The following is an excerpt of Eric D. Svendsen, In the Image of God: A Dialogue With a Roman Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images (a thorough response to Robert Sungenis on the overwhelming early Christian evidence against the later defined RC/EO dogma)
[Eric D.] Svendsen [Evangelical Answers]: p. 202:
As with the other fathers cited above, Irenaeus' statement betrays a
categorical rejection of the use of images for religious purposes. He observes
the Gnostics from a distance and notes that 'they' possess images, and that
'they' maintain a legend about an image of Christ made by Pilate. 'They' honor
these images they [sic] same way the Gentiles honor their pagan images. No one
who speaks this way can at the same time entertain a legitimate Christian use
of images. Indeed, it was the heretical Gnostics (not Irenaeus and orthodoxy)
that set up and venerated the image of Christ - a decidedly Christian image. It
would require very little imagination to conjecture what Irenaeus' response
would be to the Catholic crucifix."
R. Sungenis: Irenaeus is saying just the opposite of
what Svendsen is claiming. Irenaeus is not saying that images themselves are
evil. From the remaining context of Against Heresies (chapters 20-26), and even
in this context, he is saying that it is a contradiction for groups such as the
Gnostics, who deny almost every doctrine of Christ and Christianity, to be
carrying an image of Christ from Pilate. Why carry an image of Christ if you
deny everything that He taught?
Is this really what Irenaeus is saying? Sungenis provides the same
quotation that I provide in my book, and which reads as follows:
“[They] call themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some
of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material. They
maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus
lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the
images of the philosophers of the world. That is to say, they place them with
the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other
modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles” (Against
Heresies, Book I, XXV.6).
There is absolutely nothing in the context of
this passage to lend credence to Sungenis’ suggestion that what Irenaeus really
means is, “it is a contradiction for groups such as the Gnostics, who deny
almost every doctrine of Christ and Christianity, to be carrying an image of
Christ from Pilate.” Far from it. The Gnostics had a doctrine of Christ, as the
following passages show:
“They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was just
like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in this respect,
that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly remembered those
things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the unbegotten God” (XXV.1).
“This idea has raised them to such a pitch of pride, that some of
them declare themselves similar to Jesus” (ibid.2)
“And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation
which they give [of their views], declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to
His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained
permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be
worthy and believing” (ibid.5).
It would be absolutely no contradiction to their views to set up
an image of Christ. Sungenis ignores the immediate context and simply
speculates (based on the Gnostic’s inaccuracies regarding Christ) that this is
what Irenaeus must have meant. Yet, again, such an assertion is simply gratuitous.
Moreover, Sungenis ignores the “they hold” language used
throughout this chapter, indicating what the Gnostics believed as
opposed to Christians:
V.1: “his followers maintain that the world and the
things which are therein were created by angels greatly inferior to the
unbegotten Father.”
V.1: “They also hold that Jesus was the son of Joseph,
and was just like other men, with the exception that he differed from them in
this respect, that inasmuch as his soul was stedfast and pure, he perfectly
remembered those things which he had witnessed within the sphere of the
unbegotten God.”
V. 1: “and they say that it, after passing
through them all, and remaining in all points free, ascended again to him.”
V. 1: “They further declare, that the soul of Jesus,
although educated in the practices of the Jews, regarded these with contempt.”
V. 2: “some of them declare themselves similar to
Jesus.”
V. 2: “others, still more mighty, maintain that they
are superior to his disciples.”
V. 3: “They practice also magical arts and
incantations; philters, also, and love-potions; and have recourse to familiar
spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations,
V. 3: “[they] declare that they possess
power to rule over, even now, the princes and formers of this world; and not
only them, but also all things that are in it.”
V. 3: “they lead a licentious life.”
V. 3: “they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of
hiding their wickedness”
V. 4: “So unbridled is their madness, that they declare they
have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at
liberty to practice them.”
V. 4: “they maintain that things are evil or good,
simply in virtue of human opinion.”
V. 4: “They deem it necessary, therefore, that by
means of transmigration from body to body, souls should have experience of
every kind of life as well as every kind of action.”
V. 4: “their writings express that their souls, having
made trial of every kind of life [in licentious behavior], may, at their
departure, not be wanting in any particular.”
V. 4: “They affirm that for this reason Jesus spoke
the following parable” [followed by an interpretation to which Irenaeus clearly
objects].
V. 4: “They also declare the "adversary" is
one of those angels who are in the world, whom they call the Devil, maintaining that
he was formed for this purpose, that he might lead those souls which have
perished from the world to the Supreme Ruler.”
V. 4: “They describe him also as being chief among the
makers of the world, and maintain that he delivers such souls
[as have been mentioned] to another angel, who ministers to him, that he may
shut them up in other bodies; for they declare that the body is ‘the prison.’”
V. 4: “they interpret these expressions . . . . as
meaning that no one can escape from the power of those angels who made the
world, but that he must pass from body to body”
V. 5: “And in their writings we read as follows,
the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that
Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they
requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to
others who should be worthy and believing.”
V. 6: “Others of them employ outward marks,
branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear.”
V. 6: “They style themselves Gnostics.”
V. 6: “They also possess images, some of them painted, and
others formed from different kinds of material.”
V. 6: “they maintain that a likeness of Christ was
made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them.”
V. 6: “They crown these images, and set them up along
with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the
images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest.”
V. 6: “They have also other modes of honoring these
images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.”
It seems superfluous to mention that Irenaeus’ obvious point here
is that, among these things, there is not even one common belief with true
Christianity. If Sungenis’ point is maintained, we could then make the same
case for every one of the other beliefs Irenaeus insists “they hold.” Perhaps
Sungenis wishes to suggest that Irenaeus really doesn’t condemn the Gnostic
practice of “magical arts, incantations, philters, love-potions, familiar
spirits, and dream-sending demons”; he just sees them as inconsistent with
their rejection of the doctrines of Christ. He doesn’t really intend to condemn
their belief that “the world and the things which are therein were created by
angels”; only that it is inconsistent with their rejection of the doctrines of
Christ. He doesn’t really condemn the Gnostic practice of “irreligious and
impious” acts; only that they are inconsistent with their rejection of the
doctrines of Christ.
Sungenis’ odd statement, “Why carry an
image of Christ if you deny everything that He taught?,” raises serious
doubts in my mind that Sungenis could have given much thought to his answer. I
hesitate to believe that Sungenis, who has received formal training in these
things, is that unfamiliar with the tenets of Gnosticism. I will extend to him
the benefit of the doubt that he simply raced through his response. The
Gnostics didn’t reject anything Christ taught; they simply had their own
interpretation of it. Irenaeus demonstrates that he understands this much about
Gnostic belief when he mentions their interpretation of Jesus’ parables.
Sungenis’ apparent lack of knowledge of Gnostic tenets raises even more doubts
that he understands Irenaeus, who writes against these tenets.
Further Reading
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
