Iconoclasm
in the Byzantine Empire
Chris
Chappell
History
515
Dr.
Santoro
March
23, 2010
This is an example of the body of the paper
“The falsely called ‘icon’ neither has
its existence in the tradition of Christ or the Apostles or the Fathers, nor is
there any prayer of consecration to transpose it from the state of being common
to the state of being sacred. Instead, it remains common and worthless as the
painter made it.”1
This definition is clearly in favor of
Iconoclasm and claims that ‘icons’ bear nothing special whatsoever.2
The
debate over the use of icons in religious worship had been a part of religious
debate for years. Prior to the Iconoclastic period, J.F. Haldon tells us,
“Iconoclastic, or anti-image, sentiment was, of course,
nothing new in Christian thought. The debate on the nature of icons had long
been part of Christian doctrinal discussion and argument, although no developed
theory of icons yet existed.”3
This however, certainly changed with
the introduction of Iconoclasm in the 8th century. During this time
many arguments arise to claim the validity of the breaking of icons.
Prior to the death of Justinian the use of
icons may have been in existence but it was not done on a large scale. After
the death of Justinian however, Harry J.
1. Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (New Jersey:
Princeton University Press, 2007), 105.
2. Ibid.,
105.
3. J.F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1990), 87.
Herrin, Judith. Byzantium:
The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. New Jersey: Princeton Univeristy
Press, 2007.
