The second question refers to a
worry the fathers had about depicting on walls what is worshipped and adored.
Th at what is worshipped and adored, one may assume, refers to the holy and the
divine. Why did the council turn against representations of the holy?
According to some church fathers,
it is impossible to have an image of the divine. Eusebius in his letter to the
emperor Constantine’s sister Constantia argues that Christ has two forms (morphon),
a divine and a servant form. The divine form cannot be represented, it is
invisible. The servant form, however, that is to say the human form, was ‘mixed
up’ with the divine form at the Resurrection and the Ascension. Therefore, it
is not possible to create an image of Christ. It would be impossible to use
earthly means: paint and walls, to capture the brilliance which even the
disciples could not view directly at the Transfiguration, according to
Eusebius. Eusebius is clear on the matter: no images. Nevertheless, despite
rebuking Constantia for requesting an image of Christ, he allows the emperor to
adorn the churches being built with pictures. He is equally excited about the
statue of Jesus said to have been made for a woman from Caesarea Philippi,
cured by Christ, and who consequently had a statue made of the event.
According to Grigg, what the
council is against is using material things to represent the divine. It is not
a concern for the worship of what is represented, but for representing what is
worshipped. God needs no images. Images are man-made and thus subject to decay.
Alternatively, the danger also existed of changing the intent of the picture:
the representation could become the object of worship rather than the
divine. In pagan surroundings, this was a genuine threat. Clement of Alexandria
realized this and advised that when one needed a ring to be used as a seal, he
suggested using symbols recognizable to Christians, such as a dove, fish or a
ship, not ‘idols’ or ‘pictures of mistresses’(!)
The council turned against
representations in churches—any pictures, for fear of representing what is
worshipped and adored. The divine cannot be represented; the second commandment
is against any representations. Mosaic Law was clear on this: no graven images.
Even the verbs used (colitur and adoratur) are the same as the verbs
used in the Vulgate translation of Exodus 20:5.
In Scripture the warning is
against all graven images. Here it is against representing that which is
worshipped and adored (i.e. all that is considered holy). The divine cannot and
should not be represented. Why? Several authors have attempted to answer this
when discussing this canon.
The concern voiced by Leclercq,
as by Nolte, is that when one represents the sacred on walls it can be seen by
everyone. The result could be that either the representation could be
misinterpreted by those who do not understand the images or that the faithful
could be seduced into adoring the pictures: i.e., idolatry or superstition. The
viewer might mistake the image for what it depicts. It seems clear to Elliger
(1930), following an earlier thought by Funk (1883), that here it concerns a
fear of profanation of the holy. Th is profanation could be caused by either
pagans or Jews. After all, according to this author, the whole document from
Elvira deals with these issues. The conclusion is that nothing connected to the
religious should be represented on walls. The ruling, according to Elliger, is
against wall paintings, not against any other art form. After all, according to
him, paintings were the earliest Christian art form in Spain. Large,
above-ground buildings only attracted people who may have held other
convictions.
This thought is further
emphasized by Koch (1917) who lists the type of buildings against which this
canon speaks. He names cult centers, houses, memoriae and basilicae
cimiterialis. Catacombs are not above ground and thus of no concern.
Besides, there are no known catacombs in Spain. As there are no large-scale
plastic arts as yet at this period, Koch argues paintings are the object of the
council’s wrath. Based on an analysis of the verbs used (colitur and
adoratur) he concludes that what are to be avoided are representations of
all things sacred to Christians: God, Jesus, angels, saints (apostles and
martyrs) and Biblical scenes.
Th e representations could be
misconstrued by those who do not understand what is depicted, one may conclude.
Also, the divine, as seen in Eusebius and later in Grigg, cannot be depicted,
and certainly not with earthly materials.
This canon has also led to the
suggestion of possible Jewish influence on the council. The ‘Jewish influence’
in this case is the second commandment. For example, in his article on the
canons of Elvira and the Jews, García Iglesias suggests that this canon cannot
be inspired by Jewish thought because the other canons discussing Judaism (c.
16, 49, 50 and 78 as discussed above) are indeed anti-Jewish.
One may assume that the council
fathers were indeed thinking of the second commandment when issuing this canon.
This is then the ‘Jewish’ influence: the Old Testament which is a Jewish book.
What is likely is that with the
emergence of regular church buildings at this time, representations also seemed
likely to adorn the walls. Church leaders wished to halt this—the
representations could be images of the holy. Not only can the holy not be represented
but the images could also be misunderstood.
Th at Christian religious
structures were built we see at Mérida, Barcelona and at Setúbal.
Interestingly, next to each chapel at Mérida and Setúbal is a Mithraeum.
Could this also be one of the
concerns of the council fathers: the influence of various religious practices,
in too close proximity to each other? Early Christian cult centers were often
close to other cultic centers. This is not unusual, especially with the
so-called house-churches. These house-churches were often next to other cult
centers which more often than not were dedicated to Mithras: cf. here at
Setúbal, but also in Rome (the San Clemente is the best known, but also
underneath the Santa Prisca church). Christianity was after all brought to
Spain through soldiers, who also brought Mithraism. Mithraism was especially
strong in the Lusitania and Baetica regions, the area where the council also
took place. Mérida has one of the few remaining house-churches. The paintings
in the house are animals and plants, but these are also full-length figures
represented wearing white tunics with purple and gold decoration; one even
wears sandals adorned with precious stones. Only the lower part of the bodies
is intact. Mérida was also a center for Mithras worship. It is not of course my
intention to state that the council fathers turned against possible
contamination of Christian religious centers by the Mithras cult alone. I would
like to suggest that because of the frequent proximity of house-churches to
cult centers of religions attractive to early Christians, such as the Mithras
worship, or Judaism for that matter, this would possibly have crossed their
minds. Aft er all, similar decorations are often found in the different cult
centers of Judaism, Christianity and Mithraism. It would seem likely that the
faithful were attracted to many different religious groups. After all, at this
time, it would not be so much a question of ‘either-or’ but rather ‘and-and’:
i.e., a combination of many different religious practices. Mithraism and
Christianity shared similar rituals, and the religion closest to Christianity,
Judaism, continued to be a strong influence in the lives of many faithful.
The council fathers realized that
above-ground structures for Christian worship were being built. In contrast to
sepulchral monuments, ecclesiae were accessible above-ground meeting
places. Representations on the walls of these places could be seen and possibly
misconstrued by unbelievers. The fact that some (house) church structures were
close to pagan cult centers may well have been a worry.
The most likely reason for this
canon is undoubtedly, as stated initially, the concern for representing the
divine. The Biblical second commandment makes it clear that God needs no
representation and thus should not be represented, nor should anything
else. An especial concern is when the materials used are subject to decay. The
divine is sacred and can never be captured by human hand. Representing the
divine is not only impossible, wishing to capture the divine on perishable
material was even considered blasphemous.
Whether invoking the second
commandment makes this a Jewish-inspired canon seems somewhat forcing the
issue. Be that as it may, the likeliest explanation is that the council fathers
were influenced by the second commandment. (F. J. E. Boddens Hosang, Establishing
Boundaries: Christian-Jewish Relations in Early Council Texts and the Writings
of the Church Fathers [Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 19; Leiden:
Brill, 2010], 67-72)
Further Reading:
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
