First, I think you have misunderstood what the Biblical texts have to say about graven images. This is not generally understood to be a prohibition on all art whatsoever. So art per se was not a particular stumbling block.

What was clearly prohibited and understood to be prohibited was artworks that visually depicted deity. This generally goes back to texts like Ex 20:4-6, which is read as a prohibition of the making of images for worship, part of a general trend in canonical Old Testament texts suggesting that God is incorporeal and that a corporeal representation of that God is not an appropriate way to worship him, in fact is a form of idolatry comparable to cotemporaneous practices in the surrounding nations.

Early Christians took over that prohibition initially, or at least it’s difficult to find very early instances of Christian artwork. Reasons for the initial ‘delay’ in art production may include the carry-over of that aversion to images, a focus on the spiritual that was opposed to overly-material manifestations, and/or association of visual arts with pagan culture. From ca. 200 onwards you see use of Christian iconography, small images such as a dove, fish, fisherman, etc., associated with Christian symbolism. When art begins to become more developed, in the 3rd century, you get pictorial representations, such as is found in catacomb art. This often follows biblical scenes or topics.

In the 4th and 5th centuries, as Christianity moved from persecuted to tolerated to established religion, you see a corresponding increase in artwork, associated with the building of more permanent architecture available to them. Mosaics and frescos are common, again built on biblical motifs and symbolism.

Beginning in very late antiquity/early middle ages, you get a series of Iconoclastic controversies. Iconoclasts were opposed to the use of ‘icons’, images used in devotional practices. It appears that between the 5th and early 8th century this practice had grown considerably. Someone like Augustine in the 5th century shows considerable reserve about use of images. Possibly, there was an influence from imperial practice, in which portraits and the like of the Emperor were seen as ‘representative’ of the Emperor’s presence, and so civic loyalty required that the substitute image be treated with the same honour as would be directed towards the Emperor. From the late 5th century we have attestation of image-use, and it grows dramatically in the 6th and 7th centuries.

The debates over iconoclasm involve both theological and ecclesio-political elements. Theologically speaking, both sides agreed that the divine nature could not be represented in pictures, but those in favour of the use of images argued that when God became human in Jesus, it altered the way images may be used. Jesus, saints, etc., who have appeared in visible form may be visibly represented. Furthermore, a distinction emerged over time that understood that ‘true worship’ was offered to God alone, but ‘veneration’ was a different thing, and could be directed via images to the object of those images. This theologically provided the basis for the pro-Icons side (Icondulists). For some primary sources on this in particular, I recommend John of Damascus’s Three Apologies against those who attack the divine images, as well as the Decree of the 2nd Council of Nicaea (787). This controversy only dealt with images. Statues were, as far as the Eastern church was concerned, still idolatrous. This developed differently in the West, where statues took on a greater role.

Early Christianity was a religion of the poor and the oppressed. It attracted the downtrodden with it's message of redemption and rejection of material valuables. The poor and the uneducated were the first converts beyond the apostles and very often lived far from other Christians or Jews.

Because of this, they were often on their own to interpret scripture and would naturally draw on local culture to do so. Much of the early Christian art follows the Roman example, where images were not forbidden. The early Christians re-purposed many of the symbols into their own belief set (such as the fish, peacock and grapes) and since their own local culture had no prohibitions against creating religious imagines, they saw none either.

The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art by Thomas F. Mathew

Webb, Matilda. The churches and catacombs of early Christian Rome: a comprehensive guide

Wasn't the bible written/collected long after (200+ years) early Christians were a thing?