Wednesday, January 25, 2023

Robert Grigg on the Background to Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira

  

It is not impossible that the members of the Council of Elvira failed to understand Exodus 20:4 literally, but interpreted it as specifically aimed at images of divinity. Tertullian of course did not understand it in this fashion, (Tertullian, De idololatria 4) but Clement of Alexandria apparently did. Clement, like other apologists both Jewish and Christian, was fond of thinking that pagan philosophers, in their more lucid moments, were echoing what was in Scripture. (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, The Pelican History of the Church, no. 1 [Baltimore, 1967], p. 76) For example, according to Clement, Numa Pompilius must have been inspired by the Second Commandment: he forbade the production of an image of divinity in human form. (Clement of Alexanddria, Stromateis 1.15 [Migne, PG 8.777]) Clement also compared the aniconic precepts of Pythagoras to the Old Testament prohibition, writing that it was the purpose of the law of Moses to prevent men from clinging to things of the senses and dishonoring divinity by worshipping it in material form. (Ibid. 5.5 [Migne, PG 9.49]) These two reports, I believe, have some quite startling implications. It seems that in order to make these comparisons plausible Clement was tempted to read into the Old Testament prohibition ideas which were found in pagan polemics against images were not a part of the prohibition's literal meaning, which, as Tertullian seems to have realized, was categorical with respect to likenesses. At times it appears that later churchmen, whether for or again images, also assumed, as did Clement, that it was aimed specifically at images of God. John of Damascus, for example, wrote that it is an act of "impiety to figure God. Hence, the use of images was not practiced in [the times of] the Old Testament." (De fide orthodoxa 4.16)

 

The clerics who met at Elvira likewise may have assumed, under the impact of the apologetic tradition, that the underlying purpose of the Second Commandment was to prevent the impiety of figuring divinity. It is not known who was responsible for Canon 36, much less how its authors knew of the apologetic tradition. But it is interesting to note that at least one member of the council, Ossius of Cordova, was interested in pagan philosophy, that is, if he be the "Osio" to whom Caleidius dedicated his translation of Plato's Timaeus. (Clereq, Ossius, pp. 69 ff., reviews the grounds for this identification) Ossius, who was to become an important adviser to Constantine, could hardly have effectively represented the church at an imperial court without having mastered the arguments of Christian apologists. And there is, I believe, evidence that Constantine was persuaded, perhaps through the advocacy of Ossius, to respect the avowed hostility of Christians to images. Thus it would be attractive to identify the canon with Ossius. Unfortunately there is no compelling evidence that he was its author. But whoever framed Canon 36 left in its evidence that the arguments of apologists against images were more than mere rationalizations used solely for the benefit of pagans. Instead, in at least one instance, they were used to enforce among Christians the practice of aniconic worship. (Robert Grigg, "Aniconic Worship and the Apologetic Tradition: A Note on Canon 36 of the Council of Elvira," Church History 45, no. 4 [December 1976]: 432-33)

 

 Further Reading:


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