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
