Date:___April 20, 2020___Approved
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Communion of Incorruption: A Theology of Icons and Relics by Carole Lynette Taylor Duke Divinity School Duke University Date:____April 20, 2020______ Approved: ___________________________ Paul Griffiths, Supervisor ___________________________ Jeremy Begbie ___________________________ Natalie Carnes ___________________________ Kevin Hart ___________________________ Thomas Pfau Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology in the Divinity School of Duke University 2020 ABSTRACT Communion of Incorruption: A Theology of Icons and Relics by Carole Lynette Taylor Duke Divinity School Duke University Date:___April 20, 2020_______ Approved: ___________________________ Paul Griffiths, Supervisor ___________________________ Jeremy Begbie ___________________________ Natalie Carnes ___________________________ Kevin Hart ___________________________ Thomas Pfau An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology in the Divinity School of Duke University 2020 Copyright by Carole Lynette Taylor 2020 Abstract This dissertation contributes to contemporary scholarship on the historical and theological significance of Christian iconodulia—the appropriate veneration of holy persons, places, and things. By accentuating the economic aspect of the Byzantine image debates it illustrates how the concerns raised by those defending the holy images in the eighth and ninth centuries proved to be precisely the issues that would accompany the resurgence of Christian iconoclasm in the Protestant Reformation. What should be clearer from the standpoint of this study is that debates concerning the legitimacy of the production and veneration of holy images touch on the fundamental claims of the Christian faith as at the heart of the theological defense is the mystery of God-made-man and the implications of this mystery for how God continues to seek union through his own body, that is, in the sacrifice of the Eucharist and in the Church itself. Attending closely to the economic aspect of the theological defense of iconodulia, we can see that the “economic appropriation” of the incarnation funds theological claims about the ontological stability, or unicity, of the Church. That is to say, to speak about the history and theology of iconodulia in the Christian tradition one must acknowledge the ecclesiological claims inherent to the orthodox defense. Therefore, this dissertation also contributes to contemporary ecumenical discussions and challenges some of the presumptions at the heart of that discussion. iv This dissertation is dedicated to my children, Isaac and Sophia. Being your mother is the highest honor and greatest joy of my life. v Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Incorruption ...................................................................................... 9 Euphemia’s Consent ..................................................................................... 9 Severus and the Inexpressible Union ............................................................. 15 Paul, Christian Identity, and the Mystery of Imperishability .......................... 33 Irenaeus (130-202) ........................................................................................ 43 Athanasius (299-373) .................................................................................... 48 Cyril of Alexandria (376-444) ....................................................................... 55 Economics of Salvation ................................................................................ 60 Chapter 2: Iconomy ............................................................................................ 68 Pseudo-Dionysius ......................................................................................... 77 What is the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy? ............................................. 81 How is the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy? .............................................. 83 Why is the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy? .............................................. 88 Maximus the Confessor (580-662) ................................................................ 97 John of Damascus (675-749) ......................................................................... 108 ` A Gloss on John Damascene’s Taxonomy ...................................... 118 Chapter 3: Communion ....................................................................................... 136 Corpus Christi ............................................................................................... 136 Corpus Mysticum.......................................................................................... 141 A Holy Synecdoche ...................................................................................... 154 Celestial Bodies ............................................................................................ 169 Icon or Idol ................................................................................................... 181 Chapter 4: Contested Body ................................................................................ 191 Conclusion............................................................................................................ 243 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 248 Biography ............................................................................................................. 252 vi Introduction We seldom think that the status of holy images in Christian tradition is much more than an ancillary issue belonging to the annals of Church history. Consequently, contemporary treatments of the ecclesial icon tend to focus on the historical context of the Byzantine image debates and/or the theological treatments of the icon by Eastern Orthodox theologians. With the former, historians often focus on the political context of the debates and how this informed the theology of the iconoclast parties against the making and venerating of holy images. For those interested in the development of icon theology among the iconodule theologians, much is made of their reliance on Platonic and neo-Platonic concepts for the development of the Christian image. And therefore there is much discussion about the economy of the image itself (image and prototype). In both cases, the centrality of the incarnation is highlighted as there is no question that the mystery of the incarnation of the Word meant new forms of theological reasoning and speculation were in order. However, what is striking among the volumes of scholarship treating the history and theology of Christian icons is the almost complete silence around the economic aspect of the debates. That is to say, when the ecclesiological aspect is treated it is most often done so from a political standpoint and therefore fails to acknowledge the economic stakes internal to the iconodules’ defense. Yet a close reading of the iconodule texts reveals they were primarily motivated by a fervent concern to preserve Orthodox reflection on the nature of the Church and the economy of salvation. This dissertation aims to contribute to contemporary discourse on the ecclesial icon by exploring how the theological defense of Christian iconodulia (veneration of holy images 1 and relics) entails an ecclesiology based on the image-logic central to the doctrine of the Trinity. Critically, this project is an intervention into contemporary ecumenism, the movement aimed at unifying Christians spread among the disparate bodies that claim to belong to the Church. While the spirit of ecumenism is reflective of Christ’s own prayer for unity as related in the Gospel of John— “…that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you”—the methods employed often reveal presumptions that undermine the stated aim. Much of the ecumenical work pursued post-Vatican II proceeds on the assumption that ecclesial unity is something to be achieved and the method for that achievement is presumed to be reasoned argument about doctrinal or procedural disagreements. The correlative presumption, therefore, is that whatever Christian unity is, it is not something integral to the nature of the Church itself. Drawing on the tradition’s theological defense of the holy images, I will argue this presumption is misguided as it fails to fully appreciate the Christological nature of the Church. Constructively, developing a theology of incorruption, I will explore how the concept of incorruption guides the ecclesiologies of both the Catholic West and Orthodox East as it stems from Christ’s own unicity and is most poignantly displayed in their practices of iconodulia. Conversely, I will argue that it is the rejection of iconodulia that illustrates the unavoidable conclusion that ecumenical efforts must acknowledge that there are fundamentally different economies informing how the disparate ecclesial bodies think about the nature of the Church and that this continues to prevent those very bodies from manifesting the Church’s inherent unicity. 2 In an important sense, my argument is not new; it expresses the views already articulated by both Catholic and Orthodox communions. Most recently, in the summer of 2016 the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church produced a document entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian