P
patrick457
Guest
We do not know exactly when the Israelites, which eventually rejected even standing stones in its cult, moved from West Semitic de facto aniconism to a programmatic one (which is close to iconoclasm but developing out of the aniconic tendency of an earlier time). We can already see its signs however by the 7th century BC, when Judahite name seals show a clear tendency towards aniconicity, a tendency that is not exclusive but begins even further back and then becomes quite pronounced. (There are two other Semitic peoples which moved from de facto standing-stone aniconism to iconoclasm: the Nabataeans and the Arabs.)
Some, however, think that the best way to interpret the evidence is thus: aniconism was the official, dominant position throughout Israelite history, but it was not totally uniform. (For example, Moses’ bronze serpent - which was later became a focus of worship - and Micah’s silver idol.) From earliest times, the main or official cult of the God of Israel was largely aniconic, as represented in its leaders and its sanctuaries. At earlier times, a number cultic paraphernalia that were later regarded as ‘idols’ seem to have been tolerated in some circles, but were eventually condemned outright by major elements of the official cult (for example, prophets and kings). At the same time, unofficial, domestic cults and extramural shrines were probably more open to iconography and maybe even outright housed images of the Deity - which is also eventually frowned upon.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Ten Commandments suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
It is with the post-exilic period that we begin to see a stricter interpretation of the ban flower amongst the returning Jews. But even so it was not something that appeared overnight. There are coins from the 4th century BC (when Judah - or Yehud - was a Persian province) depicting an enthroned deity, identified by the inscription as Yhw (Yahu?) This particular artifact is still shrouded in mystery: we do not know who minted it (the Jews themselves, the Persian authorities of Yehud, or Samaritans), and despite the inscription we are still not sure as to whether the figure portrayed is really meant to be a representation of the Israelite God Yhwh or a generic image of a deity merely labelled with the Name.
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/thu...d_Man.jpg/300px-Yehud_Coin_of_Bearded_Man.jpg
Nevertheless, this coin - and other coins minted during the period - tells us something very important. Coins from Persian-era Yehud generally depict living creatures (such as eagles), flowers and even human beings, unlike later Jewish coinage, which avoid representations of humans and animals altogether and prefer depictions of fauna and inanimate objects.
It would seem that the strict view (avoidance of any figural depictions whatsoever) only became the norm starting from the late Hellenistic to the Hasmonean period, although as the trend was already slowly moving towards it for quite some time. The reason for this change of views is unclear; some suggestions include (1) as a reaction against the forced eradication of Jewish customs by the Seleucids and the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) a more stringent position reflecting the Sadducean position, who were generally in control of affairs in Jewish Palestine in the late Second Temple period (except for the era of Salome in 76-67 BC, when their rivals the Pharisees dominated); (3) as a part of the Hasmonean campaign to cultivate and assert a unique Jewish identity; and (4) a general reaction against Hellenization and the threat of foreign influences.
Some, however, think that the best way to interpret the evidence is thus: aniconism was the official, dominant position throughout Israelite history, but it was not totally uniform. (For example, Moses’ bronze serpent - which was later became a focus of worship - and Micah’s silver idol.) From earliest times, the main or official cult of the God of Israel was largely aniconic, as represented in its leaders and its sanctuaries. At earlier times, a number cultic paraphernalia that were later regarded as ‘idols’ seem to have been tolerated in some circles, but were eventually condemned outright by major elements of the official cult (for example, prophets and kings). At the same time, unofficial, domestic cults and extramural shrines were probably more open to iconography and maybe even outright housed images of the Deity - which is also eventually frowned upon.
The close tie between the command against pesalim and the prior ban against worshipping other gods in the Ten Commandments suggests that the veto of images was directed toward any image that may be construed as an idol or cult artifact of another deity. The elaboration of this command in Deuteronomy 4:16-19 confirms that the commandment had in mind the ‘other gods’ of the previous one as at least the eventual understanding of this prohibition. Indeed the comprehensiveness of these formulations tended to make any kind of image, whether for purposes of worship or not, questionable.
It is with the post-exilic period that we begin to see a stricter interpretation of the ban flower amongst the returning Jews. But even so it was not something that appeared overnight. There are coins from the 4th century BC (when Judah - or Yehud - was a Persian province) depicting an enthroned deity, identified by the inscription as Yhw (Yahu?) This particular artifact is still shrouded in mystery: we do not know who minted it (the Jews themselves, the Persian authorities of Yehud, or Samaritans), and despite the inscription we are still not sure as to whether the figure portrayed is really meant to be a representation of the Israelite God Yhwh or a generic image of a deity merely labelled with the Name.
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/images/thu...d_Man.jpg/300px-Yehud_Coin_of_Bearded_Man.jpg
Nevertheless, this coin - and other coins minted during the period - tells us something very important. Coins from Persian-era Yehud generally depict living creatures (such as eagles), flowers and even human beings, unlike later Jewish coinage, which avoid representations of humans and animals altogether and prefer depictions of fauna and inanimate objects.
It would seem that the strict view (avoidance of any figural depictions whatsoever) only became the norm starting from the late Hellenistic to the Hasmonean period, although as the trend was already slowly moving towards it for quite some time. The reason for this change of views is unclear; some suggestions include (1) as a reaction against the forced eradication of Jewish customs by the Seleucids and the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) a more stringent position reflecting the Sadducean position, who were generally in control of affairs in Jewish Palestine in the late Second Temple period (except for the era of Salome in 76-67 BC, when their rivals the Pharisees dominated); (3) as a part of the Hasmonean campaign to cultivate and assert a unique Jewish identity; and (4) a general reaction against Hellenization and the threat of foreign influences.
