Early Period
Up to the end of the second
century neither literary nor archaeological sources give any evidence of the
existence of → Christian art. The NT says nothing about the use of images. One
may infer from this silence a lack of interest due to many causes. One was that
primitive Christianity lived in tense expectation of the → parousia. Another
was that in the struggle against paganism (→ Gentiles, Gentile Christianity),
images were regarded as idolatrous and magical signs. Finally, the small number
of Christians, and their lowly social status, prevented them from building
their own places of worship, which might have functioned as centers of
Christian art. Furthermore, the church, which saw itself as the new and true
Israel, viewed the OT commandment as binding.
The oldest record of the
existence of an image of Christ comes from Irenaeus (d. ca. 200), who tells us
that the → Gnostic sect of the Carpocratians set up and venerated an image of
Christ, along with the images they maintained of great philosophers (Adv. haer. 1.25.6). In nonheretical
churches voices against images increased toward the end of the second century,
from which we may infer that such images were now present. Tertullian (d. ca.
225) denounced all images, but Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215) thought that
neutral motifs might be used on seal rings. Origen (d. ca. 254) rejected images
on the ground that they are a hindrance to spiritual knowledge. The Council of
Elvira (ca. 306) decisively condemned images in the church.
Since, in spite of these negative
voices of the theologians, we find Christian images at the latest by 220 (in
the catacombs in Rome and in the Dura-Europos → house church), we may assume
that in assimilation to pagan customs, Christians had images in defiance of
official church teaching. These images, which revolved around the themes of →
sin, → death, and redemption, arose at the same time in different parts of the
Roman Empire, both in funerary and in liturgical settings.
In the Constantinian age
criticism declined or focused on portraits or → images of Christ. Eusebius of
Caesarea (d. ca. 340) did not oppose symbolic images or those that depicted
scenes, but he sharply rejected the request of the emperor’s sister Constantia
for an image of Christ on the ground that the divinely transfigured Christ
cannot be depicted.
Although Epiphanius of Salamis
(d. 403) still rejected images, the monuments of the fourth century show that,
as distinct from the naive lay art of the third century, there had now
developed a theologically shaped church art. Especially after the Council of →
Nicaea (325), an attempt was made to express in art the dogmatically asserted
coessentiality of the Son with the Father by making images of Christ similar to
those of the all-powerful and divine emperor and by decorating churches more
heavily with biblical and dogmatic cycles. Third-century images were influenced
by the desire of lay piety for deliverance and preservation in death, in
contrast to those of the fourth century, which became the expression of
theological speculation. Obviously significant for private → devotion were
souvenirs from → pilgrimages and the → relics of saints (→ Saints, Veneration
of), which were regarded as worthy of veneration and were thought to bring good
fortune. (Reiner Sörries,
“Images,” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Erwin Fahlbusch, Jan
Milič Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, 5 vols.
[Leiden, Brill: 1992], 3:658-69)
Further Reading:
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons