chapter 5 The Effect of the Iconoclast Controversy upon the Byzantine Elect Nation Concept

The Iconoclast controversy was a multi-faced historical phenomenon, whose diverse aspects have been the subjects of a broad scholarly interest In this chapter I do not intend to present a detailed account of the Iconoclast period, to delve into the depths of the theological controversy, or to determine what was the true motive of Byzantine . My aim is to use several sources and researches in order to examine the main implications of the Iconoclast controversy upon the Byzantines’ self-image as the Elect Nation, the successors of the biblical Israelites in that role.

The Iconoclast Controversy and the Biblical Model

The early phase of Iconoclasm, during the reign of Leo iii, was not character- ized by a highly elaborate theology, but by an adherence to a limited corpus of authoritative texts, mainly Law, with particular emphasis upon the sec- ond commandment, Exodus 20:4: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”. This tendency is discerned in Patriarch Germanos’ letters concerning the Iconoclastic views of two ecclesiastical officials. The first two letters discussed the Iconoclastic views of Constantine, bishop of Nakoleia, and date c. 726, while Germanos was still in office.1 The third letter was addressed to Thomas of Klau- dioupolis, and was written after Germanos had abdicated in 730.2 The theolog-

1 J.D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols. (Florence, 1759– 1793) (repr. J.B. Martin, Paris, 1901–1927; repr. Graz, 1960–1961), 13:100, a11–105, a3 (letter to John of Synnada, concerning the views of Constantine, Bishop of Nakoleia) and 13:105, b7–e11 (letter to Constantine of Nakoleia); see also Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de , vol. i, fasc. ii et iii., ed. V. Grumel, second edition—ed. J. Darrouzès (Paris, 1989. First editions of fascicules ii and iii—1936 and 1947 respectively), nos. 328, 329, pp. 5– 6; for the dating of the first two letters c. 726 see L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era, c.680–850: A History (Cambridge, 2011), p. 104. 2 Mansi, 13:108,a7–128, a12; see also Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. i,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004363830_006 78 chapter 5 ical Iconoclastic arguments which Germanos discussed and refuted show little more than an adherence to several ot citations.3 Those passages of Germanos’ letters which include a more elaborate discussion of the theology of images and its relation to Christological issues, are most likely interpolations made by the 787 Iconophile council scribes.4The same applies to the discussion of images in Gregory ii’s letter to Germanos, dating circa 720, an interpolation which leaves the authentic parts of the letter with no real relevance to the history of Iconoclasm.5 Early Iconoclasm was therefore identified, both by its supporters as well as its opponents, with an adherence to ot literal reading and to Mosaic Law, as manifested clearly, among other sources, in the Ecloga’s proem.6 The Icono- philes’ response was based to a much lesser extent on ot discourse, although they did not fail to try and refute the Iconoclasts on their own ‘grounds’: their argumentation was based on such ot passages as the description of the Cherubim adorning the Tent of Witness, the narration of the building of king Solomon’s Temple or the temple in Ezekiel’s vision, and otherwise with an exegetical reading of the Scriptures contrasted to the Iconoclasts’ more literal one.7 At the same time, and as they sought both to differentiate themselves from the Iconoclasts and to broaden their theological basis, the Iconophiles tended to minimize their use of ot references and to rely on the nt, asserting

fasc. ii et iii., ed. Grumel, second edition—ed. Darrouzès, no. 330, p. 6; Third letter written after Germanos had abdicated in 730: Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, p. 105. 3 Gero, Leo iii, p. 105; Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, pp. 122, 137. 4 Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, p. 96. 5 Brubaker and Haldon, Iconoclast Era: A History, pp. 90–94. 6 See discussion concerning the Ecloga and its relation to the enc, pp. 53–58. 7 For Iconophile arguments concerning ot passages, from the proceedings of the 787 church council, see A. Giakalis, Images of the Divine: The Theology of at the Seventh (Revised edition), (Leiden and Boston, 2005), pp. 31–32: Cherubim in the Tent of Witness (Exodus 25:18–22), Mansi, 13:4,de; King Solomon’s temple (3Kings 6:23), Mansi, 12:1063, de; Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 41:1, 17–21), Mansi, 13:5,b. Iconoclast literal reading of ot passages, from the Νουθεσία γέροντος περὶ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων, a description of an Iconophile-Iconoclast polemical dialogue, prior to 754: S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of (Louvain, 1977), p. 32, n. 43, citing the Greek text from B.M. Melioranskiy, Georgiy Kipryanin I Ioann Ierusalimlyanin. Dva maloizvestnykh borca za Pravoslavie v. viii veke (St Petersburg, 1901), v–xxxix, p. xx. See also Gero, Constantine v, p. 36. Dating of the dialogue: Gero, Constantine v, p. 27. Iconophile exegetical reading: Giakalis, Images of the Divine, p. 118, n. 17 (Mansi 12:56,ab) and ibid., p. 123, n. 38 (Mansi 13:285,a).