The following is taken from John B. Carpenter, “Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists Regarding Icons,” Themelios 43, no. 3 (2018): 429-30
Being a debate-ending piece of
historical evidence, Elvira’s canon 36 is subject to much attempted
obfuscation. Some claim the standard translation—“Pictures are not to be placed
in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration”—is inaccurate.
[65] Bigham, among others, suggests the following translation: “It has seemed good
that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped
not be painted on the walls.” [66] While this debate on the precise translation
may create a sense of uncertainty about what canon 36 actually says, none of
the proposed translations changes the two relevant statements: that pictures
were not allowed in churches (a moderate aniconism) and that the Synod of
Elvira did not want what is “worshipped and adored” depicted in images. Karl Josef
von Hefele (1809-1893), a German Roman Catholic church historian and bishop,
quotes the original Latin (placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere ne
quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur) and comments that “these
canons are easy to understand” and that “the ancient church did not tolerate
images” and that “the prohibition conceived is in very general terms.” [67]
Another way to obfuscate this apparently
straightforward statement is by reinterpreting it and narrowing its intent.
According to von Hefele, Anton Joseph Binterim (1779-1855), a prominent leader
of Catholics in Prussia, believed that canon 36 forbade only that anyone might
hang images in the church according to his preference to prevent inadmissible
images. Why not, then, require the permission of the bishop or presbyter for an
image? Some claim that canon 36 forbids only images representing God (because
it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints.
But the canon also says colitur (“is honored”). Even if it were a
temporary canon (due to the Diocletian persecution), and nothing in the text
suggests it was, it still demonstrates that if images could be excluded entirely,
they played no indispensable part in Christian worship by that time. Decorations
are dispensable. Icons (if used) are not.
Notes for the Above
[65] This is the common
translation, quoted in Adrian Fortescue, “Veneration of Images” (citing
Hefele-Lecler-cq, “Histoire des Conciles,” 1:240). The same translation is used
with commentary by Karl Josef von Hefele and Joseph Binterim, and others,
according to “The Gentile Exist,” http://www.conorpdowling.com/library/council-of-elvira
[66] Bigham, Early Christian
Attitudes towards Images, 161. Former Catholic monk-priest A. W. Richard
Sipe offers an alternative translation, “There shall be no pictures in
churches, lest what is worshipped and adored be depicted on walls.” Robert
Griff quotes a substantially similar translation: “There should be no pictures
in church, lest what is reverenced and adorned be pained on the walls” (“Aniconic
Worship and the Apologetic Tradition: A Note on Canon 36 of the Council of
Elvira,” Church History 45 [December 1976]: 429). Russian icon painter
and author Leonid Ouspensky also offers another rendition: “It seemed good to
us that paintings should ne be found in churches and that that which is
venerated and adored not be painted on the walls” (Theology of the Icon [St.
Yonkers, NY: Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1993], 1:40).
[67] Karl Josef von Hefele, A History
of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1883); 1:151. Catholic apologists claim that Hefele elsewhere “thought
it was only a precaution against possible profanation by pagans who might go
into a church.” (Adrian Fortescue, “Veneration of Images,” https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/veneration-of-images).
The Catholic Encyclopedia claims that von Hefele, with others, interpreted
“this prohibition as directed against the use of images in overground churches
only, lest the pagans should caricature sacred scenes and ideas” (“Council of
Elvira,” https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05395b.htm).
They imply that Hefele is in agreement with Binterim and Aubespine but, in
fact, he summarizes their conclusions and then states, “but . . .,” offering
contrary evidence and apparently rejecting their attempts to narrow the scope
of canon 36.
Further Reading
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
