Work dossier · summary and historical context
The Tractatus contra eos qui imagines faciunt is a polemical treatise attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403) that argues against the creation and veneration of images, grounding its argument in scriptural prohibitions and patristic authority. The work survives in a single Greek manuscript, likely copied in the Byzantine period, and shows signs of interpolation, including references to later conciliar decrees. Its authenticity is disputed, with some scholars assigning it to the eighth-century Iconoclastic Controversy. Cited by iconoclasts at the Second Council of Nicaea (787), the treatise was ultimately rejected by the council but later used in Protestant anti-image polemics. The source edition lacks a critical apparatus, limiting text-critical analysis.
The treatise is significant as a key text in the history of Christian iconoclasm, cited by both Byzantine iconoclasts and later Protestant reformers. Its disputed authorship highlights the challenges of attributing early Christian works and the ways later controversies shaped textual transmission. The work also illustrates the use of scriptural and patristic arguments in the debate over religious images, a central issue in early and medieval Christianity.
The treatise is traditionally dated to the late fourth century, when Epiphanius of Salamis was active, but its authenticity is contested. Some scholars argue it is a later composition, possibly from the eighth century, during the Iconoclastic Controversy, when debates over religious images intensified. The work survives in a single Greek manuscript, likely copied in the Byzantine period, and shows signs of interpolation, including references to later conciliar decrees. It was cited by iconoclasts at the Second Council of Nicaea (787) as patristic support, though the council rejected its authority. The text's forensic and homiletic register is typical of late-fourth-century anti-iconic literature, but its transmission history suggests it may have been reworked to serve later polemical needs. The source edition (khazarzar) does not provide a critical apparatus or manuscript stemma, limiting text-critical analysis.
Apparatus · what the pipeline recorded
| Coptic | Rendering | Count | First |
|---|---|---|---|
| no glossary terms recorded | |||