Tuesday, April 26, 2022

John B. Carpenter vs. the late Tradition Luke Made the First Icon

The following is taken from John B. Carpenter, “Answering Eastern Orthodox Apologists Regarding Icons,” Themelios 43, no. 3 (2018): 424

 

Did Luke Make the First Icon?

 

It is a conviction of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Luke the Evangelist painted the first icon, giving posterity an eyewitness icon of Mary, the “Theotokos” (i.e., God-bearer). [39] This reports is meant to root iconography at the very inception of the church. However, this claim appears to be from the sixth century at the earliest. Later authors, like Theodore Anagnostes (died after 527) supposedly reported about Eudocia, the wife of emperor Theodosian II (408-450), sending to Pulcheria (399-453) from Jerusalem the icon of “the Mother of God” depicted by “the Apostle Luke.” [40] However, other sources claim that the earliest attestation of the supposed icon of Mary by Luke is from Andrew of Crete (ca. 712-740). [41] There is no evidence of the claim of icons by Luke in the early church. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary. “For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary.” [42] It is highly unlikely that a bishop as erudite as Augustine would be ignorant of the claim of an eyewitness rendition of Mary if that claim had originated by his time. Bissera V. Pentcheva concludes, “The myth [of Luke painting an icon] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclast controversy [8th and 9th centuries]. By claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the perpetrators of this fiction fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images.” [43]

 

Notes for the Above

 

[39] Martini writes “There is also the tradition of Luke the Physician painting the first icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) and the infant Jesus (the Hodegetria, which is currently enshrined at a church on Mount Athos)” (in “Iconography in Ancient House Churches”).

 

[40] Cited in Jalena Erdeljan, Chosen Places: Constructing New Jerusalem in Slavia Orthodoxa (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 80n28. After this time and especially during the iconoclastic controversy, insistence on this claim was common. For example, Andrew of Crete writes, “All who (where) then told (that) Apostle Luke painted with his own hands the Incarnated Christ and His spotless Mother and (that) Rome possesses the icons of them in a glorious house. And they accurately say to exist (these icons) also in Jerusalem” (De Sanctarum Imaginum Vemeratione, P.G. 97.1304B).

 

[41] David, “Another Icon Myth: Icons Painted by St. Luke,” Icons and Their Interpretation, 27 October 2011, https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/another-icon-myth-icons-painted-by-st-luke/.

 

[42] Trin. 8:5 (NPNF1 3)

 

[43] Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2006), 124.

 

The evidence against tradition is so overwhelming, one Eastern Orthodox apologist, in a pretty lame attempt to respond to Carpenter’s article, admitted that

 

I would agree wholeheartedly that we do not have compelling evidence that Saint Luke painted any icons, at least by secular standards. (Craig Truglia, "Answering John Carpenter’s Aniconist Historical Arguments," August 23, 2020)

 

Further Reading

 

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons