, St. John replies with a typical Neo-Chalcedonian Christological formula to a certain rebuke, a rebuke by someone who stated that the Iconodules perceive Christ's flesh on the icon as a "garment or a fourth prosopon" in the manner of Nestorius:

I venerate together with the King and God the purple of [his] body, not as a garment or a fourth prosopon… for the nature of flesh has not become the divinity, but as the Word became flesh without change, remaining what He was, thus also the flesh became Word not losing what it was, but rather becoming identical to the Word, according to the hypostasis. I do not represent the invisible divinity but I depict the flesh of God that has become visible.

Sumproskunw= tw|= basilei= kai\ qew|= th\n a(lourgi/da tou= sw/matoj ou)c w(j i(ma/tion ou)d' w(j te/tarton pro/swpon... ou) ga\r qeo/thj h( fu/sij ge/gone th=j sarko/j, a)ll' w(/sper o( lo/goj sa\rx a)tre/ptwj ge/gone mei/naj, o(/per h)=n, ou(/tw kai\ h( sa\rx lo/goj ge/gonen ou)k a)pole/sasa touq', o(/per e)sti/, tautizome/nh de\ ma=llon pro\j to\n lo/gon kaq' u(po/stasin... Ou) th\n a)o/raton ei)koni/zw qeo/thta, a)ll' ei)koni/zw qeou= th\n o(raqei=san sa/rka.[73]

It is interesting to observe, first, that in that passage of the Apology, a specifically East Syrian "clothing metaphor" occurs. The "clothing metaphor" which compared Christ's body or flesh to a garment with which the divinity of the Word in his Incarnation was clothed, was widely used in pre-Ephesian times.[74] However, in the time following the Council of Ephesus, the "clothing metaphor" started to be considered not trustworthy since it was a beloved metaphor of the Antiochean exegetical tradition in general and of the condemned Nestorius in particular.[75]

A close parallel to the argument of St. John of Damascus can be found in the polemics within the specifically Eastern Syrian context which may indicate the familiarity of St. John's adversary with the Antiochean theological tradition. Thus Shahdost (Eustathius of Tarihan, an eighth-century Nestorian apologist) describes Christ's Incarnation using the "clothing metaphor":

God the Word 'dwelt' according to the preaching of the Son of thunder among us. How? In the holy womb of the Virgin. He wove for himself a human robe and clothed himself with it, and he went forth into the world. The eyes of those who are created were not able to observe the glorious brightness of his Godhead without the veil of his body or the curtain which was flesh... Thus being so how can the Adamite body be consubstantial with the Trinity, and quaternity be confessed in the nature of the Trinity?[76]

Certainly, St. John of Damascus includes in his text the apology (“…not as a garment or a fourth prosopon”) not without reason, but disproving a certain charge of anonymous adversaries. We cannot know for sure who they were. However, it is not impossible that they were his contemporaneous Iconoclasts, since we again encounter the same charges against the Iconodules in introducing quaternity into the Trinity and in Nestorianising perception of Christ's flesh by depicting Christ's tangible flesh on the icon in the writings of Constantine V and in the Horos of Hiereia:

If he makes an image of the only flesh, he assigns to the flesh a proper prosopon, and then there becomes a quaternity in the whole divinity, that is, three prosopa for the divinity and one for the humanity

Ei) de\ kai\ th=j sarko\j mo/nhj ei)ko/na poiei=, loipo\n kai\ pro/swpon e)pi\ th|= sarki\ i)/dion di/dwsi, kai\ gi/netai tou=to th|= o(/lh| qeo/thti te/traj, toute/sti tri/a pro/swpa e)pi\ th=j qeo/thtoj kai\ e(\n to\ th=j a)nqrwpo/thtoj[77]

Being condemned by those who think rightly about their attempt to paint the incomprehensible and incircumscribable divine nature of Christ, they surely appeal to another evil device,[saying that] we depict the icon of that only flesh which we saw and touched and with which we lived together. This is impious and the invention of Nestorian evil raging.

Katakrino/menoi de\ para\ tw=n eu=) fronou/ntwn e)n tw=| a)kata/lhpton kai\ a)peri/grafon qei/an tou= Cristou= fu/sin e)piceirei=n au)tou\j gra/fein, pa/ntwj dh/pou e)f' e(te/ran katafeu/xontai kakomh/canon a)pologi/an, o(/ti th=j sarko\j mo/nhj, h(\n e(wra/kamen kai\ e)yhlafh/samen kai\ h(=| sunanastra/fhmen, e)kei/nhj i(storou=men th\n ei)ko/na: o(/ e)sti dussebe\j kai\ th=j Nestorianh=j kakodaimoni/aj e)feu/rema. [78]

Conclusion: Early Iconoclastic Source

All the parallels shown above presuppose two equally possible interpretations: either St. John read some now lost Iconoclastic texts dating from the earliest stage of the Controversy, the content and the arguments of which were similar to the doctrines formulated at the Council of Hiereia, or the Iconoclasts of a later period possessed the texts of the Apologies and refuted them in the Peuseis and the Horos. However, it seems hardly possible that it was St. John who created an "Iconoclastic theology" by first inventing, and then refuting, such imaginary arguments of contemporaneous "Iconoclasts" who, according to the present day consensus of scholars, before the son and successor to Leo III, Emperor Constantine V Copronymus, did not use Christological argument and had no written theology besides the simple appeal to the Mosaic prohibition of images derived from the Second Commandment.

Paul Alexander proposed that the Iconoclastic theology at the time of Constantine V was only an adoption of the Iconodulic arguments. He argued that this adoption was similar to the way the Christian writers of the earlier time, such as John of Thessalonike, adopted for the icons' apology the arguments of the opposite side – of pagan philosophers who advanced them in defence of idols.[79] Yet the main problem with the argument of this great scholar of Iconoclasm is that since there is no clear evidence about the original theological points at the beginning of the debate and since during the controversies so much evidence was destroyed, such historical parallels seem to be rather unfounded. The main problem is the following: since we do not have a single surviving piece of early Iconoclastic theological writing, which was taken as non-existence of original early Iconoclastic theology, it can be equally validly argued that any explicit evidence on such theology has simply disappeared during the Controversy.

However, it seems that St. John of Damascus at the early stage of the Controversy replied to a certain source, most likely also provided with a florilegium, and this source later was used by Constantine V for his Peuseis, which were the drafts of the official Iconoclastic theology to be approved at the Council of Hiereia.[80] In this later development, Constantine V could possibly have taken into account St. John of Damascus' Neo-Chalcedonian reply to the accusation of implicit Nestorianism in icon veneration, and to deepen the early "Christological" charge by introducing the famous "Christological dilemma": the Iconodules not only commit the Nestorian error in depicting the flesh of Christ on icon, but also the Monophysite error co-circumscribing Christ's divinity by the circumscription of his depicted flesh.

If, then, there might have been an "Iconoclastic theology" during the early stage of the Controversy, which, as I hope, the comparison of the Apologies of St. John of Damascus and later Iconoclastic sources shows, what could have been the channels of information for St. John of Damascus, the Palestinian Iconodule under the rule of Islamic Umayyads, concerning the doctrines of the Constantinopolitan Iconoclasts?

The contacts and visits by the monks of Palestine to Constantinople represented by the figures of Michael Synkellos and the two “Branded” brothers Theodore and Theophanes are well known for the Second Iconoclasm.[81] However, at least one visit by a monk of Mar Saba, St. Stephen, to Constantinople during the reign of Leo III and before the deposition of Patriarch St. Germanus, is attested by the Synaxarion of Constantinople as well.[82] Could it be that St. Stephen's purpose was to deliver the first Apology to the "royal priesthood" - the Constantinopolitan community? If this assumption is true, then the Apologies may really testify to the contemporaneous theological debate in Constantinople as well as explain the hatred of the Bishops of Hiereia expressed in not one but four anathemas to the remote, and, most probably, dead by then, Iconodulic writer from Palestine.

---

Abbreviations for the publications frequently used in this article:

Apologies = John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos / Ed. Bonifatius Kotter / Vol 3 / Patristische Texte und Studien 17 (Berlin, 1973).

Mansi 13 = Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio / Ed. J. D. Mansi (Florence and Venice, 1759-98), vol. 13.

Sahas = Daniel Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in Eighth-century Iconoclasm: An Annotated Translation of the Sixth Session of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 787) (Toronto, 1986).

[1] According to Paul Alexander, to infer from St. John of Damascus' Christological arguments that "the Iconoclasts were already considering the issue of images as a christological problem would be erroneous" (Paul J. Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Workshop in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1958) 48); "Before Constantine, Iconoclasm had been a movement opposed to the worship of images because of religious conservatism" (Ibid., 52). Father John Meyendorf is more cautious but expresses the same opinion: "Nor does it seem that they [the Iconoclasts] used from the start theological arguments in favor of Iconoclasm" (John Meyendorf, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, 1975) 174. See John Meyendorf, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York, 1974) 44; see also S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (Louvain, 1973) (CSCO Subsidia 41) 105.

[2] "all the people of God, the holy nation, the royal priesthood (Exod. 23: 22 [Septuagint]; cf. 1 Pet. 2: 9)) together with the good shepherd of Christ's rational flock (meq' o(\n a(/panta to\n tou= qeou= lao/n, to\ e)/qnoj to\ a(/gion, to\ basi/leion i(era/teuma, su\n tw=| kalw=| poime/ni th=j logikh=j Cristou= poi/mnhj" (Apology I, 3, 10-12 [Kotter, p. 67] (number of the Apology, chapter, lines; the pages according to the Kotter's edition are indicated in square brackets).

[3] Пер. Александръ Бронзовъ, Св. Iоаннъ Дамаскинъ. Три защитительныхъ слова противъ порицающихъ святыя иконы или изображенiя (С.-Петербург, 1893, репр. Сергиев Посад, 1993) XVIII, based on the commentaries in the edition of St. John of Damascus by P. Michaelis Lequien (Paris, 1712) (cf. Бронзовъ, n. 15).

[4] Ed. C. de Boor, Theophanes Chronographia / 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1883-85, reprinted Hildesheim, 1963) 409.

[5] V. Grumel, Un nouvel ouvrage sur le schisme byzantin // EO 39 (1940) 471-72.

[6] Apology II, 1, 27-30 [Kotter, p. 69].

[7] In the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea it may be seen that "very little of the soaring theological edifice erected by the greatest defenders of images was incorporated into the canonical tradition. That tradition, which we might label ecclesiastical, is also official, and it is interesting to see how much more cautious and conservative it was than the theological one” (Thomas Noble, John Damascene and the History of the Iconoclast Controversy // Religion, Culture and Society in the Early Middle Ages: Studies in Honour of Richard E. Sullivan / Ed. T. Noble (Kalamazoo, 1987) 105, and n. 67). The opinion that the Apologies were not known to the Fathers of the Second Council of Nicaea is also stated in P. Van den Ven, La patristique et l'hagiography au Concile de Nicée de 787 // Byz 25-27 (1955-57) 336-38.

[8] Even though some of the late sources concerning St. John's life, indeed, mention his visit or even martyrdom (in a prison as a confessor for the cause of images: Menologium Basilii (PG 117, 184C)) in Constantinople, the most plausible explanation for that is that the relics of St. John of Damascus were translated to Constantinople from the Laura of St. Sabas during the reign of Andronicus II Paleologos (1282-1328) and later hagiography embellished the reason for their location in Constantinople, relying on the fusion of the Byzantine reputation of St. John as the staunchest defender of images with the paradigmatic perception of a Christian martyr-saint defending his convictions in the face of a heretical Emperor. The legend about the hand of St. John cut by the caliph on the instigation of Leo III also mentions St. John's death in Constantinople, see Bi/oj kai\ politei/a tou= e)n a(gi/oij patro\j h(mw=n )Iwa/nnou monacou= kai\ presbute/rou tou= Damaskhnou= (BHG 885c). The text is edited in Th. Detorakis, La main coupeé de Jean Damascène // AB 104 (1986) 381; see also Stephen Gero, Jannes and Jambres in the Vita Stephani Junioris (BHG 1666) // AB 113 (1995) 291-92.

[9] Theophanes in the entry of the year 741/42 also informs us about the personal hatred of Emperor Constantine V toward St. John of Damascus -- the Emperor subjected St. John of Damascus to an annual anathema because of St. John's "pre-eminent Orthodoxy, and instead of his paternal name, Mansour (which means 'redeemed,') he, in his Jewish manner, renamed the new teacher of the Church Manzeros" (trans. Cyril Mango, and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford, 1997) 578 of Ed. C. de Boor, Theophanes Chronographia (Leipzig, 1883-85, reprinted Hildesheim, 1963) 417). "Ma/nzeroj," or "bastard" is derived from Aramaic (Mango and Scott, 579, n. 7). Most likely, a passage from the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea can be connected with this episode: refuting the anathemas pronounced in the Horos of Hiereia against the Iconodulic champions, Epiphanius the Deacon read about John of Damascus: "John, insultingly called by them 'Mansur,' abandoned everything and, emulating Matthew the evangelist, followed Christ" (trans. Sahas, 169 of Mansi 13, 357B). Most likely the Fathers of Nicaea did not know that "Mansur" was actually the last name of St. John and considered this as an insult against the saint in the spirit of the episode recorded by Theophanes. It was formerly established that St. John's death occurred in 749 according to some chronological indications in the Vita of Stephan the Sabbaite (Joseph Nasrallah, Saint Jean de Damas: Son époque, sa vie, son oeuvre (Harissa, 1950) 127-28 based on S. Vailhé, Date de la mort de saint Jean Damascène // EO 9 (1906) 28-30). However, since G. Garitte provided some arguments against this chronological scheme (G. Garitte, Le début de la vie de S. Étienne le Sabaite retrouvé en arabe au Sinai // AB 77 (1959) 332-336), the precise date seems to be uncertain again.

[10] For example: "they say" (Apology I, 5, 1 [Kotter, p. 78]), "tell me" (Apology I, 15, 1 [Kotter, p. 88]), "what would you tell…?" (Apology I, 15, 14 [Ibid.]) "do not disdain matter" (Apology I, 16, 32 [Kotter, p. 90], cf. Ibid., 39-40 [Kotter, p. 90-91]), "though according to you, (kaq' u(ma=j) it [matter] is worthy of disdain" (Apology I, 16, 79 [Kotter, p. 92]) "for you make the depiction of Christ" [as the Cross?] (Apology I, 19, 4-5 [Kotter, p. 94]), "the places from Scripture that you cite" (Apology I, 24, 2 [Kotter, p. 114]), "if you say" (Apology I, 25, 1 [Kotter, p. 116]), "you are, perhaps, high and immaterial" (Apology I, 36, 27 [Kotter, p. 148]), "but those who do not investigate the sense of the Scripture say" (Apology II, 7, 1-2 [Kotter, p. 73]), "you blaspheme matter" (Apology II, 13, 1 [Kotter, p. 104]).

[11] Alexander Alexakis' research had as its primary goal the reconstruction of the archetype of the huge Iconodulic florilegium contained in the Ms. Parisinus graecus 1115. The minute analysis of the relationship between the contents of the Doctrina Patrum, the florilegia of St. John of Damascus, the Acts of the Roman Councils of 731 and 769, and the florilegia of the Mss. Parisinus graecus 1115, Mosquensis Hist. Mus. 265, and Venetus Marcianus graecus 573, showed that there must have existed a common pre-731 nucleus (A. Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype // Dumbarton Oaks Studies 34 (Washington, 1996) 119, and esp. 133-36). Cf. S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (Louvain, 1977) (CSCO Subsidia 52) 80, n. 94.

[12] Patrick Gray, Through the Tunnel with Leontius of Jerusalem: The Sixth Century Transformation of Theology // The Sixth Century. End or Beginning? / Eds. P. Allen, and E. Jeffreys / Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996) 190-92.

[13] Apology I, 25, 1-9 [Kotter, p. 116].

[14] Mansi 13, 292DE.

[15] The excerpts from the Horos and florilegium of the Iconoclastic Council of Saint Sophia are preserved in Patriarch Nicephorus, Refutatio et eversio definitionis synodalis anni 815 / Ed. J. M. Featherstone (Turnhout and Leuven, 1997) (CChr Series Graeca 33). The excerpt from Epiphanius is located: Ibid., 158 [p. 252, 1-12, and p. 342].

[16] “The testimonies that you adduce do not accurse our veneration of images but the veneration of the Pagans who divinise the images ( (\Aj me/ntoi pros£geij cr»seij, oÙ tîn par' ¹m‹n e„kÒnwn bdelÚssontai t¾n proskÚnhsin, ¢ll¦ tîn taÚtaj qeopoioÚntwn `Ell»nwn)” (Apology II, 17, 1-6 [Kotter, pp. 114-115]).

[17] In the Apologies, St. John of Damascus often re-uses his own text. If the Scriptural quote occurs in a same piece of text belonging to different Apologies, in this table I indicated only one (the first) occurrence.

[18] In this table it is important to indicate the quotation in all the passages of the Apologies in order to see the structure of the Scriptural quotations in the flow of the text.

[19] In all Apologies only the original text by St. John of Damascus (without the chapters from the florilegium of the Apologies) is counted.

[20] As Father George Florovsky pointed out in his important article about the origins of the Iconoclastic Controversy, in the Jewish-Christian controversies of the seventh century "the Old Testament witness had to have an indisputable priority. We have every reason to admit that in this debate the Christian apologists developed some standard arguments and compiled some patristic testimonia to vindicate the Christian position. We have no direct evidence to prove that the internecine strife within the Church was an organic continuation of the earlier Judaeo-Christian controversy. Yet, of course, it was quite natural for both sides to use or apply the readily available arguments and 'proofs'" (George Florovsky, "The Iconoclastic Controversy," in Idem., Christianity and Culture, vol. 2 of Idem., Collected Works (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975), 106). A good analysis of the arguments involved in the polemics of the age preceeding the Iconoclastic Controversy is in Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus, 30-37.

[21] Ed. Gustav Bardy, Les Trophées de Damas, PO 15, fasc. 2 (Paris, 1920), 245-49.

[22] Ed. and trans. A. P, Hayman, The Disputation of Sergius the Stylite against a Jew, CSCO 338 (text), 339 (translation), Syr. 152-153 (Louvain, 1973), 48.

[23] Horos of Hiereia (Mansi 13, 285C). Cf. the sixteenth anathema of the Hiereia: one must imitate the virtues of the saints "through that which is in writings about them (dia\ tw=n e)n grafai=j peri\ au)tw=n)" (Mansi 13, 345CD).

[24] Unfortunately my Greek font does not support all nesessary signs, and I had to supply the sign of colon with ":."

[25] Apology I, 17, 1-8, [Kotter, p. 93]. Cf. Apology III, 12 [Kotter, p. 123]; Mansi 13, 249DE.

[26] J. Gouillard, Fragments inédits d'un antirrhétique de Jean la Grammairien // RÉB 24 (1966) 171-81. Cf. Christoph von Schönborn, L’icône du Christ: Fondaments théologiques (Paris, 1986) 202, n. 2. A brief biography of John Grammaticus is contained in Stephen Gero, John the Grammarian, the Last Iconoclastic Patriarch of Constantinople. The Man and the Legend // Byzantina 3-4 (1974-75) 25-35.

[27] The text makes no sense unless we understand e)kei/noij e(te/rwj as toi=j e(teroei/doij, which makes sense on the basis of the potential source of this text - Leontius of Byzantium's Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos I, 4 (PG 86.1 1285 D9-1288 A4). I am grateful to Prof. István Perczel for indicating the possible dource of the passage.

[28] J. Gouillard, Fragments inédits d'un antirrhétique de Jean la Grammairien // RÉB 24 (1966) 173-74.

[29] "L'analyse de l'itinéraire spirituel idéal qui conduit de la contemplation naturelle de logos des êtres (tw=n o)/ntwn kata/lhyin) à la contemplation mystique du Logos divin est familière à tous les spirituels de la lignée d'Evagre" (J. Gouillard, Fragments inédits d'un antirrhétique de Jean la Grammairien // RÉB 24 (1966) 174-75).

[30] J. Muyldermans, Evagriana // Muséon 44 (1931) 52, N9 (Cent. Suppl. 18 (Fragment 435). Cf. Évagre le Pontique. Sur les pensées / Eds. P. Géhin, C. Guillaumont, and A. Guillaumont (Paris, 1998) (SC 438) 41 [pp. 290-96].

[31] Cf. Origen, De Principiis I, 1, 8: "Aliud est uidere, aliud cognoscere: uideri et uidere corporum res est, cognosci et cognoscere intellectualis naturae est. Quicquid ergo proprium corporum est, hoc nec de patre nec de filio sentiendum est; quod uero ad naturam pertinet deitatis, hoc inter patrem et filium constat. Denique etiam ipse in euangelio non dixit quia nemo uidit patrem nisi filius neque filium nisi pater, sed ait: ‘Nemo nouit filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis nouit nisi filius.’ Ex quo manifeste indicatur quod quicquid inter corporeas naturae uidere et uideri dicitur, hoc inter patrem et filium cognoscere dicitur et cognosci, per uirtutem scientiae, non per uisibilitatis fragilitatem" (Eds. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, Origène. Traité des Principes / Vol. 1 (Paris, 1978) (SC 252) 108, 278-89).

[32] The fathers of Nicaea II argue on the equal honour of Gospels and icons (as both being transmitted by the tradition) along the same lines, involving human mind or intellect in response to the Iconoclastic doctrine of “pure intellectual worship,” in a process of image perception: "As when we receive the sound of the reading with our ears, we transmit it to our mind, so by looking with our eyes at the painted icons, we are enlightened in our mind. Through two things following each other, that is, by reading and also by seeing the reproduction of the painting, we learn the same thing" (Mansi 13, 220E, trans. Sahas, 61).

[33] Apology 1, 15, 15-16 [Kotter, p. 88].

[34] Apology I, 16, 32-33 [Kotter, p. 90].

[35] Apology I, 16, 4-9 [Kotter, p. 89].

[36] Apology II, 13, 1-3 [Kotter, p. 104], Apology II, 16, 62-66 [Kotter, p. 113].

[37] Apology I, 36, II, 32 [Kotter, p. 147-48].

[38] Mansi 13, 229E. This passage bears striking similarities with the text in Origen's Contra Celsum IV, 31: "For neither artist nor statue-maker existed in their state, the law expelling all such from it; that there might be no pretext for the construction of statues, that attracts the attention of unintelligent men, and drags down the eyes of the soul from God to earth (Ou)/te ga\r zwgra/foj ou)/t' a)galmatopoi\oj e)n th=| politei/a| au)tw=n h)=n, e)kba/llontoj pa/ntaj tou\j toiou/touj a)p' au)th=j tou= no/mou, i(/na mhdemi/a pro/fasij h)=| th=j tw=n a)galma/twn kataskeuh=j, tou\j a)noh/touj tw=n a)nqrw/pwn e)pispwme/nhj kai\ kaqelkou/shj a)po\ tou= qeou= ei)j gh=n tou\j o)fqalmou\j th=j yuch=j)" (ed. Marcel Borret, Origène. Contre Celse, vol. 3 // Sources Chrétiennes 147 (Paris, 1969), p. 260, 15-20).

[39] Mansi 13, 336E. Cf. "It is not lawful for Christians, who have their hope in the resurrection, to use the customs of nations that worship demons, and to treat so spitefully, by means of worthless and dead matter, the saints who will be resplendent with such glory (Ou) qemito\n ga\r toi=j e)lpi/da a)nasta/sewj kekthme/noij Cristianoi=j daimonolatrw=n e)qnw=n e)/qesi crh=sqai kai\ tou\j toiau/th| me/llontaj do/xh| faidru/nesqai a(gi/ouj e)n a)do/xw| kai\ nekra=| u(/lh| kaqubri/zein" (Mansi 13, 277CD, trans. Sahas, 105).

[40] Mansi 13, 353A. Cf. also Evagrius of Pontos: “Si la perfection du nous est la science immatérielle, comme on dit, et que la science immatérielle est la Trinité seulement, il est évident que dans la perfection il ne restera rien de la matière. Et si cela est ainsi, le nous désormais nu deviendra un voyant de la Trinité” (Évagre le Pontique, Les Six centuries des "Kephalaia Gnostica" d'Évagre le Pontique / Ed. A. Guillaumont (PO 28 Fasc. 1) III, 15). An excellent analysis of the theology of image involved in the first Origenist Controversy and the attitude of the followers of Evagrius towards images may be found in Elisabeth Clark, Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992) 66-69).

[41] Mansi 13, 280E.

[42] Sahas, 166.

[43] S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources (Louvain, 1977) (CSCO Subsidia 52) 92.

[44] Horos of Hiereia (Mansi 13, 268BC, 269CD, trans. Sahas, 97). It must be noted that in the Peuseis of Constantine V a very similar doctrine, albeit in affirmative terms, is expressed concerning the Eucharist: "kai\ ei)kw/n e)sti tou= sw/matoj au)tou= kai\ o( a)/rtoj, o(\n lamba/nomen, morfa/zwn th\n sa/rka au)tou= w(j ei)j tu/pon tou= sw/matoj e)kei/nou gino/menoj... Ou) pa=j a)/rtoj sw=ma au)tou=, w(/sper ou)de\ ga\r pa=j oi)=noj ai(=ma au)tou=, ei) mh\ dia\ th=j i(eratikh=j teleth=j a)nafero/menoj e)k tou= ceiropoih/tou pro\j to\ a)ceiropoi/hton" (PG 100, 337A, and 337C). The realm of things "made-by-hands" of the Peusis becomes "profane" and the realm of things "not-made-by-hands," into which the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transferred after the consecration, becomes "sacred" in the Horos of Hiereia.

[45] Apology I, 16, 29-32 [Kotter, p. 90].

[46] The method of verbal definition, proposed by Patriarch John Grammaticus in the second fragment as the only means of precise definition of a being as opposed to its pictorial representation (see supra, p. 11ff).

[47] Cf. Aristotle's original definition: " ”Esti de\ tÕ me\n kaq' aØtÕ i)/dion o(\ prÕj a(/panta a)pod…dotai kaˆ pantÕj cwr…zei, kaq£per ¢nqrèpou tÕ zùon qnhtÕn e)pist»mhj dektikÒn·" (Topica 128B, 35-36); cf. "kai\ o(/ti nou= kai\ e)pisth/mhj dektiko/n" (Topica, 112A, 19).

[48] Cf. Plato, Timaeus 30A-B.

[49] J. Gouillard, Fragments inédits d'un antirrhétique de Jean la Grammairien // RÉB 24 (1966) 174.

[50] I have secluded the particle ou)k because the negative particle in the text reverses its obvious meaning.

[51] Apology III, 16, 4-12 [Kotter, p. 125].

[52] Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 24 (245C-E): "Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal; but that which moves something else or is moved by something else, when it ceases to move, ceases to live. Only that which moves itself, since it does not leave itself, never ceases to move, and this is also the source and beginning of motion for all other things which have motion… But since that which is moved by itself has been seen to be immortal, one who says that this self-motion is the essence and the very idea of the soul, will not be disgraced. For every body which derives motion from without is soulless, but that which has its motion within has a soul, since that is the nature of the soul (Yuch\ pa=sa a)qa/natoj. to\ ga\r a)eiki/nhton a)qa/naton: to\ d' a)/llo kinou=n kai\ u(p' a)/llou kinou/menon, pau=lan e)/con kinh/sewj, pau=lan e)/cei zwh=j: mo/non dh\ to\ au(to\ kinou=n, a(/te ou)k a)polei=pon e(auto/, ou)/pote lh/gei kinou/menon, a)lla\ kai\ toi=j a)/lloij o(/sa kinei=tai tou=to phgh\ kai\ a)rch\ kinh/sewj... a)qana/tou de\ pefasme/nou tou= u(f' e(autou= kinoume/nou, yuch=j ou)si/an te kai\ lo/gon tou=ton au)to/n tij le/gwn ou)k ai)scunei=tai. pa=n ga\r sw=ma, w(=| me\n e)/xwqen to\ kinei=sqai, a)/yucon, w(=| de\ e)/ndoqen au)tw=| e)x au(tou=, e)/myucon, w(j tau/thj ou)/shj fu/sewj yuch=j)" (Plato, Euthyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Phaedrus // Trans. H.N. Fowler / Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA, 1995 (first published in 1914)), 468-71. I am grateful to Prof. G. Gereby who pointed to the importance of this passage.

[53] The standard set: the Cross, the Gospels and Holy Gifts (sometimes the church utensils and altar table are also mentioned) as holy objects commonly accepted by both the Iconodules and the Iconoclasts is recurrent in the anti-Iconoclastic polemics. Cf. Mansi 13, 241C-D, 249A, 269D-272A. See also St. Theodore the Studite's discussion of the quote of St. Gregory Nazianzen, "the Holy is not circumscribable": "What do you say about the life-giving Cross, the offered Gifts, the table of preparation, the altar-table, the holy Gospels, the other holy utensils? Are not all the relics of the saints circumscribable? Truly so, but, similarly, [they are] venerable just as the icon of Christ (Ti/ de\ ei)/poij peri\ tou= zowpoiou= staurou=; tou= a)ntitu/pou; tou= qusiasthri/ou; th=j qei/aj trape/zhj; tou= a)cra/ntou Eu)aggeli/ou; ou(tinosou=n a)/llou i(erou= a)naqh/matoj; au)ta\ ta\ tw=n a(gi/wn lei/yana ou) pa/nta perigrapta/; panti/pou dh=lon: a)ll' o(/mwj kai\ septa\, w(/sper kai\ h( Cristou= ei)kw/n)" (PG 99, 497Aff). Cf. also St. Theodore the Studite: "Does not it seem to you that we receive the divine myrrh as a typos of Christ; the divine altar-table instead of the life-giving Sepulchre, and the shroud upon it instead of that shroud, in which he was wrapped and buried (ou) dokei= soi to\ qei=on mu/ron ei)j Cristou= tu/pon ei)lh=fqai; th\n qei/an tra/pezan a)nti\ tou= zwopoiou= ta/fou; th\n e)p' au)th=| sindo/na a)nq' h(=j kai\ e)n h(=| ei)lhqei\j e)ta/fh;)" (PG 99, 489B). The Cross, the Gospels, altar-table, holy Gifts and icons as venerable objects are also mentioned in the Iconodulic tract Adversus Iconomachos (PG 96, 1360AB).

[54] Stephen Gero, The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Byzantine Iconoclasts and Its Sources BZ 68 (1975) 4-22.

[55] Apology II, 14, 20-31 [Kotter, pp. 105-06]; Apology I, 16, 17-28 [Kotter, p. 90]; Cf. Apology III, 35, 1-6 [Kotter, p. 140].

[56] Patriarch Germanus, Historia mystica ecclesiae catholicae. The critical edition is in F. Brightman, The Historia Mystagagogica and other Greek Commentaries on the Byzantine Liturgy JTS 9 (1908) 248-67, 387-97 (hereafter, Brightman).

[57] Brightman, 389, 26-27, (page, lines).

[58] Brightman, 258, 26-28. Cf. "The sacrificial table is the antitype of the holy Sepulchre ( )Esti\n a)nti/tupon tou= a(gi/ou mnh/matoj e)kei/nou to\ qusiasth/rion)" (Ibid., 391, 12-13). See R. Bornert, Les Commentaires byzantins de la Divine Liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle // Archives de l'Orient Chrétien 9 (Paris, 1966) 173. Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia: "When they bring out [the Eucharistic bread] they place it on the holy altar, for complete representation of the Passion, so that we may think of Him on the altar, as if He were placed in the sepulchre, after having received His Passion" (Ed. and trans. A. Mingana, Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord's Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist // Woodbrook Studies / Vol. 6 (Cambridge, 1933) 86); "We are drawn now by similar happenings to the remembrance of the Passion of the Lord, and when we see the oblation on the communion-table -- something which denotes that it is being placed in a kind of a sepulchre after its death" (Ibid., 89). "And we joyfully embrace Him with all our power as we see Him risen from the tomb, and we hope also to participate [with Him] in the resurrection, because He also rose from the tomb of the holy communion-table as from the dead according to the symbol that has been performed" (Ibid., 112). Cf. Early Syriac Liturgical commentary (early fifth century): "The altar is the place of Christ's Sepulchre… The veil above the cup and the paten (is) a sign of the stone which was placed above the Sepulchre of our Saviour" (Sebastian Brock, An Early Syriac Commentary on the Liturgy JTS n. s. 37 (1986) 391).

[59] "Behold, Christ was crucified, the Life has been buried, the tomb was secured, the stone was sealed. The priest approaches, he comes together with angelic powers, standing not on an earthly place but as in the heavenly altar standing in front of the dreadful throne of God; he contemplates the great incomprehensible and unsearchable mystery of Christ. He confesses the grace, proclaims the Resurrection, seals the faith in the Holy Trinity. The Angel clad in white comes to the stone of the tomb, rolling it away with his hands, showing by his image and calling forth by the trembling voice of the deacon and proclaiming the Resurrection in three days ( )Idou\ e)stau/rwtai o( Cristo/j, te/qaptai h( zwh/, h)sfali/sqh o( ta/foj, e)sfragi/sqh o( li/qoj: pro/seisin o( i(ereu/j, sune/rcetai tai=j a)ggelikai=j duna/mesin: ou/)keti w(j e)n e)pigei/J to/pw| e(stw\j a)ll' w(j e)n tJ= ou)rani/J qusiasthri/J, e)/mprosqen tou= foberou= qro/nou tou= Qeou= parista/menoj, qewre=i to\ me/ga kai\ a)nermh/neuton kai\ a)nexicni/aston tou= Cristou= musth/rion: o(mologei= th\n ca/rin, khru/ttei th\n a)na/stasin, sfragi/zei th\n pi/stin th=j a(gi/aj Tria/doj. Pro/seisin leuceimonw=n o( a/)ggeloj e)n tJ= li/qJ tou= ta/fou, a)pokuli/wn th=| ceiri/, deiknu/wn tJ= sch/mati, bow=n th=| fwnh=| e)ntro/mwj dia\ tou= diako/nou khru/ttwn th\n trih/meron e)/gersin)" (Brightman, 392, 22-30). In connection with the symbolical perception of the parts of the church and its decoration as an ontological manifestation of the reality of the events in the Gospels, by the authors of Ekphrasis, reflecting the general Byzantine attitude, it is worth quoting an elucidating remark by Otto Demus: "The description of pictorial decorations are couched in terms which suggest the presence of reality of the scenes and persons depicted. The Encomiasts did not write: 'Here you see depicted how Christ was crucified,' and so on; they said: 'Here Christ is crucified, here is Golgotha, there is Bethlehem.' The spell of magic reality dictated the words" (Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (New Rochelle, New York, 1976) 35).

[60] PG 95, 326B.

[61] Cf. the comment of R. Taft concerning the exegesis of Patriarch Germanus' Historia mystica: "The precise genius of metaphorical language is to hold in dynamic tension several levels of meaning simultaneously. In this sense, one and the same eucharistic table must be at once Holy of Holies, Golgotha, tomb of the resurrection, cenacle, and heavenly sanctuary of the Letter to the Hebrews" (R. Taft, The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm // DOP 34/35 (1982) 74).

[62] Cf. "we partake of the flesh of Christ, that is, of the divine Scriptures… of the true Lamb, for the Apostle professes that the lamb of our passover is Christ when he says: 'For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5, 7); his flesh and blood, as shown above, are the divine Scriptures, eating which, we have Christ; the words becoming his bones, the flesh becoming the meaning from the text, following which meaning, as it were, 'we see in a mirror dimly' (1 Cor. 13, 12) the things which are to come, and the blood being faith in the gospel of the new covenant (metalamba/nomen tw=n sarkw=n tou= Cristou=, tou=t' e)/sti tw=n qei/wn grafw=n... tou= proba/tou tou= a)lhqinou= e)reunh/swmen, O(mologou=ntoj tou= a)posto/lou to\ pro/baton tou= h(mete/rou pa/sca Cristo\n ei)=nai le/gontoj ' Kai\ ga\r to\ pa/sca h(mw=n e)tu/qh Cristo/j', ou(= sa/rkej kai\ o)ste/a kai\ ai(=ma,w(j proapedei/cqh, ai( qei/ai ei)si\n grafai/, a(\j e)a\n trw/gwmen, Cristo\n e)/comen, tw=n me\n le/xewn tw=n o)stw=n au)tou= ginome/nwn, tw=n de\ sarkw=n tw=n e)k th=j le/xewj nohma/twn, oi(/stisin w(j ei)ko\j e)pibai/nontej e)n ai)ni/gmati kai\ di'e)so/ptrou ble/pomen ta\ meta\ tau=ta, ai(/matoj de\ th=j pi/stewj tou= eu)aggeli/ou th=j kainh=j diaqh/khj)" (Origéne, Sur la Pâque. Traité inédit publié d'après un papyrus de Toura // Christianisme Antique 2 (Paris, 1979) 33, 1-34 (chapter, line), trans. R. Daly, Origen. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and his Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul // Ancient Christian Writers 54 (New York and Mahwah, 1992) 45. Another edition of the treatise: Bernd Witte, Die Schrift des Origenes 'Über die Passa.' Textausgabe und Kommentar // Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptischen Ägypten 4 (Altenberge, 1993). Similar references to the Incarnation and the imagery of the Scripture are numerous in Origen, cf. Sur la Pâque, 26, 5-10; 28, -12. On the imagery of the Scripture in Origen in general, see Henry Crouzel, Origène et la "Connaissance Mystique" // Museum Lessianum section théologique 56 (Bruges, 1961) 324-68. On the notion of Scripture as body of Christ in Origen, see also B. Studer, Das Christusbild des Origenes und des Ambrosius // Origeniana Septima, Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts / Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 137 / Eds. W. A. Bienert, and U. Kühneweg (Leuven, 1999) 572-75. Cf. Maximus the Confessor metaphor of the "thickening" of the Word in letters and syllables (PG 91, 1129D).

[63] Iliton (corporal) "today it is both the antimension, a decorated cloth containing relics and consecrated by the bishop and the eiliton or corporal that enfolds the antimension which are spread out on the altar. Primitively, the antimension was used as a portable altar. Today an antimension is used at every liturgy but was formerly employed only when a consecrated altar was unavailable" (R. Taft, The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Pre-Anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Rome, 1975) (OCA 200) 4, n. 3). See Januarius M. Izzo, The Antimension in the Liturgical and Canonical Tradition of the Byzantine and Latin Churches: An Inter-Ritual, Inter-Confessional Study (Rome, 1975); and Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst / Ed. M. Restle / Vol. 5 (Stuttgart, 1995), pp. 779-80 for the iliton; pp. 780-84 for the antimension.

[64] Cf. "Iliton signifies the shroud which enveloped the body of Christ taken down from the Cross and put in the tomb (To\ ei)lhto\n shmai/nei th\n sindo/na en) h(=| e)neili/cqh to\ sw=ma tou= Cristou= e)k tou= staurou= kataba\n kai\ e)n mnhmei/J teqe/n)" (Brightman, 389, 23-24). This passage is located in the text of Patriarch Germanus after the exegesis of the Gospel reading before the expelling of the Catechumens and the Cherubic Song at the same moment when the iliton is put on the altar having replaced the book of Gospels.

[65] Cf. "The entrance of the Gospel manifests the coming and the entrance of the Son of God in the world ( (H ei)/sodoj tou= eu)aggeli/ou e)mfai/nei th\n parousi/an kai\ th\n ei)/sodon tou= Ui(ou= tou= Qeou= th\n ei)j to\n ko/smon)" (Brightman, 265, 12-13). "The holy Gospel is the advent of the Son of God by which he became visible to us, he was no more speaking to us through clouds and riddles, as to Moses [when he was speaking to him] through voices, and thunders, and through the sounds of trumpets, and darkness, and fire on the mountain, or as to the Prophets of old, through dreams, but the meek and still King, who earlier silently descended as rain on the fleece, now manifestly appeared to us, and was seen by us as true man (To\ a(/gion eu)agge/lio/n e)stin h( parousi/a tou= Ui(ou= tou= Qeou= kaq' h(\n w(ra/qh h(mi=n, ou)ke/ti dia\ nefelw=n kai\ ai)nigma/twn lalw=n h(mi=n w(/j pote\ tJ= Mwush=| dia\ fwnw=n kai\ a)strapw=n kai\ salpi/ggwn kai\ h)/cwn kai\ gno/fJ kai\ puri\ e)pi\ tou= o)/rouj, h)\ toi=j pa/lai profh/taij di' e)nupni/wn, e)mfanw=j de\ w(j a/)/nqrwpoj a)lhqh\j e)fa/nh kai\ w(ra/qh h(mi=n o( prau/j kai\ h(/sucoj basileu\j o( pri\n kataba\j w(j u(eto\j a)yofhti\ e)n po/kJ)" (Brightman, 388, 9-14).

[66] The Trisagion Hymn in the Liturgy of the Word as well parallels the Thrice Holy (Sanctus) of the Anaphora (Cf. H-J. Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York, 1986) 161).

[67] A. Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins (Princeton, 1968) 115.

[68] F. Deichmann, Frühchristliche Baumen and Mosaiken von Ravenna (Wiesbaden, 1958) plates 62-65.

[69] PG 95, 316C.

[70] =PG 95, 317A.

[71] "Just as you, while venerating the Book of the Law, do not venerate the nature of parchment and ink but the words of God contained in it, in the same manner I venerate the icon of Christ and not the nature of the wood and of the colours, let this not be! But by venerating the lifeless image of Christ through it, I expect to hold and to venerate Christ Himself (kai\ w/(sper su\ proskunw=n to\ bibli/on tou= no/mou, ou) th\n fu/sin tw=n derma/twn kai\ tou= me/lanoj proskunei=j, a)lla\ tou\j lo/gouj tou= qeou= tou\j e)gkeime/nouj e)n au)tJ=, ou(/twj ka)gw\ th=| ei)ko/ni tou= Cristou= proskunw=, ou) th=| fu/sei tou= xu/lou kai\ crwma/twn; mh\ ge/noito. )A)ll' a)yu/cJ carakth=ri Cristou= proskunw=n, di' au)tou=, au)to\n Cristo\n dokw= kratei=n kai\ proskunei=n)" (Vincent Déroche, L'Apologie contre les Juifs de Léontios de Néapolis // Travaux et Mémoires 12 (1994) p. 67, 43-47). The excerpt was also cited at the Second Council of Nicaea (Mansi 13, 45B). On the Islamic Controversy of the eighth century on the manifestation of the divinity in Scripture, see R. M. Haddad, Iconoclasts and Mut'azila. The Politics of Anthropomorphism // Greek Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982) 287-305.

[72] PG 99, 340D.

[73] Apology I, 4, 62-66, 69-77, 82-85 [Kotter, pp. 77-78].

[74] Thus, for example, such a pure “Alexandrine” author as St. Athanasius of Alexandria also uses the clothing metaphor. The following passage from the mouth of an Alexandrine theologian would have been impossible after the clash between the two schools at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus: "The leper… worshipped God in body, and he knew that He was God when he said: 'Lord, if you want you can cleanse me.' And he neither considered the Word of God to be a creature because of the flesh, nor did he deny the flesh with which He was clothed because the Word was the Creator of all creation, but he worshipped the Creator of all things in his created temple, and was cleansed (prosku/nei ga\r to\n Qeo\n e)n sw/mati o)/nta, kai\ e)gi/nwsken, o(/ti Qeo\j h)=n, le/gwn: Ku/rie, e)a\n qe/lh|j, du/nasai/ me kaqari/sai. Kai\ ou)/te dia\ th\n sa/rka e)no/mise kti/sma to\n tou= Qeou= Lo/gon: ou)/te dia\ to\ ei)=nai to\n lo/gon dhmiourgo\n pa/shj kti/sewj e)xouqe/nei th\n sa/rka, h(/n e)ndedume/noj h)=n: a)ll' w(j e)n ktistw=| naw=| to\n kti/sthn tou= panto\j proseku/nei kai\ e)kaqarqi/zeto)" (Ad Adelphium, PG 26, 1076AB).

[75] A detailed examination of the "clothing metaphors" in the tradition of the Church of the East may be found in Sebastian Brock, Clothing Metaphors as a Means of theological Expression in the Syriac Tradition // Typus, Symbol, Allegorie bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter / Ed. M. Schmidt / Eichstätter Beiträge 4 (Regensburg, 1982) 11-37, esp. 15-18, 25-26). See the use of the "clothing metaphor" in Nestorius: eds. G. Driver, and Leonard Hodgson, The Bazaar of Heraclides (Oxford, 1925) 21-23.

[76] From "Separation between Orientals and Westerners" (Louise Abramowski, and A. E. Goodman, A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts / Vol. 2 / University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 19 (Cambridge, 1972) p. 31, 10-16, 19-21).

[77] PG 100, 248D-249A.

[78] Horos of Hiereia (Mansi 13, 256AB).

[79] Cf. "At some time between the third and the seventh century, Christians took over the pagan argumentation. Arguments which theretofore had been used by pagan writers in defence of pagan cult statues were in the seventh century cited in writings directed against the Jews and Pagans in defence of Christian images" (Paul J. Alexander, Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Workshop in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1958) 33). For the confirmation of this thesis of Paul Alexander with further evidence that the pagan arguments were taken over from the pagan philosopher Olympiodorus in Alexandria since the writings of John of Salonika expose parallels with Olympiodorus' argument about idols as material manifestations of invisible gods, see A. Armstrong, Some Comments on the Development of the Theology of Images // TU 94 / Ed. F. Cross (Berlin, 1966) 117-26.

[80] S. S. Averintsev also implies that St. John of Damascus had to reply to already existing Iconoclastic argumentation. Cf. “Iconoclasts transferred the argument into the realm of philosophical abstraction… The defenders of the icon veneration in the East – as opposed to the West, where the question was reduced to the practical aspect of pedagogical, didactic function of icons as 'the Bible for the illiterate' and was drawn from the height of speculation down to earth, - accepted the rules of the game; they had to develop the theology of matter and the philosophy of cult. This task largely lay on John of Damascus, the intellectual leader of the Iconodules…” (Ред. З. В. Удальцова и Г. Г. Литаврин, Культура Византии: вторая половина VII-XII вв. [The Culture of Byzantium: The second half of the Seventh-Twelfth Centuries] (Москва, 1989) 39).

[81] For general data about their lives, see M. Cunningham, ed. The Life of Michael the Synkellos / Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 1 (Belfast, 1991) 7-16.

[82] Synaxarion of Constantinople under January 14 (Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitae / Ed. H. Delehaye (Brussels, 1902) cols. 392, 1-393, 1). See also Joseph Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries // Dumbarton Oaks Studies 32 (Washington, 1995) 329. On the Laura of St. Sabas, see I. Phokylidis, (H I(era\ Lau/ra Sa/ba tou= h(giasme/nou, h)/toi I(stori/a th=j Lau/raj (Alexandria, 1927).