Divine images and aniconism in ancient Israel.

• Author: Lewis, Theodore J.
• Position: Book review

One again Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, professor of Old Testament studies at Lund University, has produced a thorough analysis on a neglected topic crucial to the reconstruction of ancient Israelite religion. Since the 1970s, Mettinger has written provocative articles on the aniconic tradition and related issues.(1). Here we have his mature thought in an exhaustively researched volume, especially with regard to the attestations of the masseboth ("stone pillars," singular, massebah). Mettinger is correct in his assertion that "the issue of Israelite aniconism presents itself as a matter of high priority to the scholar engaged in the study of Israelite religion" (p. 37). As his book No Graven Image? will be the departure for all future studies on aniconism, it deserves close analysis.

Need and Timeliness

Recent works on ancient Israelite religion have emphasized the common cultural identity of ancient Israel and her ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Due most likely to an emerging consensus regarding the settlement question, a paradigm shift can be detected: scholars now are more prone to emphasize the indigenous character of ancient Israelite religion that, in its nascent period, is almost indistinguishable from Canaanite religion, This is clearly a shift away from a previous generation of scholars who were more likely to emphasize the distinctive nature of ancient Israelite religion. Little by little scholars are reexamining such past claims of distinctiveness. The aniconic tradition has long been held to be one of the unique traits of ancient Israelite religion. Mettinger's No Graven Image? satisfies the need for a sober, well-informed reexamination of the topic.

The aniconic tradition has always been the subject of considerable reflection, from the curiosity of the Roman historian Tacitus to the voluminous writings of theologians wishing to probe the meanings of the first two commandments.(2) In recent years, however, there has been a proliferation of works on the aniconic tradition, especially as it relates to reconstructing ancient Israelite religion.(3) The tide shows no signs of ebbing.(4) Recently, a few archaeologists have entered the discussion, further helping text scholars reconstruct the religion of Iron Age Israel.(5) Yet, up until now, no exhaustive work has integrated both the archaeological record and the literature from cognate ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Mettinger takes this aspect into account, as well as the research by the Freiburg school on divine symbolism.(6) All of this makes Mettinger's work very timely and useful.

Description

Mettinger states that his purpose is "to place Israelite aniconism in a comparative perspective and look for similar developments in other cultures of the ancient Near East" (p. 36). In particular, he uses a comparative approach to explore the origin of the Israelite aniconic tradition. ("Our focus of interest will be on the genesis of Israelite aniconism, viewed in the light of the comparative material" [p. 36].) What distinguishes Mettinger's work from that of many other biblical scholars is his dialogue with the archaeological record. Mettinger's use of the archaeological realia (in particular his analysis of the masseboth material) as well as his awareness of Peircean semiotics and reliance on Braudelian perspective are all too rare among philologically oriented scholars.(7)

In contrast to many previous works lacking such precision, Mettinger distinguishes between "de facto traditions" of aniconism (indifference to icons, mere absence of images, tolerant aniconism) and "programmatic traditions" (repudiation of images, iconophobia, iconoclasm [see p. 18]). He also introduces the terms "material aniconism" (no anthropomorphic or theriomorphic icon of the deity serving as the central cultic symbol) versus "empty space aniconism" (sacred emptiness such as Yahweh invisibly seated on the cherubim [see pp. 19-20]). Mettinger is also fully aware of the difficulties of interpreting the archaeological record (e.g., distinguishing between representations of deities and those of votaries or worshippers given to deities).(8)

After an initial chapter on definitions and methodology, Mettinger reviews aniconic activity in the religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt (pp. 39-56), Nabatea (pp. 57-68), pre-Islamic Arabia (pp. 69-79), the Phoenician-Punic world (pp. 81-113), and Syria and Anatolia (pp. 115-34). The final chapter of the book is a well-documented analysis of Israelite aniconism, in particular the masseboth material (pp. 135-97).

CRITIQUE

Use of Comparative Material

The five chapters on the comparative method are well researched, yet uneven in their relevance to the topic at hand, a study of the origins of Israelite aniconism. The chapter on Nabatean aniconism, dependent largely on the work of J. Patrich, is important for understanding the Nabatean national deity, Dusares. Yet, with the majority of the evidence coming from the second and third centuries C.E., it is of little relevance for reconstructing the Israelite aniconism of the Iron Age. Mettinger admits as much: "there can, of course, be no question of the Nabateans influencing the religion of ancient Israel" (p. 68). Similarly, the chapter on pre-Islamic cults of standing stones and their relation to the Ka ba, as well as the programmatic repudiation of images in the Islamic traditions of Muhammed and the Caliph Yazid II, do not belong in a book on Iron Age Israel.

The chapter on the Phoenician-Punic world is slightly more relevant; but here too there is very little Iron Age evidence, the ninth-century Bir Hadad stela being a rare example. Mettinger's methodology is often one of employing late material and then "working backwards to the 'classical' Phoenician cults of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos" (p. 85). An example of the latter: Mettinger draws a "reasonable conclusion that the empty cherubim throne in Solomon's temple was due to Phoenician artistry" (p. 113), based on the empty "Sidonian" sphinx thrones; but even here we are dealing with late (first century C.E. or later) votive gifts. It is better to support such a claim by turning to Late Bronze representations such as the Ahiram sarcophagus from Byblos and the ivory plaque and model from Megiddo.(9)

The chapter on Mesopotamia and Egypt, as well as the one on Syria and Anatolia, adduce, however, well-documented earlier material which might have some bearing on Iron Age Israel. Mettinger states that the norm within Mesopotamia was to represent deities anthropomorphically, although he points out that aniconic trends may be seen in the kakkum and surinnum symbols and the iconography of the kudurrus from the Kassite period. There is no evidence of a "programmatic" aniconic tradition within Mesopotamia.

Mettinger nicely surveys a great amount of material; yet he leaves out some crucial texts. In particular, one thinks of Esarhaddon's "Renewal of the Gods," a text which describes at great length the renewal (or better, the "remaking") of the cult images.(10) This was an elaborate affair involving extensive divination to locate a time for the task, to select the many different artisans, and to determine the place of refurbishing (the bit mummi). Various craftsmen are listed in detail as are the costly materials (e.g., red gold, precious stones) used to make the statue, together with its crown and decorative jewelry, so that the gods could be ceremoniously "born."(11) The transfer of the gods to Babylon is then described amidst sacrificial rites and installation ceremonies, chief among them the "mouth washing" and "mouth opening" rituals.

Mettinger notes (p. 41, n. 18) that the texts describing the all important "mouth washing" ritual are still unpublished.(12) He is certainly correct in concluding that this is "a performative ritual designed to dissociate the statue from its aspects of man-made artifact" (p. 41). This is borne out by texts such as STT 200 which state that the cult image is the joint product of human and divine artisans.(13) Human artisans were acting on behalf of the gods in fashioning the statues and any skill displayed was ultimately that of specific craft deities. It is clear that the statues could not "become divine" through mere human activity. The "opening of the mouth" was a magical act enabling the statue to act as a vessel for the deity. Thus we end up with human artisans even disavowing that they have crafted the deity, for, in Esarhaddon's words, "the making of (images of) the gods and goddesses is your (i.e., Ashur's and Marduk's) right, it is in your hands."

As for Egypt, Mettinger notes that it too used primarily anthropomorphic and theriomorphic representation for deities. Yet in the abstract Aten and Amun cults he finds a striking contrast to the Mesopotamian sphere, for here we have "a conscious theological programme" of aniconism (p. 56). It is said of Aten that "the sculptors do not know him" and indeed Aten never appears in the form of a statue, but only as a sun disk with rays ending in human hands (a "concession to anthropomorphism" [p. 49]). Nevertheless, due to the fact that Amarna thelogy was a short-lived phenomenon, Mettinger considers the "highly transcendent deus ineffabilis" of the New Kingdom Amun cult to be more important for reconstructing Israelite aniconism. In this period Amun is associated with the air and the wind and of him it is said "none of the gods know[s] his true form" (p. 50). Following J. C. de Moor, he also notes that Amun as sunlight is (like Aten) "of whom there do not exist sculptures by artists" (p. 50). Finally, on very little evidence, Mettinger follows the notion put forth by Wainwright in 1928 that Amun iconography at Thebes consisted of an aniconic stone, a sacred meteorite (pp. 51-53).

Three times Mettinger cautions us not to overlook the "ample attestations of figurative iconography for Amun," both anthropomorphic and theriomorphic in Egypt and Palestine (p. 53; cf. pp. 54...