This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2richardbsmith
And the subtle distinction with icons.
4timspalding
Does anyone know the Hebrew? Is it literally "carved"?
5richardbsmith
לא תעשה לך פסל Ex 20.4
The last word is pesel. It means idol of stone, clay, wood, or metal. I think the NRSV has a very good translation.
The verb pasal is to cut or hew, to carve wood
"You shall not make for yourself an idol.
The LXX ειδολων seems right for the pesel noun, but it may lose the Hebrew sense of hewing stone or cutting wood.
Explanation in the rest of the verse seems to clarify. The image should not be of anything from heaven, or earth or the waters. It seems to me that the command is less about not worshiping the idol, more about not worshiping the idea or thing which the idol signifies.
The last word is pesel. It means idol of stone, clay, wood, or metal. I think the NRSV has a very good translation.
The verb pasal is to cut or hew, to carve wood
"You shall not make for yourself an idol.
The LXX ειδολων seems right for the pesel noun, but it may lose the Hebrew sense of hewing stone or cutting wood.
Explanation in the rest of the verse seems to clarify. The image should not be of anything from heaven, or earth or the waters. It seems to me that the command is less about not worshiping the idol, more about not worshiping the idea or thing which the idol signifies.
6timspalding
Birds aren't creates of heaven, earth or water. So, carve birds!
7richardbsmith
I think you should be careful Tim.
We have the heaven above (the firmament?), the earth below (the firmament), and the waters under the earth.
We may here have to consider the earth as that entire bubble between the two waters.
In which case graven birds would also be bad.
We have the heaven above (the firmament?), the earth below (the firmament), and the waters under the earth.
We may here have to consider the earth as that entire bubble between the two waters.
In which case graven birds would also be bad.
8librorumamans
The short answer, following one explanation, is political.
Thomas Römer (Collège de France) explores this development in The invention of God. His deep study of the ancient texts leads him to conclude that the First Temple had, at least, a large image of Yahweh, and very likely several of other gods, including Asherah, the Queen of Heaven and Yahweh's female companion.
When the southern kingdom fell, the aristocracy were deported to Babylon, the temple razed, and its contents seized. In exile, the priests found themselves needing to reinvent their role. Their god had apparently been defeated by the Babylonian god.
Recall that most of the texts that form the present Hebrew Bible assumed their present form after the return from exile. Those texts recast the defeat as a victory, the proof of the omnipotence of YHWH who caused the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem as a demonstration of divine power. This clever twist justifies the priestly caste in retaining its social and political power as the intermediaries of an immaterial deity who therefore must not be given a material representation.
My summary is a crude condensation of Römer's account. I highly recommend the book. Alternatively, if you have an hour or so, you can watch him speak to the Hillel group at Brown here on YouTube.
Thomas Römer (Collège de France) explores this development in The invention of God. His deep study of the ancient texts leads him to conclude that the First Temple had, at least, a large image of Yahweh, and very likely several of other gods, including Asherah, the Queen of Heaven and Yahweh's female companion.
When the southern kingdom fell, the aristocracy were deported to Babylon, the temple razed, and its contents seized. In exile, the priests found themselves needing to reinvent their role. Their god had apparently been defeated by the Babylonian god.
Recall that most of the texts that form the present Hebrew Bible assumed their present form after the return from exile. Those texts recast the defeat as a victory, the proof of the omnipotence of YHWH who caused the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem as a demonstration of divine power. This clever twist justifies the priestly caste in retaining its social and political power as the intermediaries of an immaterial deity who therefore must not be given a material representation.
My summary is a crude condensation of Römer's account. I highly recommend the book. Alternatively, if you have an hour or so, you can watch him speak to the Hillel group at Brown here on YouTube.
9lilithcat
>6 timspalding:
In fact, there is a Birds' Head Haggadah. Whether that was to get around the prohibition against graven images is not certain.
There's a pop-up version, too!
In fact, there is a Birds' Head Haggadah. Whether that was to get around the prohibition against graven images is not certain.
There's a pop-up version, too!
10zangasta
>8 librorumamans:
Francesca Stavrakopoulou calls it 'godnapping' when those pesky foreigners enter your lands to take away your jobs... I mean gods. Not so easy to be shown up if your god is intangible...
I will watch, and possibly read, Römer, thanks.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou calls it 'godnapping' when those pesky foreigners enter your lands to take away your jobs... I mean gods. Not so easy to be shown up if your god is intangible...
I will watch, and possibly read, Römer, thanks.
11quicksiva
Here is one take on Idolatry:
"The more true opinion is, that all inanimate and irrational things may be legitimately worshipped," says Father Gabriel Vasquez, treating of Idolatry. "If the doctrine which we have established be rightly understood, not only may a painted image and every holy thing, set forth by public authority for the worship of God, be properly adored with God as the image of Himself, but also any other thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in its nature rational."
"Why may we not adore and worship with God, apart from danger, anything whatsoever of this world; for God is in it according to His essence and preserves it continually by His power; and when we bow down ourselves before it and impress it with a kiss, we present ourselves before God, the author of it, with the whole soul, as unto the prototype of the image (follow instances of relics, etc.) .... To this we may add that, since everything of this world is the work of God, and God is always abiding and working in it, we may more readily conceive Him to be in it than a saint in the vesture which belonged to him. And, therefore, without regarding in any way the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God, while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submiission; by a kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of the purest religion."
De Cultu Adorationis Libri Tres.," Lib. iii, Disp. i, c. 2.
"The more true opinion is, that all inanimate and irrational things may be legitimately worshipped," says Father Gabriel Vasquez, treating of Idolatry. "If the doctrine which we have established be rightly understood, not only may a painted image and every holy thing, set forth by public authority for the worship of God, be properly adored with God as the image of Himself, but also any other thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in its nature rational."
"Why may we not adore and worship with God, apart from danger, anything whatsoever of this world; for God is in it according to His essence and preserves it continually by His power; and when we bow down ourselves before it and impress it with a kiss, we present ourselves before God, the author of it, with the whole soul, as unto the prototype of the image (follow instances of relics, etc.) .... To this we may add that, since everything of this world is the work of God, and God is always abiding and working in it, we may more readily conceive Him to be in it than a saint in the vesture which belonged to him. And, therefore, without regarding in any way the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God, while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submiission; by a kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of the purest religion."
De Cultu Adorationis Libri Tres.," Lib. iii, Disp. i, c. 2.
