Description
Purpose
To compare and contrast Iconography within Medieval Byzantine Empire and early Islam
Theme
The theme of this module’s discussion board is religion.
Directions
Citing evidence from the section on Iconoclasm in Chapter 11 of the textbook, the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Islam, “Shirk” in Islam, and the Iconoclastic Council, 754, what do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have in common, why might Byzantine Christians have begun to urgently focus on this common tenet in the 8th Century, and what was the result?
When you have completed your response, please respond to at least one other classmate’s post. You can engage in friendly debate or add additional analysis and points to your classmate’s post.
Note: You will not be able to view your classmates’ posts until you make your first post.
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length, but not exceed 500 words. Your response to your classmate’s post should be at least 2-3 substantive sentences.
Grading
This discussion board assignment is worth 100 points.
Students are only required to complete FOUR of the Discussion Boards for their grades. The Module 1 Introduction and Module 2 Final Project Brainstorm are required. However, students may choose to complete ANY four of the remaining seven Discussion Boards to complete this requirement. Additionally, students may choose to complete a fifth Discussion Board for extra credit.
Discussions are worth 25% of the overall grade.
Rubric
OutstandingVery GoodAveragePoor
Writing
40 Points
Demonstrates outstanding critical thinking and analytical skills in written responses.Demonstrates critical thinking and analytical skills in written responses.Demonstrates decent critical thinking and analytical skills in written responses, but lacks a thorough interpretation.Does not demonstrate critical thinking and analytical skills in written responses. The effort is lacking. There appears to be little understanding of the purpose of the assignment.
Analysis
40 Points
Displays outstanding knowledge and understanding of historical subject matter.Displays knowledge and understanding of historical subject matter.Displays fair knowledge and understanding of historical subject matter, but lacks a deep understanding.
Does not display consistent knowledge and understanding of historical subject matter.
The effort is lacking. There appears to be insufficient understanding of the meaning of the assigned reading(s).
4 attachmentsSlide 1 of 4attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Iconoclastic Council, 754
Introduction: The Iconoclastic Council of Hieria was a Christian council summoned by the Emperor
Constantine V in 754 in what we now call the Byzantine Empire. The council met to approve of an
support the emperor’s stance on iconography, condemning the liturgical use of Icons as heresy.
As you read, consider what historical elements the council draws on to support its position. How does
the council compare its own religious stance compared to others?
EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE,
A.D. 754.
THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD.
The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most pious command of the Godbeloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine and Leo,(2) now assembled in the imperial residence city,
in the temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in Blachernae, have
decreed as follows.
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and
the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own
Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God
in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and
these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy
Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos
of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under
the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the
power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new
idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit.
Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the
deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they
might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (
omoiwmatwn ) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration ( latreias ) of God to the
low and material adoration ( latreian ) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might
express their view on the subject.
Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and
accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical
Synods. In the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the
unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation–namely,
the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he
divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches,
and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of
such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six
Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the
unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or
person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should
not be depicted–that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in
the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ
signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his
foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be
represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy–the
one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those
fall into the same blasphemy who venerate
the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches,
and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the
divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only
the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be
considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly
assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented
apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the
dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul
also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and
the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary
passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there
too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools
venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man?
They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a
subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person
into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine
by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the
Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he
represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the
Nestorians.
The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This
and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered
to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the
body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the
descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who,
separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it.
The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and
the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or
made anything else than ordinary matter.
If, however, some say, we might be right in regard to the images of Christ, on account of the mysterious
union of the two natures, but it is not right for us to forbid also the images of the altogether spotless
and ever-glorious Mother of God, of the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, who were mere men and did
not consist of two natures; we may reply, first of all: If those fall away, there is no longer need of these.
But we will also consider what may be said against these in particular. Christianity has rejected the
whole of heathenism, and so not merely heathen sacrifices, but also the heathen worship of images. The
Saints live on eternally with God, although they have died. If anyone thinks to call them back again to life
by a dead art, discovered by the heathen, he makes himself guilty of blasphemy. Who dares attempt
with heathenish art to paint the Mother of God, who is exalted above all heavens and the Saints? It is
not permitted to Christians, who have the hope of the resurrection, to imitate the customs of demonworshippers, and to insult the Saints, who shine in so great glory, by common dead matter.
Moreover, we can prove our view by Holy Scripture and the Fathers. In the former it is said: “God is a
Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth;” and: “Thou shall not make
thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath;” on which account God spoke to the Israelites on the Mount, from the midst of the fire, but
showed them no image. Further: “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man,… and served the creature more than the Creator.” [Several other passages, even
less to the point, are cited.]
The same is taught also by the holy Fathers. [The Synod appeals to a spurious passage from Epiphanius
and to one inserted into the writings of Theodotus of Ancyra, a friend of St. Cyril’s; to utterances–in no
way striking–of Gregory of Nazianzum, of SS. Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius of Amphilochius and of
Eusebius Pamphili, from his Letter to the Empress Constantia, who had asked him for a picture of Christ.]
Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously, in the name of the Holy
Trinity, that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed one of the Christian Church every likeness
which is made out of any material and colour whatever by the evil art of painters.
Whoever in future dares to make such a thing, or to venerate it, or set it up in a church, or in a private
house, or possesses it in secret, shall, if bishop, presbyter, or deacon, be deposed; if monk or layman, be
anathematised, and become liable to be tried by the secular laws as an adversary of God and an enemy
of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers. At the same time we ordain that no incumbent of a
church shall venture, under pretext of destroying the error in regard to images, to lay his hands on the
holy vessels in order to have them altered, because they are adorned with figures. The same is provided
in regard to the vestments of churches, cloths, and all that is dedicated to divine service. If, however,
the incumbent of a church wishes to have such church vessels and vestments altered, he must do this
only with the assent of the holy Ecumenical patriarch and at the bidding of our pious Emperors. So also
no prince or secular official shall rob the churches, as some have done in former times, under the
pretext of destroying images. All this we ordain, believing that we speak as doth the Apostle, for we also
believe that we have the spirit of Christ; and as our predecessors who believed the same thing spake
what they had synodically defined, so we believe and therefore do we speak, and set forth a definition
of what has seemed good to us following and in accordance with the definitions of our Fathers.
(1) If anyone shall not confess, according to the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers, in the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost one godhead, nature and substance, will and operation, virtue and dominion,
kingdom and power in three subsistences, that is in their most glorious Persons, let him be anathema.
(2) If anyone does not confess that one of the Trinity was made flesh, let him be anathema.
(3) If anyone does not confess that the holy Virgin is truly the Mother of God, etc.
(4) If anyone does not confess one Christ both God and man, etc.
(5) If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the flesh of the Word
of God, etc.
(6) If anyone does not confess two natures in Christ, etc.
(7) If anyone does not confess that Christ is seated with God the Father in body and soul, and so will
come to judge, and that he will remain God forever without any grossness, etc.
(8) If anyone ventures to represent the divine image ( karakthr ) of the Word after the Incarnation with
material colours, let him be anathema!
(9) If anyone ventures to represent in human figures, by means of material colours, by reason of the
incarnation, the substance or person (ousia or hypostasis) of the Word, which cannot be depicted, and
does not rather confess that even after the Incarnation he [i.e., the Word] cannot be depicted, let him
be anathema!
(10) If anyone ventures to represent the hypostatic union of the two natures in a picture, and calls it
Christ, and fires falsely represents a union of the two natures, etc.!
(11) If anyone separates the flesh united with the person of the Word from it, and endeavours to
represent it separately in a picture, etc.!
(12) If anyone separates the one Christ into two persons, and endeavours to represent Him who was
born of the Virgin separately, and thus accepts only a relative ( sketikh ) union of the natures, etc.
(13) If anyone represents in a picture the flesh deified by its union with the Word, and thus separates it
from the Godhead, etc.
(14) If anyone endeavours to represent by material colours, God the Word as a mere man, who,
although bearing the form
of God, yet has assumed the form of a servant in his own person, and thus endeavours to separate him
from his inseparable Godhead, so that he thereby introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, etc.
(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be
higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her
intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.
(16) If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material
colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather
represent their virtues as living images in himself, etc.
(17) If anyone denies the profit of the invocation of Saints, etc.
(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to
everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc.
(19) If anyone does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod, let him be anathema from
the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and from the seven holy Ecumenical Synods!
[Then follows the prohibition of the making or teaching any other faith, and the penalties for
disobedience. After this follow the acclamations.]
The divine Kings Constantine and Leo said: Let the holy and ecumenical synod say, if with the consent of
all the most holy bishops the definition just read has been set forth.
The holy synod cried out: Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind. We have all with one voice
and voluntarily subscribed. This is the faith of the Apostles. Many years to the Emperors! They are the
light of orthodoxy! Many years to the orthodox Emperors! God preserve your Empire! You have now
more firmly proclaimed the inseparability of the two natures of Christ! You have banished all idolatry!
You have destroyed the heresies of Germanus [of Constantinople], George and Mansur [ mansour , John
Damascene]. Anathema to Germanus, the double-minded, and worshipper of wood! Anathema to
George, his associate, to the falsifier of the doctrine of the Fathers! Anathema to Mansur, who has an
evil name and Saracen opinions! To the betrayer of Christ and the enemy of the Empire, to the teacher
of impiety, the perverter of Scripture, Mansur, anathema! The Trinity has deposed these three!(1)
Adapted from: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/icono-cncl754.asp (accessed 12/11/20)
0120021313
!”#$%
45678ÿÿ76_x000e__x000e_6_x000f_ÿ_x000e_6_x000e_ÿ_x000e__x000f__x000f_6
!”#$%&ÿ()*+,-./ÿ01+2-34ÿ+ÿ5+*637*ÿ89:ÿ;917937&ÿ-3ÿ?;@+1&ÿ-A9@+6*B&ÿ59@B6C7-;1&ÿ+3Aÿ6C7
+;;9.-+6-93ÿ9:ÿD9AÿE-6Cÿ96C7*ÿA7-6-7;F
GC7ÿHI*JK3ÿ(?;@+1-.ÿ;.*-56I*7>ÿ;6*7;;7;ÿ-3ÿ1+3BÿL7*;7;ÿ6C+6ÿD9AÿA97;ÿ396ÿ;C+*7ÿC-;ÿ59E7*;
E-6Cÿ+3Bÿ5+*637*ÿ(MNOPQR>Fÿ?6ÿE+*3;ÿ6C9;7ÿEC9ÿ,7@-7L7ÿ6C7-*ÿ-A9@;ÿE-@@ÿ-367*.7A7ÿ:9*ÿ6C71ÿ6C+6
6C7B&ÿ69476C7*ÿE-6Cÿ6C7ÿ-A9@;&ÿE-@@ÿ,7.917ÿ:I7@ÿ:9*ÿC7@@:-*7ÿ93ÿ6C7ÿS+Bÿ9:ÿTIA41736ÿ(UV/WX>F
GC7ÿ4*7+6ÿ1+Y9*-6Bÿ9:ÿZ[MNPR]^ÿ(59@B6C7-;6;>ÿ-3ÿ6C7ÿ_*95C76̀;ÿ6-17ÿE7*7ÿ6C9;7ÿEC9ÿC+Aÿ37L7*
,7.917ÿaI;@-1;bÿ6CI;&ÿ6C7ÿE9*A;ÿ9:ÿ6C7ÿHI*JK3ÿE7*7ÿ+AA*7;;7Aÿ396ÿ69ÿaI;@-1;ÿE-6Cÿ6C7
-36736-93ÿ9:ÿ2775-34ÿ6C71ÿ:-*1ÿ-3ÿ6C7-*ÿ:+-6Cÿ,I6ÿ*+6C7*ÿ69ÿ393caI;@-1ÿ)*+,;F
?3ÿdeNÿ(?;@+1-.ÿYI*-;5*IA73.7>&ÿMNPRÿ,7.+17ÿ@74+@@Bÿ7fI-L+@736ÿ69ÿR[dPÿ(I3,7@-7:>FÿGC9;7
aI;@-1;ÿEC9ÿ5*9:7;;ÿ-6ÿ+*7ÿ.93;-A7*7Aÿ9I6@+E;ÿEC9ÿ;C9I@Aÿ,7ÿ9I;67Aÿ:*91ÿ6C7ÿaI;@-1
.911I3-6Bbÿ+@@ÿ6C7-*ÿ@74+@ÿ*-4C6;ÿ+*7ÿ;I;573A7AÿI36-@ÿ6C7BÿA739I3.7ÿ6C7-*ÿ59@B6C7-;6-.ÿ,7@-7:;F
gNPR&ÿC9E7L7*&ÿ*7.7-L7Aÿ.93;-A7*+,@7ÿ7h673;-93ÿ9:ÿ17+3-34ÿ6C*9I4C9I6ÿ6C7ÿA941+6-.
A7L7@951736ÿ9:ÿ?;@+1Fÿ?6ÿA-Aÿ396ÿ*71+-3ÿ;-15@Bÿ+ÿ67*1ÿ:9*ÿ6C7ÿ-A9@+6*Bÿ5*7L+-@-34ÿ9I6;-A7ÿ?;@+1
,I6ÿ.+17ÿ69ÿ,7ÿI;7Aÿ+;ÿ6C7ÿ9559;-67ÿ9:ÿiOjkQlÿ(6C7ÿ93737;;ÿ9:ÿD9A>ÿ+3Aÿ,7.+17ÿ;B393B19I;
E-6Cÿ+3Bÿ,7@-7:ÿ9*ÿ5*+.6-.7ÿ*7Y7.67Aÿ,Bÿ+ÿ5+*6-.I@+*ÿ;7.6F
S-::7*736ÿ4*+A7;ÿ9:ÿMNPRÿC+L7ÿ,773ÿA-;6-34I-;C7A&ÿ+5+*6ÿ:*91ÿ5I*7ÿ+3Aÿ,@+6+36ÿ59@B6C7-;1F
GC7*7ÿ-;ÿMNPRÿOnopqlONÿ(0MNPRÿ9:ÿ.I;691=>&ÿEC-.Cÿ-3.@IA7;ÿ+@@ÿ;I57*;6-6-93;&ÿ;I.Cÿ+;ÿ6C7ÿ,7@-7:
-3ÿ9173;ÿ+3Aÿ6C7ÿ;772-34ÿ9:ÿC7@5ÿ:*91ÿ;996C;+B7*;FÿgNPRÿOnoprqlONÿ(0MNPRÿ9:ÿE9*;C-5=>ÿ-;
1+3-:7;67Aÿ-3ÿ6C7ÿ,7@-7:ÿ-3ÿ6C7ÿ59E7*;ÿ9:ÿ.*7+67Aÿ6C-34;s7F4F&ÿ6C7ÿ*7L7*73.-34ÿ9:ÿ;+-36;&
2-;;-34ÿC9@Bÿ;6937;&ÿ+3Aÿ5*+B-34ÿ+6ÿ6C7ÿ4*+L7ÿ9:ÿ+ÿC9@Bÿ1+3FÿGC7*7ÿ-;ÿMNPRÿOnopnZÿ(0MNPRÿ9:
239E@7A47=>s7F4F&ÿ69ÿ.*7A-6ÿ+3B937&ÿ;I.Cÿ+;ÿ+;6*9@947*;ÿ9*ÿ-367*5*767*;ÿ9:ÿA*7+1;&ÿE-6C
239E@7A47ÿ9:ÿ6C7ÿ:I6I*7Fÿ)@@ÿ6C7;7ÿ6B57;ÿ9:ÿMNPRÿ+*7ÿMNPRÿtOuNQPÿ(01-39*ÿMNPR=>ÿ-3
.915+*-;93ÿE-6Cÿ59@B6C7-;1F
GC7ÿvA-69*;ÿ9:ÿv3.B.@95+7A-+ÿw*-6+33-.+ÿGC-;ÿ+*6-.@7ÿE+;ÿ19;6ÿ*7.736@Bÿ*7L-;7Aÿ+3AÿI5A+67Aÿ,Bÿ)A+1ÿx7-A+3&
);;-;6+36ÿvA-69*F
5 22_x001a__x001a__x001a__x001b__x001c_76_x000e__x000e_6_x000f__x001b__x000f__x001d_276_x000e_276_x000f_2_x001e__x001f_00
021
0120021313
45678ÿÿ76_x000e__x000e_6_x000f_ÿ_x000e_6_x000e_ÿ_x000e__x000f__x000f_6
!”#$#”%&ÿ(&)%*+$#”%&
,*#”-./ÿ0″#./1ÿ23″*4
5/67″#/ÿ8$+/1ÿ9&-:-.%;$/
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Explanation & Answer:
250 words
Tags:
Iconography In
Medieval Byzantine Empire and
Early Islam
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
