The denial of icons has existed for a long time. Both the adoption of Christianity from the Jews and the period of persecution did not dispose to the magnificent development of the external embodiments of Christianity. But even in the first catacomb period of persecution, deliberately hidden symbolism could not but appear. Both sculpturally and pictorially depicted a four-pointed cross (sometimes as the letter X), a dove, a fish, a ship – all symbols understandable to Christians, even those taken from mythology, as, for example, Orpheus with his lyre or winged geniuses, which later became such typical images of angels. The fourth century, the age of freedom, brought to Christian churches the already generally accepted wall ornaments with whole biblical pictures and illustrations of new Christian heroes, martyrs and ascetics. St. Basil the Great, in a sermon dedicated to the memory of the martyr Barlaam, invites painters to sketch his feats, as usual. St. John Chrysostom informs us about the spread of images – portraits of St. Meletius of Antioch. Bl. Theodoret tells us about the portraits of Simeon the Stylite sold in Rome. Gregory of Nyssa is moved to tears by the picture of the sacrifice of Isaac. Asterius of Amasia admires the image of the martyr Euphemia. Custom becomes universal. From symbolism, which is rather abstract, iconography in the fourth century decisively passes to concrete illustrations of deeds and the depiction of persons in church history.

The latest excavations (1932) by Professor M. I. Rostovtsev on the Euphrates in the Roman city of Dura provide documentary evidence that already in the middle of the third century Christian churches and even Jewish synagogues (!!), following the fashion of Roman buildings, were painted with scenes from the Old Testament, and in Christian churches with scenes from the Gospel history.

But we also learn that in the sixth century not all teachers of the church liked this. Some people were seduced by these icons.

Eusebius of Caesarea responds negatively to the desire of the emperor's sister Constantius to have an icon of Christ. The divine nature is indescribable, "but we have been taught that his flesh is dissolved in the glory of the Godhead, and the mortal is swallowed up in life... Who, then, is able to depict with dead and soulless colors and shadows the radiance of radiance and radiant rays of the light of His glory and dignity?"

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in Anablat (Palestine), not in his diocese, saw a veil in the church with the image of a man (?). Epiphanius tore this veil and gave it to cover the coffin of some beggar, and presented a new piece of cloth to the church. In the West, in Spain, at the Council of Elvira (Grenada) (about 300), a decree was adopted against wall painting in churches. Rule 36: "Placuit picturas in ecclesiis esse non debere, ne quod colitur aut adoratur, in parietibus depingatur".

Attempts were made to interpret this decree against icons in the sense of protecting icons from the blasphemy of the persecutors of Christianity and the destroyers of temples, or from caricaturists and mockers from Jews and pagans. But the motif of the canon is not at all the same, but clearly iconoclastic. Therefore, it is now customary to explain this decree by a direct struggle against false icon worship, i.e. against pagan excesses, the intrusion of which into the Christian environment frightened the fathers of the council. Consequently, from the very beginning there was a purely internal and ecclesiastical disciplinary struggle with the veneration of icons.

In Monophysitism, according to its spiritualistic tendency to diminish human nature in Christ, an iconoclastic trend had long been outlined. As early as the reign of Zeno at the end of the fifth century, the Monophysitizing bishop of Syrian Hierapolis (Mabuga) Philoxenus (Xenaya) wanted to abolish icons in his diocese. Severus of Antioch also rejected icons of Christ, angels and the image of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Anastasius of Sinaite (6th century) defends icons against some deniers. Simeon the Stylite the Younger complains to Emperor Justinian II about the insulters of "the icons of the Son of God and the All-Holy Most Glorious Mother of God."

In the West, in Marseilles, Bishop Seraine in 598 tore down from the walls of the church and threw away the icons, which, according to his observation, were superstitiously revered by his flock. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to Serenus, praising him for his inconsideratum zelum, but rebuking him for destroying icons that serve the common people instead of books. The Pope demanded that Søren restore the icons and explain to his flock both his deed and the true way of venerating the icons.

B VII century.

John, Bishop of Thessalonica, defends icons against Christian objectors who, finding fault, say that even if it is possible to depict God appearing in the flesh, then on what basis should bodiless spirits, angels, be depicted?

A pilgrim to the East from the West, Arculf, at the end of the seventh century reports that he met iconoclastic currents on his way. In Constantinople itself, he saw how a ferocious fanatic tore down a wood-carved image of the Mother of God from the wall of a house and threw it into a latrine. It is known about the emperor Philippicus-Bardanes that before his overthrow in 713 he was going to issue a law against the worship of icons. He was so inclined both in his Monothelite ideology and in his local Armenian-Paulician (heretical) upbringing, hostile to the church cult.

Islam, which appeared in the seventh century, with its hostility to all kinds of depictions (pictorial and sculptural) of human and superhuman persons (impersonal pictures of the world and animals were not denied), revived doubts about the legitimacy of icons; far from everywhere, but in areas neighboring the Arabs: Asia Minor, Armenia. The population of these regions was racially different from the Hellenic regions of Morea, Attica, and Macedonia. There, in the center of Asia Minor, ancient anti-church heresies had lived and been hidden from time immemorial: Montanism, Marcionitism, Paulicianism—doctrines that were anti-cultural and anti-icon in spirit. On this point, Islam was more comprehensible to them and seemed to be more perfect, "spiritual" than Christianity. In this atmosphere, the emperors, who had withstood the centuries-old pressure of fanatical Islam, could not help being tempted to remove an unnecessary obstacle to peaceful coexistence with the religion of Mohammed. It is not for nothing that the defenders of icons called the iconoclastic emperors "σαρακηνοφρονοι — ρracinous philosophizing".

Such doctrinal servility to the enemy and rival of the Christian empire could not in itself explain the perverse enthusiasm that characterizes the iconoclastic program. Icons are only a part, a detail of their reform program. Yes, it's all about this state and cultural program of this period. What kind of program is it?

All historical sources of the time of iconoclasm belong to the persecuted and insulted Orthodox, and therefore depict the iconoclastic tsars in the darkest features.