The Synod of Elvira and Iconography

 

In regards to whether or not physical images are permitted in the liturgy of the church, the witness of the early church in Spain is quite clear upon the subject. Here is what canon 36 of the Synod of Elvira states in unambiguous terms:

"Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration." 

Latin Text: Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur

This is a very key testimony in showing the testimony of the early church in its condemnation of the use of images in churches, in step with the teaching of the second commandment. However, the iconophiles (among both the Romanists as well as the Eastern "Orthodox") have made desperate attempts to escape the force of this canon, knowing it demolishes their views regarding the early attitudes of the church towards images and icons. I will respond to a few of these attempts here. 

First, it is fitting that we should understand the background of this particular synod. The dating of this council is uncertain and has been debated amongst church historians, but most generally agree that it was in the early 4th century, most likely prior to the Council of Nicaea (as Karl Joseph von Hefele [as mentioned elsewhere in this book, Hefele was a Roman Catholic church historian and a bishop present at Vatican I in the 1870. His reputation is high] states). The exact year is irrelevant for our purposes here, but it is important to know that some scholars have speculated that this synod was held during the term of the Diocletian persecution, which has been fostered by some as a means of evading the clear meaning of canon 36, as we will see here in a moment.

It would also be proper for us here to write briefly concerning the exact location of this synod, in accordance with the information we do possess concerning it. Pliny the Elder (Natural History, Book III, Chapter 5) speaks of two towns called "Illiberis", one which was located in Gallia Narbonensis, the other of which was in the southern Spanish province of Baetica (now called Andalusia). Hefele rightly notes that "as it is a Spanish council, there can be no question but that it was the latter town, as Illiberis in Narbonne had been demolished long before the time of Constantine the Great." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:131)

The number of the bishops present at the council has also been disputed to a fair degree. Numbers have ranged from 19 bishops, all the way up to 43 bishops. Hefele mentions a certain "Codex Pithianus" which lists the names of the following bishops who were present at this synod:

"Hosius of Corduba, afterwards so famous in the Arian controversy as Bishop of Cordova ; Sabinus of Hispalis (Seville), Camerismus of Tucci, Sinaginis of Epagra (or Bigerra ), Secundinus of Castulo, Pardus of Mentesa, Flavian of Eliberis, Cantonius of Urci, Liberius of Emerita, Valerius of Cæsaraugusta (Saragossa ), Decentius of Legio ( Leon ), Melantius of Toledo, Januarius of Fibularia ( perhaps Salaria in Hispania Tarraconensis), Vincent of Ossonoba, Quintianus of Elbora , Suceessus of Eliocroca, Eutychian of Basti ( Baza ), and Patricius of Malacca. There were therefore bishops from the most different parts of Spain ; so that we may consider this assembly as a synod representing the whole of Spain." (Karl Josef von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:132)

A couple important things ought to be noted here:

[1]. Probably the most famous of the bishops mentioned in this list is Hossius of Cordoba, who as Hefele said, was well-known in the Arian controversy. He was also present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. St. Athanasius said concerning the following concerning this great man of God: "Of the great Hosius , who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for I suppose it is known unto all men that they caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than this. When was there a Council held, in which he did not take the lead, and by right counsel convince every one?" (St. Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, §5).

[2]. As Hefele noted, the bishops in attendance at this council were from all parts of Spain. Thus, this synod (and thus, canon 36) was not merely addressing one small or particular group of churches in Spain, but rather the "whole of Spain", as Hefele says.

First, we have the attempts of the Papist apologist William Albrecht, who wishes to escape this canon. In order to do this, he proposed the idea that only the first 20 canons or so were actually authentic, and that the other canons were added on later. There were times within this YouTube livestream in which he got off-topic a few times in order to boast of the fact that he speaks multiple languages, or for his partner to talk about how Syriac churches ban angel-worship, in an attempt to somehow connect this to the topic of the Elvira council. But back to the point (lest we imitate Albrecht in his sophistry and evasions!).

First, we consider whether or not the canons of Elvira (and canon 36 in particular) are authentic. Hefele (who, as mentioned earlier, is a Roman Catholic historian, and hence an iconophile also) is of the firm opinion that all of the canons are genuine. He writes that the genuineness of the acts of the council "could only be doubted by hypercriticism." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:132). It is reasonable to view these canons as authentic in light of their inclusion in Giovanni Mansi's collection of the acts of the ecumenical councils and local synods of the early church (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols).  

As for Albrecht, he mentions and reviews over an interview he had with a scholar by the name of Jesús Galisteo Leiva, who written an entire book on the subject of the Elvira council. The interview was done in Spanish, and Albrecht notes that Leiva considers the canons of Elvira to be completely genuine (which would include canon 36). Albrecht, however, chooses to disregard this and dismiss all the canons except for the first 20 or so as inauthentic. He provides no evidence whatsoever for his position, and throws both the very scholar he interviewed as well as all of the Roman Catholic church historians who disagree with him under the bus. 

At another point, Albrecht mentions the fact that we have a list of the bishops who were present at Elvira (which I gave above, quoting Hefele). Albrecht then says that since we don't know if any of the individual bishops were anti-imagery, therefore this is "a real blow against Elvira" (these were Albrecht's exact words; see the 1:00:53 mark in the video). 

"Given such strong manifestations of this apologetic tradition in the era of the Council of Elvira, given also the preoccupation it reflects with the admissibility specifically of images of the gods of the Supreme Divinity, it is not unreasonable to suggest, as Edwyn Bevan does, that it found expression in Canon 36: this tradition seems to provide the only fully adequate explanation of the literal sense of the canon. Evidently, what the Spanish fathers feared was the act of depicting God. They did not simply fear that images of God might be worshipped by Christians, as if one could distinguish between a proper and improper use of images. Rather, their fear was based upon a more fundamental consideration: the mere existence of such images was an insult to God. God has no need of lifeless images. His true image is the sentient man. It would dishonor God to have craftsmen represent Him in base, corruptible matter. Not only would this implicitly liken Him to things which are dead, these representations, like pagan idols, would be open to various kinds of natural disfigurement and, perhaps, even to deliberate desecration. If this fairly represents what the Spanish fathers felt, then, as one who subscribed to the canons, Ossius probably shared their opinion. At the very least, he knew that this was the opinion of other bishops and that it had normative force." (Robert Grigg, "Constantine the Great and the Cult without Images", Viator, Vol. 8 (1977), pg. 28)

The other attempt that has been made in order to explain canon 36 of Elvira is from an Eastern Orthodox apologist from the Ancient Faith website on the internet. 

The writer here posits the following objections against our argument from canon 36:

[1]. "We don’t know what motivated the bishops in this region of Spain to issue this particular canon. Was it to prevent the defacing of icons during the Diocletian persecution? Was it to prevent icons in temporary church buildings (such as a house) from being desecrated at a later point in time? Was it in response to abuse or superstition?" - This same objection is also given by Michael Pomazansky in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition. 

I respond: As said above, the exact dating of this council is unknown. However, it is more likely this council was held shortly after that persecution ended, since the bishops (listed above) could most likely not have traveled and gathered together at once from many different Spanish provinces within the Roman Empire during a time of widespread persecution against the Church. 

[2]. "No church in Spain, either before or after this synod, obeyed the canon — if indeed it was a wholesale condemnation or ban on religious and liturgical images of any kind. There was never any iconoclastic controversy in the Church of Spain, and the implications of this highly-localized, disciplinary canon to the icon debate were completely ignored for centuries."

I respond: the reason why there was not an iconoclastic controversy in Spain (as there was in the 8th century, when images began to be defended and uses on a wholesale level in many Christian provinces) is because the church (with a few exceptions) generally recognized the reality of the second commandment. They knew that we no longer know Christ after the flesh, as Eusebius said, and that therefore we should not put up pictures of Christ in the liturgy. 

[3]. The EO writer on this website further objects that the text of the canon should be translated as "It has seemed good that images should not be in churches so that what is venerated and worshiped not be painted on the walls.". Thus, they claim, the canon was only forbidding certain types of images, but not images in a general way. 

I respond with the words of Hefele: "These canons are easy to understand : we have elsewhere explained why the ancient Church did not tolerate images? Binterim and Aubespine do not believe in a complete exclusion : they think that the Church in general, and the Synod of Elvira in particular, wished to proscribe only a certain kind of images. Binterim believes that this Synod forbade only one thing,—namely, that any one might hang images in the Church according to his fancy, and often therefore inadmissible ones. Aubespine thinks that our canon forbids only images representing God ( because it says adoratur), and not other pictures, especially those of saints. But the canon also says colitur, and the prohibition is conceived in very general terms." (A History of the Councils of the Church, 1:151)

[4]. "While one might ignore all of the above, and still lay hold to Elvira as a code of theological law that is ever-binding on the consciences of Christians, one cannot help but point out the inconsistency of claiming to do so. Why? Because no one actually follows the rest of these canons." 

I respond: Neither we nor the iconophiles consider all of the canons of Elvira to be binding, therefore we accept that which the Scripture agrees with, and reject that which does not agree with that same regula fidei. We have brought forth canon 36 merely as an example to show what it was that the Spanish churches believed during their time.