Aniconism in Judaism

Aniconism in Judaism is widespread. In Judaism, portrayal of God in any kind of human or concrete form is strictly prohibited.

Hebrew Bible

A number of verses in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Tanakh) refer to prohibitions against the creation of various forms of images, invariably linked directly with idolatry. The strongest source is based on what Judaism counts as the second of the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

—  Exodus 20:3–6

Leviticus 26:1 reads:

Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the LORD your God.

—  Leviticus 26:1

Similar injunctions appear in Numbers 33:52, Deuteronomy 4:16, and 27:15. In all cases, the creation of the image is associated with idolatry, and indeed, the words commonly translated as 'image' or some variant thereof (פסלpesel, שקוץshikuts) are generally used interchangeably with words typically translated as 'idol' (e.g. אלילelil).^{[ citation needed ]} (An important exception is צלםtselem, used in such verses as Genesis 1:26: "let us make man in our image", where this word for 'image' was not associated with idols.)^{[ citation needed ]}

Based on these prohibitions, the Hebrew prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and others, preached very strongly against idolatry.^{[ citation needed ]} In many of their sermons, the prophets regarded the use of religious images as a negative sign of assimilation into the surrounding pagan cultures of the time.^{[ citation needed ]} Lenient Torah commentators permit drawing of humans as long as the images are not used for idolatry.

Halakha

Detail of Dayenu in the Birds' Head Haggadah

Despite the semantic association with idols, halakha (Jewish law) as taught by the Shulkhan Aruch interprets the verses as prohibiting the creation of certain types of graven images of people, angels, or astronomical bodies, whether or not they are actually used as idols. The Shulkhan Aruch states: "It is forbidden to make complete solid or raised images of people or angels, or any images of heavenly bodies except for purposes of study". ^[1] ("Heavenly bodies" are included here because the stars and planets were worshipped by some religions in human forms. Astronomical models for scientific purposes are permitted under the category of "study.")^{[ citation needed ]}

A breakdown can be found in the Shulkhan Aruch, section Yoreh De'ah , which takes the literal meaning of פסלpesel as "graven image" (from the root פסלp-s-l, 'to engrave'. ^[2] ) The prohibition is therefore seen as applying specifically to certain forms of sculpture and depictions of the human face. In keeping with this prohibition, some illustrations from the Middle Ages feature fantastic creatures—usually animal-headed humanoids, even when the depictions are quite clearly meant to be those of historical or mythological humans. The most well-known is the Birds' Head Haggadah (Germany, circa 1300). Since such creatures as gryphons, harpies, sphinxes, and the phoenix do not actually exist, no violation of the prohibition is perceived in such depictions. This is based on the fact that the commandment, as stated in Exodus, refers specifically to "anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land." However, it is forbidden to make the four faces on the Divine Chariot of the Book of Ezekiel or the ministering angels, because these are believed to be real beings that actually exist "in the heaven above." ( Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 168:1)

Differences across media

Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi.

Although the prohibition applies mainly to sculpture, there are some authorities who prohibit two-dimensional full-face depictions. Some base this upon their understanding of the Talmud,^{[ citation needed ]} and others based it upon Kabbalah.^{[ citation needed ]} Of note is the portrait of Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi (known as "the Hakham Tzvi"), which is housed in the Jewish Museum in London. ^[3] Based on his interpretation of this prohibition, Tzvi refused to sit for his portrait. However, the London Jewish community wanted a portrait, so they commissioned the portrait to be done without the Ashkenazi's knowledge. Ashkenazi's son, Rabbi Jacob Emden, says it was a perfect likeness.

There is one type of representation, bas-relief or raised representation on a flat surface, that is particularly problematic. Rabbi Jacob Emden discusses a medal struck in honor of Rabbi Eliezer Horowitz that features Horowitz's portrait. Emden ruled this violated the injunction against depictions. Many hold that such representations in the synagogue either violate this injunction or are not permitted, as they give the appearance of violating this injunction. Most notably, Rabbi David ibn Zimra and Rabbi Joseph Karo hold that carvings of lions (representing the Lion of Judah) are inappropriate in synagogues.^{[ citation needed ]}

Some authorities hold that Judaism has no objection to photography or other forms of two-dimensional art, and depictions of humans can be seen in religious books such as the Passover Haggadah, as well as children's books about biblical and historical personages.^{[ citation needed ]} Although most Hasidic Jews object to having televisions in their homes, this is not related to prohibitions against idolatry, but, rather, to the content of network and cable programming. Hasidim of all groups regularly display portraits of their Rebbes; and, in some communities, the children trade "rabbi cards" that are similar to baseball cards. In both Hasidic and Orthodox Judaism, taking photographs or filming are forbidden on the Shabbat and Jewish holy days, but this prohibition has nothing to do with idolatry. Rather, it is related to the prohibition against working or creating on these days.^{[ citation needed ]}

In historical periods

Crossing the Red Sea, from Dura Europos synagogue, with two Hands of God, 3rd century

Many art historians have long believed that there was a tradition in antiquity, with no surviving examples, of luxury illuminated manuscript scrolls of books from the Tanakh among Hellenized Jews. The evidence for this is Christian works of the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods whose iconography is thought to derive from works in this tradition.^{[ citation needed ]} Examples of the later works include the Joshua Roll and, more controversially, the Utrecht Psalter.

The 3rd century CE Dura-Europos synagogue in Syria has large areas of wall paintings with figures of the prophets and others, and narrative scenes. There are several representations of the Hand of God, suggesting that this motif reached Christian art from Judaism.^{[ citation needed ]} A virtually unique Christian mosaic depiction of the Ark of the Covenant (806) at Germigny-des-Prés, which includes the hand, is believed also to be derived from Jewish iconography; the Ark also appears at Dura-Europos. ^[4] Several ancient synagogues in the land of Israel have also been excavated, revealing large floor-mosaics with figurative elements, especially animals and representations of the Zodiac.

Some of these, notably at Naaran in the West Bank, have had the living figures removed, leaving inanimate symbols such as the Temple menorah intact. ^[5] It has been proposed that this was done by the Jewish community in the 6th or early 7th century, as part of a controversy within Judaism over images that paralleled that within Christianity leading to the Byzantine iconoclasm, leading to a stricter attitude towards images, at least in synagogues. There is also evidence that from about 570 new synagogue mosaics were aniconic. An alternative explanation for the removals is that they were done after the Muslim conquest, and related to the decree of Caliph Yazid II in 721 (although this referred to Christian images). ^[6] The decoration of cave walls and sarcophagi at the Beit She'arim necropolis also uses images, some drawn from Hellenistic pagan mythology, in the 2nd to 4th centuries CE.

There are many later Jewish illuminated manuscripts from the Middle Ages and some other works with human figures. The "Birds Head Haggadah" (German, now in Jerusalem) gives all the human figures the heads of birds, presumably in an attempt to mitigate any breach of the prohibition.^{[ citation needed ]}

In modern Israel

In the state of Israel, all religious sites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are protected by law. Even though Jewish law teaches that idolatry is forbidden to all of humanity as one of the Seven Laws of Noah, Jews today combat it through discussion, debate, and education, rather than the physical destruction of statues and shrines.^{[ citation needed ]} However, most traditional Jews still follow the prohibitions against entering places of idolatry, and will not attend functions held in buildings where there are religious statues.^{[ citation needed ]}

Recent scholarship

In a refutation of the belief in an aniconic Judaism, and more generally in an underestimation of Jewish visual arts, historian Kalman Bland recently proposed that the phenomenon is a modern construction, and that "Jewish aniconism crystallized simultaneously with the construction of modern Jewish identities". ^[7] Others have also argued that the notion of a total prohibition of figural representation in the Biblical and Hellenistic-Roman periods is untenable. ^{[8] [9]}

Until the 20th century, Judaism was believed always to have been aniconic. The view was probably first challenged by Dávid Kaufmann, who marshalled a large and comprehensive corpus of data in order to prove it untenable. He was the first to use the term "Jewish art" in an article published in 1878, and is regarded as the founder of the scholarly discipline of Jewish art history. His disciple Dr. Samuel Krauss wrote in 1901:

As late as ten years ago it would have been absurd to speak about a Jewish art. It is Kaufmann's own merit to have uncovered this art. Not only did he have to prove that such an art existed, he also had to prove that it could exist, as he showed that the idea that the prohibition of images would obstruct the development of such an art was mistaken, and even established it as an irrefutable fact that the art in wide areas was not prohibited insofar as no worship was associated with it. ^[10]

See also

• Aniconism in Islam
• Aniconism in Christianity
• Iconoclasm

Notes

1. "Shulchan-Aruch - Chapter 11". Torah.org. Archived from the original on 2000-04-21. Retrieved 2012-09-19.
2. See Exodus 34:1, 4; Deuteronomy 10:1, 3.
3. jewishmuseum.org.uk
4. The only ancient Jewish image of the Ark appears to be at Dura-Europos although it also appears as the oldest Jewish bible illustrations surviving, from the 10th century (see Beckwith) Beckwith, John (1988). Early Medieval Art. Brill Archive. pp. 14–16. ISBN   90-04-08115-1.
5. Barber, 1018-1021
6. Barber, throughout.
7. "(Bland 2001:8)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-30. Retrieved 2012-09-19.
8. Joseph Gutmann: "The 'Second Commandment' and the image in Judaism." In Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961) 161-174. [= Id.: Sacred images: Studies in Jewish art from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. [Collected studies series, CS 303]. Northampton 1989. II. 161-174].
9. Joseph Gutmann: "Recent literature on Jewish art: a critical appraisal." In Jewish Book Annual 25 (5728/1967-1968) 167-169. See also Gabrielle Sed-Rajna's contribution to this volume.
10. Dávid Kaufmann and his collections Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Original source: Dr. Samuel Krauss: David Kaufmann. Eine Biographie, p. 45. Berlin 1901 (1902). "Noch vor zehn Jahren wäre es absurd gewesen, von einer jüdischen Kunst zu sprechen. Diese Kunst entdeckt zu haben, ist Kaufmann's eigenstes Verdienst. Nicht nur mußte er beweisen, daß eine solche Kunst existire, er mußte auch beweisen, daß sie existiren könne, indem er die Meinung, als stehe das Bilderverbot der Kunstentfaltung im Judenthum im Wege, als irrig erwies, er es vielmehr als unwiderlegbare Thatsache hinstellte, daß die Kunst auf flachem Raume nie verboten war, insofern kein Götzendienst sich daran knüpfte."

References

• Barber, Charles, The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art, Speculum, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1019-1036, JSTOR
• Beckwith, Martha Warren (1994). Early Medieval Art 206 illustrations, 53 in colour Carolingian. Ottonian. Romanesque . Praeger. ISBN   978-0-500-20019-3.
• Bland, Kalman P. (2001). The Artless Jew Medieval and Modern Affirmations and Denials of the Visual (PDF). Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-08985-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-30. Retrieved 2006-03-16.
• Goody, Jack (1997). Representations and Contradictions Ambivalence Towards Images, Theatre, Fiction, Relics and Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-0-631-20526-5.