Donald:
In answer to your query, we can say both yes and no (hah, must
be a theological issue!)
Yes, in the sense that there came to be exact rules for depictions
of Christ, BVM, etc, in the byzantine icons (to which someone has
already referred).
No, in terms of explicit theological argument. The whole
iconoclastic controversy focused on two specific issues: one
biblical (that first/second commandment thing), and the second on
the philosophical issues drawn from classical aesthetics and sign
theory. The first was resolved by making a distinction about
worship and adoration (John Damascene makes the most powerful
argument here), and the second about what an image is supposed
to do. The iconoclasts argued that a correct, accurate depiction of
Christ must include some representation of his divinity. If so, then
one is circumscribing the incircumscribable, and if not then one is
focusing attention solely on the human nature (and that, my
friends, is Nestorianism!). The iconodule response was to rest
upon the theory of signification and the idea of mimesis. There, the
whole controversy in thirty words or less. :-)
Sometime ago, somebody pointed out to me that an accurate
representation of Christ does not resolve the debate, and indeed
raises the whole nestorian sub-text of the controversy (but I have
not yet investigated where this emerges in the sources).
In broader terms, I am always intrigued by conversations like the
one we have had on the list, since they focus almost exlusively on
the visual arts. Representations of Christ emerge in all forms,
including the written. Think of the major concepts of Jesus as
Judge, the christ-child, the suffering saviour, the images of Jesus in
the Renaissance as a good citizen (along with the ensuing civic
idea of Christ in Reformation theological discourse), and even the
more recent attempts with the quest for a 'historical' Jesus, Jesus
as a revolutionary (1960s?). A nice little article appeared in the
Observer this weekend:
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/observer/focus/story/0,3879,111022
,00.html
The objection, often raised, when we note these variations is that it
makes it appear that Jesus is this malleable character, who had no
individual integrity or message, but rather became the launching
pad for others (now there's a theme for current Pauline theology). I
don't necessarily see this, and in fact, I find myself in agreement
with the Oriens: it is one way in which the message of Jesus
remains vibrant and relevant. As an academic, and a medievalist, I
am fascinated by the flexibile and admirable attempts at making
Jesus a significant and relevant figure in medieval thought and
worship. In terms of my own theological commitments, I find it to
be a process of integrity and indeed an exciting one. The power of
Christ's salvific message is strong enough to survive anything
humanity tries to create to communicate it (sorry if that comment
is inappropriate for this list).
Always enjoyed Pelikan's _Jesus Through the Centuries_. Bit
general in places, but he asks excellent questions.
Cheers
Jim
=====================================================================
Dr James R Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44.113.233.6749
Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cms/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/rg **** NEW ****
====================================================================
"First up ther wor nobbut God. An 'e said, "Ee, lad, turn th'bloody
light on." -Yorkshire paraphase of Gen. 1.2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|