Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
What is your first impression after reading this? What is the significance of the fact that John of Damascus did not live under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperor, but that of the Muslim Umayyad caliph? How might that have influenced his writing?

What is your first impression after reading this? What is the significance of the fact that John of Damascus did not live under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperor, but that of the Muslim Umayyad caliph? How might that have influenced his writing?

icon
Related questions
Question
  • What is your first impression after reading this?
  • What is the significance of the fact that John of Damascus did not live under the jurisdiction of the Byzantine emperor, but that of the Muslim Umayyad caliph?
  • How might that have influenced his writing?
**Canons of the Synod of 754** It is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one *hypostasis* or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood… like the Monophysites, or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians. The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it. **Source:** Excerpted from *The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church*, trans. H. R. Percival, in *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series*, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace (repr. Grand Rapids, MI: 1955), pp. 543-44. **Questions for Analysis** 1. With what other things does John of Damascus compare the making of images? How do these comparisons help him make his argument in favor of them?
Transcribed Image Text:**Canons of the Synod of 754** It is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one *hypostasis* or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted—that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy—the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood… like the Monophysites, or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians. The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it. **Source:** Excerpted from *The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church*, trans. H. R. Percival, in *Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series*, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace (repr. Grand Rapids, MI: 1955), pp. 543-44. **Questions for Analysis** 1. With what other things does John of Damascus compare the making of images? How do these comparisons help him make his argument in favor of them?
**Competing Viewpoints: Debating the Power of Icons** The Iconoclast Controversy of the eighth century divided Byzantine society and was a factor in the growing division between the Latin Church of Rome and the Greek Orthodox Church. The excerpts below represent the two main arguments voiced at the time. The first is from a treatise by John of Damascus (c. 675–749), a Christian in the service of the Muslim Umayyad caliphs. The second is an official report issued from the synod convened by the emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) in 754. Constantine was carrying forward the iconoclastic policies of his father, Leo III. **John of Damascus on Holy Images** Our adversaries, the iconoclasts, say: "God's commands to Moses the law-giver were clear: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and thou shalt worship him alone, and thou shalt not make any images of anything in the heaven above or in the earth beneath." But these laws were given to the Jews because they were apt to fall into idolatry. We, on the contrary, are no longer in need of such childish rules. We have grown up out of infancy and have reached the perfection of adulthood. We know how to distinguish between an image and something real or divine. An image is only a likeness of the original and is therefore different from that original. It is not and cannot be an exact reproduction of the original. In just the same way, we know that Jesus Christ is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God: a Son equal to the Father in all things, but differing from Him because a Son is begotten of a Father. They are not the same. We can compare this divine example to a human one: a man who wishes to build a house first thinks and makes out a plan. The plan is an image of the house he will build, but it is not the same as the house. In the same way, things visible on earth are images of invisible and intangible things that we cannot see—but which help us to imagine the divine things in which we believe. Holy Scripture is itself an image of God, setting before us, in the imagery of words, the truths of God's justice and creation. It shows us what is otherwise unknowable, untouchable, making divine things imaginable and understandable. All the invisible workings of God since the creation of the world are
Transcribed Image Text:**Competing Viewpoints: Debating the Power of Icons** The Iconoclast Controversy of the eighth century divided Byzantine society and was a factor in the growing division between the Latin Church of Rome and the Greek Orthodox Church. The excerpts below represent the two main arguments voiced at the time. The first is from a treatise by John of Damascus (c. 675–749), a Christian in the service of the Muslim Umayyad caliphs. The second is an official report issued from the synod convened by the emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) in 754. Constantine was carrying forward the iconoclastic policies of his father, Leo III. **John of Damascus on Holy Images** Our adversaries, the iconoclasts, say: "God's commands to Moses the law-giver were clear: Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and thou shalt worship him alone, and thou shalt not make any images of anything in the heaven above or in the earth beneath." But these laws were given to the Jews because they were apt to fall into idolatry. We, on the contrary, are no longer in need of such childish rules. We have grown up out of infancy and have reached the perfection of adulthood. We know how to distinguish between an image and something real or divine. An image is only a likeness of the original and is therefore different from that original. It is not and cannot be an exact reproduction of the original. In just the same way, we know that Jesus Christ is the living, substantial, unchangeable Image of the invisible God: a Son equal to the Father in all things, but differing from Him because a Son is begotten of a Father. They are not the same. We can compare this divine example to a human one: a man who wishes to build a house first thinks and makes out a plan. The plan is an image of the house he will build, but it is not the same as the house. In the same way, things visible on earth are images of invisible and intangible things that we cannot see—but which help us to imagine the divine things in which we believe. Holy Scripture is itself an image of God, setting before us, in the imagery of words, the truths of God's justice and creation. It shows us what is otherwise unknowable, untouchable, making divine things imaginable and understandable. All the invisible workings of God since the creation of the world are
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer