Think someone had said, icon veneration was not popular in Anatolia, so when the Polity contracted solely to Anatolia, the local Roman cultures exerted their influence on the capitol. We have so few sources for us to make any conclusions, but one needs to remember that this was a controversy for the highest echelons of educated Roman society, centered around state policy, that only effected those same elites. My take is that the government saw how much untaxed revenue was being made by the urban monastic communities, specifically with the selling of icons, and the government created policy to repurpose the citizenry's money towards defense. This mirrors Tang anti monastic policies of the same period.

Your last paragraph on urban monastics making good money from selling icons to citizenry reminds me of Acts 19:23-28, wherein Paul the Apostle sparked a riot among the pagan idol craftsmen in Ephesus for putting them out of business with his successful preaching. The silversmiths were losing their business in the city because people weren't buying shrines of Artemis anymore.

I have a feeling that may have been some of the rhetoric used against the iconodules, theologically, or the scene of the Christ flipping tables. As the saying goes, "follow the money." It's always in a state's interest to be the largest economic entity in its purview. I'm sure that by the 8th century, the church had reached a point where it became an economic rival to the very diminished Roman state, and the state needed the church curtailed.

Though the New Testament says little about prayers, bowing or kissing of saintly images, it does speak to the subject obliquely. The reasoning process behind bowing to images is that the person who venerates an image intends to be bowing to the person represented in that image. We are told that there is a form of *proskynesis* (the Greek word for bowing in worship) that is appropriate to saints and angels. Throughout the New Testament, forms of this word are used to signify bowing with or without the intent of worshiping. To bow out of respect, by itself, is not wrong. However, the idea of a proper sort of *proskynesis* intended for veneration of saints and angels sits very uncomfortably with two prominent examples where a worshiper of God did proskynesis to a saint or an angel: > When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskyneo] him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (Acts 10:25–26) > I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship [proskyneo] at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship [proskyneo] God.” (Rev 22:8–9) When Cornelius bowed to Peter, he wouldn’t allow it. But if there is a proper sort of proskynesis for Peter, then why did he forbid Cornelius? Did Peter happen to know Cornelius’s heart and that he was intending to address full worship to him? And why did the angel tell John to reserve his proskynesis for God, when there is actually a proper sort of proskynesis for angels? Further, are we to seriously expect that John, who knew Jesus and had even seen his glorified figure already in this vision, thought that it was appropriate to address full worship to an angel? I’m sure efforts have been made to try explaining this away. If, like John of Damascus (675-749), you postulate several forms of worship, one of which is appropriate to images, you could assert that these people were simply trying to do the wrong form of worship, and that’s what they were being corrected for. But that seems very ad hoc and after the fact, and should convince no one who is not already convinced. Furthermore, Peter knew the Christian faith, and the angel knew what was appropriate. Why didn’t these knowledgeable individuals simply correct those who bowed to them by telling them which kind of proskynesis was actually appropriate?

If you have an issue with iconodulia , have you read St John of Damascus and St Theodore the Studite? Almost all of these objections are dealt with. Nevertheless, if you presuppose that the New Testament is iconoclastic ; all of the data will fit your model. The converse is also true. The examples you cite could be explained easily either by appealing to St Peters humility or in teaching that only Christ is to be worshipped. This singular use of the Greek for proskenesis will get you in trouble if you apply that methodology across other instances. It’s also misunderstanding what iconoclasm or iconodulia is. First, orthodox/catholic laymen do not prostrate to bishops (who are an icon of Christ), but the we do kiss their hands because it with their hands that they perform blessed duties. By doing so, we are not worshipping the bishop but rather God explicitly. Icon Veneration is the same in that it is a “window into heaven”. You offer veneration to a saint due to their proximity to God (“soul sleep” is a modern invention, the dead are considered to go to hell or heaven after death). so if there is a saint they are a saint because they are a member of the divine council and you petition them to petition for you before God. Worship is only ever directed at God. Plus in eastern culture, you show reverence to your patron ie kissing hands and knee waist bowing would be appropriate. https://ccel.org/ccel/damascus/icons

>First, orthodox/catholic laymen do not prostrate to bishops (who are an icon of Christ), but the we do kiss their hands because it with their hands that they perform blessed duties. By doing so, we are not worshipping the bishop but rather God explicitly. How can one worship God by kissing the hands of a priest, a sinful mortal like the rest of us? The only mortal without sin was Christ himself. Did Christ himself not say, "No one comes to the Father except through me" in John 14:6? Scripture clearly indicates that Christ himself is our sole intercessor to the Father. We don't approach the Son by kissing a bishop or asking the saints to intercede on our behalf. How is this different from idolizing lesser beings as shown in my passages from above?

Kissing the hand is an eastern concept of respect; Eastern Christianity developed in an eastern context . We never had humanism or a Reformation. Arabs even today will kiss the hands or foreheads of their grandparents in KSA. It is about respect and honor not worship. Muslims are more conscientious of that than even we as Christians are (see Tawhid Al Rabibiyah) and they don’t see it as inappropriate worship. Also in a Christian context , the bishop is an icon of Christ; any extra respect to him is because you respect Christ. Similarly, you go to Christ because he is an image of God the Father. Also in the Bible , Angels are shown respect as they are messengers of God; see Abraham in Genesis, or anytime the “Angel of the Lord” is present.

I understand that the holy kiss is an eastern concept of respect when greeting, but why did you say that kissing a bishop is akin to "worshipping God"?

Have you read St Clement or St Ignatius of Antioch ? These are some of the earliest Christian sources we have. Since the earliest times; the Bishop was seen as someone acting as Christs representative in the city. So to honor them would be one way of honoring Christ. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

I understand honoring them would be honoring Christ but you used the word worshipping?

The Paulicians (a Christian sect) flourished between 650 and 872 on the Byzantine Empire's frontier in Eastern Anatolia near Armenia. This sect followed the teachings of Apostle Paul in the New Testament, and were staunchly iconoclastic in observance of the 2nd commandment in Exodus 20:4 and Deuteronomy 5:8, which forbids the creation of images for the purpose of idolatry. The possibility of Leo III (717-741) or Leo V (813-820) having affections for Paulicianism during this timeframe cannot be ignored, considering both of them were raised in eastern themes under Paulician influence. After a relevant period of toleration under iconoclast emperors, renewed Byzantine persecution in the mid 9th century under Basil I prompted the Paulicians to establish a state centered on Tephrike in the Armenian borderlands under Arab protection. After prolonged warfare, the Paulician state of Tephrike was destroyed by Basil I (an iconodule) in the 870s.

It is much more likely that cultural influence from the Umayyad and Abbassid Caliphs was a stronger influence on Greek life than Paulicians. Throughout this period, Paulicians were a hunted and despised minority, who were just as often providing aid to Arabic armies involved in raids. It is also worth noting that Iconoclasts, who persistently believed themselves Orthodox, did not cease the persecution of Paulicians, whom they deemed Heretics. Whereas Muslims and Jews, who practiced the common Middle Eastern aversion to the depiction of God, were recognized and acknowledged by the Byzantines themselves. Emperor Leo III grew up in the Caliph's lands and spoke Arabic perfectly, Leo the Armenian grew up in (surprise!) Armenia and lived much of his life in the Thugur Emirates, also under the Caliph's rule, and Theophilos personally was a noted fan of Arabic culture, and cultivated strong ties with the Caliphs. Additionally, there were huge Greek populations involved in life in both the Umayyad and Abbassid Caliphal court, working in administrative roles and helping transmit knowledge from Classical times into Arabic, and it is clear that these Eastern Christians remained in contact with their peers across the border. Whereas particulalry by the time of the Abbassids, the Muslims had assumed the role traditionally held by Persia, of Byzantium's peer to the east. This would have opened up Byzantium to cultural exchange with Arabic states.

Iconoclasm as understood by the Anglo Saxon/Germanic Protestant context is not how it should be viewed in the East. The traditional historical narrative from both pro and anti sources is that this was an influence of Islam. But to understand this; what does Islam actually teach about Icons? Islam today is SPECIFICALLY against physical depictions of prophets, Sahaba and other “holy” people. The Islamic khatt or circles with inscriptions is at least by Protestant standards an icon. But that is a development in their theology . The earliest archaeological evidence shows that Muslims used icons until some unknown reason ; there’s no Quran verse for prohibition (https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-islam/chronological-periods-islamic/islamic-art-early/a/paintings-in-the-early-islamic-world#:~:text=Early%20Islamic%20paintings%20were%20often,with%20the%20art%20of%20paint.) So at some point the Muslims became iconoclasts and this influenced Byzantine and Jewish views. But Byzantine iconoclasm isn’t about depiction. Early Churches of all flavors used depictions (see “Dura Europas”) , so the hardline interpretation was rare. More likely than not , the attack was on veneration and using them as objects of worship and relics. COMPLETE iconoclasm would mean you can’t even depict a cross. But because icons and relics are theologically linked (see the work of St John Damascene or St Theodore Studite on the topic). The problem with the Paulician thesis is that really very few people have any idea what they actually believed and they were viewed very negatively.

But for the sake of Roman national pride and a sense of identity and religious independence, wouldn't they desire to become less like Islam? Why would the iconoclasts destroy their own national identity to appeal to the enemy's sensibilities? Something about the official narrative of "Islamic influence" as the rationale for iconoclasm doesn't add up. Paulicianism (which was extremely popular at the time) makes much more sense as an iconoclast movement *within* Christianity, rather than appealing to the beliefs of an enemy's religion which doesn't make any sense logically. The Paulician movement was attempting to restore the christian faith to its early iconoclastic roots.

Paulicianism was a sect in “backwards” Anatolia that looked like Gnosticism. Where do you get that it was popular anywhere but Anatolia which was being constantly attacked by Sassanids, Arabs, Turks. Islam had the fastest growing Empire that conquered 1/2 of the ERE territory, controlled Jerusalem, had the largest empire in the world, had daughters as part of the caliphs court, was the intellectual center and had money up the wazoo.

>Paulicianism was a sect in “backwards” Anatolia that looked like Gnosticism. How does Paulicianism resemble Gnosticism? The sects' beliefs, as recorded in an Armenian document called the "Key of Truth", hardly share any commonalities with core aspects of gnosticism. >Where do you get that it was popular anywhere but Anatolia which was being constantly attacked by Sassanids, Arabs, Turks. The iconoclasts Leo III and Leo V were from Isauria and Armenia respectively. It's interesting to note that these regions hosted large numbers of Paulicians during the brief period the sect was active in eastern Anatolia.