Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel 9781575065915

Citation preview

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page i Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

IMAGES OF OTHERS

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page ii Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

BIBLICAL AND JUDAIC STUDIES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Volume 11 edited by William H. C. Propp Previously published in the series: 1. The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, edited by William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman (1990). 2. Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography, by David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen (1992). 3. Isaiah 46, 47, and 48: A New Literary-Critical Reading, by Chris Franke (1994). 4. The Book around Immanuel: Style and Structure in Isaiah 2–12, by Andrew H. Bartelt (1996). 5. The Structure of Psalms 93–100, by David M. Howard Jr. (1997). 6. Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah, by David Noel Freedman (1999). 7. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, by John F. Kutsko (2000). 8. The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, by Alberto R. W. Green (2003). 9. Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute to David Noel Freedman, edited by Richard Elliott Friedman and William H. C. Propp (2004). 10. The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, by Lisbeth Fried (2004).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page iii Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

IMAGES OF OTHERS Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

Nathaniel B. Levtow

EISENBRAUNS Winona Lake, Indiana 2008

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page iv Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Published for Biblical and Judaic Studies The University of California, San Diego by Eisenbrauns Winona Lake, Indiana

ç Copyright 2008 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Cataloging in Publication Data Levtow, Nathaniel B. Images of others : iconic politics in ancient Israel / Nathaniel B. Levtow. p. cm. — (Biblical and Judaic studies from the University of California, San Diego ; v. 11) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-146-7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Idols and images—Biblical teaching. 2. Idols and images— Worship—History. 3. Iraq—Religion. 4. Iraq—Civilization—To 634. 5. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1199.I34L48 2008 202u.18—dc22 2008037653

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page v Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General ix Reference Works

vii ix

ix

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Interpretive Traditions: Idolatry, Dualism, Monotheism, Aniconism 5 Redescribing Israelite Parodies of Iconic Cult 12

1. Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

Ritual and Power 20 Classification 29 Social Formation 33

2. Israelite Icon Parodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Innovative Genre of the Exilic Age 40 Jeremiah 10:1–16 44 The Icon Parodies of Second Isaiah 57 Psalms 115 and 135 72 Literary History, Social History, and Interpretive Power Classification and Social Formation 80

40

75

3. Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

The Mesopotamian Cult Image: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretations 86 The Induction of the Cult Image in Mesopotamia: The Mis Pî Ritual 88 Iconic Aspects of Mesopotamian Warfare and Historiography 100 The Enthronement of the Supreme Deity 118 Mesopotamian Iconic Politics and Israelite Icon Parodies 125

4. Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Iconic Traditions in the Hebrew Bible The Ark Narrative 132

v

130

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page vi Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Contents

vi

Deuteronomistic Iconic Political Discourse 143 Ezekiel and the Departure of Yahweh 153 Israelite Aniconism or Israelite Iconic Politics? 159

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Classification and Cult

164

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Index of Index of Index of Index of

Authors 195 Scripture 199 Other Ancient Sources Topics 206

204

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page vii Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Acknowledgments It is a pleasure for me to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to numerous individuals and institutions for their support in bringing this project to fruition. I dedicate this book to Saul Olyan, without whose wisdom, guidance, and friendship it would not have been written. I offer my thanks also to Stanley Stowers, who has illuminated my interpretive path through the study of religion; to Alice Slotsky and Seth Richardson, for their invaluable assistance in Assyriology; and to Randy Friedman, Karen Stern, and Megan Williams for their critical insights and unfailing support. I wish also to express my gratitude to Michael Satlow, Shaye Cohen, Susan Harvey, Ross Kraemer, and my many mentors and friends at Brown University for their contributions and support through the various stages of this project. The Department of Religious Studies and the Program in Judaic Studies at Brown University provided the intellectual home and financial support that made this study possible. The Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh provided support for the later stages of this project, and I thank Susan Manning and Anthea Taylor for a fruitful year of research at IASH and for a wonderful year in Scotland. To the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, I owe much gratitude for providing me with an Educational and Cultural Affairs Fellowship in 2001-2 and for the generous offer of a Samuel H. Kress Fellowship for the following year. I thank Seymour Gitin and the extended Albright family of staff, friends, and colleagues, who so enriched my year in residence at the Albright Institute. I am indebted as well to the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust for supporting a year of research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2000-2001 and to the Orion Center for Dead Sea Scrolls Research at the Hebrew University for providing me with a Research Fellowship during that same year in Jerusalem. I am deeply grateful to William Propp for his critical insights and for his interest in including this study in the series Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego. I thank Amy Becker and everyone at Eisenbrauns who helped guide this project to publication for their generous assistance and enduring patience. I thank Gene McGarry for his invaluable vii

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page viii Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

viii

Acknowledgments

assistance with indexing and proofreading. For their support and encouragement, my thanks also go to Paul Dietrich, Gina Hiatt, Michael Ingall, Stewart Justman, Michael Mayer, Aparna Nadig, Joshua Prager, Robert Schine, and Wes Wallace. Finally, I thank my parents, William and Patricia Reilly, my sister, Evan, and my brother, Chris, for their love and support over the years. Nathaniel Levtow Missoula, Montana Summer 2008

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page ix Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Abbreviations General b.c.e. BR BM Dtr(H) H IT J njpsv LXX MT NR nrsv obv. P rev.

Before the Common Era Babylonian Ritual British Museum Deuteronomistic (History) Holiness source Incantation Text Yahwistic source New Jewish Publication Society Version Septuagint Masoretic Text Assyrian (Nineveh) Ritual New Revised Standard Version obverse Priestly source reverse

Reference Works AASF AB ABC

ABD AfOB AHw AJA ANET

ANETS AOAT ATD

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Anchor Bible Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Reprint of TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975 Freedman, D. N., editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft Soden, W. von, editor. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 American Journal of Archaeology Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Das Alte Testament Deutsch

ix

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page x Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

x BAR BAR BASOR BBB BBET BETL BHS BIWA

BJS BKAT BO BTB BZAW CAD

CahRB CBET CBQ DDD DJD ErIsr EvT FRLANT HAT HKAT HSM HSS HUCA IB ICC IEJ JAOS JBL JCS JHNES JJS

Abbreviations British Archaeological Reports Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Elliger, K., and Rudolph, W., editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Borger, R. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriftenwerk. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996 Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibliotheca Orientalis Biblical Theology Bulletin Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Oppenheim, A. L., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956– Cahiers de la Revue biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Toorn, K. van der; Becking, B.; and Horst, P. W. van der, editors. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Eretz-Israel Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Buttrick, G. A., et al., editors. Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951–57 International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies Journal of Jewish Studies

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page xi Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Abbreviations JNES JQR JRitSt JSJ JSOT JSOTSup JTS KAT KHAT KTU

MAPS OBO OED OIP OLA Or OTL OtSt PBS RB RIMA RIMB RlA SAA SAACT SAALT SAAS SANE SBLDS SBLMS SBT SBTS ScrHier SIDA ST STT

xi

Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Ritual Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Dietrich, M.; Loretz, O.; and Sanmartín, J., editors. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Orbis biblicus et orientalis Simpson, J., and Weiner, E. C. S., editors. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Oriental Institute Publications Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Publications of the Babylonian Section, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania Revue biblique The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods Ebeling, E., et al., editors. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts State Archives of Assyria Studies Sources from the Ancient Near East Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Scripta hierosolymitana Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis Studia theologica Gurney, O. R., and Finkelstein, J. J. The Sultantepe Tablets I. London: British Institute of Archaeology, 1957

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page xii Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

xii TA TB TCBAI TCS TDOT ThWAT UF VAB VT VTSup ZA ZAW

Abbreviations Tel Aviv Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute Texts from Cuneiform Sources Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974– Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973 Ugarit-Forschungen Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 1 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction The destruction of ancient Israel’s political and cultic institutions in the early 6th century b.c.e. led not to the end of Israelite literary activity but, on the contrary, to its flowering into new forms. 1 The varieties of Israelite literature that blossomed in Babylonia and Judah over the following century included a small set of poems that parody the construction and worship of Mesopotamian cult images. 2 These poems were peppered into several exilic and postexilic recensions of prophetic books and psalms, including Psalm 115: Why do the nations say, “Where is their god?” Our god is in the heavens; all that he desires he does. Their icons are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths but do not speak, they have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear, they have noses but do not smell, they have hands but do not feel, they have feet but do not walk, they do not utter in their throats. Like them are those who make them, as are all who trust in them. (Ps 115:2–8) 3

1. On Israelite literature of the exilic period, see R. Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c.e. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 139–435. 2. The classic examples of this poetic tradition are preserved in the books of Jeremiah (10:1–16) and Isaiah (44:9–20), while less-developed attestations appear elsewhere in Isaiah, Habakkuk, and the Psalms. See Isa 40:19–20; 41:6–7; 42:17; 45:16–17, 20; 46:1–7; 48:5; Hab 2:18–19; Pss 115:3–8; 135:15–18. The type of cult image described in these poems consists of a carved wooden core overlaid with precious metals and adorned with jewels and garments. For a more sympathetic (Neo-Assyrian) description of the construction of this statuary, see R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyria (AfOB 9: Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967), §53, AsBbA rev. 28–38; C. B. F. Walker and M. B. Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia (SAALT 1; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001), 26; see also chap. 3 nn. 1, 3 below (pp. 86–87). 3. Cf. Ps 135:13–18. Translations from the Hebrew are my own.

1

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 2 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

2

Introduction

Few passages in the Hebrew Bible have enjoyed a more prominent interpretive career than these so-called idol parodies. 4 From Jews in the Hellenistic East to British merchants and missionaries in India, heirs of biblical traditions have turned to these poems when negotiating their own encounters with iconic worship practices of other cultures. Half a millennium after they were written, for example, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon recast these poems in a Hellenistic mold when describing Greco-Roman and Egyptian cult images as “dead” and expressing contempt for the iconodule who, ‘for life, appeals to a corpse’. 5 The British politician Thomas Macaulay also drew upon these Israelite traditions when, in 1843, he stated to the House of Commons that the majority of the population of India “consists of idolaters, blindly attached to doctrines and rites.” 6 European ethnographers looked to 4. On my use of the terms idol, icon, and iconic, see n. 12 below. On idolatry discourse, see M. Halbertal and A. Margalit, Idolatry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992); J. Z. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies (ed. M. C. Taylor; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 269–84; R. H. Davis, Lives of Indian Images (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 205–6; M. Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea (New York: New York University Press, 1992); A. M. Hocart, Kings and Councillors: An Essay in the Comparative Anatomy of Human Society (Classics in Anthropology; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 244–48. 5. Greek: perµ de; zwhÅÍ to; nekro;n ajxio∂ (Wis 13:18). Extensions of Israelite icon parodies by Hellenistic Jewish authors appear in Wisdom 13–15, Bel and the Dragon, and the Epistle of Jeremiah. See also Philo (Decal. 52–75; Mos. 2:205; Contempl. 7; Gig. 59; Legat. 134; Flacc. 41–42); Syb. Or. 3:8–45, 5:403–7; Jub. 11:4–12:8; Apoc. Ab. 1–8; Let. Aris. 134–38. See M. Gilbert, La critique des dieux dans le livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13–15) (AnBib 53; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973); D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979). 6. T. B. Macaulay, “The Gates of Somnauth,” in The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches of Lord Macaulay (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1871), 630–41; cited in Davis, Lives of Indian Images, 207. Macaulay (b. 1800) served on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838; in the continuation of this speech, he stated that, in India, “Emblems of vice are objects of public worship. Acts of vice are acts of public worship.” On European responses to Indian art and iconography, see P. Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters: A History of European Reactions to Indian Art (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977). On 19th-century British discourse about “idolatry” in India, see J. P. Waghorne, “The Divine Image in Contemporary South India: The Renaissance of a Once Maligned Tradition,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. B. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 211–43; for examples of this discourse, see C. Buchanan, Memoir of the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India both as the Means of Perpetuating the Christian Religion among Our Own Countrymen, and as a Foundation for the Ultimate Civilization of the Natives (Cambridge, MA: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1811); J. Foster, Essay on the Evils of Popular Ignorance (2nd American ed.; New York: Gilley, 1821). Anthropological inquiry into Indic iconolatreia (for this term, see n. 12 below) has, in many respects, outpaced anthropological inquiry into

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 3 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

3

these poems as well when they divided “world religions” into two types— monotheism and idolatry—and claimed that “the essence of idolatry is everywhere the same.” 7 And more recently, H. Frankfort had these poems in mind when he wrote, “The absolute transcendence of God is the foundation of Hebrew religious thought. . . . Every alleviation of the stern belief in God’s transcendence was corruption. In Hebrew religion—and in Hebrew religion alone—the ancient bond between man and nature was destroyed.” 8 Across the ages, Israelite parodies of Mesopotamian cult images have been viewed as evidence of ancient Israel’s privileged intellectual status among its neighbors and contemporaries, attesting to its discovery and possession of unique theistic conceptions and to its bestowal of these conceptions on its later cultural heirs. Although Frankfort made the above statement more than half a century ago, its assumptions are at work every time a sharp distinction between “abstract monotheism” and “idolatry” is uncritically invoked in the interpretation of these poems. To this day, Israelite parodies of iconic cult are often regarded as evidence of an Israelite “discovery of monotheism,” forged in a “theological crisis of exile.” 9 ancient West Asian iconolatreia. See Davis, Lives of Indian Images; idem, “Indian ImageWorship and Its Discontents,” in Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe Barasch (ed. J. Assmann and A. I. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 107–32; D. L. Eck, Dar¶an: Seeing the Divine Image in India (Chambersburg, PA: Anima, 1981); J. P. Waghorne and N. Cutler, Gods of Flesh, Gods of Stone: The Embodiment of Divinity in India (Chambersburg, PA: Anima, 1985). On Buddha images, see D. K. Swearer, Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). On iconoclasm and idolatry discourse in early Islam, see G. R. Hawting, The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam (Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); G. R. D. King, “Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine,” in Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World (ed. E. R. Hoffman; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 213–26; Davis, Lives of Indian Images, 88–112. 7. R. J. Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Brattleboro, VT: Brattleboro Typography, 1838), 279, s.v. “Budhism, or Boodhism”; cited in Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 277–78. On the classification of “religion” and “idolatry” in early modern Europe, see chap. 1 n. 10. 8. H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 343; cited in M. D. Sahlins, How Natives Think: About Captain Cook, For Example (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 164 n. 17. 9. See, for example, R. H. Pfeiffer, “The Polemic against Idolatry in the Old Testament,” JBL 43 (1924): 229–40; idem, “Images of Yahweh,” JBL 45 (1926): 211–22; C. R. North, “The Essence of Idolatry,” in Von Ugarit nach Qumran (ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958), 151–60. The nuanced, comparative study of these texts by M. B. Dick suggests this interpretation at points (“Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth [ed. M. B. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 2). Although recognizing the variety of terminology for and attitudes toward cult images in the Hebrew Bible, E. M. Curtis writes: “Despite the prohibition of

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 4 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

4

Introduction

This interpretive tradition is informed by a dualist understanding of iconic cult that supports arguments for “Israelite distinctiveness” but that is anachronistic for the ancient West Asian world in which Israelite icon parodies were written. 10 The ritual and literary traditions of ancient West Asian and Mediterranean cultures do not depict a complete separation between physical and nonphysical realms or between opposing pairs such as mind and body or “spirit” and matter. The literary and archaeological record instead indicates a perception among these cultures of something more akin to a monistic continuum of reality, and their ritual practices emphasize and negotiate the connections between and positions of points along this continuum. 11 That this was the case for ancient Israel as well will be among the central premises of this study. The Israelite poets who mocked Mesopotamian cult images were deeply embedded in the iconic ritual landscape that they so richly depicted. They represented this landscape polemically, but they were not disengaged from it. Nor was their opposition to the cult images of their neighbors and opponents entirely unique. On the contrary, Israelite icon parodies attest to their authors’ participation in politically oppositional, iconically focused ritual and images in Israel’s official religion and the contempt for images found throughout the prophets, a number of biblical passages make it clear that the problem of idolatry continued through much of Israel’s history. It was only after the Babylonian Exile that the problem was effectively eradicated” (“Idol, Idolatry,” ABD 3:379). 10. On which, see P. Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay,” in Ah Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephªal; ScrHier 33; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 196–212; M. Smith, “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (2 vols.; ed. S. J. D. Cohen; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:15–27. I refer here to the dualist interpretive tradition that has informed discussions of this literature up to the modern period, a tradition dominated variously by Neo-Platonism, early modern Cartesian rationalism, and 19th-century Romanticism and filtered through the Jewish and Christian refractions of these movements. 11. Note, for example, how Israelite and other ancient West Asian cosmographies view heaven and earth as a continuum of what would be described today as physical substances divided by other physical substances, such as earth and water (see Gen 1:6–10). See W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Mesopotamian Civilizations 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998). So too does the Hebrew term commonly translated ‘spirit’ (jwr) appear as a physical, animating substance akin to wind or breath (Gen 1:2, Ezek 37:6). Greco-Roman conceptions of ‘soul’ (yuchv) and ‘spirit’ (pneuÅma) were similarly located within a natural continuum. D. B. Martin notes how “Aristotle assumes, like practically all Greek and Roman thinkers, that the soul, as the basis of animate life, is part of nature,” and how the term commonly translated ‘spirit’ (pneuÅma) came to be understood in the Hellenistic period as “a very rarified form of air” (The Corinthian Body [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995], 7, 13). On the semantic range of jwr, see H.-J. Fabry, “jwr, rûa˙,” TDOT 13:365–402.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 5 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

5

literary traditions that were commonly practiced throughout ancient West Asia. A focus on the way Israelite icon parodies engaged the power of these iconic practices will offer a more contextual perspective on how this Israelite literary tradition emerged and how its classification of cult became so successful. It will view these poems not as stopping points along a linear narrative of the history of Israelite religion but as windows onto the way ancient West Asian social groups structured their world through the manipulation of cult images in rites and writing. Illuminating the social and political contexts of Israelite icon parodies requires a two-step process, one deconstructive and one constructive. The first step is to dissociate these poems from idolatry discourse and dualist metaphysical traditions that have dominated their interpretation for two millennia. This step will be taken explicitly in these introductory pages and is intended to clarify how and why this is a study not of emergent monotheism in ancient Israel but of a corpus of texts and their ancient contexts, the understanding of which has been heavily influenced by a postbiblical interpretive tradition. The second step, which is more properly the subject of this study, is to redescribe the icon-parody genre as an innovative variation on a broader series of ancient West Asian iconic political traditions. In this Israelite iconic political tradition, the power emanating from iconic foci of cult was opposed, classified, and appropriated as a means to configure the social formation of exilic and early postexilic Israelite social groups. This point will be introduced below and is developed and supported in the four chapters that follow. Interpretive Traditions: Idolatry, Dualism, Monotheism, Aniconism “Idolatry” is a pregnant term, polemical in its own right, that does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. 12 At the heart of modern understandings of 12. The English term idol is a common translation for a variety of terms employed in Hebrew biblical texts to represent cult images. Many of these Hebrew terms and the contexts in which they appear are themselves polemical and derogatory; in these cases, the polemical term idol is not an inappropriate translation. A polemical representation of aspects of iconic cult in the Hebrew Bible does not, however, attest to an overarching conception in ancient Israel of idolatry as this term is understood by later intellectual and cultural traditions. An uncritical use of the polemical terms idol and idolatry is avoided in this study in favor of more neutral terms such as icon, iconic cult, iconic ritual, and iconolatreia. I employ these terms to designate cultic statuary and the practices associated with it. By “iconic,” I mean, specifically, of or pertaining to cultic statuary (see OED, s.v.). I do not imply the entire semantic range of the terms icon and iconic or the semiotic distinctions made by C. S. Peirce (“The Icon, Index, and Symbol,” in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce [vol. 8; ed. C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–58]);

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 6 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

6

Introduction

“idolatry” lies an ontological critique of a so-called error in which a symbol is erroneously substituted for what it symbolizes; in other words, the iconic “symbol” of a deity is “mistaken” for the referent deity itself. 13 Israelite icon parodies, according to this view, recognize and parody this “error” by mocking the iconodule who “mistakes” a cult image for a god. The idea of the “error of idolatry” belongs to an interpretation of iconic worship practices grounded in a dualist ontology that clearly distinguishes between a visible, material icon and an invisible, immaterial deity. This dualism, which divides the nonphysical from the physical and privileges “spirit” over matter, belief over practice, and thought over action, underlies the conception of an “error” that occurs when a physical divine symbol is “mistaken” for its nonphysical divine referent. Dualist classification and the categorization of reality into binary opposites that it reflects is a pervasive tendency in human perception and cognition generally. 14 Greco-Roman Platonists made distinctions between realms of physical and nonphysical being, and these distinctions grew sharper as they developed in medieval metaphysical traditions. 15 However, an overarching

cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995), 21–22. On the development of the term idol as a polemical translation for biblical representations of cult images, see C. A. Kennedy, “The Semantic Field of the Term ‘Idolatry,’ ” in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson (ed. L. M. Hopfe; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 193– 204. Kennedy charts the translation of cult image terminology from the Hebrew to the LXX and argues that “the pejorative sense of eidolon as ‘idol’ did not emerge until Tertullian transliterated the Greek term into Latin as idolum” (p. 204). The conflation of diverse ritual practices represented in biblical literature into the single monolithic category idolatry is common in modern scholarship. See, e.g., J. Milgrom, “The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in Eighth–Seventh Century Judah,” HUCA 69 (1998): 1–13. The discussion of cult images in ancient Israel’s cultural environment and in the Hebrew Bible by E. M. Curtis (“Idol, Idolatry,” 376) applies the term idol broadly to “physical representations of a deity.” See also chap. 2 nn. 40, 80; chap. 4 nn. 56, 68. 13. See Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 38–39. Mettinger (No Graven Image? 21– 22) calls this an “error of substitution” (drawing from Peirce, “Icon, Index, and Symbol”). 14. On dualism, see D. M. Rosenthal, “Dualism,” in The Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy (ed. E. Craig; New York: Routledge, 1998), 133–38, with references. On binary pairs in human category formation, see R. Needham, Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973). On dual classification in ancient Israel, see S. M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 3–7 and passim. As J. Z. Smith notes, most dual systems of classification are in fact hierarchical (To Take Place: Toward a Theory of Ritual [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987], 41). 15. On monism and dualism in ancient Greek thought, see Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–36. Classical Greek sources, particularly from the Platonic traditions, do develop dualist

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 7 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

7

division between physical and nonphysical being is an extreme form of dualism that is a distinct legacy of early modern Europe and a product of cultural developments local to that time and place. 16 The extreme dualism embedded in the modern European world view is often understood as a “natural” and universally applicable classification of reality. 17 It has frequently been projected onto cultures to which it does not apply. This has profoundly influenced interpretations of non-European cultures in general and their iconic

positions, although these must be distinguished from the kind of physical/nonphysical dualism characteristic of the Cartesian legacy in modern European thought (ibid., 14). Platonic dualism often appears as a hierarchical monism, while stronger dualist tendencies developed in Middle and Neo-Platonic traditions during the Greco-Roman period. On Hellenistic physics, see ibid. and the selections on Stoic physics in A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 266– 343. On Middle Platonism, see J. M. Dillon, The Middle Platonists, 80 b.c. to a.d. 220 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996). On Greco-Roman representations of cultic statuary, see Barasch, Icon, 50–91; J. Geffcken, Zwei Griechische Apologeten (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907; repr. Hildesheim, NY: Olms, 1970), xx–xxvii. On medieval and early modern philosophical traditions about “idolatry,” see Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 108–62. 16. The classic dualist position is stated in Descartes’ 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objections and Replies (rev. ed.; ed. and trans. J. Cottingham; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). See esp. Descartes’ first and sixth Meditations. Descartes’ distinction between mind and body and his identification of mental processes as ontologically primary secured an autonomous path for further natural-scientific inquiry in a way that did not threaten the doctrinal and social power of the Catholic Church. The social and theological implications of Descartes’ project were no less serious than the social and theological implications of Galileo Galilei’s; see Galileo’s 1623 “Assayer,” in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (trans. S. Drake; Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1957) for a classic statement on the physics of dualism. The intellectual and cultural success of Descartes’ effort is indicated by the degree to which it laid intellectual foundations for the coming European Enlightenment, foundations that, to this day, seem intuitive to Western perceptions of reality and theological traditions. For this reason, it is all the more important to note the social, historical, and theological contexts of the emergence of radical mind-body dualism in early modern Europe and its absence in ancient Mediterranean and West Asian world views. See Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–6 with references. 17. On nature, culture, and classification, see J. Z. Smith, To Take Place, 35–45; idem, “Classification,” in Guide to the Study of Religion (ed. W. Braun and R. T. McCutcheon; London: Cassell, 2000), 35–44. See also T. Masuzawa, “Culture,” in ibid., 70–93. The cultural relativity of these sorts of dualist classifications of reality is supported by the fact that physicalism and materialism are once again becoming the dominant ontological frameworks for philosophy and science, for example, with respect to the biochemical basis of mind and consciousness (on which, see Rosenthal, “Dualism,” with references). For a recent popular discussion of scientific materialism and its challenges to American religious conceptions of, for example, “the soul,” see P. Bloom, Descartes’ Baby (New York: Basic Books, 2004).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 8 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

8

Introduction

ritual practices in particular. Modern European dualist ontologies and empirical rationalities have traditionally failed to “explain” a cultural logic that operates on divinity’s manifest presence on earth other than as an “error,” a weakness of mind that tolerates logical contradictions. 18 This dualist interpretive tradition inclined earlier generations in biblical scholarship to construct within the history of Israelite religion an opposition between “abstract monotheism” and “polytheistic fetishism.” Yehezkel Kaufmann, for example, began his influential study of Israelite religion with the argument that Israelite ignorance of Mesopotamian iconic cult constituted “at once the basic problem and the most important clue to the understanding of biblical religion.” 19 By this, Kaufmann meant that, through focusing only on what he called the “fetishistic” view of cult image worship and ignoring the mythological belief systems associated with practices of this sort, the Israelite prophets both ignored the “essence of polytheism”—which he deemed to be “the belief in the gods”—and highlighted the uniqueness of Yahwism—which he deemed to be the belief in the primacy of Yahweh above all cosmic forces. 20 Along with his corresponding arguments for the Israelite discovery of universal, abstract, nonmythological monotheism, Kaufmann’s approach betrayed an unconscious indebtedness to the dualist, belief-privileging tradition of “idolatry” that has informed so many discussions of Israelite representations of 18. This problem has been a source of great miscommunication and misunderstanding between cultures and a methodological problem in the fields of anthropology and ethnography. It played a pivotal role in early anthropological theory and led late 19th- and early 20th-century anthropologists to the concepts of “animism” and “totemism,” and to the theory that widespread social practices of this sort imply a tolerance for logical contradictions and are thus indicative of “pre-logical mental states.” (See, e.g., L. Levy-Bruhl, La mentalité primitive [Oxford: Clarendon, 1931]; and idem, Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures [Paris: Alcan, 1918]). Mid-20th-century anthropologists, in response, stressed the intellectual coherence of non-Western social practices. (See, e.g., E. E. EvansPritchard’s Nuer Religion [Oxford: Clarendon, 1956].) More recent social theory, however, has questioned this very search for meaning behind social action, undermining the premise that social actions follow directly from mental states and suggesting instead that human life fundamentally consists of unreflective social action, that meaning and understanding themselves are socially determined, and that mind itself is a social phenomenon that arises from practices. 19. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. M. Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 7–20. 20. Ibid., 7–20, 21–24, 60–62, 133–38. This interpretation is supported by R. P. Carroll, “The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images,” ST 31 (1977): 53. According to Kaufmann, the Israelites “misunderstood” Mesopotamian iconic cult because they ignored the mythic “belief system” supporting it. Kaufmann ascribes mythic traditions in the Hebrew Bible to “pagan influence,” including “Israel’s Canaanite heritage, acquired, in all likelihood, before the rise of Israelite religion” (ibid., 62).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 9 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

9

iconic cult. 21 Israelite icon parodies have traditionally served as an interpretive anchor for this sort of dualist discourse about idolatry and monotheism. Elements of this dualist interpretive tradition continue to inform, to varying degrees, more recent and more nuanced studies of “monotheism” in ancient Israel that pair biblical polemics against cult images with related developments of “Yahweh-alone” ideologies. 22 Inquiries into the connections between these two themes in Israelite literature and religion—polemics against the worship of images and polemics against the worship of other deities—indeed suggest that developments in the Yahweh-alone movement were linked to developments in Israelite aniconic cult—at least with respect to the literary traditions representing these developments. 23 However, within this fruitful line of inquiry, matters of belief are frequently emphasized as the guiding thread along an inexorable evolution toward transcendent Yahwistic monotheism, culminating in the exile and exemplified by the icon parodies. Israelite icon parodies are often enlisted in the dynamic field of inquiry into Israelite aniconism. Scholarly attention to the iconographic record of Northwest Semitic cultures has flourished in the past decades. The focus 21. With respect to Israelite religion, Kaufmann writes of “a new religious category that is involved, the category of a god above nature . . . free of the bonds of myth and magic. This idea, which informs all of biblical creativity, is what paganism never knew” (ibid., 227); similarly, Yahweh is for the Israelites “a god who does not fight other divinities. . . . An unfettered divine will transcending all being—this is the mark of biblical religion and that which sets it apart from all the religions of the earth” (ibid, 121). 22. See, for example, C. Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament (BBB 62; Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1987). On the question of emergent monotheism in ancient Israel, see M. S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); idem, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); R. K. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOTSup 241; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); B. Halpern, “ ‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. J. Neusner, B. Levine, and E. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 77– 115; the collection of essays in W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein, eds., Ein Gott Allein? Jhwh-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO 139; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 1994; N. Fox, “Concepts of God in Israel and the Question of Monotheism,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis; BJS 346; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 326–45; P. Hayman, “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” JJS 42 (1991): 1–15; W. H. C. Propp, “Appendix C: The Origins of Monotheism,” Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2a; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 757–94. 23. On the related developments of a “Bilderverbot” and “Fremdgötterverbot” in biblical literature and Israelite religion, see Dohmen, Das Bilderverbot. This issue is discussed further in chap. 4.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 10 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

10

Introduction

during the 1980s on the Yahwistic iconography and inscriptions of Kuntillet Ajrud has expanded to encompass a much larger body of material evidence on Israelite iconography. The accumulating corpus of cult figurines, stamp seals, aniconic “standing stones,” 24 and other material evidence of Iron II Northwest Semitic iconography now rivals textual representations of iconic 24. For archaeological and literary perspectives on cult figurines, see R. Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (BAR International Series 636; Oxford: Tempus Repartum, 1996); K. van der Toorn, “Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Ancient Israel (ed. B. M. Gittlen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 45–62; P. R. S. Moorey, Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). See also P. Beck, “Catalog of Cult Objects from the Edomite Site of Horvat Qitmit,” in Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev (ed. I. Beit-Arieh; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1995), 27–208; and C. Uehlinger’s integration of this evidence into a broader discussion of Israelite religion in “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CBET 21; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 97–156; H. Niehr, “In Search of Yhwh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple,” in ibid., 73–96; B. Becking, “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel,” in ibid., 157–72; P. Beck, “The CultStands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naªaman; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: Israel Exploration Society / Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994), 352–81. On metal statuary, see O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1976); and P. R. S. Moorey and S. Fleming, “Problems in the Study of the Anthropomorphic Metal Statuary from Syro-Palestine before 330 b.c.,” Levant 16 (1984): 67–90, with plates. Scholarship on Iron Age Israelite and Canaanite iconography, based primarily on evidence from seals, is still largely in its descriptive phase. For stamp seals, see N. Avigad and B. Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997); O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); S. Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO 74; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987). On standing stones, see especially Mettinger (No Graven Image? ), who locates Israelite standing stones and other aniconic cult objects within a widespread tradition of “Northwest Semitic aniconism.” Mettinger’s evidence of aniconic “standing stones” draws on archaeological studies of, for example, U. Avner, “Mazzeboth Sites in the Negev and Sinai and Their Significance,” in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology (ed. A. Biran and J. Aviram; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 166–81. Not all of these “standing stones” are found standing. See E. Bloch-Smith, “Will the Real Massebot Please Stand Up: Cases of Real and Mistakenly Identified Standing Stones in Ancient Israel,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis; BJS 346; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 11 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

11

and aniconic cult from the Hebrew Bible. Two related trends may be discerned with respect to the interpretation of this growing mass of data. A primary interpretive trend challenges an earlier consensus, based on literary evidence alone, that Israelite cult was aniconic; a secondary line of inquiry investigates the historical development of Israelite aniconism. 25 Both of these related interpretive programs sort through the visual record of Iron II Northwest Semitic iconography, either to challenge or to support biblical literary evidence about the nature and extent of Israelite aniconism. These investigations offer valuable insights into iconographic and iconoclastic aspects of Israelite cult that can richly inform interpretations of Israelite icon parodies.

Studies, 2006), 64–79. For a catalog of literary evidence on maßßebot in the Hebrew Bible, see E. C. LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters (HSM 61; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 205–28. 25. A selection of the accumulating scholarship on Israelite aniconism includes Mettinger, No Graven Image? and the important review article by T. Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel” ( JAOS 118 [1998]: 36–53), as well as Mettinger’s related essays which include: “The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God in Ancient Israel,” in Religious Symbols and Their Functions (ed. H. Biezais; SIDA 10; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979), 15–29; “Aniconism—A West Semitic Context for the Israelite Phenomenon?” in Ein Gott Allein? Jhwh–Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (ed. W. Dietrich and M. Klopfenstein; OBO 139; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 159–78; “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CBET 21; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205–28; and “The Roots of Aniconism: An Israelite Phenomenon in Comparative Perspective,” in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995 (VTSup 66; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 219–33. See also R. P. Carroll, “The Aniconic God,” 51–64; C. D. Evans, “Cult Images, Royal Policies and the Origins of Aniconism,” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy; JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 192–212; R. S. Hendel, “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel,” CBQ 50 (1988): 365–82; idem, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book, 205–28; and the other essays collected in this volume and noted above in n. 24; J. M. Kennedy, “The Social Background of Early Israel’s Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal,” BTB 17 (1987): 138–44; N. Naªaman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image? Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of Yhwh in the Pre-exilic Period,” UF 31 (1999): 391–415; and the essays of C. Uehlinger, A. Lemaire, T. Ornan, and B. Sass in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991 (ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger; OBO 125; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993); B. B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edelman; CBET 13; Kampen: Pharos, 1995), 75–105. See chap. 4 nn. 52, 77.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 12 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

12

Introduction

The question, “Was Israelite religion aniconic?” is, however, not the central concern of this study. 26 The archaeological record of ancient Israel and Judah attests to a variety of iconic and aniconic practices, while certain strata of biblical literature clearly reflect a selective polemic against some aspects of iconic cult. 27 This study focuses on the sociopolitical aspects of this polemical discourse itself. It does not employ the spectrum of literary and material evidence on Israelite iconism and aniconism to reconstruct a snapshot of ancient Israel’s ritual landscape or a narrative of its historical development. Rather, it looks to the oppositional representation of ritual in Israelite icon parodies as primary evidence for discursive, iconically focused acts of social formation in ancient Israel. Redescribing Israelite Parodies of Iconic Cult Cultural systems that incorporate the manifest presence of divinity on earth are richly attested outside the modern West, including, for example, in 26. The question of aniconism is a cross-cultural field in art history and religious studies. On Israelite aniconism, see the previous note. On evidence that medieval and early modern Jewish cultures have never been truly aniconic, see K. Bland, The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmations and Denials of the Visual (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000). Bland notes how the opposition between the “Greek eye” and the “Hebrew ear” and between Greek naturalism/sensualism and Hebrew abstraction/intellectualism was strongly promoted in the ethnographic traditions of Enlightenment and Romantic Europe and deeply embedded into European scholarly traditions of biblical study (The Artless Jew, pp. 24–25). On iconism and aniconism in Greco-Roman Judaism, see E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (12 vols.; New York: Pantheon, 1953–68), 1:29; M. Smith, “Goodenough's Jewish Symbols in Retrospect,” JBL 86 (1967): 53-68; S. Fine, Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 b.c.e. to 640 c.e. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). On the question of aniconism in early Buddhism, see R. Linrothe, “Inquiries into the Origin of the Buddha Image: A Review,” East and West 43 (1993): 241–56; S. L. Huntington, “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism,” Art Journal 49 (1990): 401–8; Swearer, Becoming the Buddha, 14– 30; K. Karlsson, Face to Face with the Absent Buddha: The Formation of Buddhist Aniconic Art (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 15; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1999); W. A. Belanger III, oral communication. On aniconism in early Islam, see T. Allen, “Aniconism and Figural Representation in Islamic Art,” in Five Essays on Islamic Art (ed. T. Allen; Sebastopol, CA: Solipsist, 1988), 17–37; D. van Reenan, “The Bilderverbot, A New Survey,” Islam 67 (1990): 27–77; King, “Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine.” 27. For archaeological evidence of Israelite iconography, see Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder. The Hebrew biblical canon does not prescribe a monolithic iconoclasm that encompasses all Israelite textual traditions and all representative art. Note, for example, how selected iconography of Yahwistic cult, including the ark and cherubim, Yakin and Boaz, and the bronze sea, all escape the selectively iconoclastic gaze of the Deuteronomists.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 13 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

13

many African and Indic ritual traditions. 28 D. B. Martin, among others, has persuasively argued for the absence of a radical physical/nonphysical dualism (as these terms are understood today) in ancient Greek thought. 29 T. Jacobsen and, more recently, Z. Bahrani have similarly argued for the lack of sharply dualist ontological categories among the cultures of Assyria and Babylonia. 30 Bahrani writes that “while things and words, people and images are categories that are essential as far as we are concerned today, they were by no means categories in Near Eastern antiquity. . . . Object, sign, signifier, and signified are all concepts that need to be rethought in attempting to access Assyro-Babylonian practices of signification.” 31 Bahrani argues for returning the ßalmu (the Mesopotamian ‘image’) to its nondualist interpretive contexts in Assyria and Babylonia, where “nature and artifice were completely merged into one universal, interactive order.” 32 The presence of deity on earth was the operative principle of ancient West Asian cult, and ancient Israel was no exception to this rule. The Israelite deity, 28. On Africa, see, for example, Evans-Pritchard, Nuer Religion. On Hindu iconic ritual, see Davis, Lives of Indian Images; idem, “Indian Image-Worship”; Eck, Dar¶an; Waghorne and Cutler, Gods of Flesh, Gods of Stone. 29. Martin, Corinthian Body, 3–36. 30. Z. Bahrani, The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 121–48 and passim; T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of F. M. Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 15–32. Bahrani’s study offers a significant contribution to the interpretation of Babylonian and Assyrian modes of representation, including the cult image. It also underscores the limitations of contemporary Western theories of representation when they are applied to the ßalmu and the benefits of an interpretive route that seeks to overcome oppositions between image and word and between the real and “what we might call the imaginary” (ibid., 9, 136). Translating the ancient West Asian cult image is a great challenge; in addition to the studies of Jacobsen and Bahrani, see A. Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder (OBO 162; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). The focus of the present study is not on the conceptual framework of the cult image but on Israelite social groups, their ritual practices, and their writings. I discuss literary representations of iconic cult and political aspects of ritual practice to locate the social dynamics of Israelite iconic discourse within a wider ancient West Asian environment. I do not construct a theology of cult images. On the insufficiency of purely intellectualist approaches to the interpretation of religion, see chap. 1 n. 3 (p. 20). 31. Bahrani, Graven Image, 134, 147–48. 32. Ibid., 147–48. Bahrani cautions against common translations of ßalmu as ‘statue, relief, monument, painting, image’ and suggests instead that the term refers to “a representation” or, more specifically, a “system of representation . . . conceived as a pluridimensional chain of possible appearances” (ibid., 123, 128). In other words, the term does not signify a static concept or object but a process, a repetition that ritually achieves substitution and presence, a “form of image that circulates within the real” (ibid, 128–29).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 14 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

14

Introduction

like the deities of Mesopotamia that are polemically represented in the icon parodies, is depicted throughout biblical literature anthropomorphically and as having a cultic presence that interrelates with humans ritually and socially in local sites. 33 The projection of an overarching physical/nonphysical dualism on this monistic ritual environment turns the authors of Israelite icon parodies into mirror images of their modern interpreters, who objectify (and do not engage with) the iconic rituals of an objectified other culture. This interpretive move betrays a kind of “slippage” in which analytical categories are projected on an object of interpretation. 34 In this case, the authors of the icon parodies become the inventors of a radical dualist ontology that bases its view of deity, the world, and all of reality on the priority and veracity of the nonphysical over the physical, of thought over action, and of belief over practice. This construction of reality accurately reflects the post-Cartesian dualist rationalism underlying modern Western interpretations of “other” cultures, but it fails to translate the very different rationality that operated in ancient West Asian ritual systems and in their ancient Israelite literary representations. In his interpretation of religious practice in premodern Hawaii, M. Sahlins has argued for the cultural locality of rationality itself. 35 With respect to the “worldly manifestations” of Hawaiian deity, Sahlins asserts that “Hawaiian thought did not differ from Western empiricism by an inattention to the world but by the ontological premise that divinity, and more generally subjectivity, can be immanent in it.” 36 Sahlins offers a corrective to ethnographers of premodern Hawaii by arguing that “objectivity is culturally constituted,” that “relationships . . . established on strictly sensory grounds are, as such, humanly meaningless,” because “things are known by their relationships to a system of local knowledge, not simply as objective intuitions.” 37 The Western objectification of and sharp distinction between physical divine symbols and nonphysical divine referents does not elucidate the religious practices of premodern Hawaiians because, as Sahlins argues, ontologies and rationalities are 33. This point and its implications are discussed and supported in the chapters that follow. 34. On “slippage,” see C. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 13, 55 n. 2; and P. Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (trans. R. Nice: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 29. For a discussion of these issues with respect to the study of non-Western art within the discipline of art history, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 7, 73–95. 35. Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, 148–89. 36. Ibid., 6–7. An “inattention to the world” of this sort would characterize a weakness of mind that would erroneously tolerate logical, sensory contradictions such as mistaking symbol for referent in the “error of idolatry.” 37. Ibid., 169.

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 15 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

15

culturally determined based on local knowledge. In other words, comparative ethnography entails comparative ontology: “Different cultures, different rationalities.” 38 Interpretations of Israelite icon parodies that attempt to translate Mesopotamian and Israelite iconism and aniconism into the explanatory language of modern rational conceptual systems always fall short because, as Sahlins states, the very premise of the “problem” of the interpretation of divine symbols assumes the “late western invention of ‘objectivity,’ of a world of pure objects in themselves: ‘dumb objects’ as they have been called, without either the meaningful values of a given cultural order or intersubjective relations to people.” 39 When inquiring into the “meaning” of cult images in ancient West Asia and thus also of Israelite polemical representations of them, the language of symbolism is helpful only when it resists a modern dualist separation and objectification of divine symbols and divine referents. 40 In the monistic, iconic environment of ancient West Asia, ritual and politics were inseparate. Attacks against cult images were political acts, and cult images were frequently targeted by opposing social groups. These acts of “iconic politics” were expressed through both force and discourse. For 38. Ibid., 14–15. This criticism rearticulates what has been called “the problem of symbols” as “the problem of competing rationalities.” This restatement of the problem emerged out of a debate on the nature of human rationalities initiated by Peter Winch, who argued that Evans-Pritchard, in his ethnographic work on the Azande, erroneously assigned to them his own modern European world view and thereby illegitimately went on to interpret and judge Azande cultural practices as though their categories of rational assent were the same as his own. See P. Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 1990). See also the collection of essays in R. R. Grinker and C. B. Steiner, eds., Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997). I am not advocating an absolute relativism that is selfcontradictory. One need not adopt an extreme relativism to argue that different cultures had different rationalities and ontologies that should be viewed historically. 39. Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, 153. 40. The language of signs and symbols can be inherently dualist and thus problematic when applied to ancient West Asia, where “symbol” and “referent” were identified. As noted in n. 30 above, this identity is difficult to translate. Attempts to reconstruct a “theology of images” in ancient West Asian cult that focus on symbols must avoid distinguishing between the signifier and signified, even if the distinction is nuanced; otherwise they will reproduce, at some level, the discourse of idolatry and its conception of “error.” Cf. Mettinger, No Graven Image? 21–22; Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 38–39; Peirce, “Icon, Index, and Symbol.” See Bahrani (Graven Image, 128–33, 137, 145–48, 173–74), who describes the “dialectical relationship between signifiers and signifieds in AssyroBabylonian antiquity” and discusses “substitution” not in terms of a dualist “error” but as a monistic “mode of presencing.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 16 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

16

Introduction

example, cult images were often abducted and damaged during times of war, and these iconoclastic practices were also often represented in writing. Whether through force or discourse, these were all acts of power over iconic modes of social formation. 41 The authors of Israelite icon parodies participated in iconic modes of social formation common to all ancient West Asian cultures, even though this participation was expressed through polemical opposition. Israelite polemical representations of iconic cult are not evidence of opposing world views and static new conceptualizations of transcendent deity; they are evidence of dynamic acts of power that operated within the monistic, iconic environment of ancient West Asia. Israelite polemics against Mesopotamian cult images were social, political acts. The sociopolitical aspects of Israelite icon parodies are best illuminated by looking to the political, relational construction of social power and identity which, in ancient West Asia, was reified through ritual generally and iconic ritual specifically. As I further discuss in chap. 1, icons and deities were identified and subjectified in ancient West Asia through iconic rites. Icon, deity, and iconodule were all actively present and interrelated within the social context of ritual activity. Iconic ritual practices were focused on the cult image of a deity, and they were performed through the various roles played by the iconodules who maintained this deity’s cult. As the focus of these privileged social roles and the recipient of their prescribed performance, cult images became embodiments of social power relations. The referent of a cult image, in this respect, was the web of social power relations actualized through the ritual maintenance of its cult. And the manipulation of cult images—through either ritual practice or authoritative representations of ritual practice—affected the configuration of these social power relations. The authors of Israelite icon parodies attacked the cult images of Babylon, but their true target was Israel and the cult of Yahweh. The focus of their discourse was on Babylonian iconic ritual, but its power was wielded over Israelite social groups. Through their authoritative representation of Babylonian iconic cult, these Israelite authors defined ritual modes of social formation for their Israelite audience. With respect to their Israelite audience, therefore, icon parodies were political acts of power. More specifically, authors of icon parodies classified the practices that imbued cult images with social power in ancient West Asia, and these classifications became authoritative for the Israelite social groups who received these writings as “Scripture.” 41. Note the argument by Bahrani that visual and textual representations are both sites for “discursive operations of power,” and that, in Assyria and Babylonia, a representation (ßalmu) was “conceived of as being part of the real” and had the power of “creating the real” (Graven Image, 5, 19, 96–148).

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 17 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Introduction

17

Israelite icon parodies construct a binary opposition between Israelite and Babylonian deity, classifying Israelite deity as powerful, present, and alive and Babylonian deity as powerless, absent, and dead. This classification of ancient West Asian myth and ritual defines the “Israelite way” by differentiating it from the “way of the nations” (Jer 10:2). The icon parodies may thus be described as acts of self-identification through self-differentiation by means of a power-oriented discourse and its comparative, oppositional focus on iconic embodiments of social power relations. To achieve this, the Israelite authors manipulated ancient and authoritative myths and rites of both Babylonia and Israel and employed a common mode of ancient West Asian social formation to do so: they targeted the cult images of their enemies. This did not entail the invention of a dualist ontology that set a boundary between physical and nonphysical being or between belief and practice. On the contrary, this discourse was entirely concerned with the presence of deity and the power of ritual. This study thus inquires into iconic ritual practice and its polemical representation and classification in literature as a mode of social formation in ancient Israel. It investigates Israelite icon parodies from the perspective of social power relations. This entails an interpretive shift away from a dualist ontological framework that focuses on the metaphysics of abstract belief in transcendent deity and toward a sociopolitical framework that focuses on iconic cults as political and ritual centers of gravity in ancient West Asian societies. This interpretive route recognizes biblical polemics against cult images as products and reflections of local social, historical, and political circumstances and of similarly local rationalities and modes of social formation. It focuses not on the mental states of the ancient West Asian iconodule, about which our ancient sources remain largely silent, but on discursive practices that operate through the links between iconic ritual and social power, concerning which our ancient sources speak volumes. In the following chapter, I discuss the power of ritual practice and ritual representation in ancient West Asian societies and describe how the authoritative classification of iconic cult could generate a seemingly natural order for ancient Israelite social groups. In chap. 2, I turn to the icon parodies and investigate their historical development. I argue that the literary weave of icon parody and Yahwistic hymn that characterizes these poems produces a binary classification of ancient West Asian cult that reflects and addresses the ritual and political challenges of their exilic and early postexilic contexts. Chapter 3 explores the Mesopotamian iconic landscape that the icon parodies polemically represent. I investigate the political aspects of three Mesopotamian iconic traditions: the ‘mouth washing’ (mis pî ) rite of cult image construction and induction; the abduction, destruction, and return of cult images

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 18 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

18

Introduction

during warfare; and the iconic rites associated with the New Year (Akitu) festival. I discuss the ways in which Israelite icon parodies are in dialogue with these Mesopotamian ritual and discursive traditions, all of which manipulate iconic embodiments of social power relations. I describe the icon parodies as distinctive but by no means unique Israelite forays into these ancient West Asian traditions of “iconic politics.” Chapter 4 investigates an array of other representations of iconic cult in the Hebrew Bible, including the Ark Narrative (1 Samuel 4–6), Ezekiel, and selections from Deuteronomistic literature. I argue that these texts, like the icon parodies, configure relations of social power through an oppositional focus on cult images and thus attest to Israelite participation in common ancient West Asian iconic political traditions. This view challenges interpretations of these texts as evidence of a linear development toward aniconic monotheism and describes them instead as iconic modes of social formation that shaped identity and structured society in ancient Israel and Judah.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 19 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 1 Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel Israelite icon parodies address issues of ritual and power: the comparative power of Babylonia and Israel and the reflection and reification of this power in ritual. They focus, above all, on matters of ritual practice. As textual representations of ritual, they classify selected rites as positive or negative, correct or incorrect, effective or ineffective, powerful or powerless. This act of classification inverts Babylonian political hegemony over Israel by elevating Yahwistic over Babylonian cult. The cultic focus of this ideological program reflects the role of ritual, whether iconic or aniconic, in the production of social power and identity in ancient West Asian societies. Inquiry into the social contexts of Israelite icon parodies, from composition to canonization, must address these issues of ritual, power, and identity. This chapter, therefore, asks the following questions: How did the prescription and mastery of ritual practice produce social power in ancient West Asia? How did acts of ritual representation and classification reproduce and reposition this power? And how did the practice and classification of ritual actualize social-identity formation among the authors of these texts and their intended audiences? In answer to these questions, I will emphasize two theoretical points at the outset of this chapter, which I develop further below. Both concern power, practice, and icons. The first point regards iconic ritual, and the second regards classificatory discourse. With respect to iconic ritual, icons are understood in this study as embodiments of relations of social power and loci where rites index social hierarchies through practice. 1 Iconic practices are 1. I use the term index to refer to the way that iconic rites produce, array, and align relations of status and power in societies. C. S. Peirce writes of an “indexical” relation between sign and significatum that is associative and implied but that does not entail a necessary “iconic resemblance” (Peirce, “Icon, Index, and Symbol”; Mettinger, No Graven Image? 21–22). I speak, however, not of the way cult images “represent” deity nor of the way iconic rites “represent” society but rather of the way cult images and their associated rites actualize configurations of social relations. In this respect, V. Valeri writes: “Durkheim differs from his predecessors in . . . postulating that the exclusive content of religious representations is society. This is due to a conceptual confusion: the fact that all religious concepts presuppose society and therefore—at the very least—index it becomes the idea that they ‘represent’ it” (Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii [Chicago:

19

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 20 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

20

Chapter 1

thus understood as sites where cartographies of status and power are mapped, indexed, and inscribed upon individuals and social groups. With respect to classificatory discourse, the production of taxonomies of ritual practice redraws these maps and thus reconfigures these hierarchies. In ritually habituated cultures such as ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, therefore, both ritual practice and its representation and classification in literature were potential modes of cultural production. The degree of symbolic power generated through either of these practices—iconic ritual or its classificatory representation—was a function of the extent to which they were accepted as legitimate “structuring structures” of social relations and perceptions of reality. Ritual and Power In his study of ancient Hawaiian religion, Valerio Valeri describes deity as “the personified and naturalized concept of a human subject defined by his predicates, the most important of which is the aptitude to perform certain actions in certain social contexts. Thus a deity includes the interrelated concepts of a subject, his actions, and their social contexts.” 2 This understanding of deity belongs to an interpretation of religion extending from Feuerbach through Durkheim but that adds greater emphasis to the subjective operations of ritual practice in social formation. 3 The interpretation of iconic ritual University of Chicago Press, 1985], x–xi). Valeri then describes how the multiple manifestations of Hawaiian divinity index Hawaiian society through a series of “different hierarchies, associations, and oppositions” (ibid., 3–36). See also idem, “Pouvoir des dieux, rire des hommes: Divertissement théorique sur un fait hawaiien,” Anthropologie et Societé 5.3 (1981): 11–34. 2. Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice, ix. 3. Valeri acknowledges his place in the tradition of Hegel through Feuerbach to Durkheim that understands religion as “the objectified system of ideas of a community.” However, from within this interpretive tradition, he argues that deity is neither a Feuerbachian objectification of an abstract human-species idea nor a Durkheimian objectification of an abstract, presupposed societal idea but is instead a “representation of ideal types of subjects acting in certain types of social contexts,” wherein “the types of subjectivity personified by the gods presuppose social relations not only because they are created by them, but also because . . . they index them and are conceived as interrelated with them” (ibid., x–xi). Valeri, it should be noted, places himself in explicit opposition to an “intellectualist” tradition in the interpretation of religion. With respect to manifestations of divinity in the natural world, he writes: The subject experiences his properties in the act by which he appropriates—intellectually and practically—the objects of nature. Therefore the properties of his subjectivity are experienced as the properties of the object. . . . It is this spontaneous process of consciousness that humanizes nature, not, as in the “intellectualist” theory of religion, the analogic projection of a preexisting knowledge of the self onto nature in order to ex-

plain the latter by the former. . . . It is thus clear that a purely intellectualist approach to Hawaiian religion is insufficient, since this religion is no protoscience

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 21 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

21

adopted in this study similarly regards all conceptions of deity as projected anthropomorphic imagination and human subjectivity, whether in the form of an anthropomorphic cult image or otherwise. 4 In this view, cult images are inseparable from their social contexts in ritual practices. They are understood to signify human subjects acting in iconic rites that produce and reproduce hierarchical relations of social power. 5 Iconic manifestations of deity are thus understood in this study as subjective embodiments of social relations, the ritual manipulation of which entails the production and negotiation of relations of social power. 6 This view of ancient West Asian iconic cult does not inquire into correspondences between distinct and objectified divine “symbols” and “referents” because the act of icon construction entails the production of a ritual focus of subjective relations, a material image of a cultic construct for which no prior, distinct, or objectifiable referent image exists. This interpretation of iconic cult focuses not on the correct or incorrect symbolic meaning of the cult image itself but on the nexus of social relations motivating and embodying its construction, ritual manipulation, and literary representation. The social, relational, subjectivist interpretation of iconic ritual employed in this study thus aligns with a social-theoretical interpretation of religion that “regards religion as a human creation on a par with the other systems of signs and patterns of practices that humans have invented to structure their societies.” 7 It does not regard religion as a sui generis phenonenon and natural and no theology pure and simple either. Its representations are inseparable from the ritual praxis that reproduces them and makes them believable by providing contexts in which the concrete subjects can experience their truth. (Ibid., 34–35)

This requires, for Valeri, a turn to ritual practice as a focus for interpretation. 4. On theology as anthropology, see L. Feuerbach’s 1841 work,The Essence of Christianity (trans. George Eliot; New York: Harper & Row, 1957). See also D. Hume’s 1757 work, Natural History of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976). On Feuerbach and projection, see V. A. Harvey, Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). On the cognitive necessity of anthropomorphic perception, see S. Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Similarly, Valeri states, with respect to Hawaiian religion: “all nature has a human dimension” (Kingship and Sacrifice, 31). Feuerbach’s Hegelian anthropology of religion was similarly expressed by Karl Marx: “Nature taken abstractly, for itself—nature fixed in isolation from man—is nothing for man” (K. Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 [Moscow: Foreign Languages, 1961], 169; quoted in Sahlins, How “Natives” Think, 162, 170). 5. Following C. Bell, Ritual Theory ; idem, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice. 6. Bell, Ritual Theory, 207. 7. B. Mack, “Explaining Religion: A Theory of Social Interests” (paper presented to the Larkin-Stuart Lectures, Trinity College, Toronto, October 1999), 2. My use of the term

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 22 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

22

Chapter 1

category autonomous from the human social sphere and its modern traditions of critical inquiry. 8 As J. Z. Smith notes, “religion” is not an ethnographically “native term” but is “a term created by scholars” as a “second order, generic concept.” 9 Indeed, “religion,” like “idolatry,” is not a term that appears in the Hebrew Bible; it similarly denotes a category that is alien to the ancient West Asian cultural contexts that are in focus in this study. Assyrian, Babylonian, and Israelite sources do not separate out autonomous categories such as “religion” from other aspects of the ancient West Asian social matrix. 10 Nor do they distinguish sharply between “beliefs” and “practices” associated with a category of this sort. 11 On the other hand, there are some analytical categories, not native to the ancient environment, that can be helpful for describing and interpreting it. This would include, for example, descriptive and interpretive social categories such as “identity” and “hierarchy.” When employed in this study, terms such as these are understood not as natural categories but as conceptual tools that help describe the web of relations of social structures in this study does not carry the associations of structuralism as a formal term in the field of sociology but refers more generally to human hierarchical sociopolitical formations such as temples and priesthoods, courts and kingships, households, clans, cities, states, and empires. 8. For a critique of religion as sui generis, see R. T. McCutcheon, Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); idem, Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of Religion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001); R. Segal, “In Defense of Reductionism,” in The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader (ed. R. T. McCutcheon; London: Cassell, 1999), 132–63. 9. J. Z. Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 269, 281. 10. On the emergence and development of the term religion as a cultural category from the 16th to 20th centuries, see ibid., 269–84. Smith notes that E. Brerewood’s Enquiries Touching the Diversity of Languages and Religions through the Chiefe Parts of the World (London: Bill, 1614), which is among the first European “anthropologies” of non-Christian religions, distinguishes among four categories of religion (that is, four “species” of the “genus” religion): “Christianity, Mohametanism, Judaism and Idolatry” (Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 271). Smith writes that Brerewood’s fourfold schema was “continued by other writers from the seventeenth century . . . until well into the nineteenth century,” and that “the bulk of the subsequent expansion occurred in Brerewood’s fourth category, ‘idolatry’ ” (ibid., 275). Indeed, the role played by the category/species idolatry in the development of the category/genus religion is central. This, at the very least, reemphasizes the point that a study of “idolatry” is a study of a modern, not an ancient, subject. Its emergence as a subject of discourse and a cultural category depends on one’s particular definition of the term; terminologically, it is, at the very least, postbiblical. Semantically, if linked to a sharp dualism, its emergence would correlate with the development of Neo-Platonism and, especially, post-Cartesian thought. 11. On the emergence of “belief ” as the defining marker of “religion” (“Glaube”) in reformation and early Protestant discourse, see Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 271.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 23 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

23

structures and practices (social, political, cultic) that constitute ancient West Asian societies. 12 With respect to the social-theoretical approach to religion that I adopt in this study, Y. Kaufmann’s argument that Israelite authors focused more on the practice of Mesopotamian iconic ritual than on the mythopoetic “belief ” systems associated with this practice was, in fact, not entirely off the mark. 13 Kaufmann claimed, however, that this betrayed an Israelite “misunderstanding” of Mesopotamian religion insofar as it focused on a “fetishistic” view of Mesopotamian iconic rites that ignored the more substantive belief systems underlying them. Here, Kaufmann applied an understanding of ritual and religion rooted in dualism and in early 20th-century theories of ritual fetishism. The power of Mesopotamian iconic ritual, Kaufmann suggested, lay not in the so-called fetishistic iconic rites targeted by Israelite poets but in the vast store of mythic poetry that constituted the enduring power of Mesopotamian religion and that illuminated, substantiated, and justified its rites. I argued in the introduction that this rationalist, hierarchical dualism, which in a seemingly natural way privileges belief over practice, myth over ritual, thought over action, and mind over body, was not the inheritance of ancient West Asian cultures. In this respect, Israelite authors betrayed no misunderstanding at all of their Mesopotamian neighbors. On the contrary, their focus on the details of iconic ritual practice targeted the heart of the matter directly. In the 6th century b.c.e., following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, Israelite social groups were defeated, disempowered, and dislocated— politically, socially, and ritually. A definition of ritual as a distinct category of thought-less acts, isolated from other forms of social behavior, obscures these sociohistorical contexts of Israelite polemics against Mesopotamian cult images. Ritual practice, not mythopoetic belief systems, reified relations of social power in the ancient West Asian world. A thought/action dichotomy has been embedded in definitions of “ritual” since its emergence in the 19th century as a category of analysis. 14 The 12. These categories are thus understood as theory, not data, and are discussed further below. When speaking of “religion,” a focus on practice helps avoid dualisms between, for example, the individual and the social or between “religion” as a sphere of mind and “economy” as a sphere of instrumentalism. A focus on practice thus helps embed “religion” in a seamless social whole. This is emphasized by Bell (Ritual Theory; Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions) and Valeri (Kingship and Sacrifice). 13. Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 3–20, as discussed in the introduction. 14. Ritual, like religion, is a modern category that is not native to the ancient cultures here in question but is a second-order tool for analysis of these cultures. On the development of ritual as a modern category and tool for analysis, see Bell, Ritual Theory, 13–17; and R. L. Grimes, “Ritual,” in Guide to the Study of Religion (ed. Braun and McCutcheon; London: Cassell, 2000), 259–69. There is little consensus on the definition of the term

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 24 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

24

Chapter 1

study of ritual is susceptible to the same pitfalls of dualist interpretation that are associated with the categories idolatry, monotheism, and religion. Interpretations of Israelite icon parodies that distinguish Israelite belief in aniconic monotheism from Mesopotamian rituals of iconic polytheism generate binary oppositions within their very terminology of ritual and project these oppositions on the ancient environment as both a tool for and an object of analysis. This kind of interpretive slippage objectifies ritual within this ancient environment as a sphere of social practice and behavior that stands in opposition to systems of myth and thought associated with these practices. In order to understand the power of ritual in its ancient context and Israelite representations of it, it is necessary to conceive of ritual in a way that does not conflate theory with data. 15 ritual, as any definition of this sort is formulated within the context of a broader interpretation of religion and social practice. See Geertz’s definiton of ritual as symbolic action in his Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 112–13, and Leach’s definition of ritual as “culturally defined sets of behavior” in his “Ritual,” in The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (19 vols.; ed. D. L. Sills; New York: Macmillan, 1968), 13:520–26. See Grimes, “Ritual,” 261, for a discussion of narrow and broad definitions of the term; see Bell, Ritual Theory, 13–66; and idem, Ritual: Perspectives, 1–90, for the theoretical issues associated with definitions of ritual. 15. The problems associated with the objectification of ritual practice in ritual theory are discussed by Bell in Ritual Theory, 13–29. Bell identifies a series of dichotomies operating within most modern anthropological definitions of ritual, oppositions that ritual theory itself produces and in which it participates. Conceptions of ritual of this sort further define it as a bridge between oppositions, as “a type of critical juncture wherein some pair of opposing social or cultural forces comes together. Examples include the ritual integration of belief and behavior, tradition and change, order and chaos, the individual and the group, subjectivity and objectivity, nature and culture, the real and the imaginative ideal” (ibid., 16). This integration of oppositions, Bell suggests, is reproduced by ritual theory itself. Bell thus identifies the tendency in ritual theory to continually produce and then bridge a series of dual oppositions between thought and action, a dualism that is constructed by ritual theorists, projected on the cultures under investigation, and resolved through these constructed and conceived processes of ritual practice and ritual theory alike. Bell’s effort to problematize the traditional dichotomies between thought and action and between belief and practice that have so dominated past discourse on ritual yields helpful insights into the interpretation of Israelite icon parodies pursued in this study—particularly with respect to the need to avoid the application of similar dualisms to the interpretation of Israelite polemics against iconic ritual and of ancient West Asian mythic and ritual traditions in general. Bell resists offering a “new theory of ritual,” for any “new” definition or theory would, she argues, simply be a reorganized objectification of ritual, most likely a synthetic construction of practice meant to generate a discourse on an object and to mediate between dichotomies such as consciousness and social being—that is, a synthesis that serves as both an object and a method of discourse (ibid., 77–78). Bell’s argument is worth stating in full:

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 25 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

25

Ritual practice in ancient West Asia was located within the dynamics of social activity in general and political activity in particular. This contextual view of ritual is helpfully informed by Catherine Bell’s recommendation to replace the idea of ritual as a statically symbolic “natural category of human practice” with an idea of ritual as a dynamic sphere of social activity that privileges social actions and social roles through strategic differentiation. 16 Bell’s more dynamic and socially embedded model for the operations of ritual practice focuses on the “production of ritualized acts,” defined by Bell as “the strategic production of expedient schemes that structure an environment in such a way that the environment appears to be the source of the schemes and their values.” 17 Bell, in this sense, speaks of “ritualization” as a “particular cultural strategy of differentiation linked to particular social effects and rooted in a Most theoretical discourse on ritual . . . is fundamentally organized by an underlying opposition between thought and action. . . . This fundamental dichotomy helps to generate a series of homologized oppositions that come to include the relationship between the theorist and the actors. At the same time, ritual is portrayed as mediating or integrating all these oppositions. Constituting ritual in this way involves a particular structuring of the subject’s relationship with the object. . . . The thought-action dichotomy not only differentiates ritual-as-activity as an object of theoretical attention; it also differentiates a “thinking” subject from an “acting” object—or, when pushed to its logical conclusion, a “thinking” subject from a “non-thinking” object. (Ibid., 47) As I discussed in the introduction, this idea of “dumb objects” is present in discourse on the so-called problem of idolatry. With respect to ritual theory, Bell concludes that “in the same way that ritual is seen to reintegrate thought and action in some form, discourse on ritual is seen to afford special access to cultural understanding by integrating the subject’s thought and the object’s activities” (ibid., 47). This important point is made by Bell elsewhere in slightly different words when she states that the logic behind the usual discourse on ritual constructs a series of oppositions whereby, on one level, ritual is to the symbols it dramatizes as action is to thought; on a second level, ritual integrates thought and action; and on a third level, a focus on ritual performances integrates our thoughts and their action. The opposition of the theorist and the ritual object becomes homologized with the two other oppositions. . . . This homology is achieved by a hidden appeal to a type of common denominator, the opposition of thought and action. In the end, a model of ritual that integrates opposing sociocultural forces becomes homologized to a mode of theoretical discourse that reintegrates the dichotomy underlying the identification of a thinking theorist and acting object. (Ibid., 32) 16. Bell thus relocates the often-objectified, isolated, and static position of ritual to a less theoretically privileged “purposive activity” that operates within “the multitude of ways of acting in a particular culture” (ibid., 140). 17. Ibid.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 26 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 1

26

distinctive interplay of a socialized body and the environment it structures.” 18 Bell identifies this process of ritualization as a strategic mode of social activity, a “dynamic of social empowerment” aimed at “the embodiment of power relations.” 19 Ritualization is, according to Bell, a strategy for the construction of power relationships, distinguished simply as strategic action amidst action in general, which creates social bodies “in the image of relationships of power, social bodies that are these very relationships of power.” 20 Bell’s description of the dynamics of ritualization bears directly on the idea of ritual “beliefs” so often invoked in interpretations of Israelite icon parodies. For in Bell’s view, one can no longer posit or search for static symbolic beliefs underlying rituals that are keys to their interpretation. Beliefs become “unstable” in ritualization’s arena of projected and embodied schemes of power relationships, for ritualization succeeds not through a communication of symbolic beliefs but rather through a “ ‘mastering’ of relationships of power relations . . . a negotiated appropriation of the dominant values embedded in the symbolic schemes.” 21 18. Ibid., 8. 19. Ibid., 170, 180–81. Bell offers examples of how “ritualization involves the differentiation and privileging of particular activities” (ibid., 204–5). Compare the more intellectualist approach to ritual action as “model experiences” that “symbolize and reconstitute society” in Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice, 31–36, 81–82. Valeri’s interpetation of Hawaiian iconic ritual nevertheless offers a similarly helpful emphasis on practice as constitutive of social formation. Valeri understands Hawaiian iconic deities as personifications and manifestations not simply of subjects but also of “collectively recognized types of actions” (ibid., 33). Valeri writes: The apprehension of the concept embodied by the deity makes it possible to give value and signification to concrete subjects acting in certain ways in certain contexts. This constitutes them as social, cultural realities. In this sense the type is a model “for” simply by virtue of being a model “of ”; it is productive because it is representative. It creates a subject acting in a social context because what it represents cannot exist without the act that represents it. (Ibid., 32) Ritual thus serves to “hierarchize concrete subjects, actions, and social contexts”; it “teaches people to believe in cultural principles by creating experiences in which they can be apprehended” (ibid., x). 20. Bell, Ritual Theory, 197, 207. Ritualization then does not imply for Bell the imposition of fixed static societal controls but rather the dynamic and indeterminate production of power relations that effect social solidarity “without overriding the autonomy of individuals or subgroups” (ibid., 221–22). Note also that, for Bell, the analysis of ritual itself produces social solidarity, as a ritualization that negotiates a culturally efficacious differentiation of “ ‘self ’ and ‘society’ ” via a “strategic dichotomization of thought and action” (ibid., 217–18, 222). 21. Ibid., 182.

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 27 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

27

The implications of Bell’s argument are instructive: ritual and belief do not exist in static symbolic correspondence, and solidarity in social formation is dynamically produced through practice, not frozen in words and beliefs. As Bell notes, “even the basic symbols of a community’s ritual life can be very unclear to participants or interpreted by them in very dissimilar ways,” yet “despite the different ‘cultural’ interpretations attached to them, such symbols still promote ‘social’ solidarity.” 22 Interpretations of Israelite icon parodies that focus on different belief systems and the “idea of idolatry” and that search for correspondence between practice and belief, action and thought, symbol and referent are ontologically dualist and sociologically misdirected— they describe the interpreter and not the text. As Bell notes, “ritual forms of solidarity are usefully promoted because they rarely make any interpretation explicit; that is, they focus on common symbols, not on statements of belief.” 23 Symbols are efficient not in their correspondence to beliefs but in their very indeterminacy as vehicles for the actualization of social solidarity operating through privileged social practice. 24 In other words, “sayings” and “thinkings” about beliefs are actions that can be part of ritual practice, but they have no privileged status. 25 With Bell’s model of ritualization in mind, it may be said that ritual creates power through the production, actualization, and mastery of social roles. Ritual mastery establishes power relations in a way that ideology alone cannot. Participation in ritual actively positions individuals and groups within a system supported and perpetuated by the very roles and practices it establishes. A king, for example, may claim power and demand allegiance from a social group on the basis of heroic acts or royal lineage, but this power is actively and polyvalently legitimized and reified through social practices associated with divine myths and temple settings that are not invented by this king but have long been inherited by his society. 26 Assertions and claims of power cannot create the reality of power in the way that practices of this sort can, insofar as systems of ritual mastery implicate all levels of society in hierarchical degrees of unreflected participation, as part of the system itself. Rituals that invoke, involve, and interrelate deities, kings, cultic officials, and social groups as a whole, such as the iconic rites polemically represented in Israelite icon parodies, link individuals within these social groups to delineated, inherited, divine hierarchical structures and the social, political formations 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Ibid., 183. Ibid. Ibid., 184. S. Stowers, oral communication. Ibid.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 28 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

28

Chapter 1

with which they are explicitly and actively associated. In the ritually habituated cultures of ancient West Asia, therefore, ritual created realities of social power in ways that ideology alone did not. 27 What Geertz wrote with respect to divine kingship in Indic Southeast Asia applies also to the iconic ritual environment of ancient Israel’s exilic setting: “If a state was constructed by constructing a king, a king was constructed by constructing a god.” 28 The political power of the Babylonian ritual economy was fully invested in the construction and ritual manipulation of cult images. 29 The social context of Israelite polemics against Babylonian cult images may thus be located among the political dynamics of iconic ritual as a mode of social formation in ancient West Asia. The cult image was, for Babylonians and Israelites alike, a fruitful site of focus for the production, reproduction, and configuration of social power relations. 30 27. The notion that ritual can transform social reality was articulated by V. Turner, whose emphasis on liminality as “the engine of ritual and culture” promoted the idea of ritual not as a conservative and consolidating force, as suggested by Durkheim, but rather as a transformative force, as exemplified in van Gennep’s model of “rites of passage” (Grimes, “Ritual,” 264; V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Antistructure [Chicago: Aldine / Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969]; A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage [trans. M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee, 1960]). This idea that rites can transform social reality was further developed in the field of ritual theory that grew after the 1970s and has been fruitfully applied to a variety of anthropological and historical problems, including problems in Israelite religion. See, for example, S. M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 4 n. 7 with references, in which Olyan writes of the power of ritual to create, structure, and transform social reality: “Ritual is not simply a mirror reflecting a somehow pre-existing social order. Through rites, the social order is continually brought into being anew, with the statuses and identities of participants and relations between them affirmed or reconfigured. Far from being a mode of impeding social transformation, rites have the power to realize such change.” Similarly, D. Kertzer writes of how ritual is politically transformative and not conservative: “Although Durkheim recognized that rituals inculcate particular political paradigms, he only considered rituals that unify all of society, rituals that offer a conservative and consensual interpretation of the political order. But, rituals are not simply a blind product of communal existence; rather, they serve certain political interests and undermine others. They must be analyzed in political terms to determine how they arise, how they are maintained and altered, and who benefits from them” (Ritual, Politics, and Power [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988], 86–87). See also C. Bell, “The Ritual Body and the Dynamics of Social Empowerment,” JRitSt 4 (1990): 299–313; and D. Kertzer’s review essay, “Ritual and Politics,” JRitSt 4 (1990): 349–55. 28. C. Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 124. I do not here equate deity with despotism in Assyria and Babylonia. See chap. 3 n. 128, and Bahrani, Graven Image, 142–45. 29. The political aspects of Babylonian iconic cult are more fully addressed in chap. 3. 30. D. Kertzer writes: “Far from simply reflecting existing power relations, rituals are often important in doing just the opposite, that is, in fostering beliefs about the political

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 29 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

29

Classification Israelite icon parodies are textual representations of ritual. 31 As such, they are akin to ritual texts that define the mastery of rites, such as texts in Leviticus 1–7 that prescribe rites of Yahwistic cult and priesthood or Mesopotamian mis pî ritual texts that define rites of cult image construction and induction. They are different from ritual texts of this sort, however, in that a prescriptive cast is replaced by a polemical, comparative discourse. As in other biblical traditions that polemically represent “proper” and “improper” cultic practice, they compare and classify selected rites as true or false, correct or incorrect, effective or ineffective, powerful or powerless. 32 Their authors were in this way engaged in an act of ritual classification, writing not to define ritual mastery for an elite priesthood but to delineate categories of deity, society, and reality for a larger social group. 33 Identifying the polemical, comparative representation of ritual in Israelite icon parodies as an act of classification is a helpful way to locate the composition of these texts in local contexts associated with the configuration of social relations. It also avoids universal and “naturalist” interpretations of the universe that systematically misrepresent what is going on. . . . Political rituals erase as much history from our memories as they inscribe on them. Far from simply projecting the political order onto the symbolic plane, ritual propagates a particular view of the political order” (Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, 87). Similarly, S. M. Olyan describes biblical mourning rites as “a ritual setting for the realization, affirmation, re-negotiation, or termination of social bonds between individuals, groups, and even political entities such as states” (Biblical Mourning, 4). 31. On textual representation of ritual, see Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 3 n. 6; and idem, Rites and Rank, 13–14. Israelite textual representations of iconic cult offer inherently problematic data for the reconstruction of ancient West Asian ritual practices, given their polemicizing, idealizing tendencies. The focus of this study is, however, on literary representation itself as a social act. In this respect, the polemical element is itself data for the reconstruction of Israelite literary and ritual acts of social formation. See also J. W. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 32. Examples of ritual classification of this sort abound in Deuteronomistic and Priestly literature and are discussed in chap. 4. 33. On classification as an act of power, see M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage, 1970), ix–xxiv, 50–57, 125–65. Foucault writes of the ordering and tabulating that “enables thought to operate upon the entities of our world, to put them in order, to divide them into classes, to group them according to names that designate their similarities and their differences” (ibid., xvii). Foucault calls attention to the epistemological shift in 17th-century Europe that enabled and accompanied rationalist acts of comparison and classification based on identity and difference. The “ordering of things” as empirical knowledge based on identity and difference is, Foucault argues, the epistemological possibility that distinguishes the early modern period.

spread is 3 points long

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 30 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

30

Chapter 1

categories of reality that the parodies thereby construct. 34 The way Israelite icon parodies classify deity and ritual should be recognized not as “natural” and “logical” orders but rather as cultural and symbolic taxonomies. Symbolic classification is, in this respect, a form of social classification, just as mythic and ritual systems are forms of social systems. 35 In other words, the classification of deity, ritual, and reality in the icon parodies is itself a product of Israelite culture, and the development of this classification is related to developments within Israelite society. It is no coincidence, for example, that the classification of Yahwistic ritual promoted by the Deuteronomistic “reform” movement corresponded with contemporary classifications of social and political structures in 7th-century Judah. 36 The icon parodies are also a kind of cultic “reform” that reflect a program of social classification through ritual representation. The classification of ritual is a form of ritual mastery. The practical mastery of ritual and the discursive classification of ritual were both activities that produced, structured, and claimed power in ancient West Asia. 37 Iconic cults assigned Babylonian kings and cultic officials roles in inherited practices that linked these figures in both words and acts to myths and practices dating back to the third millennium b.c.e. The prescription and performance of these rites legitimated the social roles of royalty and priesthood that supported and 34. On the relationship between classification and the organization of society, see E. Durkheim and M. Mauss, Primitive Classification (trans. and ed. R. Needham; London: Cohen & West, 1963), esp. pp. vii–xlviii. See also Smith, To Take Place, 35–45; idem, “Classification,” 35–44; B. Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); for further references, see Olyan, Rites and Rank, 123 n. 1. Durkheim and Mauss were the first to isolate classification as an aspect of culture and thus an object of sociological inquiry. Despite the flaws in Durkheim and Mauss’s 1903 essay—most notably the causal relationship between social classification and symbolic or cosmological classification they propounded —their fundamental insight into the social aspects of classification remains a valuable tool in the effort to understand other cultural systems. R. Needham calls classification “the prime and fundamental concern of social anthropology” (ibid., viii); Smith furthers the insights of Durkheim and Mauss by noting that although most modes of classification appear “natural,” individual, and dual, they are in fact cultural, social, and hierarchical (To Take Place, 35–45). 35. This is not to say that symbolic classification simply mirrors social classification; together they dialectically configure and reconfigure social relations. 36. On which, see B. Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century bce: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 13– 108. This point is discussed in chap. 4, with respect to the iconic aspects of the Judahite cultic and political response to Neo-Assyrian incursions in the Levant. 37. On ritual mastery, see Bell, Ritual Theory, 107–17; on practical mastery, see Bourdieu, Outline, 87–95. On rites creating social hierarchies, see Olyan, Rites and Rank, 3–14.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 31 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

31

were supported by iconic cults. 38 By classifying Babylonian iconic cult as powerless, Israelite icon parodies delegitimized this mode of practical mastery and the configuration of social power relations actualized through it. Their Israelite authors were thus literate, elite persons engaged in a classification of ritual traditions that created roles, relations, and realities of social power in Babylonia. 39 These authors were likely alienated if not excluded from these surrounding, dominant ritual traditions and the power that emanated from their iconic centers. From this displaced and disempowered standpoint, they positioned their own Yahwistic ritual system and constructed a vision of their own identity through categorical opposition to Babylonian cult. 40 To the degree that their classification of ancient West Asian ritual was accepted as a “natural order” by an Israelite exilic and postexilic audience, its production was a powerful social act that differentiated and defined Yahwistic ritual and Israelite identity. When the authors of Israelite icon parodies compared and contrasted Babylonian and Israelite myth and ritual, the distinctions they drew between these related cultural systems were based on connections and similarities between the two. The appropriation of ritual mastery and the classification of ritual practice that structures these compositions depend on a common cultic “language” that renders comparative efforts of this sort meaningful and effective. This point is evident in other Israelite literary traditions and ideologies developed during times of sociopolitical transformation, including the Deuteronomistic program of cultic, social, and political “reform” during the late 7th century. 41 Deuteronomistic traditions delineate between correct and incorrect Yahwistic cult practices, denigrating certain rites as “foreign” and “incorrect,” while promoting others as “correct” and “native Israelite.” In the case of the icon parodies, a similar opposition is created between Babylonian iconic cult and Yahwistic aniconic cult. In both cases, a constructive program 38. D. Kertzer writes: “As one important kind of symbolic activity, ritual structures our experience; it guides our perceptions and channels our interpretation of those perceptions. Through ritual, as through culture more generally, we not only make sense of the world around us, but we also are led to believe that the order we see is not of our own (cultural) making, but rather an order that belongs to the external world itself ” (Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, 84–85). 39. I argue and support this in chap. 3. On Israelite scribal culture, see K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). 40. See J. C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985). 41. The literary traditions of the Deuteronomistic History also, not coincidently, focus on matters of iconic cult. The anti-iconic elements of this Deuteronomistic program of ritual classification and its sociopolitical contexts are discussed in chap. 4.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 32 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

32

Chapter 1

of social formation is pursued through a discursive construction of oppositional ritual and social categories. Although the icon parodies emphasize the differences between two ritual systems, these differences are qualitative and presume a sameness. 42 A binary opposition between “incorrect” Babylonian iconic cult and “correct” Yahwistic aniconic cult is thus not an opposition between absolutely distinct cultural systems; it is, rather, a positioning of two points along a continuum, a comparison, and an act of symbolic classification. A comparison of this sort would be impossible without presumed similarity. 43 Their assumed commonalities include an acknowledgement of the existence of deity as a power that creates and controls the human environment; the connections between humanity and deity as established through proper maintenance of temple cult; and the correspondence between the cultic maintenance of divine order and the political maintenance of social order. The differences, as argued by these Israelite writers, are matters of distinction between, for example, what is “truly” a deity and what is not or what is effective ritual and what is not. These distinctions would have been meaningless outside of the ancient West Asian cultic continuum. If they were accepted as true and natural classifications, however, they could have the power to reconfigure social formations within this continuum. The writers of the icon parodies thus repositioned social power by reclassifying cultic practice. To do so, they focused on the icons that occupied center stage in ancient West Asian temple cult. By claiming that Babylonian cult images were dead and powerless, these Israelite authors delegitimized for their audience the mythic traditions, social power relations, and roles of practical mastery that were actualized by Babylonian iconic cult. 44 By claiming that Yahweh was the only living and powerful deity, they simultaneously legitimized the social formations configured through their vision of Yahwistic cult. These Israelite discursive assaults against Babylonian cult images were, in this respect, similar to other ancient West Asian traditions that targeted cult images as a means to configure social power relations. I discuss Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic traditions in more detail in the chapters that follow. At this point, I wish primarily to stress that, when comparing Babylonian and Israelite cult, Israelite icon parodies assume commonality while arguing for difference. They differentiate and hierarchically classify two configurations along the ancient West Asian ritual continuum. Israelites and Babylonians did not inhabit different worlds, as is so often suggested on evidence of the icon parodies. Interpretations of Israel42. S. Stowers, oral communication. 43. See Smith, “Classification,” 35ff. 44. See n. 37 above.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 33 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

33

ite icon parodies influenced by the tradition of “idolatry” argue for fundamental distinctions between Mesopotamian and Israelite myth and ritual, but these texts attest to just the opposite. Their authors demonstrate an intimate knowledge of Mesopotamian iconic rituals; they understand how these rituals worked. Their rhetoric emphasizes difference but implies sameness. They too speak of gods and their cults; they too are involved and invested in the ancient West Asian ritual system; and they too are connected to the realities of social power produced and reproduced by its mastery and classification. Social Formation Despite their mocking, negative tone, the comparison and classification of ritual practice in Israelite icon parodies belongs to a positive, constructive project of Israelite social formation. Just as ritual itself embodied and actualized social power relations in ancient West Asia, the representation and classification of ritual also belonged to this dynamic, constructive, relational process of power production and social formation. The classification of ritual practice in Israelite icon parodies that distinguished between “powerful” and “powerless” ritual constructed social and ontological categories such as “true” and “false” deity. Like ritual practice itself, the classification of ritual involved a relational act that constructed, hierarchically structured, and circumscribed ancient West Asian social formations through the production and positioning of privileged social behaviors and their associated ontological schemes. “Social formation” refers broadly to the construction and configuration of social relations. I use this phrase instead of “society” or “social structure” because I wish to emphasize dynamic, relational processes of cultural production. Social formation is, as Burton Mack writes, “an abstract concept with specific connotations” that “emphasizes the complex interplay of many human interests that develop systems of signs and patterns of practice, as well as institutions for their communication, maintenance and reproduction.” 45 In this sense, social formations can include political and cultic institutions such as priesthoods and royal courts, along with their attendant hierarchies of status and power. They can also refer to more abstract social constructs such as purity and identity. My use of the term social formation thus refers to both structuring processes and resultant structures. The concept of power relates closely to the concept of social formation. I define power as dominance in social formation. An act of power can be described as an act that configures systems of practice. There are different kinds of power, including both force and discourse. Power and dominance can often 45. B. Mack, “Social Formation,” in Guide to the Study of Religion (ed. Braun and McCutcheon; London: Cassell, 2000), 283.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 34 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

34

Chapter 1

be realized more effectively through discourse than through force. 46 This includes discourses that come to define configurations of systems of practice and social formations generally that are deemed congruent with the “natural” or “divine” order. Bourdieu speaks in this sense of “symbolic power” as “a power of constructing reality . . . which tends to establish a gnoseological order,” that is, “a power of constituting the given through utterances.” 47 In ancient West Asia, hierarchies of status and power were commonly legitimated through prescriptive rites and their practical mastery. Configurations of social relations—from kinship to kingship—were produced and reproduced through hierarchical participation in rites of sacrificial distribution, manipulations of iconic foci of cult, recitations of mythic systems, invocations of divine participation, and numerous other privileging and socially indexing acts. 48 An act of discursive power would thus include a discourse that succeeds in making ritual innovation appear normative and natural. When I describe Israelite icon parodies as acts of power, I therefore refer to these correlations between ritual, power, and social formation. If social status and power were configured through systems of ritual practice in ancient West Asia, it follows that a classification of ancient West Asian systems of ritual practice would reconfigure relations of social power, redefining the social roles configured and reified by rites. 49 It is certainly not the case that a small circle of Israelite exilic poets redefined the Babylonian iconic ritual system for anyone beyond their own “captive” audience. Their configuration of ancient West Asian and Yahwistic ritual systems did, however, become influential among Israelite exilic and postexilic groups. 50 In this respect, Israelite icon parodies were acts of power that promoted a definition of the “Israelite way” at the time when it was most disrupted. They sought to vivify Yahwistic cult by claiming that Babylonian cult images were dead. To the Israelite audiences and tradents of this literature, its differentiated definition of Yahwistic ritual 46. See Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Societies, 3. Lincoln here draws upon Marx and Foucault. 47. P. Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power (ed. J. B. Thompson; trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 166, 170. Bourdieu describes symbolic power as “a power of . . . making people see and believe, of confirming or transforming the vision of the world and, thereby, action on the world and thus the world itself, an almost magical power which enables one to obtain the equivalent of what is obtained through force” (ibid, 170). The establishment of seemingly natural taxonomies by a dominant group is instrumental in this “construction of the given.” 48. See Olyan, Rites and Rank, 3–14 and passim; Bell, Ritual Theory, 171–223. 49. Note also the observations made by Bahrani (Graven Image, 5, 19, 96–148) on the reifying power of representation in the monistic environments of Assyria and Babylonia. 50. I argue this in the following chapter, based on its early canonization and influence on postexilic Israelite literary traditions as well as on postbiblical interpretive traditions.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 35 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

35

practice reformed Israelite social solidarity and identity by symbolically classifying their ritual and social landscape of destruction and exile. I do not claim that the icon parodies offer a detailed articulation of postexilic Israelite social formations. The icon parodies do not map Israelite ritual cartographies of status and power to the degree evident in the exilic and postexilic extensions of the Deuteronomistic, Priestly, and Holiness schools. 51 Rather, the icon parodies represent an early foray into Israelite ritual mapmaking after the destruction and exile. Their authors pursue a more abstract act of social formation that, nevertheless, takes a very concrete position on matters of cult. They claim the ritual and social power that allows for further acts of Israelite social formation in the future. 52 The revivification of Yahwistic cult did not require a classification of Babylonian cult images as powerless and dead. There were other options in the Israelite mythic and ritual arsenal from which to draw, including Yahwistic traditions of the divine warrior that did not categorically deny the power of other deities or the power of icons. 53 To deny the power and presence of Babylonian iconic deities struck, however, at the sociopolitical foundations of their exilic environment. To capture, “kill,” or otherwise co-opt the power embodied in an enemy’s cult images was, furthermore, a practice widely employed through both force and discourse throughout ancient West Asia. 54 Israelite icon parodies construct out of polemical representations of Babylonian iconic cult and corresponding oppositional representations of Yahwistic cult a relational definition of Israelite identity that marks its boundaries through differentiation from an “other” ritual system. This observation locates the social contexts of these anti-iconic polemics within the struggle among competing individuals and social groups to differentiate themselves from and define themselves against other, often more-powerful hierarchies of social formation structured and expressed through different gods, kings, and cults. Ritual practice was the effective focus of this effort in Israelite identity formation because in ancient West Asia, social relations and identities were configured and reified within the privileged social sphere of cult.

51. Through, for example, the complex delineation of purity and sacrificial systems. See J. Z. Smith’s discussion of the Jerusalem temple visions of Ezekiel 40–48 in To Take Place, 56–71. 52. With Babylonian political turbulence in the background, as I discuss in chap. 3. Note that the classification of Yahwistic cult in the icon parodies and its oppositional representation of Yahwistic and Babylonian deity justifies but does not require a Yahwistic temple. 53. See, for example, Exod 15:11 and my discussion of the Ark Narrative in chap. 4. I refer to alternate possibilities of this sort further in the conclusion, n. 26 (p. 171). 54. On the abduction and destruction of cult images, see chap. 3.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 36 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

36

Chapter 1

The Yahwistic ideology promoted in the Israelite icon parodies presents “the Israelite way” in cult and culture not unilaterally and monolithically but dialectically, through the process of self-definition through self-differentiation that characterizes ethnic identity construction generally. 55 While “community” and “identity” are useful categories to employ in social-theoretical interpretations of biblical literature, it is important to recognize the ethnic groups and boundaries represented in selected biblical traditions not as objective reflections of the social world of ancient Israel but as literary and ethnographic representations constructed by invested Israelite authors for an intended Israelite audience. The perspective on Israelite identity construction employed in this study proceeds from a more “dynamic, nonessentialist, positional conception of cultural identities” that describes such social categories in terms of “process, movement, flux, change and conflict.” 56 It locates the composition of Israelite icon parodies within political, dialectic processes that engender cultural identities and emphasizes the political, relational, hierarchizing process of self-definition through differentiation from the “other.” 57 This view 55. This perspective differs from static, essentialist notions about individual and group identity that informs much scholarship on, for example, Jews and Judaism. L. Silberstein problematizes these efforts to “uncover, excavate, and bring to light cultures such as Judaism by asking such questions as, What is the essence/structure of Jewish culture? What is Jewishness? What are the essential teachings, values, and ideals of Judaism? How did Judaism emerge, develop, grow?” (“Others Within and Others Without: Rethinking Jewish Identity and Culture,” in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity [ed. L. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn; New York: New York University Press, 1994], 4). 56. Silberstein, “Others Within,” 4. On this nonessentialist, dynamic view of ethnic identity construction, see F. Barth, “Introduction,” in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference (ed. F. Barth; London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 9–38; the collection of essays in J. Clifford and G. E. Marcus, eds., Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography: A School of American Research Advanced Seminar (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986); G. C. Bentley, “Ethnicity and Practice,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 24–55; C. F. Keyes, “Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group,” Ethnicity 3 (1976): 202–13. A corrective to the idea of nonporous boundaries between ethnic groups can be found in S. E. Hutchinson’s Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), which updates Evans-Pritchard’s 1930s ethnographic “snapshot” of Nuer culture with a portrait of a much more dynamic and unbounded ethnic group embroiled in the violent and convoluted fray of politics and social migrations in late 20thcentury sub-Saharan Africa. Hutchinson’s work forcefully demonstrates the problem with ethnographic work that draws clear boundaries around objectified ethnic groups. 57. J. Z. Smith writes of how “ ‘otherness’ is a situational category,” and of how “a ‘theory of the other’ requires those complex political and linguistic projects necessary to enable us to think, to situate, and to speak of ‘others’ in relation to the way we think, situate, and speak about ourselves” (“What a Difference a Difference Makes,” in “To See Ourselves

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 37 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

37

does not accept uncritically the notions of group identities and nonporous boundaries constructed and promoted by certain Israelite authors invested in these issues. It instead recognizes the literary work of these authors as a relational sociopolitical activity that articulated idealizations of cult and community through constructed cultic, ethnic, and ontological categories. 58 In this respect, the authors of the icon parodies deployed anti-iconic polemics as a mode of ethnic identity construction and group self-definition. This was a discursive act of ritual classification, made in a polyethnic world in which power and politics were articulated and reified through cultic practice in general and iconic ritual in particular. The establishment and reestablishment of ritual power by taking it away from others and placing it in one’s own hands and within one’s own traditions of language, myth, and praxis thus repositioned an entire ritual economy that produced social power and formed social identity in ancient West Asia. These correlations between ritual, power, and identity locate the icon parodies within processes of exilic and early postexilic Israelite social formation, an effort here pursued through the classification of “effective” and powerful ritual in a differentiating way. A formation of Israelite identity is achieved through distinctions made between Israelite and Babylonian ritual and social power, and through the promotion of a consequently defined, differentiated, effective, and powerful Yahwistic cult. The classification, prescription, and mastery of differentiated rites plays a similarly significant role in Deuteronomistic literature, in which the boundaries between “proper” and “improper” Yahwistic ritual mark the boundaries between “foreign” and “native” in Israel itself. 59 In both the Babylonian exile and Judah, these authors focused on as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity [ed. J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs; Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985], 48). 58. Such as, for example, “correct” versus “incorrect” practices, “foreign” versus “native” ethnic groups, and “true” versus “false” gods. These categories were constructed by and thus did exist for the authors who employed and perpetuated them. It is a mistake, however, to then assume that they represent an accurate reflection of the social world of ancient Israel. A prime example of a construction of this sort would be the polarity, “Israel” and “alien,” on which, see Olyan, Rites and Rank, 63–102; and idem, “Purity Ideology in Ezra– Nehemia as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16. See also P. Machinist, “Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and Its Contexts,” in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity (ed. L. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn; New York: New York University Press, 1994), 35–60; R. Cohn, “Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition,” in ibid., 74–90; R. A. Oden Jr., “Religious Identity and the Sacred Prostitution Accusation,” The Bible without Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 131–53. 59. The geopolitical events of the 8th through 6th centuries entailed increased Israelite contact with Mesopotamian culture. This affected not only Israelite social practices but also the construction by biblical authors of Israelite and other ethnic identities. See W. W. Hallo,

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 38 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

38

Chapter 1

iconic cult in their literary representation and classification of ritual. The classificatory, discursive representation of iconolatreia was, it seems, among the most effective means of promoting idealized configurations of social power and identity beyond the elite circle of literate Israelites who composed these parodies and polemics. 60 My interpretation of Israelite icon parodies, therefore, moves through the connections in ancient West Asian societies between ritual, power, and identity. I locate the authors of these poems among literate elites who, after the Babylonian conquest of Judah, configured relations of social power and identity through a reflexive ethnography of ritual classification. They pursued cultural creation through cultural conflict and defined a ritual system through its polemical, comparative representation in writing. By differentiating “true” and “powerful” Yahwistic cult from “false” and “powerless” Babylonian iconic cult, they promoted ideal configurations of Israelite political power and social identity in and out of exile. These Israelite authors made a virtue out of a necessity and found victory in defeat by discursively mastering the power of ritual and the represention of deity. In his “biographies” of Indian images, R. Davis notes that these images lived not only through Hindu ritual practitioners who originally constructed and interacted with them but also through every other interpretive community that came to interact with them, including medieval Muslim iconoclasts who destroyed them, Hindu iconodules who repaired them, and modern western museum-goers who came to gaze at them in a space far removed from their original ritual environments. 61 Mesopotamian cult images have also remained vital embodiments of power relations for other interpretive communities. For the Israelite authors of the icon parodies, they became a focus of “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 1–17; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries b.c.e. (SBLMS 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974), and idem, “Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion,” JBL 112 (1993): 403–14; J. W. McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 bc (SBT 2nd Series 26; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1973); H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages.” I address this issue further in chap. 4. 60. On the power of representation—through images and through words—see Bahrani, Graven Image, 96–148. On the social aspects of ancient literacy, see J. Goody, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). See also P. Bourdieu, “Reading, Readers, the Literate, Literature,” In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology (trans. Matthew Adamson; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 94–105. 61. Davis, Lives of Indian Images, 8–9.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 39 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Rites and Writing in Ancient Israel

39

social formation, much as they were in their original environments in the workshops and temples of Babylonia. Because of the power of iconic ritual in ancient West Asian societies, cult images served as similarly powerful foci for Israelite discursive acts of classification and social formation. These images also lived on as productive sites of social formation for postbiblical tradents of idolatry discourse, as a category of otherness now embodied in textual representations canonically preserved in the Israelite icon parodies. 62 62. On idolatry as a category of otherness, see Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 271.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 40 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2 Israelite Icon Parodies An Innovative Genre of the Exilic Age The burst of Israelite literary creativity in the 6th century b.c.e. was linked to political developments affecting ancient Israel during that time. Rainer Albertz has called attention to the variety of genres of exilic literature that “came into being or took on special importance in the exilic period,” including communal and city laments, oracles of salvation, oracles against other nations, and “hybrids” of laments and hymns. 1 All of these genres, Albertz notes, reflect and address the distinct and urgent social, political, and cultic issues of the exilic age. In this chapter, I describe Israelite icon parodies as a distinct genre of Israelite literature that expressed and addressed the concerns of Israelite social groups during the turbulent period from exile to restoration. I discuss the literary and sociopolitical history of these poems and argue that they most likely developed in close correspondence over a relatively brief period in the latter half of the 6th century b.c.e. I locate them within discourses of power and processes of social formation in late exilic and early postexilic Israel. Although appearing in a wide variety of corpora, these poems share common terms, structures, and themes, and I view them synoptically. I highlight the way these poems pair icon parodies with Yahwistic hymns in an alternating structure that produces series of binary oppositions between Israelite and Babylonian deities specifically and Israelite and Babylonian ritual and social systems generally. I argue that these literary and ideological oppositions create distinctions within a common ancient West Asian ritual continuum, reweaving the threads of social power that run through it in an act of symbolic classification. Israelite icon parodies engage with Babylonian and Israelite systems of myth and ritual, aligning and realigning both in ways that promote processes of Israelite social formation. In this respect, these Israelite icon parodies represent innovations to a series of iconic ritual and literary practices that were traditional sites for discourses of power and modes of social formation in ancient West Asian societies. Identifying Israelite icon parodies as iconic dis1. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 139–203.

40

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 41 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

41

courses of power and modes of social formation emphasizes the political aspects of the symbolic, ritual classification these texts produce. It also emphasizes the potential of discourse of this sort to dominate socially foundational interpretations of ancient West Asian ritual practices and thereby to influence Yahwistic cult practices and the Israelite social formations with which they interrelate. In other words, I argue that the symbolic classification generated in Israelite icon parodies serves to define and empower the ritual and political ideals of their authors. This process operates ostensibly with respect to Babylonian ritual and social power—in the way these texts negate the power of Babylonian cult images by depicting them as lifeless and ineffective productions of human craftsmen. Their real target, however, is not Babylonian iconic cult but the Israelite social groups to which they are specifically addressed (see Jer 10:1). The binary classification of Israelite and Babylonian ritual in these texts appropriates the iconic mode of production of symbolic power in ancient West Asia. However, this appropriation of ritual power leads to a domination not, certainly, of Babylonian ritual and society but rather of postexilic Israel and the particular Israelite social formations legitimated through this representation of Yahwistic myth and ritual. Despite their rhetorical opposition to ancient West Asian iconic cult, these authors therefore engage the ancient West Asian ritual system in what may be called a “symbolic spoliation” of divine images. Viewing the icon parodies in this way illuminates them as variations on a traditional form of symbolic discourse rooted in classic ancient West Asian iconic ritual and rhetorical modes of political domination and social formation. Regarding the political power of classification systems, Bourdieu wrote that the systems “are not so much instruments of knowledge as instruments of power, subordinated to social functions and more or less openly geared to the satisfactions of the interests of a group.” 2 The symbolic spoliation of Babylonian cult images in Israelite icon parodies entailed a symbolic classification of ancient West Asian rituals. This classificatory form of ancient West Asian iconic political rhetoric legitimated a distinct and differentiated Yahwistic 2. P. Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (trans. R. Nice; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 477, quoted in P. Bourdieu and L. J. D. Wacquant, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 14 n. 26. Similarly, Bourdieu notes that “the conservation of the social order is decisively reinforced by . . . the orchestration of categories of perception of the social world which, being adjusted to the divisions of the established order (and, therefore, to the interests of those who dominate it) and common to all minds structured in accordance with those structures, impose themselves with all appearance of objective necessity” (Distinction, 471, quoted in Bourdieu and Wacquant, Invitation, 13). The same may be said with respect to the transformation of a social order. See also D. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power, 77–101.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 42 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

42

Chapter 2

ritual system and social order, along with the roles and institutions that supported and were supported by it. By denigrating the power of Babylonian cult images and elevating the power of Yahweh, the authors of the icon parodies generated a more sweeping series of classifications of ritual, society, and reality for Israelite social groups that accepted these writings as authoritative. These Israelite writers innovatively reconfigured the epistemological foundations of ancient West Asian ritual practice. To the degree that their innovations came to appear legitimate and “correct,” their classificatory discourse was an act of power over the postexilic Yahwistic ritual system and the social groups that interrelated with it. In this respect, my interpretation of the icon parodies highlights the political aspects of classification systems and emphasizes the sociology of knowledge as the sociology of power. 3 When I speak in this chapter of classification, power, and social formation, I refer specifically to the way Israelite writers authorized themselves to classify ancient West Asian ritual and society symbolically, take concrete positions on forms of Yahwistic cultic practice, and present their positions as normative. It is important to remember that their regime of classification and cultic and social definition was not the only option open to Yahwists in exile. The variety of iconic and aniconic tendencies in preexilic Yahwistic practice did not lead inevitably to the claim in the icon parodies that cult images of other deities are dead and that Yahweh holds power over all other peoples and deities inside and outside the land of Israel. By drawing on established Israelite and wider ancient West Asian ritual and discursive traditions that focus on iconic ritual, however, their chosen, oppositional representation of Yahwistic cult and Israelite identity succeeded in becoming a canonized, dominant interpretive regime. Their mode of discourse may thus be described as an act of power that configured Israelite social formation in the exilic and early postexilic periods. In light of these social-theoretical interpretive issues, I argue in this chapter that the icon parodies’ classification of ritual and deity (and the epistemology of iconic ritual that it supports) is a culturally local, sociopolitical act of classification, power, and social formation. I focus on the paradigmatic examples of Israelite icon parodies preserved in Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44, 3. Regarding the political aspects of interpretation and the production of meaning and “common sense,” Bourdieu notes that struggles over words—those struggles that take place in the eighteenth century over the idea of nature, for instance—will consist in trying to carry out what musicians call inversions of the chord, in trying to overturn the ordinary hierarchy of meanings in order to constitute as a fundamental meaning, as the root note of the sematic chord, a meaning that has hitherto been secondary, or, rather, implied, thus putting into action a symbolic revolution which may be at the root of political revolutions. (“Reading, Readers, the Literate, Literature,” 97)

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 43 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

43

while also taking other examples of the genre into account in order to illuminate the cultic, political, and social ideologies that they represent through a delineation of their characteristic terminology, structure, and themes. The objective of this distillation is to map the literary and thematic structures of these poems and thereby to bring the cultic ideologies, rhetorical strategies, and sociopolitical investments of their authors to the fore. This discussion of Israelite icon parodies, therefore, resists universalizing tendencies that locate these texts within broader developmental-historical contexts of aniconism and monotheism in ancient Israel. 4 It focuses instead on the social context of literate Judahites writing during and shortly after the Babylonian exile and the reception of their writing among Israelite social groups during this formative moment in their political and cultic history. 5 For the impact of the Babylonian conquests and deportations left all strata of Israelite society without the cultic and political structures through which Israelite social order was traditionally produced and reproduced. In the case of the literate class of priests, scribes, and other personnel empowered to configure Israelite social relations through the definition and mastery of Yahwistic cultic practice, the exilic situation demanded innovative yet authoritative 4. The distinctive terminology and thematic structure of the icon parodies have inspired numerous studies devoted to identifying their literary form and exploring their possible cultic and historical contexts (see nn. 17, 37, and 39 below). As discussed in the introduction, descriptive and interpretive studies of these poems have tended to focus on matters of literary history and thematic affiliation with other biblical representation of iconic cult. Many of these efforts attempt to locate the icon parodies within linear trajectories of broader developments in Israelite literature and religion. Most notably, these texts are often viewed as the culmination of a development in Israelite religion toward aniconic monotheistic Yahwism. According to this interpretive scheme, the “crisis of exile” provided the final impetus for the emergence of a universal, abstract, monotheistic Yahwism. In this respect, the icon parodies represent both an end and a beginning: an end to a teleological development toward aniconic Yahwism in preexilic Israel and Judah and a beginning to the legacy of universal, abstract monotheism that ancient Israel bestowed on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Driving these interpretations of the icon parodies are a host of methodological and ideological presuppositions that seem to derive from traditions about “idolatry” and “monotheism” not inherent in the texts and not native to their authors but that belong instead to postbiblical interpretive traditions. This chapter presents the icon parodies from a cultural-historical perspective disengaged from their prominent position in postbiblical discourse about idolatry and monotheism. The goal of this chapter is instead to locate the social contexts of these texts within a larger negotiation of cultural interactions among Judahites constructing and promoting particular cultic ideologies and social identities in the late exilic and early postexilic periods. 5. I employ the terms Judah and Judahite to refer to the Southern Kingdom of Judah and the terms Israel and Israelite to refer to the broader ethnic group “Israel” as represented in the biblical traditions. Historical context will indicate when the term Israel refers specifically to the Northern Kingdom.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 44 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

44

reformulations of their disrupted and dislocated ritual and social system. Israelite icon parodies, I argue, represent one response of this sort. In the exilic absence of traditional Israelite political and cultic modes of cultural production, what remained for literate persons invested in formations of Yahwistic practice and Israelite identity was discourse, and the classificatory representation of rites in writing. Jeremiah 10:1–16 I begin my discussion of Israelite icon parodies with the classic example of Jer 10:1–16, a poem that artfully exhibits the characteristic literary and ideological traits of the genre: MT Tradition Incipit: vv. 1–2a a: 1 Hear the word that Yahweh has spoken to you, House of Israel: 2 Thus has Yahweh spoken:

Exhortation against “the way of the nations”: vv. 2a b–2b: Do not learn the way of the nations. Do not be dismayed by signs of the heavens, because the nations are dismayed by them.

Icon parody: vv. 3–5: 3 Surely the customs of the peoples are nothing! 6 For he cuts wood from a forest, a work of a craftsman’s hands with an adz. 7

6. MT: awh lbh µym[h twqjAyk lit., ‘the customs . . . is . . .’. The plural twqj paired with the masculine singular pronoun is textually problematic but semantically clear. The plural is “hardly correct” (W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah [2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986], 1:253), though singular/plural shifts are common to this genre (W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 [ed. P. D. Hanson; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 322). A possible emendation to tT"jI ‘terror’ (BHS; cf. Gen 35:5) seems unwarranted. The referent is nevertheless understood: it is primarily the “customs” of cult image construction described in the following verses, and, secondarily, it links to the parallel ‘way’ of celestial divination in the previous verse. LXX: o§ti ta; novmima tΩn ejqnΩn mavtaia. 7. Hebrew: dx[m. This unknown tool appears here as a woodsmith’s implement, elsewhere only in Isa 44:12, as an iron-working tool. In both attestations, the context is icon construction, and literary interdependence is likely. The verbal root, as it appears in

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 45 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

45

4 With silver and gold he beautifies it, with nails and hammers they fasten them, so it will not totter. 5 They are like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, 8 for they cannot speak. They must be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not fear them, for they can do no evil, nor is it in them to do any good. 9

Hymn to Yahweh: vv. 6–7: 6 There is none like you, Yahweh, you are great, and great is your name in strength. 7 Who does not fear you, king of the nations? Surely it befits you, for among all the wise men of the nations, in all their kingdom, there is none like you. Icon parody: vv. 8–9: 8 They are at once beastly and foolish. 10 [. . .] 11

the Gezer Calendar (ºßd ) and Akk. (eßedu) connotes harvesting (see Dick, “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth [ed. M. B. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999], 18 note b). 8. Verse 5aa has attracted much text-critical attention. The consensus on the above translation for hvqm rmtk achieves the image of a speechless palm post and is supported by Ep Jer 70, ‘like a scarecrow (probaskavnion) in a cucumber patch’. The LXX reads ajrguvrion toreutovn ejstin, ouj poreuvsontai, ‘They are hammered silver, they will not move’, inviting an unnecessary emendation of the MT to hvqm µtk, ‘hammered gold’ (see Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 322). The LXX follows this clause with the MT v. 9 and then picks up again with the MT 5ab. 9. An emendation in 5bb of the MT µtwa to µta (BHS; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 323) conveys this translation. 10. The root r[b may here connote r[b I (‘to burn’) as well, thus ‘Let them burn as well as be foolish’ (Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 323). However, its pairing in this verse with lsk recommends r[b II ‘to be brutish’. 11. Verse 8b reads awh ≈[ µylbh rswm (‘empty instruction, it is wood’[?]); the text seems utterly corrupt and I omit it. The phrasing is alliterative of v. 3, awh lbh µym[h twqj, but it is more difficult. µylbh rswm: cf. Prov 16:22: tlwa µylwa rswm, ‘the instruction of fools is folly’. µylbh in v. 8 is often understood to specify the ‘foreign icons’ themselves, thus ‘the instruction of idols’ (nrsv; K. Seybold, “lbh, heb2el,” TDOT 3:318; McKane, Jeremiah, 253–54). Cf. Jer 8:19, rkn ylbh, and Jer 14:22, µywgh ylbh. The LXX lacks the difficult MT v. 8. Some read ‘it is wood’ with v. 9 (njpsv; P. R. Ackroyd, “Jeremiah

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 46 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

46

9 Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz; a work of a craftsman, and the hands of a smith, their clothing violet and purple. They are all work of skilled men.

Hymn to Yahweh: v. 10: 10 But Yahweh is a true god, he is a living god and an eternal king. From his wrath the earth quakes, nations cannot endure his anger.

Aramaic v. 11: 11 Thus say to them: “The gods who did not make the heavens and earth will perish from the earth and from beneath these heavens.” 12

Hymn to Yahweh: vv. 12–13: 12 Maker of earth with his power, establisher of the world with his wisdom, with his understanding he stretched out the heavens. 13 When his voice thunders, 13 a roar of waters in the heavens; he raises the mists from the ends of the earth; he makes lightning for rain, and brings forth wind from his storehouses. 14

Icon parody: vv. 14–15: 14 Every human is brutish without knowledge, every smith is shamed by a statue. His molten image 15 is a lie, and there is no breath in it. 15 They are without substance, 16 a work of mockery, in their time of punishment they will perish.

Hymn to Yahweh: v. 16: 16 Not like these is the portion of Jacob, because he forms everything, X.1–16,” JTS n.s. 14 [1963]: 385–90), thus ‘It is wood, (and) beaten silver brought from Tarshish’. 12. In Aramaic: clearly an addition but structurally and thematically integral to the MT composition, as I will argue. 13. Hebrew: wtt lwql. The syntax is problematic, but the storm-god imagery is clear. For proposed emendations, see McKane, Jeremiah, 254; and Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 324. 14. Cf. Ps 135:7. 15. MT: wKs}n;i BHS suggests wk:s:n;] LXX: ejc∫neusan (= Ës:n); , ‘he has poured out lies’. 16. Hebrew: hmh lbh.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 47 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

47

and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance. Yahweh of Armies is his name.

Literary History and Provenance Jer 10:1–16 is a distinctive, composite poem that has attracted literaryhistorical attention since the beginnings of critical-historical inquiry into the prophets. 17 The poem displays an alternation between cult image parody and Yahwistic hymn that likely represents a weave of two originally distinct literary strands, each of which accumulated additional, associated material over time. 18 The textual versions suggest such a gradual compositional history. 19 17. Beginning with B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia (KHAT 11; Tübingen: Mohr, 1901). Discussions of Jer 10:1–16 referred to in this study include: Ackroyd, “Jeremiah X. 1–16”; M. E. Andrew, “The Authorship of Jer 10 1–16,” ZAW 94 (1982): 128–30; Berlejung, Theologie, 392–400; Jonathan Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem and Its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1–16,” Textus 20 (2000): 97–128; P.-M. Bogaert, “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1–16 (LXX et TM) et la signification des suppléments,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophete et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 222–38; R. Davidson, “Jeremiah X 1–16,” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 25 (1973–74): 41–58; Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 17–20; M. Margaliot, “Jeremiah X 1–16: A Re-examination,” VT 30 (1980): 295–308; W. McKane, “The History of the Text of Jeremiah X.1–16,” in Mélanges bibliques et orienteaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot, S. Legasse, and M. Tardieu; AOAT 215; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 297–304; T. W. Overholt, “The Falsehood of Idolatry: An Interpretation of Jer. X. 1–16,” JTS n.s. 16 (1965): 1–12; H. D. Preuss, Verspottung fremder Religion im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971), 158–70; W. M. W. Roth, “For Life, He Appeals to Death (Wis 13:18): A Study of Old Testament Idol Parodies,” CBQ 37 (1975): 21–47; B. N. Wambacq, “Jérémie X, 1–16,” RB 81 (1974): 57–62. Commentaries after Duhm’s include: R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL; 1st American ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Holladay, Jeremiah 1; McKane, Jeremiah ; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 1/12; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968); P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia (KAT 10; Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1928); A. Weiser, Das Buch der Propheten Jeremia (2 vols.; ATD 20–21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). 18. The insertion of so-called participial or doxological hymns into biblical and especially prophetic manuscripts is not uncommon. See Amos 4:13, 5:8, 9:5–6; Jer 10:12–16, 31:35, 32:18; Isa 40:21–24, 26, 28–30; 42:5; 43:16; 45:5b–6; 45:18; 51:15; Job 5:9–16, 9:5–10, 12:17–25, 26:7–8. For discussions of this phenomenon with respect to the icon parodies of Second Isaiah and Jeremiah 10, see Roth, “For Life,” 30–31; Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 113–23, with references. Ben-Dov argues for a late insertion of the hymnic verses into Jeremiah 10. 19. The textual history of Jer 10:1–16 is complex. The LXX lacks the MT vv. 6–8, 10, all part of the hymnic structure; the MT v. 9 appears in the LXX amid v. 5, between a variant of the MT v. 5aa and the MT v. 5ab–5b. Both traditions are attested in the Qumran Scrolls: 4QJera represents the MT tradition; 4QJerb bears witness to an important Hebrew Vorlage that underlies the shorter LXX tradition. See E. Tov, “4QJerb,” in Qumran Cave

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 48 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

48

Chapter 2

Commentators have long argued on both text-critical and form-critical grounds that Jer 10:1–16 represents, partially or entirely, a later addition to the book of Jeremiah. 20 Jer 10:1–16 thus appears to be the product of a long 4.X: The Prophets (DJD 15; ed. E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, and R. E. Fuller; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 172–76. McKane argues on text-critical grounds that the LXX version of the poem is not the result of “an abridgement of MT,” and that it is “not to be assigned to the prophet Jeremiah” (“History,” 299, 302); this is a reasonable assessment of the evidence. I accept (with ibid., 299, and Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 110) that the MT represents a later expansion on an earlier moment in the development of the text as preserved in the LXX and 4QJerb. Note also the proposal of a “double edition” of Jeremiah: a shorter version represented in the LXX and 4QJerb and a longer edition represented in the MT and 4QJer a,c. See E. Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 211–37; idem, “The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah,” ErIsr 26 (F. M. Cross vol.; 1999): 52– 56 [Hebrew]; P.-M. Bogaert, “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux redactions conserves du livre de Jérémie,” in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophete et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (ed. P.-M. Bogaert; BETL 54; Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 168–73 (noted in Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 110). 20. Commentators have recognized redactional difficulties in the MT and have responded with a variety of proposals. A consensus on the secondary status of the poem (if not on the specific stratigraphy within the poem itself ) was reached among late 19th- and early 20th-century German commentators (Duhm, Rudolph, Volz) and maintained in most subsequent studies. An apparent “disorder” to the text has led to proposals for its rearrangement. See, e.g., the similar proposals by Duhm, Rudolph, Volz, and Giesebrecht (summarized in Overholt, “Falsehood,” 2). Weiser also rearranges the MT, although he grants the text an early lineage and unity by emphasizing thematic links to earlier biblical “covenantal cult” traditions (Weiser, Das Buch der Propheten Jeremia, ad loc.). Ackroyd, while granting the likelihood of later additions such as the Aramaic v. 11, argues against arbitrary rearrangements of the poem by commentators seeking order out of apparent “chaos” and views the alternating thematic structure of the text as a unity well attested within the prophetic repertoire (“Jeremiah X. 1–16,” 385–90). Overholt argues for a similar unity of composition, emphasizing that both the polemics and the hymns stand “firmly within the Jeremiah tradition”; he points to other texts in Jeremiah to minimize the pull that exilic texts in Second Isaiah traditionally have on the late dating of material in Jer 10:1–16 (“Falsehood,” 11 and passim). With respect to Jer 10:1–16 in its literary context in the book of Jeremiah, Ben-Dov notes that Jer 10:1–16 is fairly unique in its portrayal of the mechanics of icon construction—it is a polemic not against foreign deities per se, as is the case in possible parallel passages in Jeremiah (e.g., 2:5–13, 27–28; 3:1–5; 5:20–25; 14:22; 16:19–21), but instead against the construction and worship of the icon itself—the process from, as it were, the workshop to the temple. Ben-Dov further notes that the antiiconic passages in Jeremiah 2–3 focus on “wood and stone,” whereas Jer 10:1–16 focuses on wooden statues coated with silver and gold (“A Textual Problem,” 104–5). (The question of whether the biblical polemic against “wood and stone” is a polemic against “Canaanite” iconolatreia [µyrva and twbxm] and the biblical polemic against “silver and gold” is a polemic against Mesopotamian iconolatreia merits further investigation.)

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 49 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

49

literary development, with the MT bearing witness to successive additions that are not native to the earliest Jeremian literary traditions. 21 While the details of this compositional process are debated, discussions of the poem’s “unity” or “disunity” do converge within a general compositional time frame: the earliest kernels of the poem would not predate the earliest strata of Jeremian traditions, and the latest additions would likely be conterminous with exilic and early postexilic recensions of Second Isaiah that contain similar icon parodies. 22 Most broadly, the sociohistorical context of the composition 21. This position gathers support not only from the variety of textual witnesses to and alternating thematic structure of the poem but also from its bounded unity and uniqueness within the literary context of the book of Jeremiah as a whole. In this respect, proposals for a gradual development of the MT version of Jer 10:1–16 are, on the whole, accepted for this study; the details will likely remain debated. Ben-Dov, for example, follows McKane’s proposals for a gradual accretion around a textually stable core; building on previous textcritical and form-critical observations, Ben-Dov writes: Rather than by a deliberate act of editorial artistry, the intricate structure of Jer 10:1–16 was achieved through a series of associative insertions of both hymnal and polemical material. V. 11 was joined to vv. 12–16 at an early stage, hence its appearances in all extant versions. The same applies to the polemics in vv. 3b–5, and after them the condemnation of astrology (2–3a) together with v. 9. This stage of development is present in LXX and 4QJerb. As the aggregation process did not cease its activity, several hymnic verses (under wisdom influence) were added: 6– 8, 10. This advanced stage is reflected only in the expanded text of MT. (“A Textual Problem,” 127) Ben-Dov notes further that Jer 10:1–16, like other late passages such as Jeremiah 50–51, bear few indications of Deuteronomistic ideology or terminology and that the formation of these passages, therefore, likely took place after any “Deuteronomistic redaction” of the book of Jeremiah; he conjectures, reasonably, that the text of Jer 10:1–16 circulated on a separate scroll and was placed into the “miscellanea” that characterize the block Jer 9:22– 10:25 at a point subsequent to the principal formation of the book of Jeremiah (ibid., 112). 22. A prominent scholarly position is that the poem was expanded and then integrated into the book of Jeremiah by exilic or postexilic tradents of the Jeremian tradition influenced by similar anti-iconic parodies in Second Isaiah. On the similarities and relative priority between the icon parodies in Jer 10:1–16 and Second Isaiah (40:19–20; 41:6–7, 21– 29; 42:17; 44:9–20; 46:1–7), see Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 99–104, and Davidson, “Jeremiah X 1–16,” passim. Margaliot (“Jeremiah X 1–16,” 307) argues on linguistic grounds that the authors of these passages in Jeremiah and Second Isaiah were not the same. Davidson argues further for the compositional distinction between the polemical and hymnic strata in Jer 10:1–16 (“Jeremiah X 1–16,” 48–52). Ben-Dov builds on Davidson’s position and argues, contra Cassuto, Ackroyd, and Holladay, that the anti-iconic passages (not the hymnic passages) in Jer 10:1–16 ideologically depend on and postdate anti-iconic passages in Second Isaiah. Ben-Dov looks to Second Isaiah and other postexilic texts and agrees with the consensus that anti-iconic satire is a genre that begins in exilic texts and that grows in prominence through the postexilic period and that, as such, it is a product of and response to the exilic situation (Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 102).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 50 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

50

Chapter 2

of Jer 10:1–16 would, therefore, fall between the last quarter of the 7th and the last quarter of the 6th centuries and between late monarchic Judah and the early postexilic period. The possibility of this long literary history does not, however, detract from the unity of its MT version. 23 In this respect, Jer 10:1–16 constitutes a distinct, bounded poem that represents an innovative genre of cult image parody woven together with Yahwistic hymn. 24 The complete poem preserved in the MT version of Jer 10:1–16, with its clear affinities to other prophetic compositions of dependable exilic and early postexilic provenance, its central Aramaic verse, and its detailed familiarity with Mesopotamian iconic rituals, may reasonably be attributed to exilic and early postexilic tradents of the Judahite, Jeremian tradition. 25 Structure, Themes, and Ideologies The MT of Jer 10:1–16 is a weave of four cult image parodies (vv. 3–5, 8– 9, 14–15) and four hymns to Yahweh (vv. 6–7, 10, 12–13, 16). This alternating, oppositional structure follows an oracular incipit (vv. 1–2aa) and is augmented by two additional elements: an initial exhortation against the “way of the nations” (vv. 2ab–2b) and the unusual Aramaic v. 11. This composite poem need not, however, be fragmented in order to navigate an interpretive 23. The arguments of Ackroyd and Overholt for the unity of Jer 10:1–16 constitute a valuable counterpoint to the dominant inclination in the scholarship to dissect and rearrange this poem. Overholt’s emphasis on the ipsissima verba of the prophet is, however, not preferable. More acceptable is the kind of unity proposed by McKane: “A passage which has been built up by piecemeal additions is not necessarily entirely devoid of unity; a general, thematic affinity of the parts may be expected, in so far as the later supplements are generated by the existing text, and it may be possible to find a thread on which to string successive aggregations” (“History,” 300). McKane argues for a gradual development of the text of Jer 10:1–16 around a debatable core but does not do so as “a proposal to impose deletions on MT with a view to recovering an ‘original’ Hebrew text”; instead, states McKane, “the knowledge of the history of the text which is available is to be used to enhance our understanding of the final product (MT)” (“History,” 303, emphasis added). In this respect, the MT version of Jer 10:1–16 may be recognized as the final product of a gradual, accumulative literary development of at least two such “finalized” textual traditions of this poem circulating by postexilic times and attested in the MT/4QJer a,c and the LXX/4QJerb. 24. The recognition of this poem’s unity and of the literary genre it thus represents is, in fact, central to this study’s historical concerns, and the alternation in Jer 10:1–16 between polemic and hymn informs my interpretation of the poem’s literary and cultural contexts. 25. Jer 10:12–16 also appears in Jer 51:15–19 in an oracle against Babylon. This oracle, like its parallel in Jeremiah 10, is a late addition to the book of Jeremiah (see McKane, “History,” and Holladay, Jeremiah 1). Jeremiah 51 looks ahead to the coming defeat of Babylon by Persia and to the subsequent return of the Israelite exiles. This parallel further suggests a provenance for this textual tradition within the late exilic and early postexilic periods.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 51 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

51

path through it, for each distinct element has its place within a unified argument and structure. For example, although the exhortation against the “way of the nations” is in Hebrew, and v. 11 is in Aramaic, they do share interesting similarities. Literarily distinct from the parodies and hymns that characterize the rest of this poem, they are similar to each other in their symmetric style and their oblique cosmological and cosmogonic references: 2 Thus has Yahweh spoken: Do not learn the way of the nations. Do not be dismayed by signs of the heavens, because the nations are dismayed by them. 11 Thus say to them: “The gods who did not make the heavens and earth will perish from the earth and from beneath these heavens.”

The above stylistic and thematic observations may distinguish these two verses from the weave of parody and hymn that dominates the rest of the poem, but their placement within the text is integrally linked to this dominant structure and to a recurring argument, evident in the hymnic verses, against aspects of Mesopotamian divine cosmology through a competing emphasis on cosmogonic aspects of Yahwistic myth. 26 For example, the hymn to Yahweh as maker of heaven and earth in Jer 10:12, along with the Yahwistic storm-god imagery in Jer 10:13, recalls the exhortation not to fear the “signs of the heavens” in Jer 10:2 and the denial of the cosmogonic powers of other deities in Jer 10:11. The exhortation against divination in Jer 10:2 suggestively recalls the account of Esarhaddon’s renewal of the cult images of Babylon, which similarly begins with a reference to astral divination but which is in support of the construction of cult images (“When in heaven and on earth signs favorable for the renewal of the gods occurred”). 27 Furthermore, the fact that Jer 10:11 enjoins the Israelite readers of this poem to confront their opponents in Aramaic emphasizes, even on a linguistic level, the comparative, oppositional tenor to this poem. In other words, a literary and thematic emphasis on comparison and opposition is established in every element of this poem—in the initial exhortation against the “way of the nations,” in the unusual Aramaic verse inserted into its structural center, and, most visibly, in its alternation of parody and hymn. This thematic opposition between Yahweh and other gods and between the Israelite “way” and “the way” of other nations, along with this 26. That is, they counter aspects of Mesopotamian myth (e.g., Enuma Elis ) that locate the power of Mesopotamian deities in their cosmogonic acts and their control over the forces of nature. This opposition between Mesopotamian divine cosmology and Yahwistic cosmogony is more fully developed in the poems of Second Isaiah discussed below. 27. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 2; Walker and Dick, Induction, 25. Note also the additional mantic aspects of the mis pî rite of cult image construction attested in ibid., lines 21–27. I discuss these texts and rites in chap. 3. Cf. Hab 2:18.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 52 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

52

Chapter 2

literary weave of cult image parody and Yahwistic hymn, distinguishes Jer 10:1–16 as an early crystallization of the icon parody genre. Icon Parodies and Yahwistic Hymns Many discussions of Jer 10:1–16 treat the cult image parodies in isolation from the hymnic verses with which they are interwoven. 28 Ideologically, however, the Yahwistic hymns of the MT composition are integrally related to the icon parodies. The hymnic verses serve as the positive counterpoint to the negative parodies: Yahweh is exalted and empowered according to the very same standards by which cult images are denigrated and disempowered. The alternating weave of parody and hymn in the received MT composition of Jer 10:1–16 emphasizes through its very structure the themes of opposition, comparison, and classification that distinguish this poem’s influential representation of the ancient West Asian ritual, divine, and social order. Keeping this important structural point in mind, one may distill the principal themes of the two corollary strands of the poem—cult image parody and Yahwistic hymn—as follows: Icon Parodies: Jeremiah 10:3–5, 8–9, 14–15 Jer 10:1–16 portrays the icons of other nations as lifeless creations of human craftsmen. Several aspects of Mesopotamian iconic ritual are addressed in this poem. The focus is, above all, on the construction of the cult image, specifically on construction materials and construction processes. Filtered through this focus are consequent assessments of the qualities inherent in the icon itself, the icon craftsmen themselves, and the iconodule generally. The power of cult images is denigrated through a detailed emphasis on their being the products of mundane materials and human craftsmanship. 1. Construction of the cult image. Jer 10:3–5, 8–9, 14–15 depicts the construction of a cult statue composed of a wooden core with silver and gold overlay, fastened to a base, and clothed in purple and violet garments. 29 The poem focuses on the mundane qualities of (a) these materials themselves and (b) the craftsmanship and construction process involved in the making of this type of cult image: a. Mundane construction materials. The wooden core (v. 3), the silver and gold overlay (vv. 4, 9), and the cloth dressing (v. 9) that constitute this 28. The distinctiveness of the icon parody genre, coupled with text-critical support for its separate development, justifies an approach of this sort. Discussions that focus on the cult image parodies alone often dissociate the hymnic vv. 6–7 and 10 from the parodies in the first half of the poem, with textual support from the LXX and 4QJerb. See, e.g., Berlejung, Theologie; Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder; Dick, “Prophetic Parodies.” 29. On this type of Mesopotamian cult image, see chap. 3 nn. 1, 3.

spread is now 3 points long

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 53 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

53

type of cult image are all emphatically depicted as having mundane origins. The wooden core is cut from “wood from a forest” (v. 3); the silver and gold is procured through everyday commerce (v. 9); the violet and purple cloth is just “clothing” (v. 9). b. Mundane construction processes. The mundane quality of the cult image is further emphasized through a sustained focus on the human craftsmanship behind the construction process. The wood is cut by the woodsmith (v. 3); the precious metal overlay is the adorning work of the metalsmith (vv. 4, 9, 14). The statue is cut, shaped, and secured by these craftsmen with the tools of their trades (vv. 3, 4). The wood, metal, and cloth that together constitute the cult image are “all the work of craftsmen” (v. 9) and of the “hands of craftsmen” (v. 3). 2. Qualities of the icon, the icon craftsman, and the iconodule. The focus on mundane construction materials and processes in the cult image parodies of Jer 10:3–5, 8–9 mirrors and supports the poet’s portrayal of (a) the icon itself and (b) the icon craftsmen themselves. Icon, icon craftsman, and iconodule are then all conflated and depicted as mundane, powerless, empty, and false. a. Qualities of the icon. The mundane qualities of icon construction materials and processes support the poet’s attack against the power of cult images themselves. Like “a scarecrow,” they “cannot speak” (v. 5); they must be “carried” because they “cannot walk” (v. 5); they can do neither bad nor good (v. 8); they are ‘without substance (lbh)’ (v. 15), 30 there is ‘no breath (jwr) in them’ (v. 14); they are effectively dead. They are, in a word, powerless. Their mundane construction qualities belie their power; as such, they are “a lie” (v. 14), a “work of mockery” (v. 15), and destined for punishment (v. 15). b. Qualities of the icon craftsman/iconodule. The icon is portrayed as a powerless creation of human craftsmen, and this denigration of the mundane qualities in the icon is extended to the craftsmen themselves, who are, furthermore, identified with the iconodule generally. The smith is “shamed” by the “lie” of his lifeless statue (v. 14); 31 like the icon craftsmen, practitioners of iconic ritual are skilled but not wise; they are “brutish,” “foolish,” and “without knowledge”; they follow “empty instruction” (vv. 8, 14). Yahwistic Hymns: Jeremiah 10:6–7, 10, 12–13, 16 The Yahwistic hymns in Jer 10:6–7, 10, 12–13, 16 offer a symmetrical counterpoint to the denigration of Mesopotamian iconic ritual and its social 30. On the semantic range of lbh, see Seybold, “lbh, heb2el,” TDOT 3:313–20; on the use of this term in “polemics against foreign gods,” Seybold writes that it “presupposes the whole range of possible nuances,” including “nothingness, emptiness, vapor” (ibid., 317). 31. On this rhetoric of shame in the icon parodies, see the discussion of Isaiah 44 below.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 54 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

54

Chapter 2

reflections in the contrasting cult image parodies of the poem. Whereas the cult images and their craftsmen are depicted as dead, powerless, mute, foolish, and useless products of a mundane construction process, the hymnic verses portray Yahweh as the living, powerful, thunderous, wise, and useful creator of all that is mundane and supramundane. Just as the cult image parodies may be distilled into two thematic headings—mundane icon construction processes and the consequent mundane qualities of the icon and iconodule—the Yahwistic hymns may be distilled into two thematic headings: Yahwistic creation ideology and the consequent supramundane qualities of Yahweh, both of which emphasize the power of Yahweh over all that is in heaven and on earth. 1. Yahwistic creation ideology. The poet’s employment of traditional tropes of Yahwistic creation ideology counters the parallel emphasis on mundane construction processes in the corresponding cult image parodies. 32 While the cult image parodies emphasize the way that human craftsmen, who are “foolish and brutish” (v. 8) and “without knowledge” (v. 14), create their mundane and powerless cult images with their “skill” (v. 9), the Yahwistic hymn in v. 12 presents Yahweh as “maker of earth with his power, establisher of the world with his wisdom.” “With his understanding,” the poet writes, “he stretched out the heavens.” While the makers of cult images use earthly materials to create their deities, v. 16 depicts Yahweh himself as “former of everything.” 33 The poet’s emphasis on Yahwistic creation ideology implicitly attacks the power of Babylonian deities championed in Mesopotamian cosmogonic myth, such as Enuma Elis, 34 a polemical angle that, as noted above, is pursued in the exhortation against the “way” of the nations in v. 2 and in the Aramaic v. 11 as well. A subsidiary aspect of this Yahwistic creation ideology is the storm-god imagery expressed in v. 13, where the depiction of Yahweh as a weather-deity challenges the power of Mesopotamian gods over the 32. See Genesis 1; Pss 74:12–19, 89:9–10, 104:3–9; Job 38:1–11, 40:15–41:34; and the Yahwistic creation themes employed throughout Second Isaiah and merged with exodus traditions to envision a new exodus as a new creation. On exodus and creation motifs, see F. M. Cross, “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth,” Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 112–44. 33. The root rxy belongs to the set of biblical cult image construction terminology and most certainly bears this semantic allusion in its use in v. 12; although it does not appear in the strand of cult image parodies in Jeremiah 10, other terms from this set do, for example, ˚sn and πrx. Similarly, when Yahweh is depicted as “establisher of the world” in v. 12, the term ‘to establish’ (ˆwk) belongs to the set of biblical terminology for “setting up” an icon. 34. This polemical trope is pursued more fully in Second Isaiah, the political aspects of which are discussed below and in chap. 3.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 55 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

55

forces of nature. The poet pursues this disempowerment of Mesopotamian deities negatively in the exhortation against sky omens in v. 2 and positively in the Yahwistic storm-god imagery of v. 13. 2. Qualities of Yahweh. Just as the emphasis on the mundane aspects of cult image construction underpins the poet’s argument against the power of Mesopotamian iconic cult itself, the emphasis on Yahwistic creation ideology underpins the poet’s corresponding emphasis on the power of Yahweh and Yahwistic cult. The parodies emphasize that cult images are ‘insubstantial, nothings’ (lbh) (vv. 3, 8, 15), commonplace products of common craftsmen (vv. 3, 9), powerless to do good or ill (v. 5). The hymnic verses, on the other hand, represent Yahweh as the substantive and effective power over heaven, earth, and human affairs, incomparable among gods and kings (vv. 6–7), who shakes the earth and overwhelms nations (v. 10). While cult images are weak and must be fastened to their bases with nails (v. 4), Yahweh’s name is “great with might”(v. 6), and he “makes the world with his strength”(v. 12). Cult images are “mute” (v. 5); Yahweh is thunderous (v. 13). Cult images are a “lie” (v. 14); Yahweh is “truth” (v. 10). Cult images are dead, ‘without breath’ (jwr, v. 14); Yahweh is “living” (v. 10), and he controls the wind (jwr, v. 13). Cult images are ephemeral (vv. 11, 15); Yahweh is “eternal” (v. 10). Cult images are “not to be feared” (v. 5); Yahweh is to be feared (v. 7). The use of µymkj in v. 9 is, in this light, ironic. The wisdom theme in this poem juxtaposes the ‘skill’ (µkj) of the cult image maker with the ‘wisdom’ (µkj) of Yahweh, just as the creation theme juxtaposes the iconodule as a maker/ former (rxy/hc[) of dead images with Yahweh as maker/former (rxy/hc[) of heaven and earth. The Classification of Myth and Ritual in Jeremiah 10 The icon parodies and Yahwistic hymns in Jer 10:1–16 compare and contrast Babylonia with Israel. Broadly speaking, the authors of this text classify Babylonian and Israelite myth, ritual, and deity, arraying these two cultural systems along a hierarchical continuum and positioning each according to a power-centered discourse. The literary and ideological structure of the text is a set of privileged binary oppositions: life and death, strength and weakness, wisdom and foolishness, truth and falsehood. As Olyan has argued, binary oppositions of this sort are “the primary rhetorical tool by which biblical texts express totality and hierarchy . . . in that they divide and classify reality, often imposing a hierarchical order upon it.” 35 Jer 10:1–16 represents Babylonian and Israelite myth and ritual as mirror images and oppositional categories classified according to degrees and relations of power. The polarizing refrain is that cult images are dead and 35. Olyan, Rites and Rank, 6–7.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 56 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

56

Chapter 2

powerless, and Yahweh is alive and all-powerful. The first pole is established in the cult image parodies, the second in the Yahwistic hymns. The cult image parodies attack iconic ritual on two related levels: (1) by representing the construction of the cult image (mundane construction materials, mundane construction processes) and (2) by representing the qualities of the icon, the icon craftsman, and the iconodule. The first level addresses ritual mastery, the second level addresses symbolic classification. 36 Both levels operate through the power generated through a ritual system and its symbolic classification. The parody of cult image construction and worship practices weakens the foundations of iconic ritual mastery and its legitimation of social power relations in ancient West Asia; consequently, Babylonian iconic deities are classified as “dead,” their craftsmen and worshipers as “foolish,” and thus, the relations of social power embodied by these iconic deities and reproduced through the maintenance of their cults are represented as vacuous. The Yahwistic hymns then reposition and reclaim that vacated power. Through established Israelite traditions of Yahwistic creation ideology and divine kingship, Yahweh is represented as the principal generative power over heaven, earth, other deities, and other nations—and Israel is counted as his special inheritance (v. 16). The principal terms, themes, and ideologies of the hymnic structure of Jer 10:1–16—its creation ideology, storm-god imagery, and emphasis on the incomparable power of Yahweh over the natural world and human affairs—thus represent a positive mirror to the negative, polemical trajectories of the cult image parodies. In light of the consensus that these hymnic sections were developed and woven into this poem at a point subsequent to the cult image parodies themselves, it is evident that the hymnic strands of the poem were selected and developed as negative oppositions to their corresponding parodies of Mesopotamian iconic cult. Jer 10:1–16 thus represents, through an artfully constructed set of mirror images, a binary classification of a ritual system that is a symbolic classification of a social system. The underlying binary opposition between Babylonian and Israelite deity generates an overarching classification (that involves comparison, distinction, and definition) of the “Israelite way” and the “way of the nations.” The binary opposition between the “Israelite way” and the “way of the nations” is constructed through mirroring terminology and imagery that juxtaposes these two social systems. The use of mirroring terms and images indicates, however, the degree to which these two systems are in 36. On ritual mastery, see my discussion of ritual in chap. 1, and see Bell, Ritual Theory, 107–17. On symbolic classification, see Smith, “Classification”; R. Needham, Symbolic Classification (Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear, 1979); also see the additional references cited in n. 17 in the introduction; nn. 33–34 in chap. 1; and Olyan, Rites and Rank, 123 n. 1.

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 57 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

57

fact one, and the degree to which the authors of this text argue for differences through assumed commonalities. The detailed representation of Mesopotamian iconic practices in Jer 10:1– 16 underscores a high degree of familiarity with many aspects of the ancient West Asian iconic ritual system. Represented details of cult image construction (craftsmanship with wood and metals) and ritual manipulation (“they must be carried,” v. 5) and the denial of ritually invested powers (such as “speaking”) reflect an intimate knowledge of Babylonian iconic practices and their perceived effects. This includes, for example, iconic rituals such as the mis pî cult image induction rite, the effects of which the icon parodies so vigorously reject. The classification of cosmogonic myth also reflects a denigration and appropriation of the symbolic power of Babylonian ritual and myth including, for example, the Akitu festival and its reproduction of political order through the iconic ritual recitation of divine order in Enuma Elis. In the following chapter, a closer look at the iconic embodiment of social and political power in these Babylonian ritual practices and mythic systems will underscore the degree to which icon parodies such as Jer 10:1–16 address, participate in, and appropriate this power. For the moment, it is helpful simply to emphasize the degree to which Jer 10:1–16 engages with the ancient West Asian mythic and ritual system in order to define and empower ancient Israel’s position within it. Before assessing the social significance of this classification of ancient West Asian ritual and myth, I turn now to the icon parodies of Second Isaiah, in which Israelite participation in ancient West Asian “iconic politics” is even more evident. The Icon Parodies of Second Isaiah Together with Jer 10:1–16, Second Isaiah contains the most developed examples of icon parody in the Hebrew Bible. Several examples of the genre appear in Isaiah 40–48, the most prominent of which is preserved in Isa 44:9–20. Other instances of icon parody appear in Isa 40:18–20; 41:5–7, 21–29; 42:8, 17; 45:16–17, 20–21; 46:1–7; and 48:5. Literary History and Provenance The consensus on an exilic provenance and date for these verses is relatively secure. 37 The icon parodies in Isaiah 40–48 do not present text-critical 37. See J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19a; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 238– 42, with references; R. J. Clifford, “The Function of Idol Passages in Second Isaiah,” CBQ 42 (1980): 450–64; M. Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 20–30; A. Gelston, “Some Notes on

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 58 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

58

Chapter 2

complexities to the degree exhibited by Jer 10:1–16. 38 Commentators have generally regarded the icon parodies in Second Isaiah as secondary additions from perhaps one independent source. 39 As was the case with the more Second Isaiah,” VT 21 (1971): 521–22; North, “The Essence of Idolatry”; Preuss, Verspottung, 192–237; G. von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 177–85; Roth, For Life; D. W. Thomas, “Isaiah XLIV.9–20: A Translation and Commentary,” in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer (ed. A. Caquot and M. Philonenko; Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve, 1971), 319–30. Note, however, H. M. Barstad (The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah [Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, 1997]), who argues for a Judahite provenance. Barstad offers a valuable challenge to the consensus on Second Isaiah’s exilic provenance and argues that the “unity” of Isaiah 40–55 “must go back to the same creative mind” (ibid., 66). I do not view the icon parodies as part of a compositional unity of this sort; I argue that their earliest kernels originated in Babylonia. However, I do agree with Barstad in the following respect: the icon parodies in Second Isaiah acquired a Judahite provenance. That is, they developed gradually, first in exilic Babylonia and then in early postexilic Judah. Indeed, this Judahite locus was the pivotal site for the final stages of their development, including their reception and recension in the Isaian corpus (and thus their emergence as authoritative representations of ritual). In other words, my determination of provenance and sociohistorical context considers composition, development, and reception (group authorship and audience). See the following four notes and my discussion of literary history, social history, and interpretive power below. 38. On the relative stability of these poems in Second Isaiah, see the text-critical and philological notes in Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 239–40; Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 20– 30; Thomas, “Isaiah XLIV.9–20.” 39. Modern scholarly perspectives on these passages in Second Isaiah began with Duhm’s 1892 commentary, Das Buch Jesaja (HKAT 3/1; 5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1968), followed by the 1938 form-critical study of J. Begrich, Studien zur Deuterojesaja (TB 20; 2nd ed.; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963). These studies argued that the icon parodies were either displaced or otherwise “non-Isaian” insertions into the book. As Clifford notes (“Function,” 450), most commentators have followed this proposal, including C. Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary [trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969); J. L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB 20; New York: Doubleday, 1968); K. Elliger, Deuterojesaja (BKAT 11/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). Form-critical observations have led to the separation of the icon parody verses from the hymnic verses in the poems, as is often done with the text of Jer 10:1–16. Roth, for example, proceeds “from the assumption that the idol parodies originated as an independent genre and in their own right and that they later became part of the emerging Deutero-Isaiah corpus” (Roth, “For Life,” 22). Roth further rearranges the anti-iconic passages in Isaiah 40, 41, 44, and 46 according to the type of icon described: metal, wooden, metal core with gold plating, and precious metal (ibid., 25–27). Reading the icon parodies of Second Isaiah “as hardnosed rejection of a temptation newly and suddenly encountered,” and as “manifestations of the exiles’ self-assertion in the first years of their stay in Babylonia,” Roth claims that they “probably antedate Second Isaiah” (ibid., 32). Specifically, Roth suggests a twophase development for the MT text of these poems in Second Isaiah: first, early exiles fashioned icon parodies on inherited preexilic texts such as Hos 13:1–3 and Isa 2:6–19; second,

spread is 11 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 59 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

59

stratified text of Jer 10:1–16, these observations do not obscure a rather clear exilic provenance for the icon parodies in Isaiah 40–48. 40 The redaction of the icon parodies within the composition of Second Isaiah as a whole has attracted more debate, although I accept a time frame spanning from the late exilic to the early postexilic period for the development of these sections of Second Isaiah in their MT form. 41

these “counter hymns” were then woven into Yahwistic hymns as they developed in the later exilic collection of Second Isaiah. This redactional weave had, Roth states, a “traditionshaping influence” (ibid., 32). Roth’s exilic setting for the composition of these poems conforms to the consensus, but his rearrangement of the icon parodies themselves into construction-material typologies is less justified. Other studies have reacted against formcritical fragmentation of the texts, emphasizing instead the unity of the poems in their Deutero-Isaian contexts; see, e.g., Clifford, “Function,” 451, citing the commentary of J. Muilenburg, “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66,” in Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah (ed. G. A. Buttrick et al.; IB 5; New York: Abingdon, 1956), 381–773; and the studies of R. F. Melugin, The Formation of Isaiah 40–55 (BZAW 141; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976); H. C. Spykerboer, The Structure and Composition of Deutero-Isaiah with Special Reference to the Polemics against Idolatry (Meppel: Krips Repro, 1976). See also K. Holter, Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages (BBET 28; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995). 40. Satirical representations of cult image construction and worship appear throughout Second Isaiah, though not in Isaiah 1–39. Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40–55, 240) notes that anti-iconic polemical motifs in Isaiah 1–39 are generally considered to be the product of later redaction and employ different pejorative vocabulary: chaps. 1–35 generally refer to a cult image as lyla (2:8, 18, 20; 10:10–11; 19:1, 3; 31:7) while the texts in Isa 40–48 use the term lsp (40:19–20; 42:8, 17; 44:9, 10, 15, 17; 45:20; 48:5) and, less commonly, bx[ (46:1, 48:5; ibid.). On the semantic range of lsp (“statue, carved statue, icon, cult image”), see C. Dohmen, “lsp, psl,” ThWAT 6:688–97; idem, Bilderverbot, 41–49; Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 304–7; Berlejung, Theologie, 306. On bx[, see n. 80 below (pp. 73–74); on lyla, see chap. 4 n. 56 (pp. 151–152). 41. For an overview of redaction criticism on Second Isaiah, see R. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 376–99. With respect to the icon parodies and their placement in the Isaian prophetic corpus, Albertz argues for a first edition of Deutero-Isaiah during the time of Darius (ca. 521 b.c.e.), in the years shortly before the return under Zerubabbel (Israel in Exile, 399–404; see also R. Albertz, “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of DeuteroIsaiah [Isaiah 40.1–50.12] in 521 bce,” JSOT 27 [2003]: 371–83). This first edition, Albertz proposes, included the first major section of Second Isaiah (the so-called Jacob/Israel portion) in its near-MT form. Albertz’s general scheme for the literary history and provenance of Isaiah 40–48 is persuasive: most of this material originated in mid-6th-century Babylonia; this included the icon parodies, which were composed earlier in the exilic period by a separate hand and redacted into the Deutero-Isaian corpus in the late exilic and early postexilic periods as part of the literary and ideological arsenal for the restoration program of the Deutero-Isaian prophetic circle (Israel in Exile, 393–425). The implications of this program and the role of the icon parodies within it are discussed below.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 60 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

60 Isaiah 44

The locus classicus of Israelite icon parodies is preserved in Isa 44:9–20, the MT version of which reads: 42 9 All who fashion a statue are formless, 43 and their objects of desire are of no use; as for their witnesses, 44 they neither see nor know, so that they are ashamed. 10 Who fashions a god or casts a statue to be of no use? 11 Thus all their associates 45 become ashamed; as for craftsmen, they are human. Let them all assemble and take their stand; they will be in dread and ashamed altogether. 12 An ironsmith with an adz 46 works over the coal. He fashions it with hammers, and works it with the strength of his arm. When he hungers, he loses strength; when he has not drunk water, he tires. 13 A woodsmith stretches out a measuring line, he outlines it with the stylus; 42. Blenkinsopp suggests a prose core to Isa 44:9–20, running from v. 12 to v. 17, sandwiched between a two-part poem, “in effect an interpolation within an interpolation” (Isaiah 40–55, 240). I read the entire unit as poetry. 43. Hebrew: wht µlk lspAyrxy. As with the poem’s opening term rxy, wht (LXX: mavtaioi) marks Second Isaiah’s employment of creation ideology in polemics against Babylonian cult (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:29; 45:18, 19; 49:4). Compare the roughly contemporaneous text of Gen 1:2 (P) and the Dtr rhetoric of 1 Sam 12:21: al rva whth yrja yk wrwst alw hmh whtAyk wlyxy alw wly[wy. On the semantic range of wht, see M. Görg, “wht, tohû,” ThWAT 8:555–63. 44. Cf. Yahweh’s witnesses in 44:8: yd[lbm hwla vyh yd[ µtaw. 45. Thomas (“Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 322 and n. 11) and Dick (“Prophetic Parodies,” 27 note i) understand wyrbj to specify ‘workmates’, that is, members of the Mesopotamian icon workshop guild. 46. MT v. 12a: µjpb l[pw dx[m lzrb vrj, lit., ‘An ironsmith an adz, he works over the coal’. The construct noun ‘ironsmith’ (lzrb vrj) is supported by ‘woodsmiths’ (vrj µy≈[) in v. 13 (cf. 2 Chr 24:12 [ironsmith], 2 Sam 5:11 [woodsmith]); thus the first clause seems to lack a verb. The LXX wß xunen suggests djEy,; which Thomas (“Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 324) supplies: “the ironsmith sharpeneth a cutting tool.” See Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 27 notes l, m, n, on ancient versions and modern proposals. Dick’s reading of l[py for the MT l[pw is adopted here. dx[m is often omitted (with the LXX); it is here read with an omitted preposition Ab (with Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 27 note m, citing Joüon 133i). The term appears only here and in Jer 10:3b, which suggests a link between the two texts.

spread is 11 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 61 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

61

he levels it with planes and outlines it with the compass; he makes it like the figure of a man, according to human beauty, to reside in a temple. 14 He cuts down cedars for himself; 47 he selects tirzah 48 and oak; he strengthens it among trees of the forest; he plants cedar, 49 and rain makes it grow. 15 And it becomes something for a human to burn; he takes some of it and becomes warm; 50 he even makes a fire and bakes bread; he also makes a god, and they worship it; he makes it a statue, and prostrates himself to it. 16 Half of it he burns in fire, upon its other half he eats meat; roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also becomes warm and says, “Aha! I am warm, I have seen a flame.” 51 17 And of its remains, he makes a god, his statue; 52 he prostrates himself to it and they worship. And he prays to it and says, “Save me, for you are my god!” 18 They do not know, nor do they understand, 47. MT 14aa: µyzra wlAtrkl, lit., ‘to cut for himself (or, ‘for it’) cedars’. Thomas (“Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 326, with BHS) emends this crux to wl trkl ˚lh, “He goes down to cut for himself cedars,” with ˚lh lost by haplography; Clifford (“Function,” 261 n. 28) and Dick (“Prophetic Parodies,” 28 note v) favor this suggestion. As Dick (ibid., 29 note z) notes, the order cut-select-plant in v. 14 is “the exact reverse of a more logical sequence,” which ancient and modern readers have attributed to scribal error and sought to undo. However, this reversal is perhaps intentional and suggests a deconstruction of what icon craftsmen construct (Shalom Paul, oral communication). Cf. the discussion of “cosmogonic reversal” in chap. 3. 48. The word hzrt is a hapax; cf. Arabic taraza ‘be hard’ (ibid., 28 note w); thus Thomas, “Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 327: “a hard, durable tree.” 49. The word is ˆra, a hapax; the nun minusculus suggests a longstanding uncertainty about this word. Compare the more common zra, ‘cedar’. Most likely equivalent to Akk. erenu ‘cedar’. On the use of erenu for figurine construction and in other cultic contexts, see Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 29 note y; and H. R. Cohen, Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic (SBLDS 37; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), 44–45. 50. Hebrew: µjyw µhm jqyw; cf. Isa 57:5, µylab µymjn. 51. 1QIsaa reads dgn instead of ytyar: ‘I am warm in front of a flame’. 52. Hebrew: wlspl, ‘his statue’: the possessive suffix could refer to the craftsman or to the god (‘its icon’), an ambiguity in keeping with the rhetorical program in the parodies to identify the deity not with the icon but with the icon craftsman. Thomas (“Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 328) reasonably emends this to dwgsyw lspl. 1QIsaa has ≈[ ywlbl for wlspl (see n. 54 below).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 62 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

62

for their eyes have been coated, such that they cannot see, 53 their minds, such that they cannot discern. 19 And he does not come to his senses; there is no knowledge and no understanding to say: “Half of it I burned in fire, I also baked bread upon its coals; I roast meat and eat. Of its remains, I make an abomination; to a block of wood 54 I prostrate myself.” 20 Associating with ashes, a deceived mind has turned him astray, and he cannot save himself; he cannot say, “Is this not a lie in my right hand?”

Isa 44:9–20 presents a richly detailed though mocking portrait of Mesopotamian cult image construction and worship practices. Linguistically and thematically akin to Jer 10:1–16, the poem denigrates icon, icon craftsman, and iconodule together through an emphasis on the icon as the work of human artisans in wood and metal. As in Jeremiah 10, the text portrays aspects of Babylonian cult image craftsmanship; with a play of humor and parody it mocks the power associated with this product. The same wood from which a cult image is made, we read, is also used for a cooking fire. Isaiah 44 also resembles Jer 10:1–16 in that, notably, the extended icon parody of Isa 44:9–20 is embedded within a larger framework that alternates between icon parody and Yahwistic hymn. Just as in Jer 10:1–16, we find in Isaiah 44 the alternation between mockery of the power of cult images and affirmation of the power of Yahweh. The central icon parody in vv. 9–20 is surrounded by hymnic verses running through vv. 1–8 and 21–28 that extol the creative and redemptive powers of Yahweh. 55 The opposition between 53. Hebrew: µhyny[ twarm jf yk. Alternatively, ‘for he has coated their eyes from seeing’; the subject of the verb jf is uncertain. Thomas (ibid.) takes the icon craftsmen as the subject; Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40–55, 239 note o) supplies “Yahweh.” If the root is jwf and not the hapax jjf (thus reading jf" as a metaplastic pointing for jf: ), the term is suggestive: cf. 1 Chr 29:4, where the root is used regarding overlaying walls with gold and silver, and Ezek 13:5, where it is used metaphorically regarding the ‘coating’ of Jerusalem that hides its real weaknesses; the allusion in Isaiah 44 would here be to the silver and gold overlay to the wooden core of the icon. 54. Hebrew: ≈[ lwbl. 1QIsaa reads ≈[ ywlbl both here and in v. 17, thus possibly ‘dead wood’, ‘old wood’, from the root hlb. See Thomas, “Isaiah XLIV.9–20,” 328–29 and Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 239 note n. 55. Westermann (Isaiah 40–66, ad loc.) suggests that the model of a juridical trial guides the structure of Isa 44:9–20 and its surrounding verses: in 44:6–8, Yahweh presents his incomparable credentials and calls his witnesses; in 44:21–22 Yahweh recalls his creative and redemptive acts and Israel’s consequent obligation to serve his cult; in between, the foreign gods are called forth to present their case. This pattern is also evident in Isa 41:21–29.

spread is 6 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 63 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

63

the power of Yahweh and the powerlessness of Mesopotamian cult images is expressed in Isaiah 44 through wordplays that contrast Yahwistic creation ideology with Mesopotamian iconic ritual. Framing the icon parody, for example, are hymnic passages that play on terms employed in the representation of icon construction in vv. 9–20, including rxy (which opens the icon parody in v. 9) and hc[ (vv. 13, 15, 17, and 19). The initial hymn preceding the parody begins, 2 Thus says Yahweh who makes you (˚c[), who forms you (˚rxy) from the womb;

while the hymn following the parody reiterates, 24 Thus says Yahweh who redeems you, who forms you (˚rxy) from the womb, “I am Yahweh who makes (hc[) all”

Mark S. Smith has noted a number of wordplays of this sort in the oppositional ritual and mythic vocabulary of Isaiah 44. 56 For example, the continuation of v. 24 reads, “I am Yahweh . . . who alone stretches out (hfn) the heavens,” an expression that contrasts with the woodsmith who, in v. 13, “stretches out (hfn) a measuring line.” Smith delineates a series of additional contrasts of this type in Isaiah 44: ‘to fear’ (djp): v. 11, where icon craftsmen “will be afraid,” in contrast to v. 8, where Israel is told “do not fear.” ‘witness’ (d[): v. 9, the icon’s shamed witnesses, in contrast to Israel as Yahweh’s witnesses in v. 8. ‘to know’ ([dy): v. 8, Yahweh knows of no other god, in contrast to the iconodule who “does not know” in vv. 18, 19. ‘beauty/to beautify’ (rap): v. 13, where the icon craftsmen constructs an image “according to human beauty,” in contrast to v. 23, where “Yahweh will be beautified/glorified in Israel.” ‘wood/tree’ (≈[) and ‘forest’ (r[y): v. 14, where the icon craftsman plants and cuts “trees of the forest” as material for his image, in contrast to

Dick (“Prophetic Parodies,” 27) thus translates v. 11 as the opening of a rebuttal: “Since . . . , let them. . . .” The trial is, of course, “fixed,” as the other deities on trial are a priori equated with their cult images and with the human craftsmen who construct them. On the invocation of witnesses when conferring shame upon covenant violators, see n. 67 below. 56. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 189. Smith further notes the framing structure’s employment of “semantic contrasts” through the terms hc[ and rxy. Compare the appearance of these terms in the J and P creation stories in Gen 1:1–3:24 (arb is, it seems, missing from the parodies).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 64 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

64

v. 23, where all the trees of the forest “shout for joy . . . for Yahweh has redeemed Jacob.” Isaiah 44 here exhibits the same literary and thematic “mirroring” features as Jeremiah 10, whereby a privileged binary opposition between Yahwistic and Babylonian cult is established through the rhetorical use of common terminology to compare, contrast, and argue for difference. Second Isaiah’s weave of icon parody and Yahwistic hymn, in this respect, appears as Jer 10:1–16 writ large. The icon parodies in Second Isaiah clearly resemble Jer 10:1–16, 57 whereas, in the case of Second Isaiah, they are more of a piece with the prophetic corpus in which they appear. 58 The theme of Yahweh’s kingship, based on his creative and restorative acts, dominates Isaiah 40–55 throughout, and the polemic against Babylonian iconic cult is employed as a central support for this affirmation of Yahweh’s power: the cosmic creation myths attributed to the Babylonian pantheon are denied and co-opted for the god of Israel. 59 At the same time, the power of the Babylonian iconic deities is denigrated, as in Jer 10:1–16, through a polemic against Mesopotamian iconic construction and cultic maintenance practices. The rhetoric of shame in these icon parodies is notable (Isa 44:9, 10, 11; Jer 10:14). As Olyan has discussed, the opposition between honor and shame figures prominently in ancient West Asian discourses of war and international diplomacy and has special relevance to covenant relations. 60 Olyan notes the range of social relations that are configured through the discourse of honor and shame in ancient West Asia. For example, hierarchical relations are established between inferiors and superiors through the honor that is bestowed by the young on the elderly, by a worshiper on a deity, and by a minor deity on a primary deity. 61 “In short,” writes Olyan, honor and shame communicate relative social status, which may shift over time. Honor can be gained through military victory . . . and lost through de57. For terminological and ideational parallels and differences between the icon parodies in Second Isaiah and Jer 10:1–16, see Ben-Dov, “A Textual Problem,” 99–104; Davidson, “Jeremiah X 1–16,” passim; Margaliot, “Jeremiah X 1–16,” 307. 58. Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40–55, 240) regards Isa 44:9–20 as, perhaps, the most resistant of the icon parodies in Second Isaiah with respect to its integration into its larger literary context; it is generally regarded as an independent unit inserted between vv. 6–8 and 21. In this respect, Blenkinsopp follows Duhm, Jesaja, 333. 59. See Carroll, Jeremiah, 257. 60. S. M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996): 201–18. Olyan notes: “The conferring of honor and the inscription of shame may function to externalize conformity or nonconformity to covenant stipulations or to communicate relative position in a status hierarchy” (ibid, 205). 61. Ibid., 204.

spread is 6 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 65 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

65

feat and exile, where it is replaced by shame. . . . It is a commodity of value, actively sought both by deities and by human beings. It is often conferred or inscribed in the public sphere, through ritual action. 62

The icon parodies seem to invert the discourse of honor and shame as part of a larger discursive inversion of the political and ritual aspects of Babylonian hegemony. By conferring shame on the icons and iconodules of Babylonia, the authors of the icon parodies invert the expected relationship between victorious and defeated peoples, which was traditionally configured through the bestowal of honor on victors and their (superior) gods and shame on vanquished peoples and their (inferior) gods. 63 This expected hierarchy of honor among Babylonian and Israelite deities and social groups is overturned in the icon parodies, which represent a defeated, younger culture and its god conferring shame on a victorious, older culture and its gods. 64 Conferring shame on Babylonian icon craftsmen and iconodules may also imply a covenant violation between Babylonia and her gods. As Olyan has noted, honor was reciprocated between covenantal partners, and shame was conferred on those who broke covenants. 65 The Israelite authors of the icon parodies may have manipulated these covenantal aspects of honor and shame. That is, they may have discursively conferred shame on Babylonia in a way that deflected concerns among their exilic audience that Yahweh’s covenant with Israel was broken after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. 66 Shaming Babylonia would imply that the problematic covenantal relationship was between Babylon and her gods, not between Israel and Yahweh. This language of shame in the icon parodies would also link to the calling of witnesses in Isa 44:8–9, because the shame associated with broken covenantal relations 62. Ibid. For examples of honor gained through military victory, Olyan notes Exod 14:4, 17–18; 2 Kgs 14:10; for examples of shame incurred through defeat and exile, he notes Isa 23:9; Nah 3:10; Lam 1:8. 63. On the ritual reifications of military conquest in ancient West Asia, see chap. 3. 64. On divine hierarchies of honor, Olyan writes, “Minor deities honor Yhwh (Ps 29:1–2), just as a hierarchy of honor is evident among the gods of other ancient West Asian pantheons (KTU 1.3 III 10; VI 19–20; 1.4 IV 26; VIII 28–29; Enuma Elis 4.3)” (ibid., 204). See also L. K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994). 65. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 203–8. 66. See Ezek 37:11 and S. M. Olyan, “ ‘We Are Utterly Cut Off ’: Some Possible Nuances of wnl wnrzgn in Ezek 37:11,” CBQ 65 (2003): 43–51; see also Lamentations 1, which, as Olyan notes, represents the shame of Jerusalem after her allies broke covenant relations with her during the Babylonian conquest (“Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 215– 17); idem, “The Status of Covenant during the Exile,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- and Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt (ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle; AOAT 350; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008), 333–44.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 66 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

66

Chapter 2

was publicly and ritually conferred. 67 Furthermore, if the denial of the sensory powers of cult images is, as I argue, akin to mutilating and destroying these iconic deities, the icon parodies may also discursively invoke the common punishment of decapitation and bodily dismemberment for covenant violators. 68 Given the general oppositional rhetoric of the icon parodies, the corollary to Babylonian shame in a problematic relation with their deities would be Israelite honor in an upheld relation with Yahweh. While terms that may be translated as “honor” do not appear in the parodies, their overarching emphasis is to affirm the power of Yahweh and confirm the strong covenantal ties between Yahweh and Israel despite the destructions and deportations of the early 6th century. This emphasis is present in the conclusion of the icon parody in Jeremiah 10, where Israel is reaffirmed as “the tribe of his inheritance” (Jer 10:16). As I argue further below, the recurring theme throughout the icon parodies of Second Isaiah is that Yahweh was not defeated and that his covenantal relationship with Israel was not broken. Iconic Oppositions in Isaiah 40–48 In light of the contrasting structure of cultic opposition in Isaiah 44, other passages in Second Isaiah that are often viewed as universal expressions of aniconic monotheism may instead be contextualized within a more local, sociopolitical context. Isa 44:6 (“I am the first and I am the last, there is no god but me”), for example, ought not be separated from the polemic against the power of Mesopotamian deities that follows this passage. A statement of this sort also stands in opposition to Babylon’s boast in Isa 47:8, 10 (“I am, and aside from me there is no other”). 69 The icon parodies and Yahwistic hymns of Second 67. As Olyan writes: “Like honor and its inscription, diminishment and shame also have a public dimension; they too must be conferred in ritual settings, for all to witness and acknowledge (e.g., Deut 25:9–10 [cf. Num 12:14])” (“Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 204). 68. Cf. 1 Sam 5:1–4, on which, see my discussion of the Ark Narrative in chap. 4. This argument implies that the authors of the icon parodies depict the gods of Babylonia as covenant violators because they are dismembered, as it does the people of Babylonia because they are shamed. These creative, discursive manipulations of covenantal traditions would be employed, ultimately, as a way to address the main concern of the authors and audiences of the icon parodies: the power and presence of Yahweh and his continued covenantal bond with Israel in exile. For representations of bodily dismemberment of covenant violators, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 214 n. 42. I discuss the mutilation of cult images further in chaps. 3 and 4. 69. Hebrew: dw[ yspaw yna; cf. Zeph 2:15, where this is said by Nineveh. This has been noted by D. S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 182.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 67 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

67

Isaiah use similar language to emphasize difference. They use common yet oppositional terminology to represent Babylonian and Yahwistic cult, respectively. This underscores the degree to which the authors of this poetry work with a common ancient West Asian ritual and mythic vocabulary to classify a common ritual system. By constructing oppositional categories through common terminology, they symbolically usurp the power of Babylonian iconic ritual. Their detailed representation of Mesopotamian iconic practices further underscores the degree to which these Israelite authors understood and appreciated the role of iconic ritual in the production of social power in ancient West Asia. Their classification of Babylonian iconic cult reflects a symbolic appropriation of social power. Despite a rhetorical emphasis on Israelite distinctness from Mesopotamian iconolatreia, the icon parodies of Second Isaiah attest, on the contrary, to their authors’ full participation in the “iconic politics” of ancient West Asia, in which political ideologies and processes of social formation were promoted through oppositional representations of iconic cult. The alternation between hymn and parody that characterizes Isaiah 44 is exhibited elsewhere in Isaiah 40–48, including Isa 40:18–20: 18 To whom will you compare God? And what likeness will you compare to him? 19 As for the statue, a craftsman cast it, and a smith overlaid it with gold. . . . 20 He seeks a skillful craftsman for it, to construct a statue that will not totter.

Around this mocking depiction of cult image construction is, again, the contrasting Yahwistic hymn: 17 All the nations are as nothing before him. . . . 22 He sits above the circle of the earth. . . . He stretches out the heavens like a curtain. . . . 23 He makes princes as nothing; he makes the rulers of the earth as nothingness.

Other examples of this pattern appear in Isa 41:6–7, 21–29; 42:8, 17; 45:16–17, 20–21; and 46:1–7. These pasages all contain similar anti-iconic polemical terminology surrounded by contrasting Yahwistic hymns. The overriding emphasis in the hymnic verses is the incomparable power of Yahweh in contrast to the powerlessness of Mesopotamian cult images, the humans that construct and worship them, and the national deities that they represent. One further example from Second Isaiah will serve to illustrate the political aspects of Second Isaiah’s cultic oppositions and the degree to which Israelite authors engaged in ancient West Asian “iconic politics.” Isaiah 46 contains the following expression of the power of Yahweh over Babylonian deities:

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 68 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

68

Chapter 2 1 Bel bows, Nebo stoops, their icons (µhybx[) have become (burdens) for animals and beasts; these things that you carried are loaded as a burden on tired (beasts). 2 They stoop and bow down together, they are unable to rescue the load, and they themselves have gone into captivity.

In contrast to this image of Israel’s enemies being led into captivity with their gods, the following verses portray Yahweh as carrying Israel to restoration: 3 Listen to me, house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, those who have been borne by me from the belly, who have been carried by me from the womb. 70 4 Until old age I am he, until hoary old age I will bear. I have made (ytyc[) and I will carry (aca), I will bear and I will rescue.

The contrast between Yahweh and Mesopotamian iconic deities returns once again in the following verses, expressed in language rich with iconic imagery: 5 To whom would you liken me and consider my equal, compare me as though we were alike— 71 6 those who squander gold from the purse, who weigh out silver on the scale? They hire a metalsmith to make (it) into a god, to which they bow and worship. 7 They lift it upon their shoulder and bear it, they set it down in its place; and there it stands, from its place it does not move. If one cries out to it, it does not answer, from one’s distress it does not save.

The play on the root ‘to carry’ (acn) in these passages in Isaiah 46 seems to be a clear allusion to the bearing of cult images in Mesopotamian ritual processionals; it is not unreasonable to see in this language a further play on the common practice of cult image capture and return during military 70. The text in 1QIsaa reads ynmm for the MT ymm. See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 264 note f. 71. The root hmd, ‘to be like’, here employed twice to express the incomparability of Yahweh, evokes the term twmd, ‘image, likeness’, part of the Israelite repertoire of iconic terminology. For further discussion, see Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 326–32.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 69 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

69

conquest. Second Isaiah provides a striking contrast: to counter the assumption that Israel was taken away into captivity along with its god, these passages present an “alter image”: Israel’s captors will be carried away along with their gods, whereas Israel will be carried back to Judah by Yahweh. The social implications of this innovative oppositional iconic imagery are suggestive. The usual opposition established in the icon parodies and Yahwistic hymns is between Yahweh and other (iconic) deities—in which Yahweh is depicted as alive and powerful and cult images are depicted as dead and powerless. I argue that these oppositions of deity generate, in these texts, broader classifications of Israelite and Babylonian ritual systems that, in turn, realign social power relations in a way that empowers Israelite social formation. This reflects a more general point—that the oppositional representations of deity in the parodies and hymns are rooted in and support oppositional representations of social systems. The play on the idea of “bearing” and “carrying” in Isaiah 46 supports this point, in that it draws a parallel between Israel (borne by Yahweh) and cult images (borne in Babylonian ritual processionals). When viewed in conjunction with the icon parodies that construct oppositions between life and death and between power and powerlessness, the depiction of Israel as parallel with cult images in Isa 46:1–4 illuminates the social resonance of these ritual representations: Israel is alive and powerful, borne by a living and powerful deity, whereas cult images are dead and powerless, borne by defeated and powerless nations. 72 The analogy between Israel borne by Yahweh and cult images borne by Babylonians also underscores the degree to which cult images symbolically relate to social formations and the degree to which iconic rites (such as the bearing of cult images in victory processionals) dynamically embody and reify social power. These Israelite literary compositions thus represent a series of reconfigurations of ancient West Asian iconic traditions that produce and reproduce social power relations. By claiming that Babylonian cult images are lifeless and powerless and by further appropriating the symbolic discourse of iconic repatriation and victory processionals, these texts and their reconfigured representations of ancient West Asian practices are themselves acts of power. They take ritual power away from Babylonia and claim it for Israel. This rhetorical appropriation of symbolic power became a real act of power when it became legitimated as authoritative “Scripture” in postexilic Israel. 72. This parallel in Isa 46:1–4 may also represent Israel as weak and as a burden, in a mirror-image of icon abduction; in contrast to the image of victors carrying defeated iconic deities into exile, here the Israelite deity carries defeated Israel back from exile. Mirroring imagery of this sort is common in Israelite exilic iconic discourse. Cf. the mirroring iconic imagery in Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44 discussed above. Note also the “reverse exodus” imagery in Isa 43:16, 19b.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 70 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

70

Chapter 2

The alternation between cult image parody and Yahwistic hymn that characterizes these texts in Second Isaiah thus suggests that they are another link in the chain of ancient West Asian literature concerned with the vindication of the power of a defeated nation’s deity. The icon parodies in Second Isaiah are all surrounded by poetic proclamations of Yahweh’s power as creator and restorer, including numerous poetic metaphors asserting that Yahweh is creator of the world and redeemer of Israel; between these lines, we see the challenge to the Mesopotamian deities whom the exiles possibly viewed as having conquered their god. The anti-iconic polemics in Second Isaiah should thus be understood as vindications of the power and kingship of Yahweh during the Babylonian exile. While the correlations between Yahwistic creation traditions and Israelite social restoration themes in Second Isaiah have been well noted, 73 the iconic aspects of this literary and social project have been less fully discussed. Not only does Second Isaiah employ old Yahwistic traditions including exodus and creation motifs in an innovative way to promote a vision of a “new Israel” after the exile; the text also employs ancient West Asian iconic traditions for the same goals of social formation. In this way, the icon parodies and Yahwistic hymns of Second Isaiah represent an innovative genre that draws on established Yahwistic traditions, such as exodus and creation, and established ancient West Asian iconic traditions, such as ritual manipulations of cult images during wartime and other political processionals. 74 Their authors and audiences, in this respect, stood between two related mythic and ritual traditions—Israelite and Babylonian—and drew on both to create an innovative literary, interpretive, cultic, and social vision. The context for the development of this genre was the effort to cohere, define, and strengthen Israelite social formation after the Neo-Babylonian conquests. Its oppositional, iconically focused discourse was developed as a means to reconstruct the solidarity and identity of Judahites in Babylonia. The historical context of these compositions and their cultic and political ideologies is made explicit in the texts themselves. Isaiah 44 concludes with a reference to the coming of Persia and to the reconstruction of Jerusalem and its temple: 28 (I am Yahweh . . .) who says to Cyrus, “My shepherd,” he shall fulfill all my purpose; who says to Jerusalem, “You shall be built” and of the temple, “You shall be founded.”

This sentiment is iterated in Isa 41:25–29 as well: 73. See Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55; Cross, “The Song of the Sea.” 74. I discuss these Mesopotamian traditions of iconic ritual and rhetoric in greater detail in the following chapter.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 71 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

71

25 I have roused (one) from the North and he has come, from the rising of the sun he is summoned in my name.

The summoning of the Persian king to Babylon is attributed to Yahweh and denied to other people’s (iconic) deities: 29 Their works are nothing, wind (jwr) and void (wht) are their molten images (µhyksn).

With the Persian offensive against Babylonia on the horizon, Israelite hopes of repatriation and restoration flourished. In this light, Second Isaiah begins, after the opening call in chap. 40, with a series of hymns (40:12–31) announcing Yahweh’s power and incomparability. The Persian conquest of Babylon and the subsequent repatriation of Israelite exiles is represented and promoted in Second Isaiah as a confirmation of Yahweh’s power despite the catastrophe of 586 b.c.e. This Israelite interpretation of Persian repatriation policies is further illuminated by the Cyrus Cylinder, which records the way that Cyrus set out, after his conquest of Babylon, to return the cult images and peoples of Babylon’s defeated enemies back to rebuild their own lands and sanctuaries: To the cult centers on the other side of the Tigris, which had been long abandoned, I [Cyrus] returned the gods who had lived therein, and established for them eternal sanctuaries. All their peoples I gathered together and brought back to their residences. 75

The Persian king is represented as the servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 45, and the Persian conquest of Babylon and subsequent repatriation of the Israelites is represented in Second Isaiah as a vindication of Yahweh’s power: “Your god reigns!” (Isa 52:7). In this respect, the military defeat of Babylon confirms and supports the symbolic weakness of Babylon as represented in Second Isaiah’s icon parodies. The oracle against Babylon in Isa 21:1–10, which can be dated to the time of Nabonidus, states: Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the statues of her gods he shatters to the ground. 76

75. Cyrus Cylinder, lines 31–32. See also Ezra 1:2–4. On the Cyrus Cylinder, see P. R. Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch,” ZA 64 (1974): 192–234; ANET, 315–16; P.-A. Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians,” JNES 52 (1993): 243 n. 8. I draw here on the translations of Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder,” 198–99; and Oppenheim, ANET, 316. I discuss the following lines of the Cyrus Cylinder (lines 33–35) in chap. 3 n. 136. 76. Isa 21:9. On the dating of Isa 21:1–10, see P. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century b.c. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 223.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 72 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

72

These texts in Isaiah, composed in the latter half of the 6th century, thus employ classic ancient West Asian traditions of iconic rhetoric to express, promote, and empower their authors’ vision of Israelite social formation during and after the exile. The vindication or denigration of cult images was the preferred way political events in ancient West Asia were symbolically represented, ritually and rhetorically. The authors of the icon parodies of Second Isaiah clearly understood the symbolic power emanating from cult images, and they fully engaged in ancient West Asian iconic political traditions. They did so discursively, by appropriating iconic ritual vocabulary (including their literary plays on cult image processions and cult image spoliation during wartime). They also did so symbolically, by configuring social power relations through the classification of iconic cult. To construct and establish difference and to distinguish, define, and form their own social group, these authors classified the ritual modes of symbolic power production in ancient West Asia. When adopted as “Scripture” and accepted as “natural,” their classification indexed a new order of things for postexilic Israel. These sociopolitical dynamics are at work not only in Jeremiah and Second Isaiah but also in the two other classic instances of icon parody in the Hebrew Bible: Psalms 115 and 135, and Hab 2:18–19. Psalms 115 and 135 The combination of icon parody and Yahwistic hymn preserved in Jeremiah and Isaiah appears also in Psalms 115 and 135. The MT of Ps 115:1–8 reads: 1 Not to us, Yahweh, not to us, but to your name give glory, for the sake of your covenantal love and fidelity. 2 Why do the nations say, “Where is their god?” 3 Our god is in the heavens; all that he desires he does (hc[). 4 Their icons (µhybx[) are silver and gold, the work of human hands. 5 They have mouths but do not speak, they have eyes but do not see, 6 they have ears but do not hear, they have noses but do not smell,

Isa 21:9 recalls the imagery and concerns of the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 4–6: the defeat of Israel and the capture and subjugation of Yahweh by another deity. I discuss the Ark Narrative in further detail in chap. 4. Note that the LXX replaces Nebo with Dagon in Isa 46:1 (see Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 264 note c).

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 73 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

73

7 they have hands but do not feel, they have feet but do not walk, they do not utter in their throats. 8 Like them are those who make (hc[) them, as are all who trust in them.

The parallel in Ps 135:13–18 reads, 13 Yahweh, your name is eternal, Yahweh, your remembrance from generation to generation. 14 For Yahweh vindicates his people, and comforts his servants. 15 The icons (µhybx[) of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. 16 They have mouths but do not speak; they have eyes but do not see; 17 they have ears but do not listen, nor is there any breath (jwr) in their mouth. 18 Like them are those who make (hc[) them, as are all who trust in them.

Literary History and Provenance The literary independence of the icon parodies in these psalms is often proposed, along with a literary history similar to the literary history of their parallels in the prophetic texts reviewed above. 77 A postexilic date for the parallel compositions in Ps 115:4–8 and 135:15–18 is warranted. 78 The icon parodies were thus probably composed in a Babylonian exilic setting and then combined with Yahwistic hymns in the early postexilic period. 79 These brief poetic compositions represent one of the earliest rearticulations of the icon parody genre. 80 77. Roth suggests that they “existed in their own right before they became part of the liturgical compositions” (“For Life,” 37). Thus, the weave of icon parody and Yahwistic hymn was the result of redactional juxtaposition. 78. References to Yahweh residing in the Jerusalem temple in Ps 135:2, 21, indicate a date after 515 b.c.e. for the MT composition (Psalm 115 is less clear on this point), as does the apparent literary dependence on passages in Second Isaiah. Ps 135:7 also cites Jer 10:13. See discussions with bibliography in Berlejung, Theologie, 400 n. 1937; Preuss, Verspottung, 251–53; Roth, “For Life,” 37. 79. Thus, they parallel the composition histories of the icon parodies in Jeremiah 10 and Second Isaiah. 80. Based on terminological and ideological affiliations with earlier icon parodies and with other Israelite traditions of iconic representation. “Silver and gold”: cf. Hos 8:4–6; Exod 20:23; “a work of human hands”: cf. Deut 4:28 and see chap. 4 n. 45. Psalms 115 and

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 74 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

74 Structure, Themes, and Ideologies

The similarities between these psalms and the prophetic parodies are not limited to matters of literary history. Psalm 115 opens with an explicit reference to the insecurities stemming from 586 b.c.e. The assertion that Yahweh is in the heavens and that he does what he pleases, along with the corresponding dismissal of the sensory powers of cult images, 81 is structured as a response to the question asked in v. 2, “Why do the nations say, ‘Where is their god?’ ” The presence and power of Yahweh after destruction and exile is thus emphasized through a denigration of the deities of “the nations” that ask this question. Psalm 135 pursues this trajectory further, developing language and themes clearly resonant with Jeremiah 10 and Second Isaiah, as is evident in vv. 5–7: 5 For I know that Yahweh is great, our lord is above all gods. 6 All that Yahweh desires he does (hc[), in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and in all the deeps, 7 raising mists from the ends of the earth, he makes lightning for rain, and brings forth wind (jwr) from his storehouses. 82

The Yahwistic creation terminology employed in these verses (and the way it contrasts with the corresponding denigration of icons) reproduces the oppositions developed in Second Isaiah and Jeremiah 10. The theme of comfort and the intimations of restoration (Ps 135:14) both resonate with broader linguistic and thematic trends in Second Isaiah (Isa 40:1–2), while Ps 135:7 borrows directly from Jer 10:13. As with the icon parodies in Isaiah and Jeremiah, the parodies in these psalms operate within an oppositional structure intended to support a larger effort of social reformation within the cultural-historical context of exile and restoration. The answer to the question asked in Ps 115:2, “Where is their god?” is offered in Ps 135:5: “Our lord is above all gods.” 83 135 represent icons with the term bx[, seemingly culled from the emerging prophetic canon. On bx[, see 1 Sam 31:9 (= 1 Chr 10:9); 2 Sam 5:21; Isa 46:1; Jer 50:2; Hos 4:17, 8:4, 13:2, 14:9; Mic 1:7; Zech 13:2; Pss 106:36, 38; 115:4; 135:15; 2 Chr 24:18. For discussion of this term with references, see A. Graupner, “bx[, ºaßab2,” TDOT 11:281–84; M. I. Gruber, “Azabbim, µybx[, ‘idols’,” in DDD (ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 238–40; North, “Essence of Idolatry,” 154; Preuss, Verspottung, 251–53; Roth, “For Life,” 39; Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 315–20. 81. The context of this denigration of sensory powers with respect to the Mesopotamian cult image induction (mis pî ) ritual will be discussed in chap. 3. 82. Cf. Jer 10:13. 83. This statement may be seen as a variation on what are commonly regarded as “monotheistic” expressions in Second Isaiah (e.g., 44:6): the psalmist’s statement indicates

spread is 6 points long

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 75 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

75

This reordering of divine hierarchy again underscores the way these texts reconfigure social power relations by repositioning points along the ancient West Asian ritual and mythic continuum. The question of where the Israelite deity was—and if he had any power at all after the conquest of his people and the destruction of his cult—concerns the power of Israel itself, for “Yahweh vindicates his people” (Ps 135:14) as the people vindicate Yahweh (Ps 115:3). This enduring, reciprocal relationship between Yahweh and Israel is subtly invoked in the covenantal terminology of Ps 115:1. For the question “Where is their god?” is, of course, asked by the Israelites themselves, and the psalmist’s response is intended for them and not for a Mesopotamian audience. 84 Facing social dissolution and ritual dislocation in their exilic and early postexilic settings, the Israelite authors of these poems appropriate Babylonian ritual power through oppositional representations of Israelite and Babylonian cult. Denying all sensory and other powers ritually imbued into Babylonian cult images and redirecting these powers to the Israelite deity, these poems reconfigure a system of ritual practice in a way that, if they are accepted by an Israelite audience as the true and natural interpretation of ritual and reality, fosters a reconfiguration of relations of social power in ancient Israel. This symbolic classification of Babylonian and Israelite myth and ritual is thus an act of power itself and a facet of postexilic Israelite social formation. Literary History, Social History, and Interpretive Power Israelite icon parodies are a distinctive genre of poetry—terminologically, structurally, and ideologically. They have justifiably been viewed synoptically and, on the basis of literary-historical evidence, independently from the literary contexts in which they appear. Numerous studies have separated out the icon parodies from the hymnic and other elements that accumulated around them over the course of their literary development into the MT tradition as it now appears. 85 These hypothetical Urtexts, which contain icon parodies alone, likely do represent the earliest kernels of the poems. Every example of the genre, however, attests to a second stage of development in which the icon parodies were woven together with hymnic and other elements, and it is this second stage that achieved canonical status. In this second, authoritative stage of their development, icon parodies go hand-in-hand with Yahwistic hymns that these closely related exilic and postexilic traditions do not deny the existence of other deities; they merely seek to minimize their perceived power in order to maximize the power of Yahweh. 84. I discuss these covenantal issues and the perception of divine abandonment in exile further below and in chap. 4. See also Olyan, “We Are Utterly Cut Off.” 85. See the literary-historical notes on Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 40–48 above (nn. 19– 23, 37–41).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 76 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

76

Chapter 2

with which they are interwoven. While the icon parodies may have been composed first, likely by a different hand, these negative representations of iconic cult were augmented by positive representations of Yahwistic cult in the hymnic strata. It was this weave of parody and hymn that most distinguishes Israelite icon parodies as a biblical literary tradition that established powerful interpretive categories of ancient West Asian ritual. In this respect, the social context of their composition and development concerns not only the composition of the icon-parody Urtexts but also their subsequent development into their MT form and, indeed, their early reception as well. The canonization of these textual traditions and the process of their early reception is a pivotal aspect of their social contexts. That is, matters of both authorship and audience must be taken into account when locating the social contexts of this literary tradition: from the initial composition of icon parodies alone to their subsequent development into a “hymn-parody hybrid” genre to their successful reception into authoritative biblical corpora (and thus to their emergence as authoritative representations of ritual). In other words, the issues discussed in this chapter are literary-historical and social-historical, with a view not only to the social contexts of icon-parody Urtexts but to the entire history of their composition and reception, as a successful and socially significant literary process and a powerful act of symbolic classification. If, as is often suggested, the icon parodies were first composed without the hymnic strata, this early kernel of the genre was implicitly oppositional: the poems only denigrated the images of others; they did not explicitly express a Yahwistic counterpoint. It may be that in this form, the icon parodies alone reflect the confrontation with Babylonian iconic cult in the early exilic period, when this confrontation was fresh and when doubt about the presence and power of Yahweh was strong. This might explain their vociferous opposition to Babylonian cult coupled with their silence about Yahwistic cult. But in these “purely polemical” poems, the seeds of dual classification were already planted. Through their subsequent development, this implicit opposition would be made explicit by the later hands that wove in the Yahwistic hymns. The second stage of the genre would then represent a second stage of exile. The Yahwistic hymns would, in this way, reflect renewed hopes in the presence and power of Yahweh that flourished in the later exilic and early postexilic periods, as attested by the Deutero-Isaian corpus in which much of this new, combined genre found its canonical home. 86 In this respect, the weave of parody and hymn in Israelite icon parodies might be included among what Rainer Albertz calls “hybrid genres” of exilic literature, akin, for example, to the fusion of lament and hymn in Psalm 86. Note, however, that this literary-historical and sociohistorical scheme is not supported by the tradition of Jeremiah 10 attested in the LXX and 4QJer b.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 77 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

77

77. 87 The icon parodies may thus be distinguished as a new and innovative hybrid genre of the exilic and early postexilic periods that developed in response to social circumstances specific to the latter half of the sixth century b.c.e. This was a moment when matters of social solidarity and cultic definition were of paramount importance to dispersed and ritually disrupted Israelite social groups. The incorporation of this new literary form into emerging authoritative corpora such as the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah indicates its powerful poetic and sociopolitical resonance. The emerging canonical status of the icon parody genre is attested not only by its incorporation into the latter prophets but also by its rearticulation and reproduction in the postexilic period, as evidenced in the so-called fifth woe oracle in Hab 2:18–19, which contains the following mocking portrait of iconic cult: 18 Of what benefit is a sculpture? For its sculptor forms it, a molten image and a teacher of lies. For its shaper trusts in his shape, to make mute idols. 88 19 Woe to one who says to a tree, “Awake!” “Arise!” to a dumb stone (he instructs). As for it, it is plated with gold and silver, there is no breath (jwr) within it. 20 But Yahweh is in his holy temple. Be silent before him, all the earth!

Hab 2:18–19 contains perhaps the latest example of the icon parody genre in the Hebrew Bible. Given its affinities with Second Isaiah, a likely reference to Jer 2:27 in Hab 2:19, the reference to Babylonians in Hab 1:6, and the reference in Hab 2:20 to Yahweh in his temple, an early postexilic provenance, after 515 b.c.e., is warranted for the woe oracles of Hab 2:6b–20 and for Hab 2:18–19 specifically. 89 Brief as it is, Hab 2:18–19 contains a broad anthology of biblical iconic terminology—with respect to the icons themselves, their construction, and associated derogatory language—in a tightly constructed series of parallelisms. 90 87. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 160–66. 88. Hab 2:18ba (wyl[ wrxy rxy) is difficult, though somewhat parallel with 2:18a wrxy wlsp; 1QpHab reads wyrxy rxy. ‘Mute idols’: µymla µylyla (see chap. 4 n. 56). 89. The date of composition for the oracles in Habakkuk is, however, widely disputed, ranging between a 7th-century Assyrian context and a 2nd-century Hellenistic context. See F. I. Andersen, Habakkuk (AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 24–27. 90. Andersen (ibid., 257) notes that the oracle moves “from stage to stage—the manufacture of the idols (v. 18), prayer to the idols (v. 19a), the refutation of the idols (v. 19b), and the affirmation of Yahweh as the only real god (v. 20).”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 78 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

78

Chapter 2

The target of this short, mocking poem is the cult image of the Mesopotamian type (silver- and gold-plated wood and molten metal), and it belongs to the exilic icon parody lineage. 91 Interestingly, v. 19 recalls a Judahite cultic cliché common in Deuteronomistic rhetoric, the “wood and stone” that generally refers to asherim and maßßebot. 92 Given that the setting of this text is early postexilic Judah, the text appears to draw on both preexilic and exilic traditions, combining preexilic Judahite, Deuteronomistic iconic terminology (“wood and stone”) with what might be called the new, internationalized form of that ideology that emerged in the exile and is represented in Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 40–48. 93 As such, Habakkuk represents an early extension of the exilic parodies that merges exilic icon parodies with preexilic Judahite traditions of iconic representation. The exilic traditions of Second Isaiah, from which this poem draws, imagine a return to and restoration of Jerusalem, but only in hope and expectation (as a future result of the anticipated Persian conquest of Babylonia). This postexilic oracle in Habakkuk, however, culminates in the claim that “Yahweh is in his holy temple.” This triumphal pronouncement of Yahweh’s temple presence reads as a vindication of the rhetoric of the exilic parodies and a legitimation of their claims. Based on their incorporation into authoritative prophetic traditions and their reproduction in Hab 2:18–19 and in Psalms 115 and 135, the icon parodies seem to have resonated powerfully in the early postexilic period. At this early and formative stage in the development of what may be called “biblical Israel”—that is, the canonization of Israelite traditions into authoritative “Scripture” and a kind of “iconic book” 94—the representation of ancient West Asian ritual in the icon parodies began to accumulate power as an authoritative set of symbolic classifications that would influence Israelite social formations of cult and society in the postexilic period. In this respect, it must be noted again that these Israelite icon parodies are literary representations of ritual practice. The literary representation of ritual always introduces elements not present in ritual practice itself—namely, authors and readers. When rites become texts—whether through mythopoetry, 91. See chap. 3 nn. 1, 3. 92. Hab 2:19 here seems to play off of Jer 2:27, developing it along the thematic lines of Second Isaiah. On Jer 2:27, see S. M. Olyan, “The Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a,” ZAW 99 (1987): 254–59. For a catalogue of this biblical cultic terminology, see LaRoccaPitts, “Of Wood and Stone.” 93. This Judahite, Deuteronomistic iconic terminology and ideology is discussed in chap. 4, along with a fuller discussion of this developmental scheme. 94. See K. van der Toorn, “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in the Ancient Near East (ed. van der Toorn; CBET 21; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 229–48.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 79 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

79

“ritual texts,” or descriptive ethnography—the act of authorship and the context of readership introduces processes of interpretation, including description, representation, and classification. 95 Rituals and texts can thus both become sites of conflict because their interpretations can often involve appropriations of power, specifically when these interpretations achieve dominance and come to appear “natural” to a given social group. 96 To an Israelite audience of the postexilic period, the icon parodies were, in fact, a type of ethnographic description characterized by a classificatory representation of ancient West Asian ritual that, if accepted as normative, could wield transformative interpretive power over the formation of their own ritual and social system. The authors of the icon parodies appropriate the power of iconic ritual by representing it literarily—that is, by interpreting and classifying the iconic practices that were themselves sites for the production and configuration of social power relations in ancient West Asia. 97 Their classification of Babylonian ritual became a canonized Israelite literary tradition—accepted and legitimized—that appropriated ancient West Asian modes of symbolic power production and generated categories that assigned meanings to the polyethnic ritual environment inhabited by ancient Israelites. This process of appropriation of “common meaning,” Bourdieu writes, acts to ensure “a power over the group that, by definition, recognized itself in this common meaning; and this, in certain circumstances, in time of war or in moments of acute crisis, could assure them power of a prophetic type over the group’s present and future.” 98 The social context of Israelite icon parodies thus includes their corporate reception as well as their corporate authorship. As these texts were received into the great prophetic traditions of Jeremiah and Isaiah, so too was their representation of iconic cult and its classification of ritual, deity, and reality. Their authors tabulated categories of ancient West Asian ritual and myth in a way that empowered, reified, and vivified Yahwistic cult as it disempowered, falsified, and “killed” Babylonian cult images. This was their chosen line of 95. Regarding the literary representation of ritual, Bourdieu asks: “What . . . is implied, from the point of view of belief, of practice, of practicing belief, by the shift from behavior patterns implemented in practical terms . . . to a table of oppositions?” (“Reading, Readers, the Literate, Literature,” 100). 96. Bourdieu writes with respect to the interpretation of a text: “The interpreter who imposes his or her interpretation is not only the one who has the last word in a philological quarrel . . . he or she is also, quite frequently, the one who has the last word in a political struggle, who, by appropriating the word, puts common sense on his or her side” (ibid., 96). 97. See Bell, Ritual Theory, 169–223. 98. Bourdieu, “Reading, Readers, the Literate, Literature,” 97. Bourdieu here speaks of the “common meaning” of words themselves. I apply this point to the literary representation and interpretation of ritual practice.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 80 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 2

80

attack, their discursive act of power: an appropriation of the power of iconic cult to configure social formation through a symbolic classification of ritual practice that carried epistemological and political implications for Israelite social groups inhabiting the ancient West Asian iconic ritual environment. Their representation of ritual with its categories of deity and reality produced a common sense of things that circumscribed Israelite social formation in the exilic and early postexilic periods. To Babylonian social groups whose rituals were being represented, the icon parodies would have meant little or nothing. 99 To the Israelite social groups that composed them and to which they were explicitly addressed, they would have spoken volumes, providing a ritual and mythic grid that maximized their own power against the “other” that defeated them. Through this act of ritual representation, symbolic classification, and social formation, the Israelite authors of the icon parodies appropriated the symbolic, iconically embodied power of their enemies in a way that reified and configured relations of power within their own social group. Classification and Social Formation Speaking of the way the imaginary world of myth operates within processes of social formation, Burton Mack writes: [The] mythic canopy . . . may be treated like a collage in which the arrangement of its figures is susceptible to reconfiguration. It can also be thought of as a battlefield for ideological advantage when the structures of determination in a society are challenged. This is because the symbols within the mythic world can be rearranged or reconceived in the interest of calling for or rationalizing social change. Who gets to do that, by what authority and in whose interest, are very important questions of political consequence for the way in which patterns of practice and determination are given legitimacy in a society. This means that religion may be defined as a practice that produces myths and rituals of ideational consequence for the structure of a society as a whole. 100

Israelite icon parodies attest to an act of mythic and ritual reconfiguration of precisely this sort. Specifically, the authors of the icon parodies tabulated a dual system of symbolic classification of “ ‘natural’ and social phenomena and their interrelationships.” 101 The literary and ideological refrain of the icon parodies is the claim that Babylonian cult images are dead and powerless, whereas Yahweh is alive and powerful. This recurring comparison generates a series of consequent and associated oppositions that define and differentiate 99. Even if they had been composed in Akkadian, although their Israelite variant of ancient West Asian iconic political rhetoric may not have sounded unfamiliar. 100. Mack, “Social Formation,” 292. 101. Ibid., 288.

spread is 6 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 81 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

81

not only Israelite and Babylonian representations of deity but, more generally, the Israelite “way” and the “way of the nations” (Jer 10:2). This binary classification of cultural systems appropriated and reconfigured social and epistemological categories of ritual, deity, and society for ancient Israelite social groups. As J. Z. Smith writes, Religions are not only the objects of classification, they are themselves powerful engines for the production and maintenance of classificatory systems. . . . Religious expertise, in part, consists of the ability to think with and to manipulate these structures. . . . Perhaps the most fundamental classification of religions is “ours” and “theirs,” often correlated with the distinction between “true” and “false,” “correct” and “incorrect.” 102

The privileged binary classificatory system generated in the icon parodies is a classic example of this point. It is also a culture-encompassing instance of the kind of binary oppositions that Olyan has described as the preferred rhetorical mode for the generation of social hierarchy and the production of social order in biblical cultic contexts. 103

102. Smith, “Classification,” 38–39. 103. Olyan, Rites and Rank, 6–7. Israelites were not unique in their preference for binary modes of classification, on which, see ibid, 125 n. 9. On privileged oppositions, see Bell, Ritual Theory. Olyan investigates the production of Israelite social order through differentiating ritual practices that confer rank (for example, through orders of sacrificial distribution) and differentiating binary rhetoric in the representation of this ritually reproduced order. “By creating distinctions among groups and individuals,” Olyan writes, the bounded sanctuary and related ritual sites become primary contexts for the production and reproduction of a hierarchical social order. The establishment of boundaries and the generation of hierarchy in cultic and quasi-cultic settings depend upon two movements: 1) the determination that certain binary pairings (over against others) are relevant to cultic access and social differentiation; and 2) the privileging of one member of the pair over the other within each relevant polarity. (Ibid., 4)

The binary pairing unclean/clean is one privileged opposition of the sort that Olyan investigates. Interestingly, this opposition is largely absent in the icon parodies. Indeed, one might otherwise have expected a polarity of this sort to appear in the series of oppositions that the icon parodies generate—that is, one might have expected icons, icon craftsmen, and iconodules generally to have been represented as “unclean” as well as foolish, dumb, shamed, dead, powerless, and so on. This may reflect a nonpriestly authorial context. Note, for example, that purity does emerge as a factor in Ezekiel’s representation of cult images (on which, see chap. 4). The sets of binary pairings developed in the icon parodies seem instead to focus particularly on issues of power (strong/weak, creating/created). This choice of pairings seems particularly fitted to exilic sociopolitical concerns and to iconic ritual practices.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 82 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

82

Chapter 2

The distinctions drawn in the icon parodies between Babylonian and Israelite deity (as alive or dead, true or false, powerful or powerless, creating or created) do not exist in a sphere of being prior to language. They are, rather, created through the act of tabulation; their divisions and distinctions are the work of Israelite authors, who constructed a privileged dual classification of the ancient West Asian ritual system that realigned “the order of things,” that is, the ritual bases of social formation, through the epistemological reclassification of deity. 104 When the authors of the icon parodies claim that Babylonian cult images are dead and powerless, they undermine the iconic foci of the Babylonian ritual economy and, thus, also the social system with which it interrelates and that it configures. 105 When they portray Yahweh and Yahwistic cult as alive and powerful, as they do in the hymnic strata, they differentiate and legitimate for an Israelite audience a Yahwistic mythic and ritual foundation for the configuration of social power relations in ancient Israel. The poles of each privileged dyad in the icon parodies are in this respect linked by a common thread, as the classification of the Babylonian and Yahwistic “ways” in myth, ritual, and society operates on one underlying cultural system that ordered the world through ritual practice. The Israelite authors of these parodies and hymns thus classified an entire symbolic system that configured social relations in ancient West Asia. The icon parodies thus represent a convergence of two modes of social formation—iconic ritual and classificatory discourse. Their discursive program of binary classification, achieved through a literary representation of ritual and deity, intersected with ritual practices themselves as correlating sites for the configuration of social power relations. Explicitly linked to ritual modes of social formation in ancient West Asian societies, this symbolic classification flourished, alongside the emerging biblical canon, as an authoritative interpretive template for the configuration of cultic and related social formations in postexilic Israel. Targeting the iconic sites for the production and reproduction of social power relations in ancient West Asia, the authors of the icon parodies thus 104. See Foucault (Order of Things, xvii) on epistemological classification as an act of power. In this respect, Bruce Lincoln writes that “Taxonomy is . . . not only a means for organizing information, but also—as it comes to organize the organizers—an instrument for the classification and manipulation of society, something that is particularly facilitated by the fashion in which taxonomic trees and binary oppositions can conveniently recode social hierarchies” (Discourse and the Construction of Society, 137). 105. This is because reconfigurations of mythic and ritual systems correlate to reconfigurations of social system. See Mack, “Social Formation,” 292. Note how the icon parodies explicitly denigrate the Babylonian iconodules who practiced these rites. I discuss the iconic ritual foundations of Mesopotamian society in chap. 3.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 83 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

83

responded to force with discourse, usurping the power of the ritual practices they delegitimized. Their representation and classification of Babylonian myth and ritual was not a “natural” interpretation of an “error of idolatry.” That it may appear so attests only to the success of this discourse and to the power of its classificatory system. It was certainly not an interpretation shared by the Mesopotamian social groups that interacted and interrelated with the iconic embodiments of their deities. 106 Nor was it a “given” to Israelites themselves, as these cultic polemics were produced for and explicitly address an Israelite audience confronted with Babylonian power (in its ritual, social, and military manifestations) and seemingly skeptical of the enduring power of Yahweh and a Yahwistic cult that no longer operated as it once did. 107 It was, rather, a sociopolitical act, an alignment of divine, cultic order that interrelated with an alignment of social order. The brilliance of these Israelite authors is manifest in the way they drew on authoritative mythic and ritual traditions—from both ancient Israel and Mesopotamia—to develop their distinctive classification of the ancient West Asian cultic regime. They thereby made the innovative appear normative and natural, authoring a legitimized, legitimizing, and quickly canonized representation of iconic cult that would influence postexilic Israelite social formations and postbiblical interpretive traditions alike. Viewing the icon parodies as acts of classification and social formation redescribes these texts not as exemplars of Israelite distinction but as acts of interpretation and differentiation that directly engage Mesopotamian modes of cultural production to configure relations of power, construct identity, and facilitate social formation for Israelite social groups. They are indeed redescriptions themselves, of the ancient West Asian mythic and ritual “canopy” and the social systems with which it interrelates. They do not passively reflect static “categorical differences” between Israelite and Mesopotamian conceptions of deity; they actively categorize differences between Israelite and Mesopotamian ritual systems and thereby imagine a renewed social economy achieved through a differentiated ritual economy. 106. As the following chapter will emphasize, cult images were indeed alive and powerful for the vast majority of peoples inhabiting ancient Israel’s cultural environment, as embodiments of social power and focal sites for the production and reproduction of social order through authoritative, millennia-old traditions of iconic ritual practice. 107. Exilic texts reflecting the public perception that Yahweh had abandoned the exiles in Babylonia include Lam 5:20; Isa 42:16, 49:14, 54:7, 62:4; Deut 4:31. For a discussion of these texts and others that reflect and respond to public skepticism of this sort, see Olyan, “ ‘We Are Utterly Cut Off ’,” 48–51; idem, “The Status of Covenant during the Exile.” The authors of the icon parodies attend to concerns of this sort, repeatedly emphasizing the presence and power of Yahweh in exile and invoking Yahweh’s enduring fidelity to the covenant (see Ps 115:1).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 84 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

84

Chapter 2

In response to Babylonian political, military, and ritual hegemony, the authors of the icon parodies thus composed a discourse of power that operated within the ancient West Asian ritual system to configure points along its continuum. 108 Yahweh is positioned above all other deities (Ps 135:5), is placed first and last, usurping the entire chain of divinity (Isa 44:6), and, through comparison, is declared incomparable (Isa 40:18). The authors of the icon parodies occupied an unusual social position. They stood not only between two related ritual systems (Israelite and Babylonian) but also between weakness and power. Within Babylonian society they were weak and powerless, alienated from its iconic modes of cultural production. Their stance from within this position was to reassert their own lost ritual system in an act of symbolic resistance. 109 With respect to their Israelite audience, however, their act of symbolic resistance bespeaks of a position of power. As literate elites with the ability to produce potentially dominant classifications of myth and ritual, they were positioned to configure modes of social formation in ancient Israel. 110 In the late 6th century b.c.e., discourse was among the only means through which these authors could promote their vision of Yahwistic cult and their ideals of Israelite social formation. 111 And their classification of the ancient West Asian ritual system proved a powerful political act indeed, to the Israelite social groups that received and promoted their compositions as “Scripture.”

108. As noted on p. 74, the question of Ps 115:2, “Where is their god?” is answered in Ps 135:5: “Our lord is above all gods.” 109. On symbolic resistance, hegemony, and ideological domination, see J. C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak, 39–40, 304ff. See also A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (ed. and trans. Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith; London: Lawrence and Wishert, 1971). 110. They were aided by the Persian conquest of Babylon and subsequently favorable repatriation policies. As I have argued in this chapter, I date the emergence of the icon parody genre to the exilic period and locate the social contexts of its development and successful reception in the late exilic and early postexilic periods. When I speak here of “the authors of the icon parodies,” I acknowledge group authorship; I refer to the earliest composers of the poems in the exilic period and also to their subsequent tradents in early postexilic Judah. Across this span of time and in each location, Yahwistic temple cult was disrupted and Israelite literary activity flourished. 111. Bruce Lincoln writes, in this respect, that discourse and ideological persuasion can transform “simple power into ‘legitimate’ authority” more powerfully than physical force itself (Discourse and the Construction of Society, 3–5). Lincoln here writes about the way that “specific modes of discourse—myth, ritual, and classification—can be, and have been, employed as effective instruments not only for the replication of established social forms . . . but more broadly for the construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of society itself.”

page is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 85 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Israelite Icon Parodies

85

In 1873, F. Max Müller wrote the following regarding the possibilities for a universal, “scientific” study of religion: “Let us take the old saying, divide et impera, and translate it somewhat freely by ‘Classify and conquer.’ ” 112 With respect to Babylonia symbolically and ancient Israel sociopolitically, the authors of the icon parodies positioned and legitimated their own power and authority and, in their way, similarly “conquered through classification.” They simultaneously unified and divided Israelite and Babylonian cultural systems, through an innovative amalgam of ancient West Asian mythic and ritual traditions that encompassed both within a Yahwistic cultic regime of which they were the master interpreters. Their classification of cult was not the “natural order of things,” not the “true” representation of “false” representations of deity. Nor was it the inexorable culmination of preexilic traditions of aniconic Yahwism. 113 It was, rather, a discursive act of social power, generated amid sociopolitical circumstances of exile, conquest, cultic dislocation, and social transformation. Upon achieving canonical authority among the heirs of exilic Israel, the icon parodies should therefore be distinguished as acts of power that “naturalized” a differentiated Israelite vision of ritual, deity, and reality, along with the social formations this vision configured. Their Israelite authors were thus engaged in the production of a historically localized “common sense” and a seemingly sui generis classification of myth and ritual that would reverberate through the postexilic age and beyond. 112. F. M. Müller, Introduction to the Science of Religion (London: Longmans, Green, 1873), 123, quoted in J. Z. Smith, “A Matter of Class: Taxonomies of Religion,” Relating Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 173. 113. As noted earlier, these Israelite authors could have drawn on preexilic Yahwistic traditions that carved out a more local space within which the Israelite deity could reside, through a variety of iconic and aniconic manifestations such as standing stones. I discuss this point further in chap. 4. The choice to develop traditions that imagine Yahweh’s presence and power everywhere was, of course, well suited to the exilic context.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 86 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 3 Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual The Mesopotamian Cult Image: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretations Israelite icon parodies depict the construction and ritual manipulation of cult images of a Mesopotamian type, composed of a wooden core overlaid with precious metals and dressed in fine garments. 1 In the previous chapter, I argued that these poems developed in a Neo-Babylonian setting during the latter half of the 6th century b.c.e. and that they may be viewed as a response to the Babylonian conquest of Judah and the ritual and sociopolitical circumstances of exile. Highlighting their oppositional literary and ideological structure, I described these compositions as acts of Israelite social formation that classified the ancient West Asian iconic ritual system. The purpose of this chapter is to support further a sociopolitical interpretation of Israelite icon parodies through a discussion of the Neo-Babylonian iconic environment out of which they emerged. I focus on the political aspects of Mesopotamian iconic rituals in order to elucidate further the correspondingly political nature of Israelite polemics against these rituals. I have described Israelite icon parodies as an oppositional, ritually oriented, power-centered discourse aimed at reconstituting ancient Israel’s disrupted cultic and political structures. This interpretation posits a close re1. On the literary and archaeological evidence for Mesopotamian cult images, see Walker and Dick, Induction, 4–31; Berlejung, Theologie, 31–79 and passim; A. Spycket, Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens: Des origines à la Ire. dynastie de Babylone (CahRB 9; Paris: Gabalda, 1968); idem, La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien (HO 1/2; Leiden: Brill, 1981); E. Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and Their Interaction with the Society,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East (ed. E. Matsushima; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1993), 209–19; Jacobsen, “Graven Image”; J. Renger, “Kultbild. A. Philologisch,” RlA 6:307a– 314b; U. Seidel, “Kultbild. B. Archäologisch,” RlA 6:314b–318a; A. L. Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8 (1949): 172–93; idem, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 183–98; D. van Buren, “The Íalme in Mesopotamian Art and Religion,” Or n.s. 10 (1941): 65–92.

86

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 87 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

87

lationship between ritual and politics in the cultures of ancient West Asia. This relationship is evident in the way iconic cult practices supported and were supported by the political structures of Neo-Babylonian society. Articulating the political resonance of cult images in ancient Mesopotamian society reveals how and why certain Israelite authors were so invested in denigrating them. 2 While more metaphysical, belief-oriented interpretations of these poems emphasize the distinction between ancient Israel and its Mesopotamian neighbors, a sociopolitical interpretation emphasizes their similarities within a broad ancient West Asian cultic and cultural continuum. These similarities reveal themselves in precisely the texts that are so often presented as the evidence par excellence of ancient Israel’s unique and intellectually privileged status. Written sources depicting the nature and function of cult images in ancient West Asia span the Sumerian period to the Seleucid era. These sources offer little insight into the mental states of the Mesopotamian iconodule. Evidence for the roles these cult images played in Mesopotamian society is, on the other hand, abundant and widely attested in Mesopotamian ritual, historiographic, and mythopoetic texts. 3 Across this literary and historical expanse, two categories of texts are of particular relevance to this study: one is the corpus of ritual and incantation texts prescribing the mis pî rite of cult image construction and induction; the other is the corpus of historiographic inscriptions depicting the treatment of cult images during times of war. These two textual pools provide the primary colors for modern depictions of ancient Mesopotamia’s iconic ritual landscape. Together, they offer a rich view of the interrelationship between cultic ritual and political power in a society in which religion and politics were inseparable and power emanating from major social structures merged at the focal point of the cult image. Appeal to these two ancient West Asian ritual and textual traditions thus illuminates the sociopolitical context of ancient Israel’s polemic against the cult images of her Neo-Babylonian conquerors.

2. The investment of postbiblical authors in the discourse of “idolatry” also attests to the powerful cultural resonance of this interpretive tradition. 3. On the role of cult images in Mesopotamian society, see n. 1 and Bahrani, Graven Image; W. G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA 55; Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 191–201; Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image”; idem, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 54–66; B. N. Porter, Images, Power and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (681–669 b.c.) (MAPS 208; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993); I. J. Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JRitSt 6 (1992): 13–42.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 88 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 3

88

The Induction of the Cult Image in Mesopotamia: The Mis Pî Ritual The polemic in biblical icon parodies is directed against a specific aspect of Mesopotamian iconic cult: the construction of cult statues and the powers that, for the iconodule, reside in these products. Israelite icon parodies denigrate the power of cult images by focusing on their mundane origins in icon workshops. The biblical parodies emphasize the lifelessness and powerlessness of cult images and the consequent foolishness of the iconodule through their detailed depiction of the fashioning of cult images by human craftsmen out of earthly materials. These observations fix the social location of the parodies to two specific moments: the moment when cult images were constructed in icon workshops and the moment when the products of these workshops were imbued with cultic power. Regarding a cult image as the “work of human hands” (Ps 115:4) was not the privileged insight of Israelite poets alone. The cult officials, kings, woodcarvers, and metalsmiths of Assyria and Babylonia were equally aware that their gods were constructed in icon workshops. Unquestionably, however, cult images were treated in Mesopotamia as embodiments of living deities. 4 The nuanced correlations between the mundane and supramundane aspects of Mesopotamian iconolatreia are evident in the following statement by the Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 b.c.e.): Whose right is it, O great gods, to create gods and goddesses in a place where humans dare not trespass? This task of refurbishing (cult images), which you have constantly been allotting to me, is difficult! Is it the right of deaf and blind human beings who are ignorant of themselves and remain in ignorance throughout their lives? The making of the gods and goddesses is your right, it is in your hands. 5 4. On the relationship between cult image and deity in Mesopotamia, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 121–48; A. Berlejung, “Der Handwerker als Theologe: Zur Mentalitatsund Traditionsgeschichte eines altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Berufstands,” VT 46 (1996): 145–68; idem, Theologie, 1–24; idem, “Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; CBET 21; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 45, 46 n. 3; M. Dick, “The Relationship between the Cult Image and the Deity in Mesopotamia,” in Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East (ed. J. Prosecky; Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute, 1998), 111–16; Walker and Dick, Induction, 6–8; Jacobsen, “Graven Image”; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 183– 98; W. R. Garr, “ ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh,” IEJ 50 (2000): 227–34. 5. R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 14–16; trans. Walker and Dick, Induction, 4, 25–27. Esarhaddon’s description of human beings as “deaf,” “blind,” and

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 89 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

89

The difficult task allotted to Esarhaddon was the restoration of the cult images of Babylon. 6 Esarhaddon claims that his help was enlisted in a task that only gods can accomplish. As the inscription continues, the divinely commissioned king describes how he directed the images’ restoration and ritual procession back to their sanctuaries in Babylon. This inscription thus depicts how a king and various craftsmen and cult officials were allotted roles in a complex process through which Mesopotamian cult images were constructed and installed as gods on earth. Every detail of the roles human beings played in the creation of iconic deity in Assyria and Babylonia was choreographed, in a series of ritual prescriptions that together constituted the so-called mis pî ‘mouth washing’ (or pit pî ‘mouth opening’) rite of cult image construction and induction. Only through this ritual manipulation of cult images would statues enter into their active cultic settings as living gods imbued with effective powers to see, hear, speak, smell, walk, eat, and drink. 7 The mis pî ritual addresses specifically the “ignorant” suggestively recalls the description of icon craftsmen in Israelite icon parodies as “beastly and foolish” (Jer 10:8), “brutish and without knowledge” (Jer 10:14), and blind and senseless (Isa 44:9, 18–19) (Olyan, oral communication). The Israelite poets extend this lack of sense to the cult images themselves (Jer 10:5; Ps 115:5–7). This NeoAssyrian inscription, of course, does not; in lines 18–20, Esarhaddon entreats the gods to endow the icon craftsmen with the skill to complete the task that has been assigned to humans (to “create gods and goddesses”). The Israelite authors of the icon parodies, by extending the lack of sensory powers from the humans who make gods and goddesses to the gods and goddesses themselves, negate the power of iconic cult to imbue cult images with power; the powerlessness of iconic cult similarly reflects back upon the icon maker and the icon worshiper who, like the cult images themselves, lack all senses (Ps 115:8). The powerlessness of Babylonian ritual and society is thus encircled and complete. Compare the depiction in Second Isaiah of Israel as deaf and blind (Isa 42:18–19), whereas Yahweh remains all-knowing and all-powerful. On the associations between blindness, deafness, and ignorance in the Hebrew Bible and Akkadian sources, including the Esarhaddon text cited above, see Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), chap. 3. 6. The images had been taken to Assyria by Essarhaddon’s father, Sennacherib, in 689 b.c.e. I return to these inscriptions and events in my discussion of cult image abduction and return below. 7. As I. Winter notes, after the mis pî ritual, the cult image was “then indeed empowered to speak, or to see, or to act, through various culturally subscribed channels” (“ ‘Idols of the King,’ ” 13). See E. M. Curtis, “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, and G. L. Mattingly; ANETS 8; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1992), 377; E. Ebeling, Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931), 120–21. Compare the consecration ritual for Buddha images, on which, see Swearer, Becoming the Buddha.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 90 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

90

Chapter 3

aspects of iconic cult ridiculed in the icon parodies: the mundane construction of cult images and the sensory and other powers embodied by them. 8 Scholarship on the mis pî ritual has flourished in recent years. 9 A. Berlejung, M. B. Dick, M. S. Smith, and others have discussed the literary and thematic connections between the mis pî texts and the biblical icon parodies. 10 These studies invite further inquiry into the relationship between Mesopotamian iconic ritual and Israelite icon parodies. The following discussion of the mis pî ritual is offered to further support an interpretation of the biblical parodies as cultically oriented responses to the sociopolitical challenges of ancient Israel’s exile in Babylonia. Sources First-millennium sources provide near-complete accounts of the mis pî ritual. Most sources for reconstructing the ritual texts and their associated incantation texts (IT) are of Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian provenance (8th through 5th centuries b.c.e.), although elements of the ritual itself are attested in third- and second-millennium tablets as well. 11 The critical edition by Walker and Dick reconstructs an Assyrian (Nineveh) ritual (NR) and a Babylonian ritual (BR) in addition to a series of related mis pî incantation texts. 12 The principal source texts for the mis pî are from 7thcentury b.c.e. Nineveh and 6th-century b.c.e. Babylon, which makes these recensions relatively contemporary with the biblical icon parody textual tradi8. While the icon parodies do not explicitly mention the mis pî ritual, their thematic emphases, in conjunction with their technical terminology of icon construction materials and processes, suggest an intimate familiarity with Mesopotamian iconic practices. The connections between the icon parodies and the mis pî are emphasized below. 9. For the history of scholarship on mis pî texts and rituals, see Walker and Dick, Induction, 20–21; Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 47 n. 7; J. Faur, “The Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” JQR 69 (1978): 10 n. 51. See also the review essay by V. Hurowitz, “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb,” JAOS 123 (2003): 147–57. 10. Berlejung, Theologie, 178–283; Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 38–44; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 182–88; Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 23–28. 11. See Walker and Dick, Induction, 27–29. Walker and Dick cite PBS 13:35 as “possibly . . . a Neo-Sumerian ritual for consecrating the cult image” (ibid., 27 n. 96). A date of ca. 2200 b.c.e. (suggested by M. B. Dick, “The Consecration of the Cult Statue: The Oldest Form of the Opening of the Mouth,” paper presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Rome, July 2001) would make this the oldest extant cult image consecration tablet. The text possibly prescribes incantations and ritual acts that link the cult image to heaven and earth through plant purifiers and, in lines 22–23, water to purify its mouth. On the growth and development of the mis pî ritual, see ibid., 18–20. 12. Walker and Dick, Induction. For my analysis and discussion of mis pî texts, I have relied on the transliterations, normalizations, and translations of this invaluable critical edition. My translations of other Akkadian texts draw from the sources cited in these notes.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 91 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

91

tions themselves. 13 In addition to the ritual and incantation tablets, the mis pî rite is depicted in several historiographic inscriptions, most notably inscriptions relating Esarhaddon’s return of cult images from Assyria back to Babylon in the early 7th century b.c.e. 14 These inscriptions, which relate the refurbishing and reinstallation of Babylonian cult images, contain detailed references to the necessarily attendant mis pî ritual acts. 15 The Ritual The mis pî ritual belongs to a broader category of Mesopotamian ‘mouth washing’ (mis pî ) rituals intended to effect ritual purity in a variety of elements of Mesopotamian cult. 16 The mis pî ritual for cult images involves the additional ‘mouth opening’ (pit pî ) rite, intended to activate the cultic functionality of inanimate objects, in this case, statues. 17 The ritual and incantation texts for cult image consecration do not always specify the performance of these two rites together, but the mention of one likely implies the performance of the other as well. 18 In order for cult images to function in their cultic settings, a consecration rite that included mouth washings followed by mouth openings was required.

13. The Babylonian Ritual (BR) tablet BM 45749 is from Babylon; Walker and Dick suggest a 6th-century b.c.e. date (ibid., 70). The majority of the other tablets are from 7th-century b.c.e. Nineveh (many from Assurbanipal’s royal library). The rest come from Assur, Sultantepe, Hama, Babylon, Sippar, Nippur, Nimrud, and Uruk and variously date from the 9th through 5th centuries b.c.e. (ibid., 28). 14. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 48 n. 8; Walker and Dick, Induction, 25– 27; W. G. Lambert, “Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylon,” in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987 (ed. G. Mauer and U. Magen; AOAT 220; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 157–74. 15. See the annotated discussion of these texts in Walker and Dick, Induction, 21–27. 16. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 45. 17. On the wider variety of Mesopotamian mouth-washing and mouth-opening rites, see Walker and Dick, Induction, 10–15. The operative term for these rituals with respect to the cult image is the Sum. ka.lu˘.u3.da, Akk. mis pî, literally ‘mouth washing’, which implies mouth opening (ka.du˘.u3.da/pit pî ) as well. Among the ritual and incantation texts prescribing cult image induction, the participial phrase mis pî indeed appears only in IT 6/8:49 (ibid., 12). The texts refer to mouth washings and mouth openings through several variations on ka.lu˘.u3.da/mis pî and ka.du˘.u3.da/pit pî. See ibid., 10–15, 17–18. 18. In NR mouth washings (ka.lu˘.u3.da) are always followed by mouth openings (ka.du˘.u3.da); this is not the case, however, in BR or in the incantation texts. BR contains 14 references to mouth washing with no explicit mention of mouth opening at all, whereas the incantation texts refer to mouth opening with no explicit mention of mouth washing. See Walker and Dick, ibid., 12, 14; Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 49.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 92 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

92

Chapter 3

The mis pî ritual for cult image consecration directs specialized cultic personnel 19 through ritual acts and incantations over a two-day ordeal, during which the cult image is led through three principal locations: from the icon workshop to a nearby riverbank and finally to the deity’s temple. The primary rites were conducted within the regulated confines of the cultic space of Esagila, Marduk’s temple complex in Babylon, and were accessible to its officiating personnel only. 20 The ultimate goal of the mis pî ritual was the enthronement of the image of a given deity within its temple cella. The achievement of this goal depended on the purification and vivification rites performed in the ritual. Its many incantations and ritual acts explicitly invoke a divestiture of the statue’s workshop origins. This includes verbal and physical affirmations of the statue’s separation from its material origin (the craftsmen and their tools), and ritual acts aimed to invest the statue with sensory powers and divine lineage, a kind of heavenly rebirth meant to erase all remnants of earthly, human construction. These rites and incantations and their intended effects were all oriented toward the ritual’s fundamental objective: the temple enthronement and effective cultic functionality of the iconic deity. Berlejung identifies three stages to the mis pî ritual: (1) preparations and purification rites (NR 1–94; BR 1–12); (2) the mouth-opening proper (NR 95–203; BR 12–59); and (3) enthronement in the deity’s temple (BR 59– 65). 21 This interpretive division of the mis pî rite into three stages is indicated within the texts themselves. 22 Numerous deities are invoked in the ritual, in19. The asipu was principal among mis pî cultic personnel, to whom the texts are addressed in the second person masculine singular; other personnel include the barû- and kalû-officials (diviner and lamentation priest, respectively). As the Esarhaddon inscriptions indicate, the Neo-Assyrian king could also perform the ritual (on which, see below). On mis pî cultic personnel, see Berlejung, Theologie, 185–87, 190–91; Walker and Dick, Induction, 15–16. 20. This would include, above all, the icon craftsmen, the various cultic personnel, and the king. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 50; idem, Theologie, 94–135, 185–88, 190. 21. The final stage of the ritual is not attested in NR. On the division of the mis pî into three stages, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 68–69; Walker and Dick, Induction, 29– 30; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 185. P. J. Boden (The Mesopotamian Washing of the Mouth (Mis Pî ) Ritual [Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1998]) applies a different tripartite structure to the ritual: employing van Gennep’s model of a rite de passage, Boden reads the mis pî as a birthing metaphor with preliminal, liminal, and postliminal stages. For a critique of Boden’s analysis, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 69–70; idem, Theologie, 227–32. 22. It should be noted that overarching schema for the mis pî often conflate BR and NR (Berlejung, Theologie, 197; see Walker and Dick, Induction, 29). The variety of attested

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 93 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

93

cluding, of course, the deity of the cult image itself, 23 but three predominate: Ea, Shamash, and Marduk (Asalluhi). Stage one is dominated by Ea, stage two by Shamash, and stage three by the cult image deity itself, while Marduk is invoked through all three stages. 24 The first stage begins on the morning of the first day. 25 The texts prescribe the rituals that accompany the procession of the statue from the workshop to the riverbank garden where the vivification rite will be enacted. The Nineveh version begins with preparations for the ritual acts eventually to be performed at the riverbank garden and the temple (NR 1–54); 26 the Babylonian version begins right at the icon workshop (BR 1–4; NR 55–64). The ritual texts then direct the procession of the image from the house of the craftsmen (bit mare ummâni) 27 (NR 65–69; BR 5–6a) to the riverbank garden (NR 70–94; BR 6b–12), where the next stage of the ritual, the vivification rite, takes place. In the course of these preparations and processionals and their attendant sacrifices and incantations, two mouth washings are performed (BR 2, 11; NR 58) and the cult image begins to assume its new status as a pure, living deity. 28

sources resist modern efforts to harmonize them all into one authoritative account. The evidence suggests a fair measure of diversity in accounts of the ritual across a broad temporal and geographical expanse. See Walker and Dick, ibid., 16–20, 28–31. Significant differences between BR and NR possibly attest to some disagreement or competition between Assyria and Babylonia over the form of this authoritative rite. For the purposes of this study, a conflation of BR and NR texts does not misrepresent the fundamental aspects of the ritual and its relation to Israelite parodies of Babylonian cult. 23. Designated in the texts generally as ilu su ‘that god’, although the deity’s proper name would have been invoked (Walker and Dick, Induction, 54 n. 47). 24. On the significance of these deities for the ritual, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth.” On the logic of the divine cosmography through which the mis pî operates within the Esagila temple complex, see W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. 25. NR 1–3. 26. This includes directions for the preparation of the reed huts and seven water basins employed in the ritual at these locales, on which, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 51– 52; and Walker and Dick, Induction, 52–56, with references. That BR lacks these preparatory directions may indicate a later recension for NR (Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 52). 27. The phrase bit mare ummâni is synonymous with bit mummi; both refer to the temple workshop. See Walker and Dick, Induction, 52 n. 34; Berlejung, Theologie, 112–35. 28. BR prescribes a total of 14 mouth washings over the course of the entire ritual; NR cites only five, but Berlejung reasonably suggests that two were lost in textual gaps (one in NR 82–87 and one at the end of NR), giving a total of seven for NR, or half of BR’s 14. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 62 n. 73; idem, Theologie, 234; Walker and Dick, Induction, 59 n. 79 and 65 n. 112.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 94 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

94

Chapter 3

The second stage of the ritual takes place in the garden beside the river (NR 95–203; BR 12–59). 29 Here the cult image is seated on a mat of pure reeds, eyes set to the sunrise, along with the cultic paraphernalia of the deity (unut ili ) and the tools of the craftsmen (unut mare ummâni ). 30 A series of sacrifices, libations, incantations, mouth washings, and mouth openings 31 are performed in preparation for the cult image’s evening outside and its integration into a pantheon of astral deities. 32 The ritual then resumes in the same location on the morning of the second day, with further sacrifices, libations, incantations, and two more mouth washings. At this point in the ritual (BR 49–56; NR 173–86), the craftsmen are summoned to approach the cult image; their hands are bound with cloth and symbolically cut off with a knife of purified tamarisk wood. They are then made to swear that it was not they but the gods of the craftsmen who made the statue: I did not make (the statue), Ninagal who is Ea god of the smith made it. 33

The Babylonian version then instructs the asipu to ‘open the eye’ of the statue. 34 Following several more incantations, the riverbank garden’s sacrificial arrangements are dismantled and, with the image now empowered to take up residence in its temple, the ritual moves to its third and final stage. The final stage of the mis pî ritual, the procession of the cult image from the garden to the deity’s temple, is attested only in the Babylonian version (BR 59–65). The text prescribes purity rites and incantations 35 as the deity is led 36 from the garden to the temple, with a pause for an offering at the temple 29. This riverside garden enclosure belonged to the Ea Temple precinct (Ekarzagina) within the Esagila complex. For discussion and references, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 50–51. 30. NR 98–99. NR 78 specifies ‘an axe, a nail, a saw’ (pasa pulukka sassara). 31. BR cites nine mouth washings on the evening of the first day; NR cites two. See n. 28 above on the total number of mouth washings in NR and BR. 32. On which, see Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 57. On the astral aspects of deity invoked at this point in the ritual (BR 25–36; cf. NR 105–7), see E. Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995), 139–43. Note the polemic against astral rites that opens the icon parody in Jer 10:2–3. 33. Akk.: anaku la epussu Ninagal Ea sa nappahi ipussu (BR 52); NR repeats this oath (NR 179–80) with reference to a series of different Ea manifestations for different trades (e.g., ‘Ninuldu, who is Ea god of the carpenter’ [NR 182], ‘Kusibanda, who is Ea god of the goldsmith’ [NR 184]). 34. Akk.: in ili suati tepette, ‘you open the eye of that god’ (BR 53). 35. Leaving the Esagila precinct involved a dangerously impure route through the city, secured through accompanying purification rites and incantations. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 67. 36. The instructions here and at every point in the ritual at which the deity is led from one location to another read ‘you take the hand of (that) god’ (qat ili taßabbatma).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 95 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

95

gate. The image is then led into the temple with an incantation and is, at last, seated in the cella of the sanctuary. After further incantations, offering preparations, a final mouth washing, 37 and additional purification rites, the newly enthroned (or reenthroned) deity receives its cultic accoutrements and begins its active temple reign. The three phases of the mis pî ritual outlined above indicate the primary effects intended by the ritual: purification, vivification, and enthronement. The realization of these three effects is not achieved in a precisely linear progression; 38 purification rites are prescribed repeatedly throughout the course of the procession, while the icon is addressed as a living deity from its very inception. 39 It is, nevertheless, helpful to orient the interpretation of the ritual along this tripartite axis because these three intended effects become the focus of Israelite parodies of Mesopotamian cult images. Purification The purity rites conducted throughout the mis pî ritual would be expected for any rite within Marduk’s Esagila complex, but their particular role within the mis pî was to effect the separation of the cult image from its 37. The 14th in BR. 38. Discussions of the ritual often adopt a linear interpretation of its effects through its successive stages (e.g., Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth”; Boden, The Mesopotamian Washing of the Mouth), though Berlejung is correct in emphasizing that it is “hardly possible that the separation, transformation and affiliation aspects of the mouth-washing ritual could have been spread over three different, separate and successive stages. The ritual tablets show that the rites of separation etc. were performed repeatedly in order to intensify their efficacy” (“Washing the Mouth,” 70). 39. The first incantation of BR, which follows the first of 14 mouth washings, addresses the statue: “Born in heaven by your own power” (BR 3). A divine participation in the image is thus acknowledged from the very beginning of its production. Furthermore, as Berlejung notes, the texts address the deity directly throughout and not the deity’s statue (“Washing the Mouth,” 50). The transparency of any human hand in the production of the image was further emphasized by a kind of icon-theogony that stressed the divine inspiration of the first craftsmen who, after fashioning a “canonical prototype” for all subsequent images, were consigned forever to the subterranean waters beyond the reach of humans; later craftsmen were similarly inspired to perpetually renew the god’s image in its antediluvian form, thus further stressing the idea of rebirth and renewal over fabrication (see van der Toorn, “Iconic Book,” 235–38). Nevertheless, “the elimination of the human involvement in the fabrication of the statue during the mouth-washing ritual left a perfect, purified, and exclusive connection between god and image” (Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 71). Berlejung uses the term ‘inspirational cooperation’ (inspirative Zusammenarbeit) to describe the perceived connection between the deity and its human fabricators and manipulators (“Der Handwerker als Theologe,” 146–49; Theologie, 101–5). It was the mouth-washing ritual itself that ultimately resolved the “contradiction” of a deity fashioned by human hands.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 96 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

96

Chapter 3

mundane origins. 40 This is of primary importance in the first stage of the ritual (the so-called Ea section, NR 1–94; BR 1–12). The ritual proper begins with the purification of the icon workshop itself (NR 56). The first mouth washing, performed in the icon workshop, is then followed by offerings (the icon’s first), further purification rites, and an incantation that emphasizes the divinely autonomous realm into which the image is initiated: The heavens were created of themselves, the earth was created of itself. 41

This incantation and its associated ritual acts take place in the icon workshop. The intended effect is to dissociate the icon from its material origins in the workshop and reorient it toward its proper cultic realm among the gods and in its own temple. This connection to a place beyond the workshop is further emphasized through the accompanying rituals of purification. The separative power of purity rites is emphasized repeatedly throughout the mis pî ritual. The various wood, metal, and precious stone materials used in the icon’s construction are immersed ‘inside the holy-water basin of mouth washing’. 42 Each of the ritual’s mouth washings are themselves rituals of purification. 43 The last mouth washing in the garden (BR 47) is followed by an incantation that emphasizes the purity of the statue, after which fur40. On mouth purity in Mesopotamia, see V. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 (1989): 39–89. On Mesopotamian temples, see idem, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings ( JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); A. R. George, House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Civilizations 5; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993). 41. Akk.: samû ina ramanisunu ibbani erßetu ina ramanisama ibbani; this Akk. equivalent of the Sum. incantation appears in the bilingual STT 199 obv. 2, 4. The Sum. lines appear in STT 199 obv. 1, 3, and read ‘Incantation: in heaven it is born of itself, on earth it is born of itself ’ (é n a n - n a n í - b i - t a t u - u d - d a - à m k i - a n í - b i - t a t u - u d - d a à m). Walker and Dick draw on BR 3 to restore STT 199 obv. 1; Cf. NR 59a (Induction, 114 n. 125). Commentators have generally interpreted this incantation as a declaration of the statue’s heavenly birth (Jacobsen, Graven Image, 26; Ebeling, Tod und Leben, 100), which Berlejung disputes based on the Akk. equivalent provided in STT 199 (“Washing the Mouth,” 53 n. 36). Berlejung notes that the focus of this incantation is the performer of the ritual, not the icon itself, and thus reasonably cautions against over-interpreting this phrase into a “myth of origins” for the image. Nevertheless, the incantation and the cultic officials and rites associated with it are all oriented toward the icon. See also IT 3B:54–69. 42. Akk.: ana libbi egubbê sa mis pî. BR 16–24 specifies these materials, many of which are recalled in the technical terminology of the Israelite icon parodies. See V. Hurowitz, “What Goes In Is What Comes Out—Materials for Creating Cult Statues,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis; BJS 346; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 3–23. 43. See Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 45; Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 97 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

97

ther cleansing rites are performed. A culmination of the separation intended by these purity rituals is achieved when the craftsmen are summoned to ritually separate themselves from the icon’s creation by swearing, “I did not make it” (BR 52; NR 181; cf. IT 3 B:82–88). The dangers of the impure route to the deity’s temple are kept at bay through further purity rites along the processional way, and the final mouth washing for the icon, once seated in its cella, specifies: You perform the mouth washing on that god, and for that god you prepare an offering. With water from the basin you purify that god . . . and you present the accoutrements of divinity. 44

The importance of establishing the icon’s purity is attested throughout the mis pî incantation tablets as well, from the purity of the icon construction materials (STT 199 obv.:13–31) to the purity of the deity’s temple throne itself (IT 4 C:18). The purity of every aspect of the icon’s past production and future location, its earthly origins and heavenly orientations, is ensured. These purity rites establish the connection between earth and heaven and between humans and gods that, by virtue of the mis pî, becomes embodied in the cult image itself. The mis pî rite is, thus, as much about connection as it is about separation in the way it establishes an iconic connection between the pure heavens and the purified earth: May the god become pure like the heavens, clean like the earth. 45

It is this connection that the Israelite icon parodies seek to sever. The polemics against cult images composed by Israelites living in Babylonia attack the efficacy of both the separative and connective power of the mis pî ritual by denying the icon access to any realm beyond the craftsmen’s workshop (Isa 44:9–20, Jer 10:4–16) and by regarding cult images as, of all things, paragons of impurity (Ezek 7:20). Vivification The essence of the mis pî ritual is the activation of the icon’s sensory powers, which enables the deity to function in its cultic setting and thus reifies the power of the deity to serve as the focus of Mesopotamian society’s cultic structures. The importance of the mis pî ritual in effecting the functionality of Mesopotamian cult is distilled in the following mis pî incantation: This statue, without the mouth opening ceremony, does not smell incense, does not eat food, does not drink water. 46 44. BR 63–64. 45. IT 3 B:38–39; these words are repeated throughout the incantation tablets. 46. IT 3 B:70b–71b.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 98 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

98

Chapter 3

This incantation is recited in the garden on the second day, at a point in the ritual (corresponding with BR 53–61) at which the asipu is directed to ‘open the eye of that god’. 47 The icon’s other sensory powers are invoked throughout the ritual. 48 The mouth washings and mouth openings themselves manipulate the deity’s mouth and thus invoke the deity’s cultically essential powers not only to receive offerings but also to issue omens. The prayers of NR 164–72 are whispered directly into the icon’s ears: Into the ears of that god you speak: “you are counted among your brethren gods” . . . you whisper into its right ear . . . you whisper into its left ear . . . 49

At this same point in the ritual, an incantation directed to Ea, Shamash, and Marduk requests: For this statue which stands before you, ceremoniously grant him the destiny that his mouth may eat, that his ears might hear. 50

The icon’s powers of movement are similarly invoked throughout the ritual, as in the final processional from the garden to the temple gate, where the asipu is instructed to take the god’s hand and recite two incantations for the stride of a foot, 51 while together they walk ‘up to the god’s temple’. 52 Enthronement The third principal effect of the mis pî ritual is the enthronement of the purified, vivified icon in its temple. This is the overarching goal and the final stage of the entire ritual. At the temple gate the asipu is instructed to make an offering, take the god’s hand, and enter the temple. Incantations are recited while the icon is then led to the cella and installed on its throne. 53 Once seated, a final mouth washing and series of offerings, purifications, and incantations initiate the iconic deity’s active reign. The conclusion of the mis pî is, thus, an enthronement ceremony, and its emphasis on establishing the security of the deity’s reign is evident in many of the ritual’s incantations: 47. Akk.: in ili suati tepette (BR 53). 48. As noted above, the sensory powers of the icon are to some degree awakened at the point of the icon’s creation, as is attested by the numerous sacrifices, libations, incense censors, and so on, prepared before the icon from the ritual’s outset, as well as by the many incantations that are spoken directly to the icon as though it already hears. 49. NR 164–66, 172; IT 3 C:6–14. 50. IT 3 B:35–37. Translation from the Sumerian is by Walker and Dick (Induction, 149). 51. The directions are in BR 59; the incantations are cited in IT 4 B:20–30. See also IT 6/8, which addresses the purity concerns of Marduk’s walk through the city. 52. Akk.: adi bit ili (BR 60). 53. BR 59–61. The instructions read, “At the temple gate of that god you offer offerings; you take the god’s hand and make it enter, you recite [incantation] (proceeding) up to the sanctuary . . . you install the god in its seat.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 99 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

99

May you be the good protective deity of your temple! In the sanctuary of your temple may you be established! In your place, the abode of rest, take up your dwelling forever! 54 Sit on your throne! . . . Rest in your temple! 55 May the foundation of its throne be stable forever like a mountain! 56

The ultimate objective of the mis pî ritual is, thus, the secure establishment of the deity’s reign, an observation that highlights the political aspects of Mesopotamian cult in general and the mis pî ritual in particular. Understanding the mis pî as an enthronement ritual suggests that it is a ritual of royalty linked to the security of Mesopotamian society’s political structures. 57 Royal aspects of the ritual are evoked when the icon is presented with its dress, crown, and throne in the garden rites (NR 192–94), in preparation for its procession through the city, and upon entering its temple, where the officiant chants, [May you enter] into the temple of your kingship! 58

54. IT 4 A:60b, 61b, 62b (//IT 4 A:10b, 11b). 55. IT 4 B:3b, 5b. 56. IT 5 B:30b; see also IT 4 A:39. 57. Note also the relationship between royal images and divine images, about which Bahrani writes: “Images of kings were given a similar treatment, and such statues were also conceived of, and treated, as living beings. A Mouth Washing Ritual that formed part of the Mouth Opening Ceremony is also known to have been used on royal images. Statues of kings acquired omnipotence and a totemic power. Oaths were taken before images of ruling kings, and offerings were made to them” (Graven Image, 172). See also S. Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm: The Ancient Near Eastern Tradition and Athens” (paper presented at the Culture and Religion of the Ancient Mediterranean Colloquium, Brown University, Providence, RI, May 2005), 4–5, on royal images as recipients of ritual. On rituals of royalty in Mesopotamia, see Berlejung, Theologie, 94–109; Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image”; idem, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King”; A. Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest, and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia,” in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (ed. D. Cannadine and S. Price; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 20–55; B. N. Porter, “Gods’ Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy: Essarhaddon’s Return of Marduk’s Statue to Babylon,” in Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change: Eastern Europe and Latin America (ed. L. Martin; Religion and Society 33; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 9–24; idem, Images, Power, and Politics; Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King’ ”; P. Machinist, “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis; BJS 346; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 152–88. 58. IT 4 B:15b; also recited is the incantation, “My King, for your heart’s content has he built you a temple” (IT 4 B:31b). See also NR 169–70 (// IT 3 C:11–12): “Draw near to the king who knows your voice, approach your temple.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 100 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

100

Chapter 3

The royal aspects of the mis pî resonate through the role played by Marduk in the ritual and are further emphasized by the cultic functions of the Assyrian or Babylonian king. This overtly political aspect of the mis pî lends further support to the political orientations of the Israelite icon parodies. Their oppositional attack on the intended effects of the mis pî would have been a natural response to the concern that Judah’s own king and deity were together dethroned by the kings and gods of Babylon. The mis pî ritual may be seen as the means by which the gods of Mesopotamia and the political structures supporting and supported by their cults were empowered. For the disempowered cultic and royal establishments of ancient Israel, a denigration of the efficacy of the mis pî rites would appear as a correspondingly oppositional effort to reconstitute their own disrupted theopolitical structures. To do so would require an argument directed against each of the primary intended effects of the mis pî: purification, vivification, and enthronement. And it is along precisely these lines that the polemic against Mesopotamian cult images is conducted by Israelite exiles. Faced with the threatening perception that they themselves were living in an impure land (Ps 137:4; Ezekiel) as heirs to a dethroned deity, Israelite exilic authors turned the tables on their victors with a precision attack against the efficacy of the very ritual that empowered their cults and kings. The response was cultically oriented and sociopolitically directed. The mis pî ritual of cult image induction illuminates the degree to which the Israelite authors of the biblical icon parodies understood Mesopotamian cult-image worship practices and the proper way to denigrate them. The Israelites’ concern over the cult images of their Neo-Babylonian captors expressed in their literature of exile indeed participates in standard iconic political practices of ancient West Asia. A sociopolitically oriented interpretation of biblical polemics against Mesopotamian cult images, in this respect, invites inquiry into another Mesopotamian textual corpus that is associated with the mis pî ritual, which depicts the treatment of cult images in warfare.

Iconic Aspects of Mesopotamian Warfare and Historiography The mis pî rite was conducted not only for newly fashioned cult images but also for renewed images that were seized and damaged during warfare. For example, historiographic inscriptions relating Esarhaddon’s renewal and return of Babylonian cult images taken to Assyria by his father, Sennacherib, offer narrative accounts of the entire cult image induction process, from the refurbishing of cult images in the icon workshop to the procession of the im-

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 101 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

101

ages into Babylon and Esagila. 59 These Neo-Assyrian inscriptions attest to the integral connections between the mis pî ritual and the treatment of cult images during warfare in ancient West Asia. The identity between cult image and deity, which was actualized through the mis pî ritual, fueled a range of iconic practices associated with military conquest. Cult images of defeated peoples were often abducted by victorious armies, carried off, and deposited in the sanctuaries of the victors’ gods. In some cases, conquering armies also mutilated or destroyed the cult images of the peoples they vanquished. Both practices—icon abduction and icon destruction—were at times followed by the renewal of the images and their return to their original sanctuaries in formerly vanquished lands. These iconic aspects of ancient West Asian warfare had profound political implications for the victors and the vanquished alike and inspired distinct responses from each. For the victors, control of an enemy’s icons implied control of an enemy’s deities, and the icons of conquered people were considered conquered gods. 60 The capture of an enemy’s icons thus demonstrated the power of a victor’s gods and the power of the social formations supported by and supporting the victor’s cults. 61 Military conquest was, in this respect, ritually actualized through the abduction and deportation of an enemy’s cult images, as well as through their mutilation and destruction. Until damaged and captured icons were restored to their original sanctuaries—either taken back by force or voluntarily repaired and returned by the victors—the captive gods remained defeated, subservient, and powerless, and they symbolized the defeated people that once maintained their cults. For the vanquished, the capture and deportation of their cult images signaled the departure of their gods from their midsts. However, this divine flight was often viewed not as a defeat and forced abduction but instead as a willful departure and exile. According to this interpretation of events, the gods chose to depart from their patron city because their own people drove them away with improper social and ritual acts. In other words, the defeat of the city did not cause the departure of its gods; on the contrary, the city was conquered because its gods abandoned it. If the cult images were then returned, this was seen as a willful return of the gods to the city after its apportioned 59. Texts: Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 2–38; §57, AsBbE rev. 18–24; §60, AsBbH 2–12; for translations, see Walker and Dick, Induction, 25–27. These inscriptions narrate Esarhaddon’s acts of prayer and divination prior to commissioning the gods’ renewal and return; the refurbishing of their images in the icon workshop of Assur; the procession of the images into Babylon; and the performance of mis pî rites on their arrival. 60. See Faur, “Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” 1–15. 61. P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 24.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 102 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

102

Chapter 3

period of divine abandonment and punishment. This view of defeat maintained the perception of the power of abducted gods despite the capture of their cult images. From this perspective, abducted gods wielded power over the victors and their gods, over the conquest of their own people and city, and over the time and manner of their return. An amalgam of both perspectives described above—of the victor and of the vanquished—is attested in cases in which a conqueror also depicts the abduction of an enemy’s cult images as a willful departure of deity. According to this interpretation of events, a captured deity chooses to support the conquest of its own city, to relocate to the lands of the victor, and to align with the victor’s people and pantheon. Thus, the idea that a deity willingly abandons its own people and causes its patron city’s destruction is an ideology of cult image abduction promoted by both victorious and vanquished peoples. For the victors, this perspective keeps all the gods in power and in control over events, although it effects a shift in the abducted deity’s status and theopolitical alignment. It serves to incorporate “foreign” gods of defeated enemies into a conqueror’s own expanding “native” pantheon, just as the associated military victory might incorporate a conquered city into an expanding empire. It also enables the victor, at a later point, to repatriate abducted images back to their home sanctuaries, with the victor and the abducted deity returning together to a conquered city in a ritual projection of political power. Evidence for these iconic manifestations of military conquest is attested throughout the ancient West Asian archaeological and literary record dating back to the third millennium, and a number of studies document and discuss the rich corpus of inscriptions and imagery. 62 I discuss several examples be62. On the abduction, mutilation, repair, and return of cult images in ancient West Asia, see S. W. Holloway, Assur Is King! Assur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2002), esp. 118 (table 2), 123– 44 (table 3), and 277– 83 (table 8); P. D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel (JHNES; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 9–17; J. F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 102 n. 3, 103–23, 157–69; M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 22–41, 119–21 (table 1); Z. Bahrani, Graven Image, 149–84; idem, “Assault and Abduction: The Fate of the Royal Image in the Ancient Near East,” Art History 18 (1995): 363–82; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm”; S. W. Holloway, The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence in Israel and Judah: Inference and Evidence (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1992), 547–57 (table 7); C. Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated Sargon’s Head?” AJA 84 (1980): 329–33; T. Beran, “Leben und Tod der Bilder,” in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum (ed. Mauer and Magen; AOAT 220; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 55– 60. See also McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, 60–66; Spieckermann, Judah und Assur, 344–62; Jacobsen, “Graven Image”; M. Delcor, “Yahweh

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 103 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

103

low to illustrate how the capture, mutilation, repair, and return of cult images during warfare was viewed from each perspective: of the victor and of the vanquished. In chap. 4 I discuss this material in relation to similar iconic and iconoclastic traditions in Israelite literature. The Victors Abduction and Deportation For a victors’ perspective on the abduction of cult images during warfare, Assyrian historiographic inscriptions offer the richest view. Many Middle and Neo-Assyrian inscriptions include variations of the formula “X number of gods were taken from GN and brought to Assyria.” 63 The royal inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I (ca. 1114–1076 b.c.e.) attest to the iconic manifestations of this king’s imperial ambitions: With the exalted power of Assur, my lord . . . I conquered the entire land of Sugu. I brought out twenty-five of their gods. . . . At that time I donated the twenty-five gods of those lands, my own booty which I had taken, to be doorkeepers of the temple of Ninlil, beloved chief spouse of Assur, my lord, (the temple of ) Anu (and) Adad, (the temple of ) the Assyrian Istar, the temples of my city, Assur, and the goddesses of my land. 64

Similarly, On this campaign of mine I marched to the land of Suhu. I conquered . . . all the cities of the land of Suhu. I took prisoners from them, carried off their numerous gods and their property, (and) brought (them) to my city Assur. 65

These Middle Assyrian royal inscriptions also depict opponents of Tiglathpileser I carrying their own icons away with them in flight:

et Dagon ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d’après 1 Sam. V,” VT 14 (1964): 138–41; Faur, “Biblical Idea of Idolatry,” 8–9; J. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 35. For representations of cult image deportations in Assyrian palace reliefs, see A. H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh (2 vols.; London: Murray, 1849–53), 2: pl. 65; idem, Nineveh and Its Remains (2 vols.; London: Murray, 1849), 2:451; adapted in Holloway, Assur Is King! fig. 5; Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary,” 123–28. 63. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 23. See the examples of cult-image abduction and deportation collected and discussed in ibid., 22–41; Holloway, Assur Is King! 123–44 (table 3); Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 102–23, 157–69; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 9–17. 64. A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc, vol. 1: 1114–859 bc (RIMA 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991; henceforth, RIMA 2), A.0.87.1: iv 7, 22–23, 32–39. 65. Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.87.4:41–43; cf. ibid., A.0.87.10:41–44.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 104 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

104

Chapter 3

With regard to the city of Urra†inas . . . the terror, fear, (and) splendor of Assur, my lord, overwhelmed them. To save their lives they took their gods (and) possessions and flew like birds to ledges on high mountains. 66

Neo-Assyrian annals depict a similar event during the campaigns of Sennacherib (704–681 b.c.e.) in Babylonia in 700 b.c.e.: . . . Merodach-baladan . . . removed the gods of the entire country from their shrines, and loaded them upon ships, and made off like a bird. . . . His brothers of royal lineage, whom he had left on the seashore, together with the rest of the people of his country, I brought out and counted as spoil. 67

Sennacherib’s annals here depict a retreating ruler seeking above all to keep his gods present in his midst and to prevent their capture by the pursuing Assyrian army. The cult images were taken away for protection, while members of the royal household were left behind with others on the seashore to be captured by Sennacherib. The security of the embodied deity was what mattered most. These Middle and Neo-Assyrian inscriptions suggest that the motivation for capturing divine images was not merely economic; they were not taken simply because of the value of the precious metals with which the statues were overlaid. 68 The abduction and deportation of cult images was a ritual projection of political power—power of conquering people and their gods over conquered people and their gods. Mutilation and Destruction Evidence for the mutilation and destruction of cult images during warfare in ancient West Asia dates back to the third millennium b.c.e. 69 Attacks 66. Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.87.1:ii 36–41. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 30; the stronghold of Urra†inas seems to have joined in a wider rebellion in Katmuhu and withheld tribute to Assyria. See Grayson, RIMA 2, A.0.87.1:i 62–ii 62. 67. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 30–32 with nn. 55–59; D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924; henceforth, OIP 2), 35:59–65. On Merodach-baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina II) and his conflicts with Sargon II and Sennacherib, see G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 bc) (RIMB 2; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995; henceforth RIMB 2), 135–42; J. A. Brinkman, “Merodach-Baladan II,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 6–53. 68. The statues were often stripped of their gold and silver overlays but otherwise left intact, taken to the conqueror’s homeland, and placed within the temples of the “conquering gods.” On return and restoration they would then have to be readorned with accompanying mis pî rites. On the refurbishment of cult images, see Esarhaddon’s renewal of Babylonian icons (Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53). 69. Perhaps the earliest attestation of cult image mutilation and destruction during warfare is found in the military record of Lugal-zagesi (ca. 2340), which describes how the

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 105 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

105

on royal and divine statuary are richly attested in the literary and archaeological record for the Elamite conquest of Babylonia (by Shutruk-Nahunte in 1158 b.c.e.); the Neo-Assyrian conquests of Mußaßir (by Sargon II in 714 b.c.e.), Babylon (by Sennacherib in 689 b.c.e.), and Susa (by Assurbanipal in 646 b.c.e.); and the conquest of Nineveh (by Babylon and Media in 612 b.c.e.). 70 During his raid on Babylonia in 1158 b.c.e., the Elamite king ShutrukNahunte abducted, damaged, and altered the statuary of his enemies to an extent beyond anything attested in previous eras. Numerous monuments and statues of Akkadian and Babylonian rulers have been excavated from Susa, all of which seem to have been carried there by Elamite forces. 71 Almost all of these objects appear to have been selectively damaged and then reinscribed by Shutruk-Nahunte. 72 goddess Amagestin was robbed of her precious metals and stones and thrown into a well (Walker and Dick, Induction, 5; Knippschild “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” n. 30; Bahrani, Graven Image, 174). 70. It was also practiced by both Persians and Greeks during their military conflicts in the early 5th century b.c.e. On the mutilation and destruction of cultic and royal statuary from the late second millennium through the Persian period, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 149–84; idem, “Assault and Abduction,” 365–72; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm.” See also Holloway, Assur Is King! 116–22; Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh”; Beran, “Leben und Tod.” Assyria destroyed the three great cult centers of its time in ancient West Asia within a span of 68 years (Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 12). 71. The monuments and statuary abducted and mutilated by Shutruk-Nahunte are royal, not divine. But the assault on this royal statuary is similar to the treatment of divine statuary during warfare. This observation is highly suggestive with respect to the political, iconic correlations between kingship and deity in ancient West Asia. On royal images, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 138–45, 172–74; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 4–5; Machinist, “Kingship and Divinity”; Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King.’ ” As I argue throughout this study, the abduction and destruction of cult images was a political act. 72. Bahrani, Graven Image, 156–65, 177; idem, “Assault and Abduction,” 368–72; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm.” The most famous of the abducted and damaged monuments found at Susa is the Victory Stele of Naramsin, on which, see Bahrani, “Assault and Abduction,” 370 and pl. 22; idem, Graven Image, 156 and fig. 18; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 2–4. Bahrani writes, “Practically every Mesopotamian royal monument excavated at Susa had its inscription erased, to be replaced by Shutruk-Nahunte’s own inscription, and had been damaged” (Graven Image, 162). Among the royal statuary found at Susa, the head of an unknown Babylonian ruler is missing its nose, left eye, upper lip, and the tips of its beard (Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” n. 7; see also Bahrani, Graven Image, 156–61 and figs. 14–17). Note also the similarly mutilated bronze head of an Akkadian ruler found at Nineveh, on which, see Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh”; Bahrani, Graven Image, 162–65 and fig. 19; idem, “Assault and Abduction,” 371. Bahrani and Knippschild both argue that the damage to the objects excavated from Susa was purposeful and political; this is a reasonable argument, supported by a wealth of comparative evidence

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 106 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

106

Chapter 3

These iconoclastic warfare practices appear to have become more common in the Neo-Assyrian period. Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Assurbanipal all seem to have promoted not only the abduction but also the mutilation and destruction of royal and divine statuary. They also promoted the destruction of the cult centers and cities to which this statuary belonged. A relief from the palace of Sargon II, for example, depicts Assyrian soldiers hacking limbs from an anthropomorphic statue during the siege of the Haldi Temple at Mußaßir. 73 It was, however, Sennacherib’s sack of Babylon in 689 b.c.e. and the abduction and possible destruction of Marduk’s cult image that left the most indelible impression on Babylonian and Assyrian historical memory. 74 Sennacherib’s conquest of Babylon is represented in Neo-Assyrian historiographic traditions as a total assault on the city, its people, and its cults. The annals of Sennacherib make special mention of what the king’s soldiers did to Babylon’s cult images: The gods who dwell therein—the hands of my people seized them and smashed (them). 75

This destruction of cult images by Neo-Assyrian soldiers is represented in Sennacherib’s annals as only one aspect of a broader campaign against the city and gods of Babylon. Sennacherib is said to have razed Babylon to its foundations, flooded it, abducted and destroyed its cult images, and dumped on longstanding, widespread ancient West Asian iconoclastic practices. On the implications of erasing and rewriting monumental inscriptions, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 97– 119, 156–84. 73. Holloway, Assur Is King! 116–20, esp. 119 n. 148; P.-E. Botta and E. Flandin, Monument de Ninive, découvert et décrit par M. P. É. Botta (5 vols.; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849–50), 2: pl. 140 (Room XII, 3) (adapted in Holloway, Assur Is King! fig. 4); Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 10. The image depicted in the Assyrian relief is possibly an Urartian emperor (Holloway, Assur Is King! fig. 4). 74. Luckenbill, OIP 2, 83–84:43–56. It is unclear whether the supreme cult image of Marduk installed at Esagila was carried off to Assyria or destroyed in Babylon during Sennacherib’s siege. The sources are ambiguous. The Bavian Inscription refers to the destruction of Babylon’s cult images (ibid., 83:48; cf. 137:36–37), whereas later Neo-Assyrian inscriptions suggest that Marduk’s image was carried off to Assur, where it remained for 21 years (A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000; henceforth, ABC ], Chronicle 14 [“Esarhaddon Chronicle”], 31–37; Chronicle 16 [“Akitu Chronicle”], 1–8; see M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s, vol. 2: Texte [VAB 7/2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916; henceforth, VAB 7/2], 242:24–26). See Holloway, Assur Is King! 121–22, 139 n. 202; Walker and Dick, Induction, 24 n. 73; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 14; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” n. 39; Berlejung, Theologie, 158–62; S. W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998), xii, 162–63. 75. Luckenbill, OIP 2, 83:48; 137:36–37; Holloway, Assur Is King! 118 n. 143.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 107 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

107

its temples and gods into the city’s canals. 76 The annals describe Babylon’s destruction in mythic terms, as an effort to reduce the city and its gods to a state of nonbeing, as if they had never existed: I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come, the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered. 77

This description of how Babylon was razed to its very foundations and flooded suggests a “cosmogonic reversal” in which Babylon is returned to an antediluvian, uninhabited state. 78 In this way, Sennacherib’s annals manipulate ancient West Asian cosmogonic myth to describe an attack on the very existence of the city, its cults, and its iconically embodied deities. This is not entirely dissimilar from the way Israelite icon parodies manipulate ancient West Asian cosmogonic myth in their attack on the existence of Babylonian iconic deity. 79 Accounts of the conquest of Susa by Sennacherib’s grandson Assurbanipal in 646 b.c.e. offer additional Neo-Assyrian descriptions of the destruction and deportation of cultic statuary. 80 Royal inscriptions depicting Assurbanipal’s Elamite campaigns include the following statements by the Assyrian king: I smashed their gods, and soothed the heart of the lord of lords. 81 76. As part of the siege, Sennacherib had canals dug through the city and then flooded them. Luckenbill, OIP 2, 84:51–52. 77. Luckenbill, OIP 2, 84:53–54. Despite Sennacherib’s efforts to wipe away all memory of the city and its gods, Babylon’s destruction and Marduk’s abduction were remembered keenly in the records of both Assyria and Babylonia. I discuss Assyrian and Babylonian responses to this event below. 78. Holloway, Assur Is King! 122. 79. See Jer 10:1–16; Isaiah 40–48; and note the reverse order of icon construction in Isa 44:14. The two traditions are, of course, not entirely similar. For example, the NeoAssyrian attack on Babylon preserved a special role for Marduk in Assyria, whose cult image would now dwell in Assur. Yet this too served to ritually project Assyrian dominance over Babylon, as I discuss below with respect to Esarhaddon’s renewal and return of images to Babylon. On the cult of Marduk in Assyria, see Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 14, 95 n. 130. 80. R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996; henceforth BIWA), A v 126–vi 75, F iv 67–v 54 (A §57, F §32). See Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 9–11. 81. ‘I smashed their gods’: usabbir ilanisun. Borger, BIWA, A v 119–120, F iv 61–62 (A §56, F §31); T v 1–2 (T §14); Streck, VAB 7/2, 50:119–20. See Luckenbill, OIP 2, 137:36–37, 138:44–45. Holloway, Assur Is King! 118 n. 144; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 93 n. 81.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 108 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

108

Chapter 3

I wiped the sanctuaries of Elam out of existence; I counted their gods and goddesses as phantoms. 82

These inscriptions depict an attempt by Assurbanipal to do to Elamite cult what Sennacherib claims to have done to the ritual landscape of Babylon: destroy it so completely that it would be as though it had never existed; to “uncreate” it; to wipe out its ritual foundations so completely that its mythic foundations might also disappear. Assurbanipal claims to have turned the sanctuaries of Elam into things that no longer exist (adi la basê ); similarly, he claims to have turned the gods and goddesses of Elam into zaqiqu (“phantoms,” “ghosts,” “nothingness,” “foolishness”). 83 By destroying their sanctuaries and smashing their cult images, Assurbanipal denies the cults and gods of Elam not simply their power but their very existence. Assurbanipal is here depicted as placing the gods of his enemies into the realm of mortals, claiming that they are like ghosts of dead humans. 84 Assurbanipal thus turns the Elamite gods into something quite similar to what Babylonian cult images become in Israelite icon parodies: they are vacuous, without substance, and there is no life in them; they are not gods. 85 Elamite cult, with its nonexistent sanctuaries and dead gods, thus becomes what Babylonian iconic cult is in Israelite icon parodies: nothingness, emptiness, and powerless, unhelpful foolishness. Assurbanipal’s iconic, theopolitical attack against Elam extended also to royal statuary. Neo-Assyrian inscriptions depict Assurbanipal ordering the deportation of 32 royal images from Elam and the mutilation of one king’s image in particular: (The statue) of Hallusu, king of Elam, the one who had plotted evil (against) Assyria, and had engaged in hostilities (against) Sennacherib, king of Assyria, my grandfather—his mouth which had slandered, I cut out; his lips which

82. ‘I counted their gods and goddesses as phantoms’: ilanisu istaratisu amnâ ana zaqiqi. Borger, BIWA, A vi 62–64, F v 42–43 (A §57, F §32); Streck, VAB 7/2, 54:62–64. Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 9–10; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 93 n. 80. 83. On the semantic range of zaqiqu, see CAD s.v.; AHw s.v.; also see Streck, VAB 7/2, 55 n. 7. 84. Cf. the description of Babylonian cult images as being “without breath” in Jer 10:14–15; Hab 2:18; Ps 135:17. 85. In reference to these two statements from Assurbanipal’s inscriptions, Miller and Roberts write: “Occasionally the disparagement of the enemy’s gods may even reach the point of effectively denying their divinity, which may be expressed by smashing their images” (Hand of the Lord, 11). Miller and Roberts add that Assurbanipal makes this effective denial of divinity “quite explicit” when he counts the captured Elamite gods as zaqiqu (ibid., 93 n. 80).

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 109 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

109

had uttered insolence, I cut away; his hands, which had seized the bow to battle against Assyria, I chopped off. 86

Assurbanipal’s mutilation of the statue of Hallusu recalls similar acts inflicted on cult images, royal images, and living persons that are attested in many ancient West Asian archaeological and literary sources. 87 These acts often involved the removal of body parts including heads, hands, eyes, and mouths. In the ancient West Asian iconoclastic arsenal, mutilation was a very explicit assault on the embodied power of an enemy, and this practice is well represented in Israelite literature. 88 Repair and Return A less explicit yet potentially more effective projection of a victor’s power involved not the mutilation and abduction of an enemy’s icons but their repair and return. Victors often exercised power in ancient West Asia by voluntarily repairing and returning cult images that had been damaged and captured from their enemies. A number of Neo-Assyrian inscriptions attest to this form of “iconic diplomacy,” including several accounts of Esarhaddon’s 86. Borger, “Exkurs: Der Texte K 3062 + 82-3-23, 20,” BIWA, rev. 1:12–19; Streck, VAB 7/2, 214:6–13. Bahrani, Graven Image, 171; idem, “Abduction and Assault,” 375. Hallusu (699–693 b.c.e.), long since dead, had campaigned against Assyria, deported one of Sennacherib’s sons to Elam, sacked Sippar, and installed a pro-Elamite ruler in Babylon who looted Nippur (Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 10 with nn. 48–53). See Luckenbill, OIP 2, 159: 38–40; Streck, VAB 7/2, 214 n. 12; M. Waters, A Survey of Neo-Elamite History (SAAS 12; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000), 24–30. 87. Bahrani, Graven Image, 149–84; idem, “Assault and Abduction,” 365–72; see Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm”; Holloway, Assur Is King! 116–22 and fig. 4; Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh”; Beran, “Leben und Tod.” Note also statuary excavated from destruction layers of Hazor missing heads and hands (A. Ben-Tor, “Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?” BAR 25/3 [1999]: 22–39; idem, “The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever [ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 3–16; Y. Yadin, Hazor III–IV [ed. A. Ben-Tor and S. Geva; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989]); and the human skeletal remains unearthed from the destruction layer at Avaris missing heads, hands, and feet (M. Bietak, Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabºa [London: British Museum, 1996]). Compare the Behistun inscription, which recounts how Darius I (522–486 b.c.e.) mutilated two challengers to his throne by cutting off their noses, ears, and tongues and gouging one eye out of each (Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 17 and nn. 94, 98; P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002], 120–27). 88. I return to these iconoclastic aspects of Mesopotamian warfare in my discussion of the Ark Narrative in chap. 4.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 110 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

110

Chapter 3

repair and return of cult images taken to Assyria by his father Sennacherib. 89 These accounts depict Esarhaddon’s repair and return of damaged and abducted cult images as a central aspect of his imperial policy and as a manifestation of Assyrian power. 90 In the following inscription, Assyrian political power is ritually magnified through Esarhaddon’s repair and return of images captured by Sennacherib during his campaigns in the west. Esarhaddon makes Assyrian power clear when he inscribes “the might of Assur” and his own name on the statues he returns to Hazael: 91 (From) Adumutu, the stronghold of the Arabs that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, my own father, had conquered—(and from which) he had carried off its possessions, its property, and its gods, together with Iskallatu, the queen of the Arabs, and brought (them) to Assyria—Hazael, king of the Arabs, came with precious gifts to Nineveh, my royal city. He kissed my feet and implored me to return his gods. I had mercy upon him, and I refurbished . . . the gods of the Arabs. I inscribed the might of Assur my lord and my name upon them, and returned (them) to him. 92

Sennacherib’s conquest of Babylon provided his son Esarhaddon with an even greater opportunity to practice this form of iconic diplomacy. When Esarhaddon undertook the repair and return of Babylonian cult images taken by his father Sennacherib, he did so as a demonstration of power, not of weakness or magnanimity. 93 As S. Knippschild notes, Babylon was politically 89. See the catalogs compiled in Holloway, Assur Is King! 277–83 (table 8); Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 157–69 (appendix). See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 11–16. 90. See Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §27 ep. 3 Nin. A II 12–26; §11 ep. 36 5–8; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 38–39. Cogan describes Esarhaddon’s ritual restoration policies as an effort to “reconcile and consolidate” his empire and to “erase the effects of the repressive rule of Sennacherib” (ibid., 38). 91. On this inscription, see Holloway, Assur Is King! 279 n.182, 140 and n. 203. On reinscribing monuments and statuary, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 97–119, 156–84. 92. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §27 ep. 14 Nin. A IV 1–14; R. C. Thompson, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and of Ashurbanipal Found at Nineveh, 1927–28 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1931), 20; Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, 16–19, 35; Holloway, Assur Is King! 279 n. 182, 140 n. 203; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 164; see Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §§53, 57, 60; idem, “Exkurs: Der Text K 3087 // K 3405 // Rm 2.558,” BIWA, 70:9–11. 93. Texts: Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 2–38; §57, AsBbE rev. 18–24; §60, AsBbH 2–12; Walker and Dick, Induction, 25–27. While these texts claim it was Esarhaddon who returned the gods to Babylon, the “Esarhaddon Chronicle” (Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 14: 34–37) indicates that it was his son, Assurbanipal, who did. As Porter notes, it seems that it was actually Sennacherib himself who began the process of the return, which was delayed by political difficulties (Images, Power, and Politics, 147–48; Walker and

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 111 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

111

and ritually crippled during Marduk’s 20-year sojourn in Assyria and was dependent on Assyrian support for Marduk’s return to Esagila. 94 Neo-Assyrian descriptions of Esarhaddon’s renewal and return of Babylonian gods promote the power of Assur, Esarhaddon, and Assyria through the restoration of Marduk, Esagila, and Babylon. In these inscriptions, Esarhaddon prays to Assur and Marduk together for the successful restoration of the cult images of Babylon. 95 Esarhaddon determines through divination that he will renew the Babylonian gods “in the bit mummi of Assur, the capital city, the dwelling place of Assur, father of the gods.” 96 In other words, the refashioning of the Babylonian icons is done in the icon workshops of Assur, by Assyrian artisans. 97 Esarhaddon himself then leads Marduk and the other Babylonian images in a ritual procession back to Babylon and into the Esagila complex, where they are vivified and reinstalled through mis pî rites: (The gods) traveled the road to Babylon, a festive way. From Assur to the quay at Babylon, every third of a double-mile piles of brushwood were lit, at every double-mile fat bulls were slaughtered. And I, Esarhaddon, led the great god in procession; I processed with joy before him. I brought them joyfully into the heart of Babylon, the city of their honor. 98

Assyria, the destroyer of Babylon, is thus presented as the favored nation of Marduk that restores ritual life to Esagila and political life to Babylon. By returning and reinstalling Marduk’s iconically embodied presence to Esagila, Esarhaddon ritually projects Assyrian power into the heart of Babylon, achieving dominance over the city’s restoration and social formation to a degree unobtainable by force alone. 99 Dick, Induction, 24 n. 76). On Esarhaddon’s return of Babylonian gods as an exercise of power, see Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 8. 94. Ibid. 95. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 13. 96. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §53, AsBbA rev. 23–24. Walker and Dick, Induction, 26; regarding divinations associated with mis pî rites, see ibid., 25 n. 79. Cf. Jer 10:2 (“Do not be dismayed by the signs of the heavens”). 97. Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 8. 98. Mis pî rites then ensue on arrival. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §57, AsBbE rev. 18–24; §60, AsBbH 2–12; Walker and Dick, Induction, 25–27. 99. Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 8. Sennacherib, so well known for destroying and abducting images during his sack of Babylon, at the same time practiced this form of icon-return diplomacy, as his annals recount: “Adad and Shala, the gods of Ekallate, whom Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Babylon, in the reign of Tiglath-pilesar, had seized and carried off to Babylon, after four hundred and eighteen years I brought them out of Babylon and returned them to their place in Ekallate” (Luckenbill, OIP 2, 83:49–50). Compare Cyrus’s return of the gods that Nabonidus had collected in Babylon (on which, see my discussion of the Cyrus Cylinder below).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 112 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

112

Chapter 3

For the victors, each variation of the iconic warfare practices described above promoted a common effect: the projection of power over vanquished peoples through the manipulation of their cult images. From the perspective of the vanquished, however, these practices and events were often viewed quite differently. As noted above, a defeated people frequently interpreted the capture of their cult images as a willful exile of their deities, in a way that preserved the supremacy of their gods even as they were carried off and placed in foreign temples. This interpretation of cultic and political loss is richly attested in the literature of defeated Babylon and of defeated Israel. The Vanquished The journey of a god away from a city is attested as a trope of defeat in city-lament literature from as early as the third millennium b.c.e. 100 Accounts from vanquished nations that represent the capture and return of their cult images are attested in texts from the second and first millennia. 101 Rich examples of this tradition involve the travels of Marduk’s cult image to and from Babylon. I present several examples below that offer a Babylonian perspective on the abduction of Marduk’s cult image to Elam by Kudur-Nahunte and its return during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 b.c.e.). 102 In each text, Marduk maintains complete control over these events.

100. See, for example, “The Cursing of Akkadê” and “The Lament for Ur” (T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987], 359–74, 447–74). S. Richardson, oral communication. 101. See Kutsko’s catalog in Between Heaven and Earth, 157–69; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 11–16; Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 16–17. The earliest example of the genre (if it is genuine) is a first-person account by the mid-second millennium Kassite king Agum Kakrime, which depicts the return of Marduk’s cult image to Babylon after its abduction by the Hittites in the mid-16th century b.c.e. The text recounts how Marduk, after a divine decree to return to Babylon, “set his face toward Babylon,” and how Agum Kakrime then oversaw Marduk’s return and reinstallation to Esagila. The account includes initial divinations in support of the return and details the image’s refurbishing by craftsmen. See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 11 and Appendix Text 1; B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 360–64; Bahrani, Graven Image, 177. This text offers fruitful comparisons with the Neo-Assyrian depictions of Esarhaddon’s renewal of Babylonian gods, discussed above, and the Babylonian “Marduk Prophecy,” discussed below. 102. Marduk’s cult image was abducted to Elam during the sack of Babylon in the mid-12th century b.c.e. by Kudur-Nahunte (son of Shutruk-Nahunte). See J. J. M. Roberts, “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective,” in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (ed. M. de Jong Ellis; Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19; Hamden, CT: Archon, 1977), 183–87; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 11–14; Bahrani, Graven Image, 177.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 113 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

113

The Travels of Marduk The “Marduk Prophecy” offers a first-person account of Marduk’s journeys to and from Babylon prior to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I. 103 In this text, Marduk recalls his previous sojourns among the Hittites and in Assur and asserts that these trips, like his more recent departure to Elam, were in no way abductions against his will: I am Marduk, great lord, lord of destinies and decisions am I! Who (but me) made this journey? I have returned from whence I have gone, it was I who ordered it. I went to the land of Elam, and that all the gods went—it was I who ordered it. I cut off the offerings to the temples. 104

Marduk then resolves to return to Babylon and predicts, A king of Babylon will arise, he will renew the marvelous temple, the Ekursagila. He will create the plans of heaven and earth in Ekursagila. . . . He will lead me in a procession to my city Babylon and bring [me] into eternal Ekursagila. . . . He will provide for the city and gather in the scattered ones. . . . He will make the sanctuaries shine like gems. He will bring back all their gods. 105

As this text continues, Marduk describes how bounty, justice, and order will return to Babylon, as the gods are reconciled with the king. The text concludes with a prediction that this king will “smash” the cities of Elam. 106 In a related text, the ascent of Nebuchadnezzar I similarly augurs a reversal of fortunes in the ongoing conflict between Babylon and Elam, in conjunction with a return of Marduk’s cult image to Babylon. 107 In this text, the 103. Text: R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Sulgi als Propheten, Zwei prophetische Texte,” BO 28 (1971): 3–24; trans. Foster, Before the Muses, 388–91. See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 11–13; W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 188–89. Cf. “Shulgi Prophecy” in Borger, “Gott Marduk,” 14–15; Foster, Before the Muses, 357–59. 104. Borger, “Gott Marduk,” 7: 18–24; Foster, Before the Muses, 389, i 18; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 12–13, 93 nn. 98–99. Of the earlier abduction of Marduk’s image by a Hittite king in 1594 b.c.e., Marduk states in this same text: “I gave the command that I go to Hatti, I put Hatti to the test, there I set up the throne of my supreme godhead (Anutiya). For twenty-four years I dwelt there. I made it possible for Babylonians to send (commercial) expeditions there, and they marketed(?) its [ ] goods and properties [in] Sippar, Nippur, [and Babylo]n.” Borger, “Gott Marduk,” 5: 13–19; Foster, Before the Muses, 388, i 13; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 12. The abduction of Marduk’s cult image here becomes, as Miller and Roberts write, “a self-motivated business trip utilized by Marduk to establish trade connections between Babylon and Hatti” (ibid., 12). 105. Foster, Before the Muses, 389, iii 9; 390, Assur iv 5. This king is Nebuchadnezzar I. 106. Ibid., iii 21. 107. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 13, and Appendix Text 2; Foster, Before the Muses, 385.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 114 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

114

Chapter 3

king’s entreaty to his deity has a felicitous effect for both parties: Nebuchadnezzar will take Marduk from Elam, and Marduk will give Elam to Nebuchadnezzar: In Babylon dwells Nebuchadnezzar, [the king]. He roars like a lion, thun[ders] like Adad. Like a lion, he frigh[tens] his distinguished nobles. [His] supplications go to Marduk, lord of Babylon: “Have pity on me, one who is dejected and pros[trate], “Have pity on my land, which weeps and mourns! “Have pity on my people, who wail and weep! “O lord of Babylon, how long will you dwell in the land of the enemy? “May beautiful Babylon pass through your heart! “Turn your face back to Esagila, which you love!” The lord of Babylon listened to Nebuchadnezzar[’s supplications] and [his command] comes down to him from heaven: “[. . . b]y (my own) mouth I spoke to you. “[Instructions (promising)] good fortune, I have sent to you. “[With] my [support] you are to attack the land of Amurru. “[. . . ] heed your instructions! “[. . . ] take me (from E)lam to Babylon! “Let me, [. . . the lord of Ba]bylon, give Elam to you!” 108

A third text concerning the same late-12th-century conflict between Babylonia and Elam describes how Marduk willfully chose to abandon and then return to Babylon. 109 This text was likely composed after Nebuchadnezzar I’s retaliatory conquest of Elam, and it explains the earlier Babylonian defeat in a way that maintains the power of Marduk over the defeat. The text claims that Marduk ordered the departure of the gods from Babylon because of the errors of its people and that he oversaw the resulting Elamite conquest of Babylon and the assault on its cults: At that time, in the reign of a previous king, the portents changed. Good departed and evil was constant. The lord became angry and (full of ) wrath. He commanded and the land was abandoned by its gods. The thinking of its 108. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5 1–19. 109. The text consists of two separate tablets dealing with the same historical event. The first tablet (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8) recounts the carrying away of Babylon’s gods to Elam; the second (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.9) recounts their return. The connection between the two tablets was suggested by W. G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38, and has been confirmed (Frame, RIMB 2, 24). See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 13, and Appendix Text 3; Foster, Before the Muses, 376–80; Jacobsen, “Graven Image,” 17.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 115 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

115

people changed; they were incited to treachery. The guardians of peace became angry and went up to the dome of heaven, the protective spirit of justice stood aside. The god . . . , who guards living creatures, abandoned the people; they all became like those who have no god. Evil demons filled the land; merciless plague-demons entered the cult centers. The land diminished, its thinking changed. The wicked Elamite, who did not hold precious [the gods(?)], [. . .] whose battle (and) attack were swift, Laid waste the settlements, (and) turned (the land) into a desert. He carried off the gods (and) turned the sanctuaries into ruins. Marduk, king of the gods, who determines the destinies [. . .] the lands, observed everything. 110

Following this period of divine absence and civic destruction, Marduk eventually responded to the prayers and laments of Babylon’s king: Upon my piteous entreaties, my ardent prayers, my supplication(s), and my expression(s) of humility by which I daily besought him (and) prayed to him, in his generous heart he had pity, and turned back to the holy city. Having made up his mind, when he went out from the wickedness in Elam, going by (way of ) city (and) steppe, he took a road of jubilation, a path of rejoicing, a route (indicating his) attention (to) and acceptance (of my prayers), to Babylon. The people of the land regarded his lofty, fitting, majestic, bright (and) joyful appearance, all of them paying heed to him. The lord entered and took up his peaceful abode. The “Gate of Radiance,” his lordly cella, became bright, filled with rejoicing. 111

Having overseen the abduction of the Babylonian gods to Elam, including his own cult image, Marduk determined the time of his own triumphal return. These texts thus affirmed the power and status of the god of Babylon in times of defeat as well as triumph. Furthermore, they legitimated the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I as the chosen of Marduk, whose kingship signaled the end of Marduk’s exile and the end of civic chaos during the rule of former kings. 110. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8 15–25. 111. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.9 9–20. “Gate of Radiance” (Kasulim) is the gate of Marduk’s cella in Esagila (A. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts [OLA 40; Leuven: Peeters, 1992], 390, 402–3; idem, House Most High, 107). The text continues with an account of the sacrifices that accompanied the return of Marduk’s image. As Jacobsen notes, “Very clearly, ‘Marduk’ is here the statue returning from Elam” (“Graven Image,” 17). See also the fragmentary inscription found at Babylon describing an Elamite campaign that concludes, “[I grasped] the hand of the great lord, [the god Marduk, and] caused him to take the road towards his [own] country” (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.7 26).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 116 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

116

Chapter 3

As divine image and king entered the city together in a triumphal procession, the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar I was ritually linked to the return of divine presence in Babylon. A later example of this historiographic tradition, written in the same era as were the Israelite icon parodies, is attested in a monumental inscription that reports on the first regnal year of Nabonidus (555–539 b.c.e.). 112 The first two columns of this inscription recount Sennacherib’s desecration of Babylon in 689 b.c.e., his abduction of Marduk’s cult image to Assur, and the causes and effects of these events. The text states that Sennacherib had acted in accord with Marduk’s anger, which burned for 21 years while Marduk’s cult image remained in Assur. At an “appointed time,” however, Marduk’s anger at Babylon relented, and he chose to return to Esagila. Although Sennacherib had acted “according to the wrath of the gods,” the text recounts how Marduk punished Assyria and her king for the desecration of Babylon. He caused Sennacherib to be murdered by his own son and Assyria to be conquered by Babylon and also by the Medes, who unleashed a total assault on the cult centers of Assyria. 113 The differences between this late Babylonian account of Marduk’s return from Assur to Esagila and the Neo-Assyrian accounts of the same event are striking. 114 In both historiographic traditions, Marduk acts according to his will. However, the Assyrian accounts of Esarhaddon’s renewal and return of Babylonian images emphasize the harmony between Marduk and Esarhaddon, under the umbrella of Neo-Assyrian power. In the Babylonian account, on the other hand, Marduk punishes Sennacherib for his desecration of Babylon. Thus, the Assyrian account of Marduk’s return from Assur projects 112. S. Langdon, Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (trans. R. Zehnpfund; VAB 4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912], 270ff.: Nabonid 8; ANET , 309–11; P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 b.c. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 20–22, 104–5; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 15; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 168; P. R. Berger, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausegehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a. Chr.) (AOAT 4/1; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 384–86; H. Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabonaid: Historical Arrangement,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger (Oriental Institute Assyriological Studies 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1965), 351–64. 113. Ibid. The inscription distances the Babylonian king Nabopolassar (and Nabonidus, but not Marduk) from the desecration of Assyrian cult sites. On the iconoclastic aspects of the sack of Nineveh (612 b.c.e.), see Bahrani, “Assault and Abduction.” According to the “Esarhaddon” and “Akitu” Chronicles discussed below, Marduk’s cult image remained in Assur for 20 years, 8 years under Sennacherib and 12 years under Esarhaddon (Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 105). 114. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §§53, 57, 60; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 15.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 117 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

117

Assyrian power into Babylon, whereas the Babylonian account projects the power of Marduk over Assyria, her kings, and all events. The abductions of Marduk’s cult image, by Kudur-Nahunte toward the end of the second millennium and by Sennacherib half a millennium later, were political and ritual catastrophes for Babylon. In each case, however, political tides eventually turned, Babylon ascended again, and Babylonian historiographic traditions turned memories of former military defeats and cult image abductions upside down. The differences between accounts of cult image abduction written by the victors, on the one hand, and by the vanquished, on the other, reveal the underlying sociopolitical concerns propelling this iconic discourse. When a nation was defeated and its cult images either destroyed or carried away (or both), the victors could and did construct an interpretation of events that nullified or co-opted the gods of their enemies. For the victors, the power of their gods (and thus their king, their land, and their people) was all-encompassing, destroying or incorporating the iconic embodiments of sociopolitical power in conquered cities. The defeated, however, were in a different position. It was left to them to interpret events in a way that somehow maintained the power of their deities, despite the obvious fact that their cult images were lost. Babylonian reflections on Marduk’s travels to Elam suggest exactly this: Babylon was defeated, Marduk’s statue was abducted, and this was the will of Marduk. Between the lines of these compositions lies an effort to assuage a defeated people’s doubts about the once and future presence and power of cult and kingship in Babylon. 115 When the tides of war turned and the deity was returned from exile, this “ideology of the defeated” was more confidently affirmed, with the certainty of hindsight. Babylonian accounts of Marduk’s triumphal return to Babylon, written after the victories of Nebuchadnezzar I, depict god and king entering the city together in a ritual procession. Through this ritual of return, the former status and power of deity and kingship in Babylon was reestablished and secured. In a similar way, centuries later, Nabonidus represented the travels of Marduk to and from Assyria also as exercises of Marduk’s power, despite Babylon’s political and ritual losses to Sennacherib. This is the perspective of vanquished peoples in the course of their restoration: they represent each previous defeat as another exercise of the power of their own gods, which were never defeated and always in control. 116 Like their parallels in 115. See, for example, the “Marduk Prophecy” (Borger, “Gott Marduk,” 7:18–24) and the prayer of Nebuchadnezzar I for Marduk’s return to Babylon (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5 1–19). Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 17. 116. On the motif of divine abandonment and willful exile, see Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 104–9, with references in 104 n. 7.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 118 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

118

Chapter 3

Second Isaiah, these visions of return reflect the renewed hopes and fortunes of a formerly defeated people, and they assuage doubts about the continued power and presence of their deity as a result of their defeat. 117 The Mesopotamian impulse to reassess memories of defeat through discourse about cult images and to turn these defeats into exercises of power speaks volumes about the Israelite literary response to their defeat and exile in Babylonia. The corpus of ancient West Asian literature on icon abduction, mutilation, repair, and return illuminates the degree to which Israelite authors, through their polemical representations of cult images, participated in the iconic political traditions of their wider environment. The clearest example of this in the Hebrew Bible is the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel 4–6. 118 The cult image parodies of exilic prophecy are products of similar politicalhistorical circumstances. With their alternating thematic structure of attack against the power of an enemy’s icons and hymnic praise of the power of Yahweh, they may be viewed as further developments of these same ancient West Asian traditions. 119 The Enthronement of the Supreme Deity The two corpora of Mesopotamian texts reviewed above—the mis pî ritual texts and the historiographic inscriptions depicting the treatment of cult images during warfare—address the same fundamental issue: the ability of a deity’s cult image to sit securely enthroned in its temple. The mis pî texts prescribe the rites that enable cult images to live in their temples. The historiographic inscriptions recount military victories and defeats through interpretations of what happened when these images were abducted from their temples during times of political strife. The interrelationship between these two corpora and the iconic ritual practices they represent is exemplified in NeoAssyrian inscriptions depicting Esarhaddon’s restoration of the cult images of Babylon. 120 These inscriptions describe not only Esarhaddon’s return of the images that Babylon lost to his father, Sennacherib, but also their renewal 117. Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 13. 118. I discuss the Ark Narrative in chap. 4. 119. Kuhrt (“Usurpation, Conquest, and Ceremonial,” 43) notes that these traditions receive a “mythic formulation” in the Erra Epic, which “begins with Marduk leaving Babylon in order to find artisans and materials to make his robes, leaving the field clear for Erra, god of strife and war and by extension the social turmoil and plague that are their inevitable outcome. The horrors of his rule are ended only through Marduk’s return.” See L. Cagni, The Poem of Erra (SANE 1, fasc. 3; Malibu, CA: Undena, 1977). 120. For texts, see Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §§23, 27, 53, 57, 60; Walker and Dick, Induction, 25–27. See Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 162–63. On Esarhaddon’s rebuilding of Babylon, see ibid., 115–16; and Porter, Images, Power, and Politics, 41–76.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 119 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

119

according to the mis pî / pit pî rite. 121 The return of Babylon’s cult images narrated in these historiographic inscriptions culminates in the procession of the icons to their temple and their enthronement-like installation in the temple cella, just as in the mis pî ritual texts. The implications of Esarhaddon’s reenthronement of the damaged and captured gods of Babylon are indicated in the historiographic chronicles: For eight years (during the reign of ) Sennacherib, for twelve years (during the reign) of Esarhaddon—twenty years—Bel stayed [in B]altil (Assur) and the Akitu festival did not take place. Nabu did not come from Borsippa for the procession of Bel. In the month Kislimu Ashurbanipal, [his] (i.e., Esarhaddon’s) son, ascended the throne in Assyria . . . In the month Aiaru Bel and the gods of [Akkad] went out from Baltil (Assur) and on the twenty-fifth day of the month Aiaru [they entered] Babylon. Nabu and the gods of Borsippa [went] to Babylon. 122

These lines are duplicated in the so-called Akitu chronicle, which is devoted entirely to the periodization of this turbulent era in Babylonian history according to cessations of the Akitu festival. 123 As Grayson writes, “Every event mentioned in the chronicle has some relation to this important festival in the Babylonian calendar. Rebellions and wars are included only because they were the reason why the Akitu festival could not be celebrated.” 124 This chronicle indicates the political significance of both the Akitu festival and Marduk’s enthroned Esagila presence for Babylonian society, for without Marduk’s cult image present and enthroned in his temple in Babylon, the Akitu festival could not be conducted. It also indicates a point at which the mis pî ritual, the historiographic literature on cult image capture and return, and the biblical icon parodies merge in their common concern over the enthronement of deities and kings. Like the mis pî ritual, the Akitu festival was a ritual with a significant political component associated with the enthronement of gods and kings. 125 A 121. Walker and Dick, Induction, 25–27; Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §§53, 57, 60. As discussed above, there is some dispute about whether Sennacherib abducted or destroyed the images. 122. Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 14 (“Esarhaddon Chronicle”), 31–37. See Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §§53, 57, 60. “Bel” is Marduk. 123. Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 16 (“Akitu Chronicle”), 1–8; Chronicle 16, 5–7 (//14, 35–36), which records the year the images of Marduk (Bel) and “the gods of Akkad” entered into Babylon, are also duplicated in Chronicle 1, 34–38, on which, see Grayson’s note in ABC, 86. 124. Grayson, ABC, 35. 125. On the political significance of the Akitu ritual, see Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” 32–40; J. Bidmead, The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Gorgias Dissertations, Near Eastern Studies 2;

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 120 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

120

Chapter 3

prominent element of the Akitu festival was the public recitation of Enuma Elis, the Babylonian myth of universal origins and ordering. 126 This distinctly Babylonian creation myth recounts Marduk’s rise to supremacy over all other gods and his reorganization of the cosmos with Babylon at its center. 127 Its recitation at the Akitu festival ritual linked the god and the king of Babylon in the reification of a Pan-Babylonian social identity and theopolitical order. 128 The political orientation of the Akitu festival invites inquiry into whether this iconic enthronement ritual and Enuma Elis itself might also yield insights into the political orientation of the biblical icon parodies. Just as the icon parodies seek to deny the effective enthronement of Mesopotamian cult images by denying the efficacy of the mis pî rite itself, so might they attempt to counter the intended effects of the Akitu festival by opposing the claims of its ritual and mythic foundations. The hymnic elements of the icon parodies indeed appear as oppositional compositions directed against the supremacy of Marduk over other gods, as promoted in Enuma Elis. The incomparable power of Yahweh over all of heaven and earth invoked in the hymnic weave of the icon parodies (Jer 10:6–7, 10, 12–13) is in fact quite comparable to the power Marduk acquires in Enuma Elis, in which he is given “doPiscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002); T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976), 182–91. On the Akitu ritual, see B. Pongratz-Leisten, ina sulmi irub: Die Kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der Akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien um 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Mainz: Zabern, 1994); J. A. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: ‘Taking Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic,” Religion 11 (1981): 39–59. See also D. S. Vanderhooft’s discussion of the Akitu rites within the context of Second Isaiah in NeoBabylonian Empire and Babylon, 177–80. 126. The recitation of Enuma Elis during the Akitu ritual is attested in a Seleucid period text prescribing the rites for the New Year’s festival at Babylon. See F. ThureauDangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris: Leroux, 1921), 127–54; Pritchard, ANET, 332, lines 280– 84. Text: P. Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enuma Elis: Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Transliteration, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in French (SAACT 4; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005). 127. See Foster, Before the Muses, 436–86. 128. I do not suggest that Enuma Elis was, in essence, mythic propaganda for Babylonian despotism (cf. Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 183–84), nor do I suggest that the Akitu festival was ritual propaganda for Babylon’s hegemony over the cities of Babylonia. I argue that the myth and the ritual together configured social formation among the peoples and places of Babylonia in a way that ritually linked ancient, authoritative cosmogonic myth and contemporary social power relations and that involved the cult of Marduk, kingship in Babylon, and the surrounding cities of Babylonia. Similarly, I do not suggest an identity in Assyria and Babylonia between god and king (see Bahrani, Graven Image, 142– 45); I rather emphasize the power conferred on the king through the performance of divine myth and ritual.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 121 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

121

minion over all the gods” (1.153), and is referred to as one “without rival,” to whom “no one among the gods is equal in power”(7.88). 129 Likewise does the Yahwistic creation ideology developed in the icon parodies of Second Isaiah appear as oppositional ideology countering the divine cosmogony promoted in Enuma Elis. 130 In addition to the other Mesopotamian ritual practices and literary genres concerned with the enthronement of cult images reviewed above, the Akitu festival and its associated theopolitical myth (Enuma Elis ) might also have provided an effective target for the polemic in Israelite icon parodies. The ideological goal of a polemic of this sort would have, in this respect, been the symbolic dethronement of Marduk and reenthronement of Yahweh. This would imply a corresponding dethronement of the Babylonian king, because the political stability of Babylonian kingship was reinforced in the Akitu through the ritual reenthronement of Marduk’s cult image in Esagila. This Israelite polemic against the mythic and ritual foundations of the Akitu festival would correspond with the Israelite polemic against the basic premises of the mis pî ritual. In both cases, the goal would be to deny the effective presence and power of the enthroned iconic deity—a symbolic dethronement. The historiographic literature on icon capture and return attests to the fact that the absence of Marduk’s cult image in Esagila represented the absence of Babylonian political stability. Indeed, the absence from Babylon of either Marduk’s cult image or the king himself necessitated a cessation of the Akitu ritual, thereby further destabilizing the political structures supporting 129. Compare also the hymns to Marduk composed in the Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian periods collected in Foster, Before the Muses, 821, 829, 841–51, 857, 859. Note also the mis pî incantation to the triad Ea, Shamash, and Marduk: “You alone bestride the farthest heavens . . .” (IT 3 B:21–22). On henotheism in Mesopotamia, see the collection of essays in B. N. Porter, ed., One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (TCBAI 1; Chebeague, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000); and J. Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia (trans. T. L. Fagan; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 41–43. 130. Correlations between Enuma Elis and the icon parodies might also be evident in the hints of conflict myth embedded in the hymnic strata of Jer 10:10, 12–13 (S. Olyan, oral communication). Cf. Pss 24, 68:8–10, 89:6–13; Judg 5:4–5. Compare also the stormgod imagery in Jer 10:13 and Nebuchadnezzar’s prayer for the return of Marduk’s cult image to Babylon (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5 1–2). See the discussion of Yahweh as divine warrior and the motifs of “creation-kingship” and “ritual conquest” in Cross, Canaanite Myth, 91–111. These correlations are also evident in the Ark Narrative, specifically with respect to the triumphal procession of the ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6, which may be compared with the procession of Marduk’s image to Babylon depicted in Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.9 9–20. Yahwistic conflict myth offered a rich store of tradition for Israelite exilic authors; see, for example, the Yahwistic conflict-creation myths deployed to express the exilerestoration motif of Second Isaiah (on which, see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 91–144).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 122 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

122

Chapter 3

and supported by these figures through this ritual. 131 In light of these politicial and iconic aspects of the Akitu festival and the way the biblical icon parodies subtly undermine them, the Israelite parodies appear again as classic examples of ancient West Asian historiographic traditions in which vanquished peoples employ iconic propaganda to envision the dethronement and reenthronement of gods and kings and thereby turn political defeats into perceptions of victories. This kind of propaganda proved truly effective only when the actual political stability of the victor became less secure. The absence of political stability was, indeed, characteristic of the Babylonian era during which the Israelite icon parodies were composed. 132 The most repeated lines in the so-called Nabonidus Chronicle are: The king did not come to Babylon in the month Nisanu. Nabu did not come to Babylon, Bel did not come out. The Akitu festival did not take place. 133

The cessation of the Akitu festival during Nabonidus’s sojourn in Teima perhaps encouraged Israelite efforts to promote Yahweh over Marduk; similarly, Nabonidus’s own attempt to elevate Sîn over Marduk may have served as a precedent for the Israelite effort to promote Yahweh over Marduk. 134 But the greatest propaganda victory in the realm of iconic politics during this period was reserved for Cyrus. In 539, Nabonidus ordered that cult images from surrounding cities be gathered into Babylon in preparation for the Persian invasion. 135 After his victory, Cyrus promptly returned the statues to their sanctuaries, as the Cyrus Cylinder recounts: As for the gods of Sumer and Akkad that Nabonidus, to the wrath of the lord of the gods, had brought to Babylon, I (Cyrus) caused them, at the command 131. This includes, for example, the continued unity of Babylonian cities under Babylon. 132. On Babylonia during the time of Nabonidus, see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus; idem, “King Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Empire,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. J. M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995), 969–79. 133. Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 7 (“Nabonidus Chronicle”), ii:5–6, 10–11, 19–20, 23–24. 134. On Nabonidus’s elevation of Sîn, see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 43–66; on the cessation of the Akitu festival during Nabonidus’s self-imposed exile in Teima, see ibid., 169–84. 135. Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 7 (“Nabonidus Chronicle”), iii:8–12 states that “[. . . the gods] of Marad, Zababa, and the gods of Kish, Ninlil, [and the gods of ] Hursagkalamma entered Babylon. Until the end of the month Ululu the gods of Akkad . . . were entering Babylon.” The same Chronicle 7, iii:21–22 refers further to “the gods of Akkad which Nabonidus had brought down to Babylon.” On this well-documented event, see Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon”; idem, Reign of Nabonidus, 219–24.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 123 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

123

of Marduk, the great lord, to dwell in well-being in their sanctuaries, in pleasing dwellings. May all the gods whom I returned to their sanctuaries entreat daily before Bel and Nabu for the lengthening of my days, and may they offer favorable words (to Marduk) on my behalf. 136

This remarkable piece of iconic propaganda claims that Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon, acted at Marduk’s command and freed and restored the gods of Babylonia. Nabonidus, the defender of Babylon, who gathered the gods of his lands for protection, is depicted as having angered Marduk by abducting these gods. As Beaulieu writes, “the acts of the fallen ruler became condemned by the very fact of his defeat.” 137 According to the Cyrus Cylinder, Marduk and the gods of Babylonia supported Cyrus’s conquests, and it was Cyrus who then returned the gods to their sanctuaries. The return of ritual activity in Babylonia thus arrived under an umbrella of Persian imperial power. In this respect, the Cyrus Cylinder is similar to the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions depicting Esarhaddon’s renewal and return of Babylonian gods. In both cases, a king ritually projected his power into the fabric of an empire by assuming the role of a restorer of local cults. Among the cults that Cyrus restored was the cult of Yahweh in Judah. For Persia, the restoration of Yahwistic cult and the Jerusalem temple helped to enable a Persian imperial province to flourish for two centuries. For Israelites, the Persian conquest of Babylon and the restoration of Yahwistic cult were interpreted as a manifestation of Yahweh’s power. 138 This representation of events was entirely in keeping with ancient West Asian literary traditions of formerly vanquished peoples. Immediately after the restoration of their deity’s cult, a literature flourished that affirmed with confidence their own deity’s power over all events. The correlations between Israelite, Persian, and Babylonian ritual representations of Cyrus’s conquests in 539 b.c.e. are further illuminated in the so-called Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus. 139 Written in Akkadian for a Babylonian audience, this poem attributes the fall of Babylon to the cultic errors of Nabonidus. According to the Verse Account, Nabonidus was defeated 136. Lines 33–35. See also the reference to these events in Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 7, iii:21–22. I draw here on the translations of Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon,” 243; Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder,” 200–201; Oppenheim, ANET, 316. See chap. 2 n. 75 (p. 71). 137. Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon,” 243. 138. See Ezra 1:2–4. 139. Text: S. Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon (London: Methuen, 1924), 83-91; B. Landsberger and T. Bauer, “Zu neuveröffentlichten Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Asarhaddon bis Nabonid,” ZA 37 (1927): 88–94; ANET, 312–15; Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 206–7, 215–16. Shalom Paul, oral communication.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 124 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

124

Chapter 3

because he restored the cult of the moon god Sîn in Harran and neglected the cult of Marduk in Esagila. Nabonidus is specifically condemned for constructing a cult image of Sîn; for rebuilding Ehulhul (Sîn’s temple in Harran); for ceasing all performances of the Akitu festival until these construction efforts were completed; and for elevating Sîn over Marduk as the chief deity of Esagila. 140 Nabonidus’s restoration of the cult of Sîn in Harran is described in the Verse Account as “a work of falsehood,” “an abomination,” “a work of unholiness” that led to the downfall of the Neo-Babylonian empire. 141 The text states that when Nabonidus constructed Ehulhul and its cult image of Sîn, “he performed a false rite . . . he made a phantom.” 142 The Verse Account depicts Cyrus as the savior of Babylon sent by Marduk to restore Babylonian cult, as does the Cyrus Cylinder. Similarly, Second Isaiah depicts Cyrus as the savior of Israel sent by Yahweh to restore Israelite cult. 143 The Verse Account further resembles the Cyrus Cylinder in its claim 140. In addition to these errors, the Verse Account also claims that Nabonidus “mixes up the rites (and) confuses the omens” and that he developed the city of Teima to such an extent that it rivaled the city of Babylon. See Verse Account I 19–22; II 4–17, 28–29; V 14– 22. The text also describes how Cyrus returned Babylonian iconic deities to their temples, restored their traditional cult practices, erased Nabonidus’s name from their sanctuaries, and burned what Nabonidus had created (VI 12–24). On the authorship of the Verse Account and the political, cultic, and scribal disputes reflected in this text, see A. Kuhrt, “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood,” in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (ed. M. Beard and J. A. North; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 119–55 and esp. 135–45; T. G. Lee, “Propaganda and the Verse Account of Nabonidus’ Reign,” Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 28 (1994): 31–36; P. Machinist and H. Tadmor, “Heavenly Wisdom,” in The Tablet and The Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 146–51; S. Lackenbacher, “Un pamphlet contre Nabonide, dernier roi de Babylone,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 18 (1992): 13–28; Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 209–19; Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts, 36–82. 141. Akk.: sipri suratu ibnû ikkibi sipri la mesu (II 16–17). Beaulieu (Reign of Nabonidus, 207) translates “(he) built an abomination, a work of unholiness”; cf. CAD (s.v. mesu): “he had built what was abominable (to the gods), a work not (sanctioned) by rites.” S. Richardson, oral communication. 142. Akk.: ippus la mesu . . . ibtani zaqiqi (I 19–20). Nabonidus’s cult image of Sîn is described in the Verse Account as something “not (even) Ea-Mummu could have formed” (I 21), something that “nobody had ever seen in the land” (II 1). Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 218. 143. On Persian imperial propaganda in the Verse Account and in Second Isaiah, see Kuhrt, “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood,” 145; Lee, “Propaganda”; S. Smith, Isaiah Chapters XL–LV: Literary Criticism and History (The Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology, 1940; London: Oxford University Press, 1944), 20; M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 2:43–47.

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 125 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

125

that Nabonidus was defeated because he neglected and abused Babylon’s gods and therefore Babylon’s gods abandoned him. And it further resembles Israelite exilic traditions (such as the icon parodies, exilic Deuteronomistic texts, and Ezekiel) in its emphasis on the error and danger of abandoning the proper cult of a native, supreme deity for a zaqiqu, a vacuous iconic embodiment of foreignness, foolishness, and falsehood. The Persian conquest of Babylon is a key component of the social context of biblical icon parodies because of the way this event was interpreted by Israelite authors and audiences in Babylonia and Judah. 144 Cyrus achieved for Persia, through both force and discourse, what the authors of the icon parodies pursued for Israel through discourse alone: power over ritual modes of social formation in ancient West Asia. 145 And to an Israelite audience, the fall of Babylon may well have supported the argument in the icon parodies against the “reality” of Babylonian ritual and political power and thus contributed to the icon parodies’ successful reception and canonization in the Persian period. Mesopotamian Iconic Politics and Israelite Icon Parodies The mis pî ritual, Mesopotamian historiographic texts depicting icon capture and return, the Akitu festival, and Israelite icon parodies all share common concerns about the presence and power of gods and kings. The genres of literature associated with ancient West Asian iconic rituals all participate in the same dialogue about political power and its iconic manifestations and reifications. In light of the Mesopotamian evidence discussed in this chapter, ancient Israel’s foray into the iconic politics of ancient West Asia appears as a distinctive but by no means unique effort to dethrone the gods of Babylon, enthrone Yahweh, and turn defeat into victory through the manipulation of iconic modes of social formation. Political events and ideologies were interpreted and promoted in ancient West Asia through an iconic ritual vocabulary; the cultic and political structures of these societies mutually supported each other and were inseparable. 146 The identity between religion and politics in Babylonia and Assyria is 144. The role of Cyrus amid the icon parodies of Second Isaiah suggests this; see Isaiah 44–46. 145. I do not suggest that this Israelite poetry had any effect whatsoever on political events in Persia and Babylonia; I speak here only of the effect these events had on the development and reception of the icon parodies. 146. This is argued by Porter (“Gods’ Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy,” 18–19) and supported by Winter (“ ‘Idols of the King’ ”). On the links between ritual,

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 126 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

126

Chapter 3

evident in the mis pî ritual, which Boden describes as “the most solemn, most sacred, and most secret of rituals,” one that “accomplishes the epitome of ritual possibilities” in ancient Mesopotamia. 147 In light of its ultimate objective, the mis pî is a theopolitical enthronement ritual. Its culminating incantations indicate the degree to which a secure city required a secure cult: ‘May the foundation of its (the deity’s) throne be stable forever like a mountain!’ 148 The mis pî is, in this respect, intended not merely to enable the icon to see and hear, to “eat food” and “drink water” (IT 3 B:71) but also to ensure the security and functionality of the entire Mesopotamian state. 149 The majority of attested mis pî texts are Assyrian, from Assurbanipal’s royal library in Nineveh. 150 A number of these texts were brought to Assyria from Babylon on the orders of the Assyrian king, as part of a larger project to accumulate, organize, and “make Assyrian” the ancient, authoritative traditions of Mesopotamia. 151 The heightened concern over details of ritual practice that characterizes many Neo-Assyrian texts from this time is evident in the prescriptive specificity of Neo-Assyrian mis pî ritual texts. 152 In this respect, the iconically focused competition between Assyria and Babylonia was waged not only among soldiers on the battlefield, through their abduction and destruction of cult images, but also among competing ritual specialists, through their production of authoritative ritual prescriptions and representations. 153 As the mis pî ritual effected the presence of deity in the cities and sanctuaries of Mesopotamia, the representation and configuration of this ritual had enormous political implications. Thus, the representation of iconic

power, and politics, see Bell, “Ritual Body and the Dynamics of Ritual Power”; idem, Ritual Theory; Kertzer, Ritual, Power and Politics; S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). On the correlations between divine and royal images, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 138–45, 172–74; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm,” 4–5; Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King.’ ” 147. Boden, “Mesopotamian Washing of the Mouth,” 95. 148. Akk.: irdi kussisu kima sadî likun ana ume ßâtu (IT 5 B:30b); see also IT 4 A:39. 149. Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King,’ ” 36. 150. See Walker and Dick, Induction, 18–19, 27–28. 151. See S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts (AOAT 5/1; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1970); idem, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993). 152. S. Richardson, oral communication. See Cole and Machinist, Letters from Priests. On the differences between BR and NR, see Walker and Dick, Induction, 28–29. 153. The kings, scribes, and priests of Assyria and Babylonia produced and preserved a number of authoritative representations of the mis pî rite, in the pursuit of dominance over this privileged ritual mode of cultural production and social formation. I here suggest a pluriform mis pî textual tradition across Mesopotamia in the first millennium b.c.e. See Walker and Dick, Induction, 16–20, 27–30.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 127 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

127

ritual was a site of contestation not only for Israelites but for Assyrians and Babylonians as well. 154 The connections between the ritual maintenance of iconic cult and the political maintenance of Mesopotamian society are signified by the Akitu festival’s association of the iconic deity and the living king. 155 The exile of a deity from its patron city did not simply symbolize a defeat and exile of its king. As the Assyrian and Babylonian historical chronicles indicate, the cultic structures of the deity ceased to function and, with them, the native political structures supporting and supported by its cult. 156 Without Marduk’s cult image enthroned in Esagila, there would be no Akitu festival and thus no reaffirmation of the Babylonian order of things through the recitation of Enuma Elis. 157 In light of the political orientation of Mesopotamian iconic ritual and literary traditions, Israelite polemical representations of Babylonian cult images appear as similarly political endeavors. These Israelite polemics engage in an oppositional dialogue with most major Mesopotamian iconic literary and ritual practices and thereby participate in these iconic traditions. Mis pî rites actualize the connection between icon, king, and deity through the ritual enactments of purification, vivification, and enthronement; Israelite iconic polemics sever this connection by portraying Babylonian cult images as impure, dead, and dethroned. 158 Historiographic traditions of victorious nations represent the capture of an enemy’s cult images as a defeat and often a willful submission of an enemy’s gods to their own; Israelite icon parodies claim, as do similar ancient West Asian traditions of iconic rhetoric by vanquished peoples, that Israel’s deity reigns sovereign in a willful exile and awaits the hour of his reenthronement. At their most extreme, these traditions of iconic opposition represent an opponent’s iconic deities as nonexistent, as Assurbanipal did with respect to the gods of Elam and as Israelite poets did with respect to the gods of Babylon. 159

154. S. Richardson, oral communication. On representations of ritual mistakes, see C. Ambos, “Types of Ritual Failure and Mistakes in Ritual in Cuneiform Sources,” in When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual (ed. U. Hüsken; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 25–47. 155. Compare the Mesopotamian rites pertaining to images of deified kings discussed by Winter, “ ‘Idols of the King.’ ” 156. See, for example, Grayson, ABC, Chronicle 14, 32–33. 157. See Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” 32–40. 158. Impure: e.g., Ezek 7:20. Dead : e.g., Jer 10:5, 14–15; Hab 2:19; Isa 44:18; Ps 115:4–7. Dethroned: e.g., Isa 46:1–2, 21:9. 159. Borger, BIWA, A vi 64, F v 43 (A §57, F §32); Jer 10:5, 14–15; Hab 2:19; Isa 41:29; cf. Verse Account I 19–20, II 16–17. Regarding the vivid Neo-Assyrian accounts of

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 128 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

128

Chapter 3

The manipulation of cult images among competing social groups in ancient West Asia—including the construction, abduction, and destruction of cult images as well as literary representations of these acts—was not a straightforward matter of domination and resistance. The diverse contours of ancient West Asia’s mythic and ritual landscape included a vast array of iconic sites in a continuous state of ritual activity and representation. These sites became contested foci for the configuration of social power relations within and between competing social groups. The strength and scale of these social power relations were factors of the power radiating outward from their iconic centers. The configuration of these social power relations depended on how and by whom their iconic embodiments were manipulated. Dominance over these iconic modes of social formation was achieved not through the exercise of force alone but also through discourse. As the ancient West Asian literary record suggests, power over social formation depended on the production of authoritative representations of iconic ritual practices and on the degree of legitimacy granted to these representations. Neo-Assyrian accounts of the abduction, destruction, and return of Babylonian cult images describe a particular configuration of Assyrian theopolitical power through the manipulation and representation of Babylonian iconic cult. Neo-Assyrian accounts of Esarhaddon’s renewal and restoration of Babylonian cult images depict the Assyrian king himself ritually leading Marduk from Assur to Esagila. 160 When he does so, “the might of Assur” is projected and inscribed on the ritual heart of Babylon and then reverberates throughout the Assyrian empire. Similarly, Babylonian accounts of the return of cult images from Elam depict Nebuchadnezzar I as the one chosen by Marduk to restore divine presence and social order to Babylon. When Marduk’s image returns with Nebuchadnezzar I in ritual procession from Elam to Esagila, the power of Nebuchadnezzar I is mythically and ritually inscribed on Babylon through ancient, authoritative modes of social formation. These texts legitimate the kingship of Nebuchadnezzar I through the restoration of Esagila’s cultic vithe destruction of Mußaßir, Babylon, and Susa by Sargon II, Sennacherib, and Assurbanipal, Holloway writes of the grim determination of the Assyrians to communicate to the world at large that these three kingdoms had been cultically and politically nullified. Mußaßir, Babylon and Susa were ancient ceremonial centers that housed the dynastic cults whose blessings legitimated the kings of Urar†u, Babylonia and Elam, respectively. Prior to Assyrian reduction, the actual operation of the governments of these realms was dispersed among several urban sites, so the symbolic capital gained from the destruction of the national shrines was prodigious. (Assur Is King! 116–17) 160. Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §57, AsBbE rev. 18–24; §60, AsBbH 2–12.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 129 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Mesopotamian Iconic Ritual

129

tality and of Babylonia’s fragmented identity after the disastrous reigns of previous kings. 161 It is uncertain whether exilic Israelite authors had access to these Mesopotamian literary traditions, but they were clearly familiar with the iconic ritual practices they depict. 162 Israelite icon parodies would have had little or no impact on a Babylonian audience with access to the sociopolitical power of Mesopotamian iconic cult. 163 However, their impact on their intended Israelite audience likely grew with time. This is indicated not only by the successful preservation and expansion of the icon parody genre. As subjects of a vanquished and subservient Israelite king and heirs to an apparently defeated and dethroned Israelite deity, exilic Israelites may have, at first, regarded this cult polemic with skepticism. Like all ancient West Asian traditions that promoted the eventual reenthronement of a willfully exiled deity, however, the force of its ideology would gain strength through political events that heralded its realization. And in the latter half of the 6th century b.c.e., Babylonia was fertile ground for a challenge to Marduk’s reign. 161. Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.8 15–16. 162. The exiles seem to have been situated in the vicinity of Nippur, in close proximity to the cultic and political power centers of Babylon and Borsippa. Aramaic was spoken in Babylonia, and the iconic landscape would not have been entirely obscured. Some temple rituals, such as the Akitu, would have been very public; others, such as the mis pî, would have been secret. See P.-A. Beaulieu, “New Light on Secret Knowledge in Late Babylonian Culture,” ZA 82 (1992): 98–111. On evidence for the geographic setting of the “Babylonian golah,” see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 72–74. 163. As I argued in chap. 2, these compositions were not intended for any audience other than their authors’ own ethnic group.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 130 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Chapter 4 Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel Iconic Traditions in the Hebrew Bible In the preceding chapters, I have sought to redescribe biblical icon parodies as an Israelite variation on what I call ancient West Asian iconic politics. In so doing, I have emphasized continuities between representations of iconic cult in Israelite icon parodies and in related Mesopotamian iconic traditions. I have further argued that this Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic politics represents a mode of social formation in response to transformative sociopolitical events, in this case, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the deportation of its political and cultic elite to Babylonia. The icon parodies, I have suggested, respond to this loss of political power through a seizure of ritual power, constructing a binary symbolic classification of the ancient West Asian ritual system. By comparing and classifying Israelite and Babylonian cult, the authors of the icon parodies configure and promote their vision of Yahwistic ritual and Israelite identity. They do this by reconfiguring and demoting the representation of Babylonian iconic ritual and social identity against which their vision is arrayed. This act of dual symbolic classification belongs, I have argued, entirely within ancient West Asian traditions of iconic politics in the way that it appropriates and negates (“captures” and “kills”) Babylonian iconic embodiments of social power relations. At the same time, the icon parodies also draw on distinctly Israelite, Yahwistic mythic and ritual traditions to do so. In this respect, the icon parodies are a distinctively Israelite expression of common ancient West Asian iconic political traditions. In this chapter, I discuss other examples of Israelite iconic political discourse in the Hebrew Bible. I focus on three corpora in particular—the Ark Narrative, selections from Deuteronomistic literature, and Ezekiel—and discuss the sociopolitical aspects of the iconic polemic in these literary traditions. In each case, I argue that Israelite authors reconfigure relations of sociopolitical power by reconfiguring systems of ritual practice. I argue that the oppositional representations of iconic cult in these Israelite historiographic and prophetic traditions are akin to the treatment of cult images during moments 130

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 131 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

131

of social transformation in ancient West Asia and thus represent “symbolic spoliations” of other deities. These Israelite iconic political traditions promote social definition through ritual differentiation and cultural creation through cultural conflict. Over the course of both the preexilic and postexilic periods, moreover, these representations of seminal moments in Israelite historical and sociopolitical development, in conjunction with the visions of Israelite social formation they promoted, were received as authoritative statements. On this basis, I argue that the classification of ritual and society that is represented in these historiographic and prophetic expressions of Israelite iconic political discourse became acts of power that dominated the formation of Israelite identity. I extend my interpretation of Israelite icon parodies into a discussion of these other biblical texts for several reasons. First, it has become clear to me that the icon parodies are not the only evidence of Israelite participation in ancient West Asian traditions of iconic political discourse. The sociopolitical approach to Israelite iconic discourse that I have applied to the icon parodies is equally illuminating for other biblical traditions that focus on aspects of iconic cult. From among the many literary traditions in the Hebrew Bible that include representations of iconic cult, I have chosen three that most vividly attest to the kind of sustained iconic political rhetoric that, I argue, is at work in the icon parodies. 1 Furthermore, the texts I discuss in this chapter were composed in a variety of settings, in both Judah and Babylonia, before and after the Babylonian exile. This suggests that Israelite iconic political rhetoric was not limited to the exilic context alone, an observation that further deemphasizes the supposed “uniqueness” of the exilic parodies and further locates them within a long tradition of Israelite and wider ancient West Asian iconic discursive practices. 1. Representations of cult images in the Hebrew Bible include the following: Pentateuch. Gen 31:19, 34–35; 35:4; Exod 20:4, 23; 32:4, 8; 34:17; Lev 19:4; 26:1; 26:30; Num 33:52; Deut 4:16, 23, 25, 28; 5:8; 7:5, 25; 9:12, 16; 12:3; 27:15; 28:36, 64; 29:17. Deuteronomistic History. Judg 17:3–5; 18:14, 17–18, 20, 30–31; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13– 16; 31:9; 2 Sam 5:21; 1 Kgs 12:28, 32; 14:9; 15:12; 21:26; 2 Kgs 11:18; 17:12, 16, 41; 19:18; 21:7, 11, 21; 23:24. Prophets. Amos 5:26; Hos 3:4; 4:17; 8:4; 11:2; 13:2; 14:9; Mic 1:7; 5:12; Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 10:10–11; 19:1, 3; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19–20; 41:29; 42:8, 17; 44:9–10, 15, 17; 45:16; 45:20; 46:1; 48:5; Jer 8:19; 10:14 (= 51:17); 14:14; 50:2; 50:38; 51:47, 52; Nah 1:14; Hab 2:18–19; Ezek 6:4–6, 9, 13; 7:20; 8:10; 14:3–7; 16:17, 36; 18:6, 12, 15; 20:7–8, 16, 18, 23–24, 31–32, 39; 22:3–4; 23:7, 30, 37, 39, 49; 30:13; 33:25; 36:18, 25; 37:23; 44:10, 12; Zech 10:2; 13:2. Writings. Pss 73:20; 78:58; 96:5; 97:7; 106:36, 38; 115:4; 135:15; Neh 9:18; Dan 2:31–32, 34–35; 3:1–3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14–15, 18.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 132 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

132

Chapter 4

Second, the icon parodies are commonly aligned with a larger set of biblical traditions that focus on iconic cult, including, most notably, the Deuteronomistic polemic against aspects of iconic ritual and other historiographic, legal, and prophetic texts that reflect the so-called ‘ban on images’ (Bilderverbot ) and the development of “Israelite aniconism.” 2 The association of the icon parodies with these other biblical texts is characteristic of theological and scholarly interpretive traditions alike. The common refrain in these interpretive traditions is that the icon parodies represent a culmination of Israelite aniconic monotheism, forged in the crucible of exile. While I do not deny that there are exegetical and ideational links between the icon parodies and other Israelite representations of iconic cult, I argue that these links are not evidence of a teleological development toward Israelite aniconic monotheism. On the contrary, I argue that they are evidence of a continuous, though varied, tradition of Israelite iconic political discourse. The limited set of texts I discuss in this chapter points in this direction and thus, I argue, recommends a redescription of a larger constellation of texts currently classified as data for the analytical category, Israelite aniconism. The Ark Narrative Since Leonard Rost’s influential 1926 monograph on historiographic traditions of the Israelite monarchy, a broad consensus has formed around the identification of the Ark Narrative as being among the oldest of a series of independent sources incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History. 3 Rost 2. Note, for example, the categorization of biblical representations of cult images proposed by Dohmen (Bilderverbot ) and summarized and adopted by Dick (“Prophetic Parodies,” 2). 3. L. Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1926; Eng.: The Succession to the Throne of David [trans. M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1; Sheffield: Almond, 1982]). Rost’s study investigates the literary extent and historical provenance of the narrative, elements of which had already been identified by Wellhausen and others, on which, see ibid., 6–10. Scholarship on the literary history on the Ark Narrative is reviewed in McCarter, 1 Samuel, 23ff; Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 9–17; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6, 2 Sam 7): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Critical Study (SBLDS 16; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 1–54; and K. A. D. Smelik, “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered,” in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament (ed. A. S. van der Woude; OtSt 25; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 127–30. On the literary history of the Ark Narrative and its relation to the Deuteronomistic History, see McCarter, 1 Samuel, 14–30. On narrative sources in the Deuteronomistic History, see P. K. McCarter, “Books of Samuel,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham ; JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 260–76; M. White, “ ‘The History of Saul’s Rise’: Saulide State Propaganda in 1 Samuel 1–14,” in “A Wise and Discerning

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 133 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

133

recognized that, whereas much of the Israelite monarchic history focuses on human figures such as Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon, the central figure in 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6 is the ark of Yahweh itself. Rost argued that these chapters represent an independent source on which later Israelite historiographers drew and hypothesized that the narrative was an old Jerusalem cult legend about how this Shilonite cult symbol came to reside in Jerusalem. Rost described the Ark Narrative as a “self-contained and complete” historiographic unit, and regarded it as “the ¥ero;Í lovgoÍ of the sanctuary of the Ark in Jerusalem, its author a member of the community of priests who took care of the ark during the latter part of David’s reign or at the beginning of Solomon’s reign.” 4 Rost’s hypothesis has remained the starting point for continued debate over the extent of the Ark Narrative, its status as an independent source, and its date of composition relative to the historiographic complexes within which it appears. 5 Recovering and dating the earliest stages of the ark traditions preserved in the books of Samuel is difficult to achieve with certainty and often entails conjecture based on literary-historical and ideological criteria. 6 However, the following may be said with reasonable assurance: the books of Samuel reflect an eclectic amalgam of traditions developed and interwoven over the course of some four centuries between the emergence of Israelite monarchy and the composition of the latest strata of the Deuteronomistic History. 7 Among these traditions, the Ark Narrative exhibits a distinctive focus on the fate of the ark of Yahweh that suggests an independent hand at work. Furthermore, the narrative represents, politically and cultically, a Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (ed. S. M. Olyan and R. C. Culley; BJS 325; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 271–92; F. M. Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–89; M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943; Eng.: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions [trans. B. A. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972]). 4. Rost, Succession, 34. 5. McCarter calls Rost’s hypothesis “among the most durable of modern scholarship” (1 Samuel, 23). The precise extent of the Ark Narrative is debated. McCarter’s inclusion of 1 Sam 2:12–17, 22–25 and 2 Samuel 6 is reasonable, as these verses seem to play an important role in the narrative’s literary and ideological development. For arguments for a later date, see Smelik, “Ark Narrative Reconsidered.” See also the discussions in Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, and Campbell, Ark Narrative. 6. This has been noted by J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 353, and Smelik, “Ark Narrative Reconsidered,” 132 n. 31. Ideological criteria for dating texts must be applied cautiously: see n. 25 below on Miller and Roberts’ dating of the Ark Narrative. 7. See McCarter, 1 Samuel, 14–30.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 134 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

134

Chapter 4

monarchic context. It is set during premonarchic Israel’s wars with the Philistines and addresses issues, events, cultic sites, and military conflicts of particular importance to that time, including military losses to the Philistines, political developments in the early monarchy, and related ritual developments in the Shilonite and Jerusalem sanctuaries. Whether an early form of the Ark Narrative was composed during the period of the united monarchy is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, these chapters in the books of Samuel richly relate traditions about the travels and travails of this powerful focus of Israelite cult within the political and cultic contexts of monarchic times. These traditions were projected and retrojected by writers and readers across centuries of Israelite fortunes and misfortunes. In this respect, the Ark Narrative represents preexilic traditions that remained relevant to later times. This includes, for example, the problem of a major military defeat and significant cultic loss for ancient Israel —in this case, defeat by the Philistines and loss of the ark. It also includes an unquestionably iconic representation of and response to these losses, through a symbolic confrontation between the Philistine cult image of Dagon and the Israelite ark of Yahweh. As such, the Ark Narrative represents the clearest, if not earliest, attestation of an Israelite tradition of iconic politics. 8 8. Regarding the date of the Ark Narrative, therefore, I acknowledge the possibility that the earliest kernels of the tradition were composed during the united monarchy, but I affirm with certainty only that a later stage of the tradition was adapted into the Deuteronomistic History in the late 7th and 6th centuries (on which, see nn. 37–38 below). The composition of the Ark Narrative began with a historical memory of defeat during premonarchic times, which was then linked to a memory of victory during early monarchic times. When exactly memory became historiography is impossible to ascertain with certainty. The themes and ideologies internal to the text only suggest a monarchic compositional setting; these issues and themes were of relevance during many periods in Israelite history, including the exile. Indeed, this is why the tradition was developed and received so successfully. Thus, the literary history of the Ark Narrative begins with a conjectural literary kernel during the monarchic period, continues with a hypothetical independent historiographic tradition developing in the 8th and 7th centuries, and concludes with an authoritative tradition of Israelite iconic political discourse that was adopted by the Deuteronomistic Historians and artfully adapted into the historical and thematic trajectories of the preexilic and especially postexilic stages of their work. This last stage of the Ark Narrative tradition was successfully received by an exilic and early postexilic Israelite audience because of its authoritative setting in the beginnings of ancient Israel’s national existence and because of its particular relevance to the events surrounding its end. In sum, my focus is not on hypothetical Urtexts but on literary traditions and their social contexts. As I argue with respect to the icon parodies, the social context of the Ark Narrative involves not only the composition of its earliest possible kernel but also its later development and reception through group authors and audiences into an authoritative Israelite tradition.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 135 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

135

Among the many modifications to Rost’s hypothesis that have appeared over the last century, two trends may be discerned that are particularly noteworthy with respect to this study: one tendency has been to emphasize the links between the Ark Narrative and broader ancient West Asian literary and ritual iconic traditions, particularly regarding the capture of the ark and its placement in the Temple of Dagon. 9 The other tendency has been to emphasize the close connections between the Ark Narrative and the Deuteronomistic History within which it is incorporated, particularly regarding the representation of Israelite political victories and defeats and the impact these events had on Israelite historiographic and cultic ideologies. 10 Both these lines of inquiry have moved beyond Rost’s initial emphasis on the Ark Narrative as an independent ¥ero;Í lovgoÍ of the Jerusalem sanctuary and have stressed instead its connections with broader cultic, political, and historiographic traditions from ancient West Asia and Israel, respectively. My interest is to present the Ark Narrative in continuity with both of these traditions, which are, of course, not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the following review of salient elements of the Ark Narrative will emphasize the connections between ancient Israelite and wider ancient West Asian historiographic traditions and the way they both focus on iconic embodiments of social power. The Ark Narrative is broadly structured along a sequence of four events: (1) the errors of the Shilonite priesthood (1 Sam 2:12–17, 22–25); (2) the battles with the Philistines and the capture of the ark (1 Sam 4:1b–22); (3) the suffering of the Philistines and their god while in possession of the ark and its return to Israel (1 Sam 5:1–7:1); and (4) David’s triumphal procession with the ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). 11 The driving concerns of the Ark Narrative are the Israelite defeat on the frontiers of Philistia, the capture of the ark and, above all, the question of whether these events signified the defeat and departure of Yahweh. The presence and power of Yahweh over the course of these disastrous events is a concern introduced at the very beginning of the narrative, before the ark is brought into battle and captured. Following the initial Israelite defeat at Ebenezer, the elders of Israel ask in 1 Sam 4:3, ‘Why did Yahweh cause our defeat today before the Philistines?’ 12 The elders here recognize Yahweh as 9. See, e.g., Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord. 10. See, e.g., Campbell, Ark Narrative; Smelik, “Ark Narrative Reconsidered”; and H. Timm, “Die Ladeerzählung (1 Sam 4–6; 2 Sam 6) und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” EvT 29 (1966): 509–26. 11. Following the textual boundaries drawn by Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, and McCarter, 1 Samuel. 12. Hebrew: µytvlp ynpl µwyh hwhy wnpgn hml.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 136 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

136

Chapter 4

the power behind the initial Philistine victory. This preliminary vindication of the power of Yahweh despite Israel’s defeat and its implicit denigration of the power of the enemy anticipates the coming confrontation between the Israelite and Philistine deities in 1 Sam 5:1–4. The Israelite elders conclude that bringing the ark into their military camp at Aphek will bring them victory in the next battle: “Let us bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh here from Shiloh, so that it may enter into our midst (wnbrqb) and save us from the hand of our enemies (wnybya πkm)” (1 Sam 4:3). 13 The elders here request the presence of the ark, the power of which is identified in the narrative with the power of the Israelite deity. The Philistines are represented as sharing this view: hearing the Israelite shouts at the triumphal entrance of the ark into their camp, the Philistines “knew that the ark of Yahweh had come to the camp,” and they “feared, thinking ‘A god has entered the camp’ ” (1 Sam 4:6–7). The Philistines nevertheless prevail, in a way that is both surprising and anticipated by the elders’ recognition of Yahweh’s power behind Israel’s initial defeat in 1 Sam 4:3. In the second Israelite defeat, the ark itself is captured. If we locate the beginnings of the Ark Narrative in 1 Samuel 2, the elders’ question, “Why did Yahweh cause our defeat today before the Philistines?” was answered there: it was because of the cultic errors of the Shilonite priesthood. This rationale justifies the defeat of Israel at Ebenezer and, more importantly, it justifies the capture of the ark and the slaying of its custodians, the Elide priests. 14 However, as Miller and Roberts note, the resolution of one problem (the error of the priests of Shiloh) has given rise to an even greater problem—the defeat of Israel and the capture of the ark itself. 15 Eli dies not when he hears of the death of his sons but when he hears that the ark has been captured. The second Israelite defeat by the Philistines is thus represented in the narrative as more significant than the first, not only numerically (thirty thousand Israelite dead as opposed to four thousand) but symbolically: the capture of the ark and the death of its custodians suggested not only the departure of Yahweh 13. As at Jericho in Joshua 6. McCarter translates wnbrqb abyw in 1 Sam 4:3 ‘so that he may come among us’ (1 Samuel, ad loc.). I translate the phrase ‘so that it may enter into our midst’, reading the subject as “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh.” Both translations are viable because the ark is represented in the Ark Narrative as the iconic embodiment of Yahweh’s power, as I argue further below. Regarding “the hand of our enemies,” Miller and Roberts (Hand of the Lord ) emphasize the representation of “hands” in the Ark Narrative (of both Yahweh and Dagon) as signifiers of the power of these deities. 14. This justification of defeat is entirely consistent with ancient West Asian rhetorical traditions of vanquished peoples and mirrors the Deuteronomistic tendency to find selfpromoting justifications for sociopolitical failures (the Babylonian exile being the most prominent example, on which, see below). 15. Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 65.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 137 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

137

from the Israelite camp but also the defeat of Yahweh at the hands of a Philistine deity. This problem emerges as the pivotal issue of the narrative and is addressed in the showdown between Yahweh and Dagon in 1 Sam 5:1–4. After the ark is captured by the Philistines, it is brought to the Temple of Dagon in Ashdod and set up beside the Philistine deity—that is, beside his cult image. 16 In this classic example of the capture of a defeated enemy’s icon, the political opposition between Philistia and Israel is represented through the cultic opposition, literally, between the Philistine and Israelite deities, as the ark is set up alongside (lxa) the image of Dagon in a practice intended to demonstrate the victory and superiority of Dagon over Yahweh. 17 As McCarter notes, “Yahweh, it seems, has been vanquished, for his ark is lodged in an alien house, discredited and neglected.” 18 The driving purpose of the narrative, however, is to invert this cultic opposition; the next morning, the Ashdodites find their god “fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh”(5:3). After picking Dagon up and “returning him to his place,” the Ashdodites return the next morning to find Dagon again “fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh,” but this time the “head of Dagon and his two hands were cut off upon the threshold, only his body remained” (5:4). 19 Rost’s enduring insight was the recognition that the protagonist of the Ark Narrative is the ark itself. Pursuing this insight, Miller and Roberts documented the affinities between the Ark Narrative and the corpus of ancient West Asian texts depicting the capture and return of cult images during warfare. 20 Miller and Roberts described the Ark Narrative as a clear example of this historiographic tradition and an affirmation of Yahweh’s power despite Israel’s defeat. 21

16. On Dagan/Dagon, see L. Feliu, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19; Leiden: Brill, 2003); B. Crowell, “The Development of Dagan: A Sketch,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 1 (2001): 32–83; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 121–22. 17. See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 43. 18. McCarter, 1 Samuel, 125. 19. The MT reads wyl[ ravn ˆwgd qr, which, as McCarter notes, is contextually meaningless; he reasonably amends wyl[ ravn wwg qr (ibid., 119). 20. Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 1–17; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 24–25; Delcor, “Yahweh et Dagon,” 138–41. 21. Ibid. The explicitly expressed doubt of Yahweh’s power after the Israelite defeat at Ebenezer is an instructive parallel to exilic texts such as the icon parodies and Ezekiel (see below), in which the same literary themes and ideological concerns are at work but in which this doubt is less explicitly stated. These literary traditions all represent a discourse of power through a focus on cult images.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 138 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

138

Chapter 4

The supremacy of Yahweh over Dagon is established in the Ark Narrative not only by Dagon’s prostrate position before the ark but also by the mutilation of his cult image. The account of the capture and mutilation of Dagon’s cult image in 1 Sam 5:1–4—specifically the removal of its head and hands— vividly recalls the many Babylonian and Assyrian parallel accounts of cult image abduction and mutilation I have discussed in the previous chapter. The abduction of a defeated enemy’s cult images to the temple of a victor’s gods is a well-attested motif in these accounts of military conquest, as is the mutilation of cultic and royal statuary during times of war—including the removal of heads, hands, eyes, ears, noses, and mouths. 22 Notable also are the many examples of defeated or executed enemies who lose their body parts, including heads and hands, represented in biblical texts (for example, Saul and his sons in 1 Sam 31:9, by Philistines who report this event to “the houses of their icons”) and also attested in historical reliefs and skeletal remains throughout ancient West Asia. 23 These diverse mutilation practices and the representations of these practices in ancient West Asian historiographic traditions are all acts of power that reify sociopolitical dominance ritually and symbolically. The literary-historical insights of Rost, in conjunction with the comparative-historical insights of Miller and Roberts, point to the representation of the ark in the Ark Narrative as a Yahwistic icon, occupying the role of a cult image in the practice and rhetoric of ancient West Asian iconic warfare. The ark of Yahweh is represented as the repository of Yahweh’s power, an iconic locus of the Israelite deity and focus of Israelite iconic political discourse. 24 It stands clearly parallel to the anthropomorphic cult image of Dagon, the power of which the Israelite authors acknowledge through their very effort to denigrate it. The Philistine capture of the ark symbolizes the apparent subjugation of Yahweh to a victorious foreign deity, the iconic manifestation of a political defeat. Like the icon parodies, the Ark Narrative is concerned with 22. See chap. 3 nn. 62, 87. 23. Ibid. 24. On the role of the ark in Israelite cult, see T. N. D. Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, Japan, 5–7 December, 1979 (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982), 109–38; M. Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim,” IEJ 9 (1959): 30–38, 89–94; idem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 246–59. On the ark’s role in the ideology of Israelite warfare, McCarter writes: “It was venerated as the visible sign of the presence of Yahweh. It was Yahweh’s footstool or podium, above which was the divine throne itself, flanked . . . by a pair of . . . cherubim” (1 Samuel, 108–9). See, however, Propp (Exodus 19–40, 516–21), who argues that the Priestly writer undermines the royal associations of Yahwistic iconography.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 139 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

139

the vindication of the power of Yahweh in a time of defeat and doubt. A classic instance of ancient West Asian “rhetoric of the vanquished,” the Ark Narrative represents the return of the ark as the willful return of a deity who has exiled himself in response to cultic errors committed by his own people. Only after Yahweh demonstrates his superiority over the enemy deity, Dagon, is his power and control over both the Israelite defeat and the capture and return of the ark satisfactorily affirmed. David’s return of the ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6 recalls, furthermore, the triumphal cult image enthronement processionals that culminated Mesopotamian iconic practices including the mis pî ritual, the Akitu festival, and the return of images captured in warfare. 25 The Ark Narrative thus attests to a preexilic Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic ritual and rhetorical practices concerned with the dethronement and enthronement of cult images. The similarities between the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies are rooted in their common concerns about military defeat and divine abandonment. The context of the Ark Narrative is a battle between two peoples, but its climax is a battle between two deities, Yahweh and Dagon. I argued in the previous chapters that the icon parodies “symbolically spoliate” Babylonian cult images by juxtaposing them 25. I discuss these rites in chap. 3. Miller and Roberts liken the return of the ark to the return of a victorious divine warrior (Hand of the Lord, 56–59). Viewing the Ark Narrative as an affirmation of the power of Yahweh after a problematic defeat leads Miller and Roberts and McCarter to locate the narrative’s conclusion at 1 Sam 7:1. According to Miller and Roberts, the text indicates that the defeat of Israel at Ebenezer still presented a problem for its authors. This suggests for Miller and Roberts, as well as for McCarter, that the Ark Narrative was written at some point after the Israelite defeat at Ebenezer but before David’s victory over the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:17–25 (a victory that would have removed the doubts fueling the Ark Narrative). “In other words,” they write, “the formulation of this narrative belongs to the period of religious crisis between the disastrous defeat at Ebenezer and the much later victories of David,” that is, “before David’s victories removed the theological problem that created the need for it” (ibid., 74–75; see also McCarter, 1 Samuel, 25). This argument is reasonable but conjectural. The text could have been written at a later point, recalling the insecurities of an earlier period. Miller and Roberts further argue that 2 Samuel 6 belongs to a different genre of “historical chronicles that record the return of despoiled images by victorious monarchs” (Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 13, 23; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 25). A parallel example of this genre that they provide is the text I discuss in chap. 3 that depicts the return of Marduk’s cult image from Elam: “He (Marduk) went out from the wickedness in Elam . . . he took a road of jubilation, a path of rejoicing . . . to Babylon” (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.9 12–14; see Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 79–81 [Appendix Text 3:12–14]). The parallel is strong. The connections between these ark-oriented traditions in 1 and 2 Samuel are also strong, even as they reflect a diverse literary history. Note also 2 Sam 5:21, which symmetrically ties the ark traditions in 1 Samuel 4–6 to texts in 2 Samuel as David reconquers Philistia and he and his men carry off the icons of the Philistines. This is then followed by the triumphal procession of the ark into Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 140 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

140

Chapter 4

with Yahweh and by denying them sensory powers, ritual powers, and sociopolitical power. The Ark Narrative pursues this same objective in a more literal portrayal of cult-image spoliation in which the cult image of the Philistine deity is literally deprived of its sensory powers through removal of its head and its “hands,” which in the Ark Narrative signify power. 26 Similar to the icon parodies, the Ark Narrative thus pursues a power-oriented discourse through an oppositional iconic focus. The “power” of Yahweh remains the protagonist throughout the Ark Narrative and is embodied iconographically by the ark and represented literarily through reference to Yahweh’s “hand.” The Israelite elders request the presence of the ark to save them from the “hand” of their enemies (1 Sam 4:3), the Philistines suffer when Yahweh’s “hand” is “heavy upon them”(1 Sam 5:6–11), and Yahweh’s power over Dagon is represented through the removal of Dagon’s hands. And with the removal of Dagon’s head, the Philistine deity is rendered completely powerless. Deprived of all sensory organs, in a manner commonly practiced among enemies in ancient West Asia, the cult image of Dagon becomes what the icon parodies claim Babylonian cult images are: dead and powerless. The Ark Narrative draws not only on ancient West Asian traditions concerning cult image capture and mutilation during warfare but also on preexisting Israelite traditions about the exodus. The text explicitly draws on exodus traditions when, for example, the Philistines are said to recognize the ark as “the gods who struck the Egyptians with every sort of plague in the wilderness” (1 Sam 4:8). The text further draws on exodus themes in the series of plagues that befall the Philistines while they are in possession of the ark. 27 Exodus themes emerge in the Ark Narrative just as they do in the icon parodies of Second Isaiah, and in both corpora, the potential perception of the defeat and exile of Yahweh is addressed by drawing on cosmogonic myths representing Yahweh as a divine warrior who conquers other deities and effects a new creation through a “new exodus.” 28 These recollections of the archetypical act on which the covenant between Yahweh and Israel was established directly address the question of whether an Israelite defeat signifies an end to that covenant. In this respect, the ark that holds the tablets of the covenant is a fitting 26. Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord. 27. McCarter (1 Samuel, 126) suggests further exodus analogies to this demonstration of Yahweh’s power and its vindication of a defeated nation and its deity, citing Exod 9:15– 16. On this point, see also my discussion of Ezekiel 20 below. 28. Miller and Roberts (Hand of the Lord, 67, 72) note suggestive parallels between this conflict between Yahweh and Dagon and other Chaoskampf motifs in, for example, Second Isaiah. These parallels further emphasize the links between the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies that represent and engage with elements of cosmogonic myth, as discussed in chap. 2.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 141 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

141

iconic focus for the political and cultic concerns of this narrative. And the removal of Dagon’s head is, furthermore, a fitting inversion of the perception that Yahweh’s covenant with Israel was broken after the defeat at Ebenezer. Decapitation was often associated with covenant violations in ancient West Asian treaties, and to decapitate the cult image of Dagon was, literally, to stand these perceptions on their head. 29 The sociopolitical circumstances reflected in the Ark Narrative are thus strikingly similar to the circumstances reflected in exilic texts such as the icon parodies, which betray similar concerns about defeat, exile, and divine abandonment and which respond to this loss of cultic and political power with an iconically oriented comparison between Yahweh and other deities. The questions driving the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies are the same: how could complete military and cultic loss of this sort have occurred, and what did it mean with respect to the continued presence and power of Yahweh and his covenant with Israel? In both cases, the authors of these texts draw on ancient West Asian iconic political practices and Yahwistic mythic traditions; they respond to questions of divine abandonment and concerns about a broken covenant with Yahweh by inverting the expected hierarchical relations between victorious and defeated peoples and manifesting this inversion through symbolic spoliations of the cult images of their enemies. Though the literary forms of the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies differ, the iconic rhetoric of both intends the same effect: the killing of cult images through the deprivation and denial of their sensory powers. At the same time, the power of Yahweh is correspondingly represented by drawing on authoritative Yahwistic mythic traditions. In each context, the power of Yahweh over enemy deities is iconically established in response to sociopolitical circumstances that would indicate otherwise. The similarly iconic response to these similar sociopolitical challenges—one set in the 10th century and one in the 6th—is recalled in the exilic verse Isa 21:9, which echoes the fate of Dagon’s cult image: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the statues of her gods he shatters to the ground.” 30 The presence and power of Yahweh, signified in the Ark Narrative by the “glory” and “hand” of Yahweh, are thus localized in the ark itself. Wherever the ark rests, the ‘hand of Yahweh’ remains ‘heavy’ (hwhyAdy dbkt, 1 Sam 5:6). 31 The crisis surrounding the Philistine capture of the ark concerns the loss of Yahweh’s presence, expressed when Eli’s daughter-in-law names her 29. On decapitation and bodily dismemberment as a threatened punishment for covenant violations, see Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 214 n. 42. 30. Cf Isa 46:1. I include these texts in my discussion of the icon parodies of Second Isaiah in chap. 2. The LXX version of Isa 46:1 replaces Nebo with Dagon (Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55, 264 note c). 31. On dwbk ideology, see my discussion of Ezekiel below.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 142 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

142

Chapter 4

newborn son Ichabod (dwbkAya) because “(The) glory (dwbk) was exiled from Israel when the ark of God was taken” (4:22). 32 The Ark Narrative, like the icon parodies, responds to this concern about divine abandonment through an iconic cultic opposition that reaffirms Yahweh’s presence in exile. The confrontation with Philistia, so central a factor in ancient Israel’s early social formation, is suggestively memorialized by biblical authors in a classic example of ancient West Asian iconic political historiography. While Rost correctly identified the Israelite cult symbol of the ark as the narrative’s protagonist, he was incorrect to conclude that, “as a cult legend it has only limited interest in political events.” 33 On the contrary, the Ark Narrative is entirely political. Furthermore, the “independence” of this ark tradition ought not be overstated, insofar as it draws on widespread ancient West Asian iconic ritual and rhetorical practices, as well as specifically Israelite cultic and mythic traditions, and merges both into a distinctive expression of Israelite iconic politics. When one views the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies together, the responses by Israelite authors to great political challenges (one at the formation of ancient Israel’s national existence and one at its end) appear similarly iconic. In each case, the response is to “kill” the cult images of enemies by depriving them of all sensory and other power and thus to overcome a loss of political power through a seizure of ritual power. The Ark Narrative in this respect represents, like the icon parodies, another confluence of Israelite and wider ancient West Asian icon ritual and rhetorical modes of social formation. The Ark Narrative is therefore both integral to its larger Deuteronomistic historiographic context and entirely of a piece with ancient West Asian and other Israelite ritual and literary traditions that focus on cult images in response to political challenges. Numerous studies have demonstrated the parallels between the Ark Narrative and ancient West Asian traditions concerning the capture and spoliation of cult images. 34 Likewise, numerous studies have emphasized the interrelations between the Ark Narrative and similar representations of conquest and exile that recur throughout the Deuteronomistic historical work within which it is embedded. 35 Targeting cult images is indeed a distinguishing feature of Deuteronomistic ideology, as iconic worship practices figure prominently in this historiographic tradition’s justifications for and solutions to the political misfortunes of Israel and Judah. This observation invites the question: might the broader Deuteronomistic polemic against 32. Hebrew: µyhlah ˆwra jqln yk larcym dwbk hlg. 33. Rost, Succession, 34. 34. See Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord; McCarter, 1 Samuel. 35. See Campbell, Ark Narrative; Smelik, “Ark Narrative Reconsidered”; Timm, “Ladeerzählung.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 143 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

143

aspects of iconic cult be viewed as a further variation on Israelite iconic political traditions, as I have argued thus far regarding the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies? Deuteronomistic Iconic Political Discourse A full investigation of the many representations of iconic ritual in the literature attributed to Deuteronomistic circles is beyond the scope of this study. 36 However, several exemplary Deuteronomistic texts suggest the viability and utility of an interpretive approach that emphasizes the sociopolitical aspects of Deuteronomistic iconic discourse. Three texts in particular richly attest the central role iconic cult plays in the expression of Deuteronomistic political ideology: 2 Kgs 19:15–19, Deut 12:2–3, and Deut 4:25–28. These texts reflect preexilic and exilic Deuteronomistic strata and core Deuteronomistic political and cultic concerns, including the response to the Neo-Assyrian conquest of Israel and the Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judah, and the demand for the extirpation of so-called Canaanite and other “foreign” iconic practices amid the drive to define and centralize Yahwistic cult in Jerusalem. 37 36. Including, e.g., Deut 4:16, 23, 25, 28; 5:8; 7:5, 25; 9:12, 16; 12:3; 27:15; 28:36, 64; 29:17; Judg 17:3–5; 18:14, 17–18, 20, 30–31; 1 Sam 15:23; 19:13–16; 31:9; 2 Sam 5:21; 1 Kgs 12:28, 32; 14:9; 15:12; 21:26; 2 Kgs 11:18; 17:12, 16, 41; 19:18; 21:7, 11, 21; 23:24. 37. My position on the Deuteronomistic corpus aligns with the so-called doubleredaction or block model that locates its most significant literary, political, and cultic floruit in the later 7th century, followed by exilic and postexilic updates. See Cross, “Themes of the Book of Kings”; see also M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972); R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); M. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989); J. C. Geoghegan, “ ‘Until This Day’ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 122 (2003): 201–27; idem, The Time, Place, and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History: The Evidence of “Until This Day” (BJS 347; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006). Cf. R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70 Geburtstag (ed. H. W. Wolff; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 494–509; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); and T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975). Deuteronomistic historiographic traditions were likely developed over many years by many hands. Given that Deuteronomistic cultic and political ideals reach their fullest historiographic representation in the narration of the reigns of Hezekiah and

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 144 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

144

Chapter 4

The impact of the Neo-Assyrian invasions of the Levant on the cultic and political landscape of Israel and Judah during the 9th, 8th, and 7th centuries has been much discussed, particularly with respect to the development of the Deuteronomistic movement. 38 On the whole, debate on this issue has focused on the degree to which the Neo-Assyrian conquest affected Yahwistic cultic practice and ideology, a debate that often draws stark distinctions between Neo-Assyrian, Canaanite, and Israelite ritual and social systems. 39 I wish, however, to call attention to the way Deuteronomistic texts themselves draw these distinctions. They do so, I argue, just as the icon parodies do—by engaging and classifying the ancient West Asian ritual continuum within which they belong, through a focus on iconic embodiments of social power relations. Josiah, the two kings most associated with the Deuteronomistic movement, I recognize a concentration of Deuteronomistic political and literary activity during the reigns of these two kings, especially Josiah. Thus, I argue for a primary Josianic edition of DtrH that was updated in response to the Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judah. I use the term Deuteronomistic (Dtr) to refer broadly to the movement’s literature and ideology, as represented throughout Deuteronomy–2 Kings and elsewhere in pentateuchal and prophetic editorial strata. I use the term Deuteronomic when referring more specifically to the book of Deuteronomy and its core legal code (Deuteronomy 12–26). This is primarily a literary distinction; I do not distinguish sharply between the ideology represented by the two terms. The literature on Dtr is immense. For helpful reviews and collections, see G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (2 vols.; NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 1:28–46; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1991); idem, “The Trouble with Kingship,” in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (ed. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi; JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 286–314; A. de Pury and T. Römer, “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues,” in ibid., 24–143; L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie, eds., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1999); G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (SBTS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000); V. P. Long, ed., Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Israelite Historiography (SBTS 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999). 38. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion; idem, “Judah under Assyrian Hegemony”; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–4); McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians; Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur; H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980); R. H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings (JSOTSup 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991); Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages”; M. Weinfeld, “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy,” JNES 23 (1964): 202–12. 39. See the studies cited in nn. 37–38 above.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 145 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

145

The Deuteronomistic narration of the Assyrian campaign in Judah (2 Kings 18–19) includes a suggestive text in this respect. 40 This narrative portrays Hezekiah, on the eve of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, entering the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple, standing before the ark and the cherub throne, and petitioning Yahweh to avert the Assyrian conquest of the city: Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh and said: “Yahweh, god of Israel enthroned upon the cherubim, you are God alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. It was you who made the heavens and the earth. Incline your ear, Yahweh, and hear; open your eyes, Yahweh, and see. Hear the words of Sennacherib, which he has sent to reproach the living god. Truly, Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have laid waste to the nations and their lands and sent their gods into the fire 41—though they were not gods, but rather the work of human hands, wood and stone—and they destroyed them. So now, Yahweh our god, save us from his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, Yahweh, are God alone. (2 Kgs 19:15–19)

This passage follows the remarkable exchange between the Assyrian and Judahite delegates that includes the Rab-shakeh’s taunt, “Who among all the gods of the lands saved their lands from my hand, that Yahweh should save Jerusalem from my hand?”(2 Kgs 18:35). This is Sennacherib’s ‘reproach’ (πrj) of ‘the living god’ (yj µyhla) referred to in Hezekiah’s petition (2 Kgs 19:16). The Rab-shakeh here asks the common question of defeated peoples, Where are their gods now? (cf. 2 Kgs 18:33–35, 19:11–13; Ps 115:2). Hezekiah’s petition to Yahweh is presented as a response to this mockery (πrj) of Yahweh’s power. 42 The Judahite king is portrayed as petitioning ‘before Yahweh’ (hwhy ynpl), that is, before the ark and Yahweh’s cherub throne (2 Kgs 19:15). 43 The explicit concern of this petition is that Jerusalem, its people, and its god be spared the fate of other cities, their peoples, and their gods who similarly opposed Assyria. 44 These gods, the text repeats, were not powerful enough and are no longer present (2 Kgs 18:33–35, 19:11–13). Hezekiah’s petition refers specifically to the destruction of cult images that 40. See H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 215–52; and the studies cited in nn. 37–38 above. 41. Hebrew: vab µhyhla ta wntnw. 42. The Hebrew word πrj means ‘reproach, mock, taunt’; cf. Isa 65:7, where the exile is punishment for ‘taunting’ Yahweh: “for they burned incense upon the mountains and reproached me upon the hills.” 43. Tadmor and Cogan note this in ibid., 236. 44. Hezekiah is the only Judahite king whose rebellion against Assyria is documented in both Israelite and Neo-Assyrian sources. See ibid., 228–51.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 146 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

146

Chapter 4

accompanied Neo-Assyrian conquests (2 Kgs 19:18). The particular Deuteronomistic classification of these images as “not gods” and “works of human hands” suggests that, unlike Yahweh, “the living god” (2 Kgs 19:16) who alone made heaven and earth (2 Kgs 19:15), these deities were never powerful, alive, and present in their cult images. 45 In the same breath, however, the text suggests deep concern over the symbolic ‘killing’ of these cult images (µwdbayw [2 Kgs 19:18]) and, along with them, their cities and peoples. The Deuteronomistic authors of Hezekiah’s petition are clearly familiar with ancient West Asian iconic rituals and rhetoric of warfare and offer a response to the Neo-Assyrian threat that is particularly rich in iconic imagery. 46 As in the Ark Narrative, the presence and power of Yahweh is embodied in the cultic locus of the ark and cherub throne (2 Kgs 19:14–15), which is enlisted in defense against the “hand” of Israel’s enemy (2 Kgs 19:19). As in the icon parodies, the power and vitality of Yahweh is contrasted with the powerlessness and lifelessness of other deities. Amid explicit references to the NeoAssyrian destruction of cult images—that is, of the ancient West Asian practice of ritual “killings” of defeated people’s iconic deities—the Deuteronomists respond by claiming that these cult images were in fact dead even before they were killed by the Assyrians, without any sensory or other powers, and merely the work of human craftsmen. In contrast, Yahweh is represented as “the living god” (2 Kgs 19:16), and his sensory powers are explicitly invoked as he is asked to incline his ear and open his eyes (2 Kgs 19:16). Furthermore, in language reminiscent of the appeal to Yahwistic creation ideology and cosmogonic myth in the hymnic passages of the icon parodies, Yahweh’s power over “all the kingdoms of the earth” is expressed with reference to Yahweh’s creation of heaven and earth (2 Kgs 19:15; Jer 10:7, 10–12). The Deuteronomistic narration of the Neo-Assyrian campaign includes the unusual statement by the Rab-shakeh that, despite Hezekiah’s centralization of Yahwistic worship in Jerusalem, it was Yahweh himself who ordered Sennacherib to attack (2 Kgs 18:22, 25). This statement is an example of the common claim, made by victorious and vanquished peoples alike, that a deity supported the conquest of its own city. This claim was placed in the mouth 45. On the Deuteronomistic cliché (ˆbaw ≈[) vrj/µda ydy/µydy hc[m (µyhla) ‘(gods) (of wood and stone) made by (a) human/craftsman’s hand(s)’, see Deut 4:28; 27:15; 28:64; 31:29; 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 19:18 (= Isa 37:19); 22:17; Jer 1:16; 25:6, 7; 32:30; 44:8; Isa 2:8; Hos 14:4; Mic 5:12. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 324. 46. See the depictions of cult image destruction in the accounts of Sennacherib’s conquest of Babylon (Luckenbill, OIP 2, 83:48; 84:53–54) and Esarhaddon’s conquest of Elam (Borger, BIWA, A v 119–20, F iv 61–62 [A §56, F §31]; T v 1–2 [T §14]; A vi 62– 64, F v 42–43 [A §57, F §32]). See also the prayer of Nebuchadnezzar I to Marduk for the return of Marduk’s iconic presence from Elam back to Babylon (Frame, RIMB 2, B.2.4.5 1–19).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 147 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

147

of the potential victor, although it was made by the Deuteronomists to justify a potential Israelite defeat. This vindication of Yahweh’s presence and power was positively reinforced by Sennacherib’s withdrawal, leaving the ideology of Jerusalem’s inviolability not only intact but strengthened through the following century (cf. 2 Kgs 19:34: “For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David”). The other cities of Judah, however, shared the same fate as the North, leaving Jerusalem, its cult, its court, and its empowered Deuteronomistic circles in a position to dominate political and cultic developments in Judah through the following century. 47 During the brief interlude between Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian expansion, these Deuteronomistic circles seem to have achieved enough political power to propagate and, to some degree, implement their vision of Israelite cultic and sociopolitical order (that is, the so-called Deuteronomistic reforms), stamping their ideology on biblical literature and on the landscape of Judah through their classification of “proper” and “improper” Yahwistic practice. 48 Foremost on the Deuteronomistic agenda was the emphasis on the extirpation of an array of cultic traditions practiced throughout Israel and Judah at the time, based on the Deuteronomistic categorization of “proper Israelite/ Yahwistic” versus “improper Canaanite/Baalistic” cultic practices. 49 In light of the iconic ritual and rhetorical practices attested in Neo-Assyrian and other 47. See Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages.” 48. I do not suggest that the Deuteronomistic representation of normative Israelite cultic and social practice reflects its actual, monolithic imposition on the variety of practices flourishing in Iron II Judah and its vicinity. That is, in this case, “map is not territory.” Indeed, Deuteronomistic ideology has wielded undue influence on historical and archaeological reconstructions of Iron II Judahite society. I discuss this point further below. See N. Naªaman, “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research,” ZAW 107 (1995): 179–95, with references; and idem, “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah,” TA 18 (1991): 3–71. 49. Of concern in this study is not the specific identity and use of iconic and other elements of Iron II Northwest Semitic cult but instead the representation and classification of ritual practices by biblical authors. A discussion of the broad array of iconic and other cultic elements and their occurrences in biblical texts is beyond the scope of this study and is conveniently assembled in LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone.” LaRocca-Pitts catalogs biblical references to “Israelite cultic items” according to literary sources. Her focus on twmb, twbxm, µyrva, and twjbzm secondarily includes refrences to “cultic statuary.” LaRocca-Pitts’s “synthesis of biblical data on individual items” (ibid., 125–249) (namely, the four cultic elements referred to in biblical texts as twmb, twbxm, µyrva, and twjbzm), emphasizes the variety of “objects” to which these terms might individually refer, depending on the biblical source in which they appear. I would extend LaRocca-Pitts’s point by emphasizing that the biblical texts do not contain “direct references” to specific cultic items, even in the diachronic variety emphasized by LaRocca-Pitts. Rather, the biblical texts represent cultic practices linguistically through a variety of ideologically invested literary traditions.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 148 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

148

Chapter 4

Israelite traditions discussed thus far, the iconic focus of the Deuteronomistic program of cultic and sociopolitical formation is notable. The Deuteronomistic effort to centralize and define Yahwistic practice is frequently expressed through opposition to iconic cult. The core law code of Deuteronomy, for example, begins as follows: You must completely destroy (ˆwdbat dba) all of the places where the nations which you are dispossessing worshiped their gods, upon the mountain heights and the hills, and under every leafy tree. Break down their altars and smash their standing stones, and burn their Asherim in the fire, and hew down the statues of their gods, and destroy their name from that place. (Deut 12:2–3)

The fact that the Deuteronomic code (Deuteronomy 12–26) begins with this injunction highlights the central role that opposition to iconic foci of cult plays in the Deuteronomistic vision of Israelite social formation. Just as Sennacherib was said to have burned and ‘destroyed’ (µwdbayw) the gods of the nations and their lands in the petition of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19:18), the Israelites are similarly enjoined in Deut 12:2–3 to burn and ‘destroy’ (ˆwdbat dba) what the Deuteronomists represent as Canaanite sanctuaries and icons. Retrojecting their ideals of Israelite social formation during the 7th century on the authoritative traditions of the conquest of Canaan set in the time of Moses and Joshua, the Deuteronomists decree that the first order of business in the formation of the Israelite polity in Canaan will be the destruction (indeed, the “killing”) of all iconic foci of ritual power that stand, literally and figuratively, in opposition to the Deuteronomistic regime and its differentiated vision of “proper” Yahwistic practice in the Jerusalem temple complex. In an act reminiscent of the erasure and reinscription of divine and royal names on ancient West Asian divine and royal statuary, Deut 12:3 further instructs Israelites to “destroy their name from that place,” while they are to “seek out the place which Yahweh your God will choose from among all your tribes for his habitation to place his name there” (Deut 12:5). 50 In the Deuteronomistic polemic against “Canaanite” cultic sites and practices in general and iconic foci of cult in particular, it is difficult not to see a further link in the chain of iconic political traditions attested elsewhere in Mesopotamian and Israelite ritual and rhetorical practices. Viewing this aspect of Deuteronomistic cultic ideology as a variety of ancient West Asian iconic politics suggests that these Israelite authors were engaged, much like the authors of the icon parodies, in an act of ritual classification that was central to their program of Israelite social formation. In the case of the Deuteronomists, a distinct vision of Israelite identity is constructed and promoted through a binary system of classification that distinguishes between “the Is50. See chap. 3 nn. 72, 91, 92.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 149 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

149

raelite way” and “the Canaanite way.” As with the icon parodies, this act of classification targets iconic foci of cult and, in a supreme act of Israelite iconic politics, creates a ritual system by symbolically destroying a ritual system. In this respect, Deuteronomistic representations of ritual practice and social identity must be viewed not as static reflections of preexisting categories (such as “Israelite and Canaanite,” “Yahwistic and non-Yahwistic,” “foreign and native”), but as dynamic acts of classification and social formation that create new social orders through the construction of oppositional cultic and social categories. This Deuteronomistic classification of the Israelite ritual system was a powerful act of social formation, as it came to dominate the Israelite social system that supported it and that was, in turn, supported by it. This dominance is attested in the literary and, to a certain degree, archaeological record of ancient Judah. 51 The power of the Deuteronomistic classification of ritual and reality is attested by its influence in significantly defining the canonical, biblical representation of the “Israelite way” in ritual and society. This act of classification came to be accepted, it seems, as the “natural order” of truth and reality, among the social groups that first received these traditions and among later interpretive communities as well. 52 This includes traditions of modern 51. On archaeological reflections of iconoclastic aspects of Deuteronomistic ideology, see C. Uehlinger, “Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals”; idem, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary”; idem, “Gab es eine joschijanische Kultreform? Pladoyer für ein begrundetes Minimum,” in Jeremia und die “Deuteronomistische Bewegung” (ed. W. Gross; BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 57–89; Naªaman, “Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform”; idem, “Kingdom of Judah under Josiah”; Milgrom, “Nature and Extent of Idolatry”; A. Rainey, “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beer-Sheba and Arad,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King (ed. M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 333–54; I. Finkelstein, “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh,” in ibid., 169–87; B. Sass, “The Pre-Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism,” in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg on April 17–20, 1991 (ed. B. Sass and C. Uehlinger; OBO 125; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 194–256; Avigad and Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals; Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God; N. Avigad, Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive (trans. R. Grafman; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986); idem, Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive (Qedem 4; trans. R. Grafman; Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976); and the additional references cited in the introduction, nn. 24–25 and in n. 52 below on Arad. 52. Note, for example, the degree to which Deuteronomistic literature has influenced the dual classification of Israelite and Canaanite ritual practices and social identities, including scholarly interpretations of archaeological data from sites such as Arad and Qitmit. On the Israelite sanctuary at Arad, see Z. Herzog et al., “The Israelite Fortress at Arad,” BASOR 254 (1984): 1–34; A. Mazar and E. Netzer, “On the Israelite Fortress at Arad,” BASOR 263 (1986): 87–90; O. Zimhoni, “The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ºEton and Its Relation to the

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 150 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

150

Chapter 4

historical and archaeological scholarship that accept the Deuteronomistic classification of ritual systems and “the Israelite way” as a reflection of Israelite social formations and not as an act of social formation itself. 53 The literature of the Deuteronomistic movement thus attests to the employment of iconic modes of ritual classification during dynamic periods of social formation in 7th-century Judah. Given the resurgence of Israelite iconic political rhetoric during the Babylonian exile, as attested in the Israelite icon parodies, one might expect that exilic challenges to Israelite social formation would lead to a similar continuation, if not a resurgence, of iconic political rhetoric in the exilic strata of the Deuteronomistic corpus. That this is indeed the case is indicated, for example, in exilic passages in Deuteronomy 4, which depict Yahweh as a “devouring fire” that punishes iconic deviations from the Deuteronomistic regime with destruction and exile: If you act corruptly and make a statue of any form . . . you will be completely destroyed . . . Yahweh will scatter you among the peoples . . . and there you will serve gods made by human hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. (Deut 4:25–28)

These verses are among the passages long enlisted as evidence of Deuteronomistic literary activity during and after the Babylonian exile. 54 It seems, in fact, that exilic strata of Deuteronomistic literature promote a most extreme form of oppositional iconic rhetoric, wherein a normative Yahwistic ritual Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages,” TA 12 (1985): 84–89; see also D. Ussishkin, “The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars,” TA 4 (1977): 28–60. On Qitmit, see Beit-Arieh, Horvat Qitmit. And see esp. C. Uehlinger, “Arad, Qi†mit—Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis; BJS 346; Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 80–112. 53. The Deuteronomistic assault against twmb, twbxm, and µyrva was an innovation and part of a larger series of changes (“reforms”) to traditional, established forms of Israelite ritual practice. See S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 73. 54. The exilic provenance of editorial strata within Deuteronomy 4 is practically undisputed. Deut 4:25–31, with its parallels in Deuteronomy 30, provided evidence for Cross’s hypothesis of an exilic redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Cross, Canaanite Myth, 274–89). Scholars have long recognized Deuteronomy 4 as a composition distinct from Deuteronomy 1–3 and 5; its specific literary relationship to Deuteronomy and DtrH is disputed, as is the relative priority of its possible redactional layers. The debate is over what is preexilic and what is postexilic, what is Deuteronomistic and what is Priestly. See Dohmen, Bilderverbot, 200–210, esp. 200–202 for bibliography on the various proposals. See also Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 15–16. For discussions and references on Deut 4:1– 40, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 193–230.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 151 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

151

and social order is defined through categorical opposition to all anthropomorphic and theriomorphic cultic imagery (for example, as in Deut 4:15–19). This is a significant development that invites inquiry into the corpus of pentateuchal legal texts that prohibit the construction and ritual manipulation of cult images (Exod 20:4, 20:23, 34:17; Lev 19:4, 26:1; Deut 4:15–25, 5:8, 27:15). The icon parodies do not, it must be noted, exhibit explicit exegetical connections with these texts, and a full discussion of this so-called Bilderverbot corpus is beyond the scope of this study. However, the sociopolitical perspectives I have applied to the icon parodies, the Ark Narrative, and selected Deuteronomistic texts suggest a similarly political context for and invite a similarly political approach to the array of iconic prohibitions in pentateuchal legal corpora. C. Dohmen has, in this respect, argued that all of these socalled Bilderverbot texts exhibit evidence of exilic redaction, much of which is Deuteronomistic. 55 These texts may indeed represent an exilic confluence of Israelite and wider ancient West Asian iconic political traditions that, like the icon parodies, promote a sweeping classification of ritual that became authoritative after the Babylonian exile. Legal prohibitions against the construction and ritual manipulation of cult images, such as the so-called Second Commandment (Exod 20:4–5 and Deut 5:7–8), may in this light reflect, as do the icon parodies, the Ark Narrative, and the preexilic and exilic Deuteronomistic texts reviewed above, the typically oppositional focus of ancient West Asian iconic political discourse. As such, these texts may be interpreted as iconic, discursive modes of social formation. Their prohibitions against aspects of iconic cult would not belong to a “natural” interpretation of ancient West Asian iconic ritual and “the Israelite way.” Instead, they would belong to an act of symbolic classification that became so dominant in the construction of Israelite identity and the composition of the Hebrew Bible that it appeared natural to postexilic Israelite social groups and later interpretive communities alike. 56 55. Dohmen, Bilderverbot, e.g., 211–30 on Deut 5:8 and Exod 20:4. See also F.-L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog (OBO 45; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 21–32, 176–85, 259–73. 56. In the same way, the many representations of iconic cult in 8th-century prophetic corpora may reflect a similar familiarity with and participation in ancient West Asian iconic politics. Consider, for example, how the King of Assyria’s “taunt” in Isa 10:10–12 resembles the iconic political rhetoric in 2 Kings 18–19 discussed above, but combined with an oppositional classification of aspects of Israelite and Judahite iconic cult practice: Just as my hand seized the kingdoms of the idol (lylah) and their statues (µhylysp), which were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, what I did to Samaria and her idols (hylyla), shall I not do to Jerusalem and her icons (hybx[)?

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 152 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

152

Chapter 4

Based on the evidence of the Ark Narrative, preexilic and exilic Deuteronomistic texts, and the icon parodies, it therefore appears that Israelite authors employed the oppositional representation of iconic ritual as a rhetorical mode of social formation throughout ancient Israel’s existence as a sociopolitical entity in preexilic, exilic, and postexilic times. Furthermore, this Israelite participation in iconic politics seems to have flourished during moments of sociopolitical destruction and construction alike. An oppositional focus on iconic cult is evident, for example, in the historiographic response in the Ark Narrative to the memory of a major Philistine defeat in the 10th century. This focus is also evident in the poetic, historiographic, and legal traditions composed in the shadow of the Neo-Assyrian incursions of the 8th century and in the literature associated with political and cultic reform movements of late7th-century Judah. This emphasis on “iconic opposition” significantly characterizes Israelite exilic literature as well, as exemplified by the icon parodies and Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 1–39, 252) translates ‘worthless kingdoms’ in Isa 10:10, noting reasonably that lyla in the singular “always means worthless, never idols (cf. Jer 14:14; Zech 11:17; Job 13:4).” Yet the following lines invite, at the very least, an allusion to icons. The word lyla is always a polemical term connoting worthlessness and, often, ‘worthless’ deities. I therefore use the polemical English term idol to convey this sense. For the more neutral term bx[, I allow the context to convey the polemic. For a discussion of the Hebrew term lyla with references, see H. D. Preuss, “lyla, ª´lîl,” TDOT 1:285–87; idem, Verspottung, 58, 136ff., 139, 173, 240, 248–50, 281; North, “Essence of Idolatry,” 154–55. See Lev 19:4; 26:1; Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 19:1, 3; 31:7; Ezek 30:13 (read µyla, ‘gods’, cf. LXX); Hab 2:18; Zech 11:17; Pss 96:5; 97:7; 1 Chr 16:26. On the term lsp, see chap. 2 n. 40; on bx[, see chap. 2 n. 80 (pp. 73–74). On Assyrian political propaganda and Isaiah, see P. Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 719–37. In addition to Isa 10:10–11, other possible examples of iconic political rhetoric in 8th-century prophetic corpora include Amos 5:26; Hos 3:4, 4:17, 8:4, 11:2, 13:2, 14:9; Mic 1:7, 5:12; and Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 19:1, 3; 30:22; 31:7. Some but not all of these texts are likely exilic, perhaps Deuteronomistic additions, on which, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, 204–36. On the correlations between Hosea and the Deuteromistic movement with respect to iconic worship practices, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 366–70. Attention to ancient West Asian traditions of iconic political discourse might fruitfully redescribe the social contexts of these prophetic representations of iconic ritual, as well as the social contexts of Bilderverbot legal traditions, as acts of classification and iconic modes of social formation by ancient Israelite authors. With respect to later interpretive communities, note the relationship between cultic practice, social identity, and self-differentiation (“othering”) indicated in a Tannaitic midrash on Exod 20:3 that also invokes Hezekiah’s prayer: “ ‘Let there not be for yourself other gods . . .’ (Exod 20:3). ‘other gods . . .’ But are they gods? Is it not already said, ‘and they sent their gods into the fire—though they were not gods’ (2 Kings 19:18)? What then does the Torah mean by ‘other gods’? Rather that others called them gods. . . . Another interpretation: ‘other gods’ in the sense that they make those who serve them into ‘others’ ” (Mek. Ba˙odesh 6:18–27 [J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933–35), 2:238–39]).

spread is 5 points long

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 153 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

153

the compositions of the exilic Deuteronomists. The Neo-Babylonian conquest of Judah, therefore, led not to the beginning of Israelite iconic political traditions but certainly to its blossoming into new literary forms. 57 As a final example of the range of Israelite exilic traditions of iconic politics, I conclude this chapter with a discussion of the book of Ezekiel, which attests to a classic yet innovative example of Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic modes of social formation as a response to the sociopolitical circumstances of the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel and the Departure of Yahweh The book of Ezekiel maintains a thoroughgoing focus on iconic cult that is integrally linked to this prophet’s ideology of exile. The Babylonian exile, as envisioned by Ezekiel, is both sociopolitical and cultic. The political exile of Judahites in Babylonia is subsumed in Ezekiel’s ideology within a broader interpretation of a cultic exile of both the Israelite people and their deity from the Jerusalem temple complex. This model of cultic exile and divine abandonment represents a convergence of both Mesopotamian and Israelite literary and ritual traditions that focuses, more than in any other biblical corpus, on cult images. Ezekiel’s ideology of exile recalls the Deuteronomistic view of exile as punishment for sociopolitical and cultic error, 58 and a priestly view of errors of this sort as defiling. 59 These two streams of Israelite tradition merge 57. I describe Israelite icon parodies as an innovative “hybrid” genre of the exilic age in chap. 2. 58. On the exilic stratum of Dtr, see Cross, “Themes of the Book of Kings,” 274–89. 59. Ezekiel’s purity ideology is close to the ideology of H, which views cultic error as defiling. See J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 26–27. The P source does not view cultic error as defiling (see Num 5:11– 31, on which, see ibid. and B. Levine, Numbers 1–20 [AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993], ad loc.). Ezekiel’s view of the particular cultic error of iconolatreia as defiling is akin to the central theme in H of what Klawans terms “moral impurity.” H’s concern with cult images is attested in Lev 19:4 and 26:1. According to Klawans’s distinction between “ritual” and “moral” defilement, “idolatry” is morally defiling. See also idem, “Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 29 (1998): 391–415. On impurity and the binary opposition clean/unclean, see Olyan, Rites and Rank, 38–62. On the dating of H, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 1–63; I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Paris: Gabalda, 1982). Both Milgrom and Knohl regard some (but not all) of H as exilic. I employ the term Priestly to refer to P, as distinct from H. I employ the adjective priestly to refer more generally to traditions and issues associated with Israelite priesthoods. See Cross, “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel,” Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 195–215.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 154 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

154

Chapter 4

in Ezekiel within a vision of divine abandonment that parallels Mesopotamian historiographic traditions depicting the willful capture and exile of cult images. The central, driving issue of the Ezekiel corpus is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple of Yahweh in 587; the text is concerned above all with the causes, consequences, and resolution of this catastrophe. 60 In a way not dissimilar from the Ark Narrative, the protagonist in the book of Ezekiel is Yahweh himself, whose presence takes the form of his cherub-enthroned ‘glory’ (dwbk). Furthermore, Ezekiel depicts this iconic locus of Yahweh’s presence and power departing from his temple and city in a way that recalls the Ark Narrative and other ancient West Asian literary representations of cult image loss and divine abandonment among defeated peoples. Ezekiel’s vision of Yahweh’s flight from Jerusalem after the Neo-Babylonian conquest is portrayed in Ezek 11:23: And the glory of Yahweh (hwhy dwbk) went up from amidst the city and stood upon the mountain which was to the East of the city.

This vision of the departure of Yahweh’s ‘glory’ recalls the lament of Eli’s daughter-in-law over the loss of the ark in 1 Sam 4:22: (The) glory (dwbk) was exiled (hlg) from Israel when the ark of God was taken.

The political contexts and cultic concerns of Ezekiel’s vision mirror the contexts and concerns of the Ark Narrative. Ezekiel’s vision resists the interpretation of Israel’s defeat and the loss of the cultic locus of its deity as a defeat of Yahweh. Just as Yahweh remained in power while in the Temple of Dagon, his presence there serving as a punishment of Israel for the errors of the Elide priesthood, the willful departure of Yahweh’s “glory” from Jerusalem in Ezekiel 11 likewise argues for the continued kingship and power of the Israelite deity. 61 Ezekiel promotes yet another affirmation of Yahweh’s presence, power, and continued connection to his people and city, despite events that strongly suggest otherwise. 62 The vision of Yahweh’s abandon60. R. Albertz calls “the catastrophe of 587 . . . the conceptual and compositional center of the Book of Ezekiel” (Israel in Exile, 355). On the literary unity of the book of Ezekiel and an overview of previous scholarship, see ibid., 345–55; and Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 5–9. I accept Albertz’s view that the book of Ezekiel was composed by the first and second generations of the school of Ezekiel, primarily in Babylonia (“most likely in the vicinity of Nippur,” according to Albertz), with perhaps a final phase in Judah (Yehud) between 574 and 515 b.c.e. (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 352–53). 61. Cf. Isa 42:8; 52:7. 62. For a discussion of exilic texts reflecting the perception that Yahweh had abandoned the exiles in Babylonia, see Olyan, “ ‘We Are Utterly Cut Off,’ ” 43–51; idem, “The Status of Covenant During the Exile.”

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 155 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

155

ment of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 11 thus resembles ancient West Asian iconic discourse intended to retain the perception of a deity’s power despite the loss of its cult image during military conquest. 63 Ezekiel does not, however, suggest that Yahweh’s willful abandonment of his temple breaks his connection with Israel. On the one hand, Ezek 11:16a claims that it was Yahweh himself who exiled the Israelites, because of their iconic cultic “errors” (“For I sent them far away among the nations and scattered them among the lands”). This claim maintains Yahweh’s power despite Israel’s defeat and exile—in fact, it magnifies Yahweh’s power. On the other hand, Yahweh is depicted as accompanying the exiles, as v. 11:16b envisions the presence of Yahweh among them: “And I became for them a f[m vdqm in the lands to which they came.” 64 This claim retains Yahweh’s presence despite Israel’s defeat and exile—in fact, it brings Yahweh even closer to the people. 65 The emphasis in Ezekiel is therefore always on the presence and power of Yahweh, as it is in both the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies. And similar to those textual traditions, Ezekiel’s ideology of exile is further articulated through opposition to iconic foci of cult. As in Deut 4:25–27, Ezekiel identifies iconic ritual practice as the reason for Israel’s exile. 66 Note, in this respect, Ps 78:56–66, which represents the Philistine defeat of Israel and the loss of the ark as Yahweh’s willful abandonment of Shiloh in response to similar cultic errors: For they provoked him to anger with their high places, they made him jealous with their statues. . . . He abandoned his dwelling in Shiloh . . . and delivered his power to captivity, and his majesty to the hand of the foe. (Ps 78:58–61) 67

A focus on iconolatreia as the cause of Israel’s sociopolitical and cultic losses is maintained throughout the book of Ezekiel and is richly expressed through an extensive and polemical iconic vocabulary. 68 Ezekiel exhibits a familiarity 63. These issues are further explored in Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 53–70 and passim. 64. Hebrew: f[m vdqm. Kutsko recommends two possible translations: “a little sanctuary,” and “a sanctuary for a little while,” and notes that each is fitting: for the duration of the exile, “Yahweh will be present among Israel as a sanctuary” (Between Heaven and Earth, 98–99). See Ezek 11:14–25: the dwbk of Yahweh becomes a temporary sanctuary, which departs from the major sanctuary (Jerusalem), travels east with the exiles, and will gather them back west to Jerusalem (ibid.). 65. On Yahweh’s presence in exile, see ibid., 94–99. 66. See Albertz, Israel in Exile, 360–61. 67. On Psalm 78, see Campbell, Ark Narrative, 213–27. 68. Instances of µylwlg: Ezek 6:4–6, 9, 13; 8:10; 14:3–7; 16:36; 18:6, 12, 15; 20:7–8, 16, 18, 24, 31, 39; 22:3–4; 23:7, 30, 37, 39, 49; 30:13; 33:25; 36:18, 25; 37:23; 44:10, 12. Instances of µlx: Ezek 7:20; 16:17; 23:14. Instance of µylyla: Ezek 30:13. Instance of ‘wood and stone’: Ezek 20:32. Instance of µyprt: Ezek 21:26. The purity-oriented terms

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 156 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

156

Chapter 4

with Mesopotamian cult image construction and ritual maintenance reminiscent of the icon parodies: You took your finery made from my gold and silver that I gave to you, and made for yourself male images with which you whored. You took your fancy garments and covered them; and my oil and my incense you gave to them. My bread that I gave to you, fine flour, oil, and honey, that which I fed to you, you placed before them as a pleasing odor. And so it was. Oracle of my lord Yahweh. (Ezek 16:17–19)

In my discussion of the icon parodies, I argued that, although they focus above all on Babylonian iconic deities, their intended audience is Israelite. Ezekiel’s representation of Israelite participation in iconic ritual brings the Israelite exilic audience of these texts into more active relief. Doubt over Yahweh’s continued fidelity to his covenant with Israel in the exile is, in this way, linked to Israel’s fidelity (or infidelity) to their covenant with Yahweh, a fidelity maintained through a “proper” regime of Yahwistic practice as defined by these biblical authors. Distinctions between ritual systems and practices are thus established in both Ezekiel and the icon parodies in a way that emphasizes the power and presence of Yahweh despite the apparent destruction of Yahweh’s cult and the defeat and exile of his people. Ezekiel also draws on the exodus analogy, as do the Ark Narrative and Second Isaiah, to make this point. Ezek 20:8, for example, identifies the cause of Israel’s long sojourn in Egypt as punishment for worshiping Egyptian icons. With respect to neither the Egyptian nor the Babylonian exiles does Ezekiel allow this punishment to mitigate the overarching ideological effort to vindicate the power of Yahweh and his connection to Israel. Ezekiel 20 thus argues, through the exodus analogy, not only that it was Yahweh who punished them because of their iconic infidelities but also that it was Yahweh who ended this punishment in order to prevent his people’s reduced status from reflecting poorly on his “name” (cf. 2 Kgs 19:34): I acted for my name’s sake, so that it might not be desecrated before the eyes of the nations in whose midsts they were, before whose eyes I made myself known to them, that I would save them from the land of Egypt. So I brought them out from the land of Egypt. (Ezek 20:9) 69 µyxwqv and hb[wt appear in Ezekiel with a wider semantic range, often polemically indicating iconic cultic elements (Ezek 5:11; 7:20; 8:6, 9, 13; 11:18, 21; 14:6; 16:36; 22:2; 23:36). See LaRocca-Pitts, “Of Wood and Stone,” 112–14; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 29, 36. See also D. Bodi, “Les gillulim chez Ezéchiel et dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB 100 (1993): 481–510; V. Hurowitz, “tykcm ˆba—A New Interpretation,” JBL 118 (1999): 201–8. 69. Cf. Isa 48:11: “For my sake do I act, I will not give my glory (ydbk) to another.” Cf. Ezek 36:22–32. The exodus analogy, recalled also in the Ark Narrative, seems to have

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 157 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

157

Against any possible perception among the Israelite exiles that their predicament reflected their deity’s defeat, capture, and absence, Ezekiel 20 thus argues, through the exodus analogy, that it was because of Israel’s own failures, including the cultic error of worshiping µylwlg (20:8), that Yahweh’s name might appear diminished. 70 And just as this was not allowed to happen in Egypt, Ezek 20:32–44 also depicts Yahweh as refusing to allow Israel to further defile itself and thus his name through their serving “wood and stone” (20:32). 71 Their cessation of these proscribed worship practices would thus bring an end to their punishment of exile, so that their political status might again reflect the power and kingship of their deity. Ezekiel 10–11 and 20 thus argue that, in both Egypt and Babylonia, Yahweh exiled his people because of their social and iconic cultic “errors,” that Yahweh has accompanied Israel into her new exile, and that he will gather her in from Babylonia as he did from Egypt: Therefore . . . I will gather you from the peoples and collect you from the lands in which you are scattered and give you the land of Israel. (Ezek 11:17)

The effort to negate any question of Yahweh’s powerlessness and absence, despite Israel’s defeated, exilic status, is pursued in Ezekiel through the portrayal of Yahweh leaving the temple voluntarily, living among the exiles in Babylonia, and eventually returning them to the land of Israel. In all three cases, the ideological program is the same: the promotion of Yahweh’s power and presence despite his apparent powerlessness and absence. Ezekiel’s vision been employed as a paradigmatic justification of Yahweh’s power and kingship during low points in Israelite political history; cf. Exod 9:15–16: I might already have stretched out my hand and afflicted you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you from the earth, but instead I spared you for this reason, that I might show you my power to make my name known in all the earth.

See McCarter, I Samuel, 126. The invokation of the exodus analogy would further emphasize the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and Israel and its endurance despite defeat and exile. Cf. Ps 115:1: ˚tmaAl[ ˚dsjAl[ dwbk ˆt ˚mvlAyk wnl al hwhy wnl al. 70. See H. D. Preuss, “µylwlg, gillûlîm,” TDOT 3:1–5; M. I. Gruber, “Gillulim, µylwlg,” in DDD, 655–58; Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, 418–19; Bodi, “Les gillulim chez Ezéchiel.” Of the 48 appearances of this plural-only term in the Hebrew Bible, 39 are in Ezekiel (for citations, see n. 68 above); the remaining 9 appearances are in similarly late texts: 8 in texts of Deuteronomistic provenance (Deut 29:16; 1 Kgs 15:12, 21:26; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24; Jer 50:2) and once in H (Lev 26:30). In other words, this term appears only in late preexilic and exilic traditions, a fact that suggests connections between Dtr and H that here converge in a focus on iconic cult. Note the association of µylwlg with corpse impurity in Lev 26:30. 71. “Let us be like the nations, like the families of the lands, serving wood and stone” (Ezek 20:32). This Deuteronomistic cliché is thus employed in this verse as a mark of distinction that defines what Israel is not. Cf. Jer 2:27; Hab 2:19.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 158 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

158

Chapter 4

of restoration recalls ancient West Asian historiographic traditions depicting the willful return of a captured iconic deity, the message of which is that the deity in question was never defeated or dethroned. In this respect, two phrases are repeated again and again in Ezekiel 20: “I am Yahweh your god,” and “I act for the sake of my name” (the phrase “I am Yahweh” appears 22 times in the 44 verses of Ezekiel 20). 72 For defeated and exiled Israelites who may have questioned the power and presence of their deity, Ezekiel’s oracles argue that this was not so. 73 The emphasis in Ezekiel on the power of Yahweh’s name, the presence of Yahweh’s “glory,” and the denigration of cult images is echoed in Isaiah 42:8: I am Yahweh, that is my name. My glory (ydwbk) I give to no other, nor my praise to statues (µylyspl).

Ezekiel’s priestly vision of Israelite ritual and social order thus responds to the challenges of the Babylonian exile by participating in traditions of ancient West Asian iconic political rhetoric that promote the revivification and reenthronement of the captured deities of defeated peoples. 74 The ideological program in Ezekiel to promote the presence and power of Yahweh among a defeated and exiled Israel is pursued in two ways, both of which participate in ancient West Asian modes of iconic political rhetoric. On the one hand, Yahweh’s presence, power, and kingship are repeatedly emphasized, despite the events of 587 b.c.e., in language and imagery that closely resemble ancient West Asian and other Israelite rhetorical traditions portraying the retained power of captured iconic deities of defeated nations. 75 On the other hand, the Israelites’ interaction with other iconic foci of cult is depicted as the cause of their exile and as a defiling endangerment to the covenantal connections between Israel and Yahweh already so threatened by their life in Babylonia. This dual emphasis, which promotes Yahweh’s presence and power as it denigrates iconic foci of non-Yahwistic cults, is structurally similar to the weave of hymn and parody in the icon parodies. Both elements in Ezekiel function as mirroring facets of one act of ritual classification and social formation. Just as the icon parodies compare and oppose the life and power of Yahweh with the death and powerlessness of cult images, Ezekiel responds to the Babylonian 72. Both phrases resemble the language and concerns of Second Isaiah. The concern, it seems, is that Yahweh’s name has been tarnished. 73. As noted in chap. 2 n. 107 (p. 83), exilic texts indicating the perception of Yahweh’s abandonment of the exiles include Lam 5:20; Isa 42:16, 49:14, 54:7, 62:4; Deut 4:31; see Olyan, “ ‘We Are Utterly Cut Off,’ ” 48–51; idem, “The Status of Covenant During the Exile.” 74. Note, e.g., Ezek 20:33: “ ‘By my life,’ Oracle of my lord Yahweh . . . ‘I will be king over you!’ ” 75. See Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 101–56.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 159 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

159

exile by classifying the ancient West Asian ritual system between two opposing poles that signify, among other things, power and powerlessness, fidelity and infidelity, exile and return, land and landlessness, purity and defilement, and ultimately life and death. 76 Israelite Aniconism or Israelite Iconic Politics? Although this chapter has focused on a limited set of texts, I have pointed at times to a much larger corpus of Israelite representations of iconic ritual. I have recommended a redescription of this corpus not as data for the inexorable development of ancient Israel’s distinctive iconoclastic traditions but instead as evidence of Israelite participation in iconic political modes of social formation from the beginning of the First Temple period to its end. In particular, the interpretive approach I have pursued in this chapter suggests that the biblical evidence for what is commonly referred to as Israelite “aniconism” is, ritually and politically, not essentially dissimilar from “iconism.” For example, I have argued that, in the Ark Narrative, the ark plays the classic role of a cult image in the ancient West Asian iconic ritual practice and rhetoric of warfare. Because the ark is not an anthropomorphic cult image, however, it is often categorized as a different class of cultic item. 77 Mettinger, for example, has classified the Israelite veneration of the ark as an instance of “empty space aniconism.” 78 This view finds its support in the position of the 76. On the binary dyad “unclean/clean” as a ritual and rhetorical mode of Israelite social formation, see Olyan, Rites and Rank, 38–62. See also idem, “Purity Ideology in Ezra– Nehemiah.” 77. The search for Yahweh’s cult image continues unabated. See Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary”; Niehr, “In Search of Yhwh’s Cult Statue”; Becking, “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism.” Interpretations of the Taanach cult-stand as evidence of “empty space aniconism” seem to be an argument from silence. See Beck, “Cult-Stands from Taanach.” See also Kletter, Judean Pillar Figurines; van der Toorn, “Israelite Figurines.” 78. Mettinger, “Veto on Images,” 22, 27. Lewis, “Divine Images,” 49, agrees. In a series of studies culminating in his influential book, No Graven Image?, Mettinger has helpfully challenged the distinctiveness of Israelite prohibitions against the worship of cult images by locating it within a broader phenomenon that he calls “West Semitic aniconism.” Mettinger defines aniconism as referring to cults that have “no iconic representation of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant or central cultic symbol” (“Israelite Aniconism,” 174). Included in this category would be, for example, cults in which “more or less unworked stones, pillars, or poles are the central cult symbols and objects of worship. Cases of sacred emptiness: the empty throne, the empty cultic chariot, the saddled horse without its (divine) rider, or the empty holy of holies of postexilic times . . . also belong in this category” (No Graven Image? 19). Cases of “aniconic symbols” Mettinger calls “material aniconism”; cases of “sacred emptiness” he calls “empty space aniconism.” Mettinger further distinguishes between two stages in Israelite aniconism, a preexilic de facto aniconism and an exilic and postexilic programmatic aniconism. Israelite preexilic de

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 160 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

160

Chapter 4

ark as the footstool of Yahweh’s cherub throne in the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple, as indicated in the formula that appears in the Ark Narrative and elsewhere, “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of armies enthroned upon the cherubim” (1 Sam 4:4). 79 Mettinger further suggests that the spoliation of Dagon’s cult image in 1 Sam 5:1–4 is an early attestation of “programmatic aniconism” in ancient Israel. 80 Both the Ark Narrative and the icon parodies are often included as data for reconstructing the history of Israelite aniconism, the latter being commonly regarded as a culminating moment in the development in ancient Israel of “de facto aniconism” into “programmatic aniconism.” 81 The discussion of these texts within the rubric of “Israelite aniconism” has similarly associated them with a host of other biblical texts including, above all, the so-called Bilderverbot legal texts. 82 This association, in turn, aligns them with Israelite polemical representations of other deities—that is, with the so-called Fremdgötterverbot traditions that are often associated with Bilderverbot texts. 83 In other words, texts such as the icon parodies, the Ark Narfacto aniconism, he suggests, was linked to a conventional aniconic cultic tradition that did not include cult image worship but that was tolerant of and indifferent to icons. The later, exilic and postexilic programmatic aniconism entailed a direct repudiation of images and was the product of a conscious program of reflection “linked with iconophobia or iconoclasm” (No Graven Image? 18) and was likely due to “an historical situation featuring close contact with iconic cults” (“Israelite Aniconism,” 203). Mettinger’s contextualization of Israelite modes of representation of deity within the West Semitic cultural sphere (his “West Semitic aniconism”) has proved a valuable contribution to the debate on Israelite aniconism. However, a descriptive distinction between aniconism and iconism ought not lead to a sharply dualist interpretive classification of these ritual practices. 79. See Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth”; Haran, “Ark and the Cherubim”; idem, Temples and Temple Service, 246–59. However, also see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 516–21. Cf. 2 Kgs 19:15. 80. Mettinger, No Graven Image? 196. 81. Mettinger, No Graven Image?; Lewis, “Divine Images”; Dick, “Prophetic Parodies.” 82. E.g., Exod 20:4, 23; 34:17; Lev 19:4; 26:1; Deut 4:15–25; 5:8; 27:15. See Dohmen, Bilderverbot. 83. Ibid., 236–77. Dohmen proposes a literary-historical and cultural-historical developmental scheme for what he identifies as biblical Bilderverbot legal traditions. He divides this development into essentially three stages: (1) the Fremdgötterverbot orientation of the Elijah-Elisha cycle and its 9th-century context, (2) a transitional period in the 8th century, represented in Hosea’s early associations of a Fremdgötterverbot with a Bilderverbot (that is, the explicit association of “foreign gods” with “foreign cult images”), and (3) a final stage, in the late 7th and early 6th centuries, when a Bilderverbot comes to eclipse a Fremdgötterverbot; that is, when a previous emphasis on Yahwistic monolatry, which did not concern itself with whether Yahwistic worship was iconic or not, yields to a programmatic ban on cult images in general, a ban that expands into a prohibition against any form of representational art that might lead to iconolatreia. Dohmen proposes this cultural-historical

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 161 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

161

rative, Ezekiel, and the Deuteronomistic polemical representations of iconic cult discussed above have often been employed to support broad models of the development of Israelite religion, such as the proposed developments in ancient Israel from “de facto” to “programmatic aniconism,” and from a Fremdgötterverbot to a Bilderverbot. 84 These interpretive schemes can, however, come to resemble less-nuanced, positivistic models of cultural-historical development that assume, for example, an inexorable, teleological emergence of Israelite abstract monotheism out of fetishistic, iconic polytheism.

development based on an assiduous investigation of the literary history of a variety of legal texts composed, he argues, in the early divided monarchy (as Fremdgötterverbot) and reedited during the later Judahite monarchy and exilic age (as Bilderverbot). Dohmen’s careful appeal to literary-historical criteria thus leads to a religious-historical model for the emergence and development of a Bilderpolemik through Israelite history. Dohmen’s thesis is that the culmination of this development lies in an aniconic monotheism exhibited in exilic and postexilic prophetic compositions and in late Deuteronomistic editorial strata in texts such as Deut 4:16–25. Dohmen maintains that this last stage of development represents a welding together of the originally distinct prohibitions against the worship of “foreign gods” on the one hand and the veto on images on the other. This final stage comes as a response to the events of 586 b.c.e. Dohmen’s thorough literary-historical analysis stands properly as the basis for his related proposals on the development of aspects of Israelite religion; but it is also based on those developmental schemes. Dohmen’s developmental trajectory for biblical attitudes toward iconolatreia and its proposed culmination in an aniconic monotheism in 6th-century Judah occasionally draws on cultural-historical models to solve difficult or impossible literary-historical problems in Bilderverbot texts. Dohmen’s conclusions derive, therefore, not always from the texts alone but from interpretive positions supporting and supported by a broad teleological trajectory in the development of Israelite religion. 84. It is worth noting that Dohmen’s proposed trajectory for the development from Fremdgötterverbot to Bilderverbot parallels the similar development proposed by Mettinger from preexilic de facto Israelite aniconism to exilic and postexilic programmatic aniconism. See Dohmen, Bilderverbot; Mettinger, No Graven Image? 18 and passim; idem, “Israelite Aniconism,” 203. M. B. Dick writes with respect to Dohmen’s thesis that the theological stresses of 586 b.c.e. assured both the triumph of Yahwistic monotheism and of aniconic worship: Yahweh’s cult had probably always been aniconic, but now there were no gods but Yahweh, so there was utterly no room for any cult image! The prophetic parodies respond to the same contemporary crisis. Although they stem from different traditions, the legal and the prophetic understandings of a monotheistic and aniconic Yahwism cope with the same catastrophe. The archeological evidence also seems to support a gradual evolution of an aniconic religion in Israel. (Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 2)

My questions concern the degree to which these broad developmental trajectories are supported by the variety of ancient evidence on these cultic practices, the degree to which the biblical literary evidence reflects actual social practices, and the significant theoretical issues pertaining to the interpretation of literary representations of ritual practice.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 162 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

162

Chapter 4

Similarly, developmental hypotheses of this sort can come to find their support in dual classification systems that oppose, for example, “alien” to “Israelite,” “Yahwism” to “Baalism,” or “iconism” to “aniconism.” 85 The underlying structure of this dual classification, however, is established through the iconic sociopolitical rhetoric of the Israelite textual evidence itself; hypotheses of this sort, therefore, can confuse theory with data. If so, they would further reflect the classificatory power of Israelite iconic politics, attesting to its influence on both ancient and modern interpretations of Israelite social formations. They would not, however, fully illuminate the ritual and sociopolitical landscape out of which this literature and its system of ritual classification emerged. The Ark Narrative, Ezekiel, Deuteronomistic historiography, and Israelite icon parodies together attest to a diverse Israelite tradition of ancient West Asian iconic political discourse. This tradition flourished among a broad spectrum of Israelite authorial circles before, during, and after the Babylonian exile. The texts discussed in this chapter maintain a similarly iconic focus on a similar set of sociopolitical concerns. As such, they may all be described as iconic modes of discourse and social formation, which appropriate political power through polemical representations of ritual practice. Constructing binary systems of ritual classification that focus on iconic cult, these Israelite traditions, like other ancient West Asian traditions of iconic politics, configure local social power relations by capturing and “killing” the cult images of others. The larger question I have raised in this chapter is whether much of the literature with which the icon parodies are so often associated—including the prophetic and historiographic traditions developed by the Deuteronomistic movement, as well as other texts reflecting so-called aniconism in ancient Israel—may be viewed in a similar way: not as inevitable steps along the path toward the unique yet natural emergence of “Israelite programmatic aniconism” but as variations of Israelite iconic politics and discursive acts of power that classified cult. This interpretive approach could yield a redescription of Israelite aniconism, one that replaces a thinly descriptive (if not phenomenological) interpretation of these texts with a thicker description that better locates the sociopolitical contexts of their composition, propagation, and early reception. It would, for example, identify the representation of the Yahwistic ritual system in these texts as a map of the roles and relations of social power that supported and were supported by their authors. Through this, we may come to know more about who these authors were, for whom 85. “Aniconism” is not a native Israelite term but a “second order category of analysis” (Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 269, 281). As such, it is not dissimilar to the category idolatry, which Smith calls a “category of otherness” (ibid., 271).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 163 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel

163

they were writing, and why they wrote. The examples discussed in this chapter suggest the utility of an approach of this sort and recommend further investigations along these lines.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 164 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Conclusion

Classification and Cult I have argued throughout this study that Israelite authors wielded power in their societies through their representation of iconic ritual. Focusing on the icon parodies specifically, I have sought to redescribe these poetic compositions not as static descriptions of Mesopotamian iconic cult by intellectually privileged Israelite exiles but as dynamic constructions of seemingly natural taxonomies by and for Israelite social groups. 1 These poems were written by literate Judahites whose instrument of power, after the destruction of their traditional political and ritual modes of social formation, was discourse. The symbolic power of their compositions derived from their authoritative classification of ritual practice and was a function of the legitimacy that their classification of cult was granted. By drawing on and reconfiguring authoritative mythic, ritual, and rhetorical traditions from both ancient Israel and Mesopotamia, these writers authorized themselves to produce a representation of iconic cult that could, in Bourdieu’s words, transform “the vision of the world and, thereby, action on the world and thus the world itself ” (that is, the social world of exilic and postexilic Israel). 2 Encompassing the Babylonian and Israelite ritual systems within one dual classification system, these writers wielded the symbolic power of both and projected it on their Israelite audience. 3 Their ingenious production of a legitimate and legitimating taxonomy of ancient West Asian ritual practice was quickly incorporated into authoritative Israelite literary traditions. For postexilic Israelite social groups, it became an authoritative template for seemingly natural configurations of “true” and “correct” Yahwistic ritual. Postbiblical interpretive communities later came to view this binary classification of cult as the authoritative origin of their own 1. Regarding the construction of taxonomies by dominant social groups, Bourdieu speaks of the conversion of “social properties into natural properties” through “the imposition of political systems of classification beneath the legitimate appearance of philosophical, religious, legal (etc.) taxonomies” (Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, 170). 2. Bourdieu similarly writes: “What creates the power of words and slogans, a power capable of maintaining or subverting the social order, is the belief in the legitimacy of words and of those who utter them” (ibid.). 3. On “the encompassing” and “the encompassed” in cartographies of status and power, see Smith, To Take Place, 45–73.

164

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 165 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Conclusion

165

seemingly natural, dualist critique of “idolatry.” 4 The power of icon parodies in ancient Israel derived not, however, from the dualism of this interpretive tradition but instead from the power of cult images themselves in the monistic ritual and discursive environment of ancient West Asia. Ancient West Asian temple cults, including the cult of Yahweh in Judah, focused above all on maintaining a deity’s presence in local sanctuaries and cities. A deity’s presence was cultivated through a variety of ritual activities including sacrifice, prayer, and the maintenance of purity in temple precincts. Humans also played a role in initiating a deity’s presence in these sites, for example, as Solomon did when he built a temple for Yahweh in Jerusalem. 5 In Mesopotamian iconic cult, the presence of deity on earth was embodied in the cult image and initiated through the mis pî rite. As a ritual site where humans interacted with the presence of gods, the mis pî rite was not categorically dissimilar from the sacrificial rituals of the Jerusalem temple. 6 Bahrani has described the Mesopotamian cult image as a “mode of presencing.” 7 Despite their different modes of presencing, the temple cults of Mesopotamia and ancient Israel were both structured by the roles played by humans in initiating and maintaining the presence of deity. Similarly, humans also played a role in initiating the absence of deity from their midst. I have discussed in this study a number of different modes of “absencing” deity that are depicted in ancient West Asian sources. This has included descriptions of gods being driven away because of improper cultic acts in their sanctuaries and improper social acts in their cities and descriptions of gods being taken away, damaged, or destroyed by others. The presence and absence of deity is a recurring motif in Israelite exilic literature. Kutsko has discussed the expressions of this motif in the book of Ezekiel, which represents one constellation of responses to the social and ritual challenges confronting ancient Israel in the 6th century b.c.e. 8 I have 4. On the emergence of the category idolatry, see Smith, “Religion, Religions, Religious,” 269–84. 5. 2 Samuel 7; 1 Kgs 5:1–9:14. 6. For Mesopotamian iconic cults, the mis pî ritual was uniquely important because it was the activity that allowed for all subsequent human interaction with embodied deities in their cultic contexts. Given the necessity of the mis pî rite for imbuing Mesopotamian cult with the presence and power of divinity, a cult without this ritual and without an embodied presence of deity may well have struck the Mesopotamian iconodule as vacuous, powerless, and foolish. 7. Bahrani describes ßalmu in this way. She translates ßalmu broadly as ‘representation’ (Graven Image, 137); see also n. 10 below. On “presencing,” see OED s.v. 8. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth. See, for example, the vision in Ezekiel (10:1– 22, 11:16) of Yahweh’s presence (dwbk) departing from Jerusalem and descending on the exiles in the form of a ‘little’ or ‘temporary sanctuary’ (f[m vdqm) (ibid., 94–99).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 166 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

166

Conclusion

discussed ways in which Israelite icon parodies address similar concerns about divine presence and absence. As I have argued, the icon parodies affirm the presence and power of Yahweh, deny the presence and power of the gods of Babylonia, and draw heavily from the iconic ritual and rhetorical traditions of ancient West Asia to do so. The variety of ancient West Asian traditions that I have compared to Israelite icon parodies may all be described as modes of presencing and absencing deity through iconic discourse and practice. For example, I have argued that the hymnic weave of the icon parodies parallels ancient West Asian historiographic traditions that affirm the presence and power of departed and returning deities amid sociopolitical circumstances of conquest, exile, and restoration. Similarly, I have argued that the corresponding weave of icon parody, which negates the presence and power of cult images and the efficacy of iconic rites, parallels the ancient West Asian discourse and practice of cult image abduction, mutilation, and destruction. By describing the icon parodies as variations on these iconic traditions, I have presented these poems as evidence not of ancient Israel’s differentia specifica but, on the contrary, of ancient Israel’s participation in the iconic practices they polemically represent. 9 Israelite authors of the 6th century b.c.e. inhabited a world in which configurations of social power relations were inscribed upon social groups through the manipulation of cult images in practice and in discourse. Cult images embodied these social power relations; the creation and destruction of cult images were thus particularly powerful social acts. When masterfully executed to achieve authoritative status, discursive representations of cult image construction and destruction could become equally powerful acts. In the monistic ritual and discursive environment of ancient West Asia, both iconic rites and iconic discourse “represented” the power of cult images to structure societies. 10 These correlations between the power of iconic rites and the power of iconic discourse are evident, for example, in acts of writing on abducted cult images themselves, as Esarhaddon did when he inscribed “the might of Assur”

9. Cf. Mettinger, No Graven Image? 196: “It could be said with some justification that the express veto on images belongs to Israel’s differentia specifica.” 10. Bahrani argues that, in the monistic ritual and social landscape of Babylonia and Assyria, the cult image was one of several possible “modes of presencing,” and ßalmu could also be “re-presented” through writing: “In Assyro-Babylonian thought, images and words were never completely separated”(Graven Image, 118–20; see also 137–84). Bahrani writes of the cuneiform “image-text” and argues that “Alphabetic script depends on the conceptual breakup of the sign/referent” (ibid., 119); I argue that, in ancient Israel, ritual practice and classificatory representations of ritual could also, if granted legitimacy, create “the real” for Israelite social groups.

spread is 12 points short

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 167 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Conclusion

167

and his own name upon the cult images he returned to Hazael. 11 This was an act of power, which shared in the power of cult images themselves to configure social power relations through the presencing and absencing of deity. Authoritative discourse about the creation and destruction of cult images was a preferred mode of social formation in ancient Israel, Assyria, and Babylonia. For example, the mis pî ritual texts were themselves discursive representations of power and potential sites of contestation over the prescription and mastery of highly privileged activities that presenced deity in Assyria and Babylonia. 12 Similarly, royal inscriptions that depicted the abduction and destruction of cult images were discourses of power and representations of practices that absenced deity. All of these discourses were social acts that represented powerful iconic modes of social formation. I have argued that Israelite icon parodies were also a form of iconic discourse that presenced and absenced deity, which became socially powerful as they were embedded into prophetic corpora and granted normative status as authoritative representations of ritual for postexilic Israelite social groups. When I draw parallels between Israelite icon parodies and ancient West Asian traditions of cult image abduction, mutilation, and destruction, I argue that the manipulation of icons through discourse participated in the power of iconic cult itself to structure social formation in ancient West Asia. I further argue that the power of manipulating icons through force can be matched by the power of manipulating icons through discourse. 13 Thus, when the icon parodies deny the sensory powers of iconic deities (seeing, hearing, smelling), this may be compared to the ancient West Asian practice of removing eyes, ears, heads, and hands from an enemy’s statuary, 14 including, for example, Assurbanipal’s removal of the mouth and hands of the statue of Hallusu 15 and 11. Shutruk-Nahunte also did this when he inscribed the Victory Stele of Naramsin with a dedication to his own god Inshushinak (on which, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 156 and fig. 18; Knippschild, “Spoils and Iconoclasm”). For the Esarhaddon inscription, see Borger, Inschriften Asarhaddons, §27 ep. 14 Nin. A IV 1–14; Holloway, Assur Is King! 279 n. 182, 140, and n. 203. On reinscribing monuments and statuary, see Bahrani, Graven Image, 97–119, 156–84. See also chap. 3 nn. 71–72, 91–92. 12. See chap. 3 nn. 151–53 (p. 126). 13. Regarding the power of discourse in ancient Israel, note the depictions of Yahweh as a writer in Exod 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; Deut 10:2, 4. See J. Schaper, “A Theology of Writing: Deuteronomy, the Oral and the Written, and God as Scribe,” in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Research (ed. L. Lawrence and M. Aguilar; Leiden: Deo, 2004), 97–119. 14. Compare evidence for the dismemberment of enemies, rivals, and covenant violators. See chap. 3 nn. 86–87; Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations,” 214 n. 42. 15. Borger, BIWA, “Exkurs: Der Texte K 3062 + 82–3–23,20,” rev. 1:12–19.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 168 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

168

Conclusion

the removal of Dagon’s head and hands in the Ark Narrative. 16 These parallels are not always simple, but the effect is the same. For example, a mutilated statue has had its eyes removed, while the icon parodies claim that a statue has eyes and cannot see, but in both representations these statues are blind. 17 Similarly, when the icon parodies describe Babylonian cult images as “dead” and “not gods,” this may be compared to Assurbanipal’s counting the destroyed iconic deities of Elam as “phantoms” that no longer belong within the class, gods, and to the analogous description of Nabonidus’s cult image of Sîn as a “phantom,” “nothingness,” a work of “falsehood” and “unholiness.” 18 These discourses and the iconic practices they represent did not objectively describe cult images; for those who accepted the authority of these representations, they “killed” them. Likewise, when the icon parodies deny the power of the mis pî rite to vivify Mesopotamian cult images, these Israelite authors effectively destroy Babylonian deities “in utero”; 19 the effect of this discourse is similar to Sennacherib’s description of the destruction of Babylon and its icons as a form of “cosmogonic reversal,” in which the city and its gods were reduced to a state of nonbeing, as though they had never existed. 20 These discourses may all be described as acts of power and modes of absencing that draw on authoritative mythic and ritual traditions and the symbolic power of cult images to configure social formation in ancient West Asian societies. The statements of Yahweh’s incomparable power embedded in and around Israelite icon parodies are thus expressed through comparative, oppositional iconic discourses that draw on the power of iconic practices themselves to presence and absence deity. They discursively inscribe “the might of Yahweh” upon the cult images of Babylon and thereby configure relations of power along a monistic, hierarchical continuum in a way that is not categorically distinct among ancient West Asian traditions of myth, ritual, and dis16. 1 Sam 5:1–4. 17. Social formation in ancient West Asia could thus be affected by each of the following acts: An iconic ritual practice that “opens the mouth” of a statue; a discourse that prescribes and configures this mouth-opening ritual; the mutilation of a statue’s mouth; a discourse that describes the mutilation of a statue’s mouth and its effects; and a discourse that claims that statues “have mouths but cannot speak.” Each of these acts could have configured social power relations, if it was accepted as a normative and authoritative representation of iconic embodiments of social power relations. 18. Borger, BIWA, A vi 62–64, F v 42–43 (A §57, F §32); Verse Account I 19–20, II 16–17; 2 Kgs 19:15–19; see chap. 3 nn. 82–85 (p. 108), 141–42 (p. 124). 19. Note the mis pî incantations that evoke a divine birth of the images after their emergence from the icon workshop: “In heaven it is born of itself, on earth it is born of itself ” (STT 199 obv.: 1, 3). See chap. 3 n. 41 (p. 96). 20. Luckenbill, OIP 2, 84:53–54; see chap. 3 nn. 76–79 (p. 107); Holloway, Assur Is King! 122. Cf. the reverse sequence of icon construction in Isa 44:14.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 169 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Conclusion

169

course. 21 The comparative, oppositional challenges by Yahweh to other gods in Isa 41:23–24 and Isa 44:6–8 are, for example, not categorically or rhetorically dissimilar from Sennacherib’s claim over the gods of Babylon or Assurbanipal’s claim over the gods of Elam. In each case, the social power of these now inoperative cults was usurped and projected in a new hierarchical configuration on the “witnesses” of these discourses. 22 Yahweh’s incomparable power is expressed in Isa 40:18–26 through an oppositional comparison with Babylonian cult images (Isa 40:19–20); through a recitation of Yahweh’s cosmogonic acts (Isa 40:21–23); and through further comparisons with minor divine beings visible above (Isa 40:25–26). This is not categorically distinct from the depiction of Marduk’s acquisition and possession of power in Enuma Elis. 23 The icon parodies do not draw only on Mesopotamian traditions of iconic ritual and discourse. I have also emphasized the way they invoke authoritative Israelite traditions, such as Yahwistic creation themes and exodus motifs, which depict Yahweh’s power over other peoples and deities and his covenantal loyalty to Israel. In this respect, the icon parodies represent an innovative amalgam of Israelite and Mesopotamian traditions. This hybrid genre of Israelite exilic literature is distinctive within the extant ancient West Asian literary record. This distinction is, however, a matter of degree and may be described as a “distinctive configuration of traits” that richly reflects the cultural resources and the sociopolitical circumstances of their exilic provenance. 24 The genius of these Israelite poets (and the power of their discourse) does not lie in their discovery of a dualist abstract monotheism completely divorced from the iconic modes of social formation all around them. It lies instead in the way they engaged those modes of social formation and in their production of an authoritative, sweeping classification of ancient West Asian myth and ritual. By targeting the cult images of Babylonia, they appropriated iconic modes of social formation and directed them toward building the ritual and social foundations of exilic and postexilic Israel. Their discursive destruction 21. Cf. n. 11 above (p. 167); Deut 12:1–5. 22. Isa 41:24 likens these gods to ‘nothing’ (ˆyam µta ˆh); Isa 44:8, 9 juxtaposes Yahweh’s “witnesses” with “their witnesses.” When I suggest that these discourses are categorically similar, I refer to their oppositional iconic rhetoric as a mode of presencing and absencing deity and claim that they do not distinguish between these representations of deity on the basis of ontologically dualist categories. The denial of the power of cult images to eat, walk, and otherwise act in cultic contexts rejects the social power of these local iconic cults. 23. See chap. 2 n. 64 (p. 65); chap. 3 nn. 129–30 (p. 121). 24. P. Machinist writes of “configurations of traits” as opposed to “pure distinctive traits” (“The Question of Distinctiveness,” 200).

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 170 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

170

Conclusion

of icons was thus entirely constructive. Their mode of absencing Babylonian deity through the icon parodies was intertwined with their mode of presencing Israelite deity through the Yahwistic hymns. These two literary and ideological strands reflect the sociopolitical contexts of exile and restoration. Israelite icon parodies were discursive acts of power not over their explicit target of Babylonian cult and society but rather over the exilic and early postexilic Israelite social groups for whom they were written. This view of the texts calls attention to the production of categories as a mode of social formation. By constructing a classificatory system of privileged oppositions between Babylonian and Israelite ritual and myth, the authors of the icon parodies defined the configurations of Yahwistic ritual practice and Israelite social identity. These categories appear descriptive, but they are interpretive. They are not about categorical difference; they are about categorizing difference. Calling attention to the way the icon parodies produce and configure ritual and social categories is a necessary interpretive step, taken in order to avoid “slipping” into these categories themselves and accepting them as objective representations of iconic ritual and social realia. They are a particular form of Israelite ethnographic discourse; they appear to describe Babylonian ritual practice but, in fact, attest to Israelite discursive practice. They appear to dismiss the power of iconic foci of cult over the formation and configuration of societies, but in fact they operate through this very power to achieve these very same goals. They “protest too much,” as it were, and, by means of their sustained negation of the power of cult images to affect the formation of ancient West Asian social systems, they affect the formation of their own Israelite social system by classifying its cult in an authoritative way. Redescribing Israelite polemical representations of cult images as iconically focused acts of discursive power and social formation invites similar inquiry into other representations of iconic cult in the Hebrew Bible. In chap. 4, I pointed in this direction, suggesting that Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic political discourse was not limited to the icon parodies. I argued that the Ark Narrative and the book of Ezekiel contain equally clear attestations of Israelite participation in ancient West Asian iconic political traditions. 25 I also pointed to the potentially fruitful application of this interpretive approach to the wide variety of Deuteronomistic representations of iconic cult. A redescription of Deuteronomistic polemics against aspects of 25. Ezekiel also attests to the integration of a priestly system of purity into Israelite discourse on iconic ritual. The association of cult images with impurity becomes a fundamental element in Hellenistic and especially rabbinic extensions of Israelite iconic discourse. See Klawans, “The Impurity of Idolatry.” For Tannaitic representions of cult images, see m. ºAbod. Zar. 3:1–10, 4:1–5; m. Sanh. 7:6; t. ºAbod. Zar. 5, 6; t. Shabb. 6–7, 17; Mek. Ba˙odesh 6:1–124; Sifre Num. 1:131; Sifra Qed. 1.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 171 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Conclusion

171

iconic ritual as Israelite variations on ancient West Asian iconic modes of social formation may further illuminate the social contexts of the Deuteronomistic movement. In particular, it may redescribe “Israelite aniconism” not as a static, descriptive category of Israelite cult and culture but instead as a dynamic, discursive mode of Israelite social formation. 26 This interpretive route, I argue, would guide the study of Israelite aniconism and iconism in directions not predetermined by the acts of classification already produced in the data. The production of categories should be taken as primary data for the historical reconstruction of Israelite social formation. A focus on iconic modes of discourse will help modern reconstructions of ancient Israel avoid the pitfalls that emerge when, for example, “aniconism” is overemphasized as both 26. The power of the Deuteronomistic classification of Northwest Semitic ritual practice is evident in the degree to which its cultic innovations achieved normative status for the formation and configuration of Yahwistic ritual and Israelite social identity. Olyan writes that the Deuteronomists “were innovators and not conservatives attempting to purge the cult of Yahweh of ‘foreign’ or ‘pagan’ elements” (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 73). The Deuteronomistic regime achieved such dominance over authoritative representations of Israelite cultic practice that it remains difficult to imagine other possible Israelite social formations. Bourdieu writes that a dominant culture of this sort contributes to the legitimation of the established order by establishing distinctions (hierarchies) and legitimating these distinctions. . . . The culture which unifies (the medium of communication) is also the culture which separates (the instrument of distinction) and which legitimates distinctions by forcing all other cultures (designated as subcultures) to define themselves by their distance from the dominant culture. (Language and Symbolic Power, 167)

With respect to the icon parodies, for example, it is easy to forget that exilic responses to Babylonian iconic ritual practice and political power could instead have drawn on other Israelite traditions that focused on more local, iconic foci of Israelite social formation. This could have included such Deuteronomistically eclipsed traditions as Jeroboam’s Northern bull cult, µyrva, twbxm, and other local manifestations of Yahweh’s presence and power. For example, exilic authors could have encouraged the worship of Yahweh in Babylonia in local twbxm sanctuaries. Indeed, an iconic response of this sort could be seen as a more “natural” affirmation of Yahweh’s presence in opposition to Babylonian iconic cults. On the other hand, the exilic context entailed a cultic dislocation so thorough and confronted a Babylonian iconic ritual system so vast and powerful that the Israelite response was, in some ways, enhanced by drawing on alternatives to iconic foci of Yahwistic cult. The circumstances required a particularly powerful oppositional response; the emphasis on “killing” Babylonian cult images by, essentially, classifying them out of existence was certainly thoroughgoing. This response would have gained further legitimacy through its creative deployment of authoritative Yahwistic literary and ritual traditions that already differed in detail from aspects of Mesopotamian myth and ritual and that already denigrated, for different reasons, a variety of iconic practices in preexilic Israel and Judah.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 172 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

172

Conclusion

a modern interpretive tool and a native, normative Israelite descriptive category. 27 Israelite iconic discourses are not simply descriptions of cultic and social realia or evidence of linear developments in Israelite religion. These discourses are themselves practices and classificatory acts of social formation, producing distinctions among a wide variety of embodiments of social power relations and their modes of manipulation. 28 When taken as given, these classifications of cult redrew maps of status and power and ritually inscribed them upon Israelite social groups. Biblical representations of iconic cult thus reveal processes of Israelite social formation in action and preserve within them the enduring power of the cult image in ancient West Asian societies. 27. I note this in chap. 4 with respect to the intepretation of the Israelite sanctuary at Arad. These interpretive issues apply to the Hellenistic and early Roman periods as well. For a repudiation of the idea of a “programmatic aniconism” extending from ancient Israel through early Judaism, note the Dura Europos Synagogue panels that figuratively depict episodes of the Ark Narrative (C. H. Kraeling, The Excavations at Dura Europos. Final Report 8:1: The Synagogue [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956], 95–105 with pls. LIV [NB1, “the battle of Ebenezer”] and LVI [NB4, “the Ark in the land of the Philistines”]). On the “myth of aniconism,” see D. Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 54–81; Bland, Artless Jew, 59–70. 28. In a similar way, “idolatry” is a postbiblical tradition of discourse through which later cultures legitimated and reified their own social formations through similar (though culturally specific) acts of classification and differentiation.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 173 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

short on top

Bibliography Ackroyd, P. R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century b.c. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. ———. “Jeremiah X. 1–16.” JTS n.s. 14 (1963): 385–90. Albertz, R. “Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1–50.12) in 521 bce.” JSOT 27 (2003): 371–83. ———. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c.e. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Allen, T. “Aniconism and Figural Representation in Islamic Art.” Pp. 17–37 in Five Essays on Islamic Art. Edited by T. Allen. Sebastopol, CA: Solipsist, 1988. Ambos, C. “Types of Ritual Failure and Mistakes in Ritual in Cuneiform Sources.” Pp. 25–47 in When Rituals Go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual. Edited by U. Hüsken. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Andersen, F. I. Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Andrew, M. E. “The Authorship of Jer 10 1–16.” ZAW 94 (1982): 128–30. Avigad, N. Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive. Qedem 4. Translated by R. Grafman. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976. ———. Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Jeremiah: Remnants of a Burnt Archive. Translated by R. Grafman. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986. Avigad, N., and B. Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997. Avner, U. “Mazzeboth Sites in the Negev and Sinai and Their Significance.” Pp. 166– 81 in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. Bahrani, Z. “Assault and Abduction: The Fate of the Royal Image in the Ancient Near East.” Art History 18 (1995): 363–82. ———. The Graven Image: Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Barasch, M. Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea. New York: New York University Press, 1992. Barstad, H. M. The Babylonian Captivity of the Book of Isaiah. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning, 1997. Barth, F. “Introduction.” Pp. 9–38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Edited by F. Barth. London: Allen and Unwin, 1969. Beaulieu, P. A. “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians.” JNES 52 (1993): 241–61.

173

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 174 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

174

Bibliography

———. “King Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” Pp. 969–79 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1989. ———. “New Light on Secret Knowledge in Late Babylonian Culture.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 82 (1992): 98–111. ———. The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon 556–539 b.c. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. Beck, P. “Catalog of Cult Objects from the Edomite Site of Horvat Qitmit.” Pp. 27– 208 in Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Edited by I. BeitArieh. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Institute of Archeology, 1995. ———. “The Cult-Stands from Taanach: Aspects of the Iconographic Tradition of Early Iron Age Cult Objects in Palestine.” Pp. 352–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Naªaman. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: Israel Exploration Society / Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1994. Becking, B. “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel.” Pp. 157–72 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Begrich, J. Studien zur Deuterojesaja. TB 20. 2nd ed. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963. Beit-Arieh, I., ed. Horvat Qitmit: An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Institute of Archaeology, 1995. Bell, C. “The Ritual Body and the Dynamics of Social Empowerment.” JRitSt 4 (1990): 299–313. ———. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. ———. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Ben-Dov, J. “A Textual Problem and Its Form-Critical Solution: Jeremiah 10:1–16.” Textus 20 (2000): 97–128. Bentley, G. C. “Ethnicity and Practice.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1987): 24–55. Ben-Tor, A. “Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?” BAR 25/3 (1999): 22–39. ———. “The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor.” Pp. 3–16 in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Edited by S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Beran, T. “Leben und Tod der Bilder.” Pp. 55–60 in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Edited by G. Mauer and U. Magen. AOAT 220. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Berger, P. R. “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadischen Personennamen im Danielbuch.” ZA 64 (1974): 192–234. ———. Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausegehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a. Chr.). AOAT 4/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 175 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

175

Berlejung, A. “Der Handwerker als Theologe: Zur Mentalitats- und Traditionsgeschichte eines altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Berufstands.” VT 46 (1996): 145–68. ———. Die Theologie der Bilder. OBO 162. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. ———. “Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia.” Pp. 45–72 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Bidmead, J. The Akitu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations, Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002. Bietak, M. Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabºa. London: British Museum Press, 1996. Black, J. A. “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: ‘Taking Bel by the Hand’ and a Cultic Picnic.” Religion 11 (1981): 39–59. Bland, K. The Artless Jew: Medieval and Modern Affirmations and Denials of the Visual. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Blenkinsopp, J. Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19a. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Bloch-Smith, E. “Will the Real Massebot Please Stand Up: Cases of Real and Mistakenly Identified Standing Stones in Ancient Israel.” Pp. 64–79 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. Bloom, P. Descartes’ Baby. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Boden, P. J. The Mesopotamian Washing of the Mouth (Mis Pî) Ritual. Ph.D. diss. Johns Hopkins University, 1998. Bodi, D. “Les gillulim chez Ezéchiel et dans l’Ancient Testament.” RB 100 (1993): 481–510. Bogaert, P.-M. “De Baruch à Jérémie: Les deux redactions conserves du livre de Jérémie.” Pp. 168–73 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophete et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. ———. “Les mécanismes rédactionnels en Jér 10,1–16 (LXX et TM) et la signification des supplements.” Pp. 222–38 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le prophete et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. BETL 54. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. Borger, R. Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996. ———. “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Sulgi als Propheten, Zwei prophetische Texte.” BO 28 (1971): 3–24. ———. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyria. AfOB 9. Osnabrük: BiblioVerlag, 1967.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 176 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

176

Bibliography

Botta, P.-E., and E. Flandin. Monument de Ninive, decouvert et decrit par M. P. É. Botta. 5 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849–50. Bottéro, J. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by T. L. Fagan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. ———. Language and Symbolic Power. Edited by J. B. Thompson. Translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. ———. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ———. “Reading, Readers, the Literate, Literature.” Pp. 94–105 in In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Translated by Matthew Adamson. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. Bourdieu, P., and L. J. D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Boyce, M. A History of Zoroastrianism. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Brerewood, E. Enquiries Touching the Diversity of Languages and Religions through the Chiefe Parts of the World. London: Bill, 1614. Briant, P. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Brinkman, J. A. “Merodach-Baladan II.” Pp. 6–53 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Brown, R. J., ed. Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Brattleboro, VT: Brattleboro Typography, 1838. Buchanan, C. Memoir of the Expediency of an Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India Both as the Means of Perpetuating the Christian Religion among Our Own Countrymen, and as a Foundation for the Ultimate Civilization of the Natives. Cambridge, MA: Hilliard and Metcalf, 1811. Buren, D. van. “The Íalme in Mesopotamian Art and Religion.” OrN n.s. 10 (1941): 65–92. Cagni, L. The Poem of Erra. SANE 1. Fascicle 3. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1977. Campbell, A. F. The Ark Narrative (1 Sam 4–6, 2 Sam 7): A Form-Critical and Traditio-Critical Study. SBLDS 16. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Carroll, R. P. “The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images.” ST 31 (1977): 51–64. ———. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Clifford, J., and G. E. Marcus, eds. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography: A School of American Research Advanced Seminar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. Clifford, R. J. “The Function of Idol Passages in Second Isaiah.” CBQ 42 (1980): 450–64. Cogan, M. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries b.c.e. SBLMS 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974. ———. “Judah under Assyrian Hegemony: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion.” JBL 112 (1993): 403–14.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 177 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

177

Cohen, H. R. Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. SBLDS 37. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Cohn, R. L. “Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition.” Pp. 74– 90 in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity. Edited by L. J. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Cole, S. W., and P. Machinist. Letters from Priests to the Kings of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. SAA 13. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998. Cross, F. M. “The Priestly Houses of Early Israel.” Pp. 195–215 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———. “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth.” Pp. 112–44 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pp. 274–89 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Crowell, B. “The Development of Dagan: A Sketch.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 1 (2001): 32–83. Curtis, E. M. “Idol, Idolatry.” Pp. 376–80 in vol. 3 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study.” Pp. 31–56 in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Edited by W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, and G. L. Mattingly. ANETS 8. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1992. Davidson, R. “Jeremiah X 1–16.” Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 25 (1973–74): 41–58. Davis, R. H. “Indian Image-Worship and Its Discontents.” Pp. 107–32 in Representation in Religion: Studies in Honor of Moshe Barasch. Edited by J. Assmann and A. I. Baumgarten. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Delcor, M. “Yahweh et Dagon ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d’après 1 Sam. V.” VT 14 (1964): 136–54. Descartes, R. Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objections and Replies. Rev. ed. Edited and translated by J. Cottingham. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Dick, M. B. “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image.” Pp. 1–53 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. ———. “The Relationship between the Cult Image and the Deity in Mesopotamia.” Pp. 111–16 in Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Prosecky. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Oriental Institute, 1998. ———. “The Consecration of the Cult Statue: The Oldest Form of the Opening of the Mouth.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Rome, July 2001. ———. “Worshiping Idols: What Isaiah Didn’t Know.” BR 18 (2002): 30–37.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 178 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

178

Bibliography

Dietrich, W. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dietrich, W., and M. A. Klopfenstein, eds. Ein Gott Allein? Jhwh-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismusim Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. OBO 139. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Dillon, J. M. The Middle Platonists, 80 b.c. to a.d. 220. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996. Dohmen, C. Das Bilderverbot: Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament. BBB 62. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1987. ———. “lsp, psl.” Pp. 688–97 in vol. 6 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989. Duhm, B. Das Buch Jeremia. KHAT 11. Tübingen: Mohr, 1901. ———. Das Buch Jesaja. HKAT 3/1. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1968. Durkheim, E., and M. Mauss. Primitive Classification. Translated and edited by R. Needham. London: Cohen & West, 1963. Ebeling, E. Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931. Eck, D. L. Dar¶an: Seeing the Divine Image in India. Chambersburg, PA: Anima, 1981. Elliger, K. Deuterojesaja. BKAT 11/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Evans, C. D. “Cult Images, Royal Policies and the Origins of Aniconism.” Pp. 192– 212 in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström. Edited by S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy. JSOTSup 190. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956. Fabry, H.-J. “jwr, rûa˙.” Pp. 365–402 in vol. 13 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by D. E. Greene. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Faur, J. “The Biblical Idea of Idolatry.” JQR 69 (1978): 1–15. Feliu, L. The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Feuerbach, L. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by George Eliot. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Fine, S. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Finkelstein, I. “The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh.” Pp. 169–87 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 179 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

179

Foster, B. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2 volumes. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993. Foster, J. Essay on the Evils of Popular Ignorance. 2nd American ed. New York: Gilley, 1821. Foucault, M. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage, 1970. Fox, N. “Concepts of God in Israel and the Question of Monotheism.” Pp. 326–45 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. Frame, G. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 bc). RIMB 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Frankfort, H. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Freedberg, D. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Galilei, G. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Translated by S. Drake. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1957. Garr, W. R. “ ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh.” IEJ 50 (2000): 227–34. Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. ———. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980. Geffcken, J. Zwei Griechische Apologeten. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Repr. Hildesheim, NY: Olms, 1970. Gelston, A. “Some Notes on Second Isaiah.” VT 21 (1971): 521–22. Gennep, A. van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Geoghegan, J. C. The Time, Place, and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History: The Evidence of “Until This Day.” BJS 347. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. ———. “ ‘Until This Day’ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History.” JBL 122 (2003): 201–27. George, A. R. Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. ———. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. Gilbert, M. La critique des dieux dans le livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13–15). AnBib 53. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973. Gnuse, R. K. No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. JSOTSup 241. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Goodenough, E. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 12 volumes. New York: Pantheon, 1953–68. Goody, J. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Görg, M. “wht, tohû.” Pp. 555–63 in vol. 8 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 180 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

180

Bibliography

Gramsci, A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishert, 1971. Graupner, A. “*bx[, *ºaßab2.” Pp. 281–84 in vol. 11 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by D. E. Greene. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000 (reprint of TCS 5. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975). ———. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium bc, volume 1: 1114–859 bc. RIMA 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Grimes, R. L. “Ritual.” Pp. 259–69 in Guide to the Study of Religion. Edited by W. Braun and R. T. McCutcheon. London: Cassell, 2000. Grinker, R. R., and C. B. Steiner, eds. Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997. Gruber, M. I. “Azabim, µybx[, ‘idols’.” Pp. 238–40 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ———. “Gillulim, µylwlg.” Pp. 655–58 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Guthrie, S. Faces in the Clouds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Halbertal, M., and A. Margalit. Idolatry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992. Hallo, W. W. “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study.” Pp. 1–17 in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983. ———. “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King.” Pp. 54–66 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Halpern, B. “ ‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.” Pp. 77–115 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by J. Neusner, B. Levine, and E. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century bce: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability.” Pp. 13–108 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. Edited by B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson. JSOTSup 124. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Handy, L. K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Haran, M. “The Ark and the Cherubim.” IEJ 9 (1959): 30–38, 89–94. ———. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Harvey, V. A. Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Hawting, G. R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Hayman, P. “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” JJS 42 (1991): 1– 15.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 181 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

181

Hendel, R. S. “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel.” Pp. 205–28 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. “The Social Origins of the Aniconic Tradition in Early Israel.” CBQ 50 (1988): 365–82. Herzog, Z., M. Aharoni, A. F. Rainey, and S. Moshkovitz. “The Israelite Fortress at Arad.” BASOR 254 (1984): 1–34. Hocart, A. M. Kings and Councillors: An Essay in the Comparative Anatomy of Human Society. Classics in Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Hoffmann, H.-D. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980. Holladay, W. L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Edited by P. D. Hanson. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Holloway, S. W. Assur Is King! Assur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. The Case for Assyrian Religious Influence in Israel and Judah: Inference and Evidence. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1992. Holter, K. Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages. BBET 28. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995. Horowitz, W. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Mesopotamian Civilizations 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998. Hossfeld, F.-L. Der Dekalog. OBO 45. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Hume, D. Natural History of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Huntington, S. L. “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism.” Art Journal 49 (1990): 401–8. Hurowitz, V. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ———. “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources.” HUCA 60 (1989): 39–89. ———. “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb.” JAOS 123 (2003): 147–57. ———. “tykcm ˆba—A New Interpretation.” JBL 118 (1999): 201–8. ———. “What Goes In Is What Comes Out—Materials for Creating Cult Statues.” Pp. 3–23 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. Hurvitz, A. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Hutchinson, S. E. Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 182 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

182

Bibliography

Jacobsen, T. “The Graven Image.” Pp. 15–32 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of F. M. Cross. Edited by P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987. ———. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. Jones, G. H. 1 and 2 Kings. 2 volumes. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Joüon, P. Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Karlsson, K. Face to Face with the Absent Buddha: The Formation of Buddhist Aniconic Art. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Historia Religionum 15. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1999. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated by M. Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Kennedy, C. A. “The Semantic Field of the Term ‘Idolatry.’ ” Pp. 193–204 in Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil Richardson. Edited by L. M. Hopfe. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Kennedy, J. M. “The Social Background of Early Israel’s Rejection of Cultic Images: A Proposal.” BTB 17 (1987): 138–44. Kertzer, D. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. ———. “Ritual and Politics.” JRitSt 4 (1990): 349–55. Keyes, C. F. “Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group.” Ethnicity 3 (1976): 202–13. King, G. R. D. “Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of Doctrine.” Pp. 213–26 in Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World. Edited by E. R. Hoffman. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007. Klawans, J. “Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism.” JSJ 29 (1998): 391–415. ———. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kletter, R. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. BAR International Series 636. Oxford: Tempus Repartum, 1996. Knippschild, S. “Spoils and Iconoclasm: The Ancient Near Eastern Tradition and Athens.” Paper presented at the Culture and Religion of the Ancient Mediterranean Colloquium, Brown University, Providence, RI, May 2005. Knohl, I. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Knoppers, G. N. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. 2 volumes. HSM 52–53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–94. Knoppers, G. N., and J. G. McConville. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. SBTS 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 183 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

183

Kraeling, C. H. The Excavations at Dura Europos. Final Report 8:1: The Synagogue. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956. Kuhrt, A. “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood.” Pp. 119–55 in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. A. North. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. ———. “Usurpation, Conquest, and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia.” Pp. 20– 55 in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Kutsko, J. F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lackenbacher, S. “Un pamphlet contre Nabonide, dernier roi de Babylone.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 18 (1992): 13–28. Lambert, W. G. “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. 191–201 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Quaegebeur. OLA 55. Leuven: Peeters, 1993. ———. “Enmeduranki and Related Matters.” JCS 21 (1967): 126–38. ———. “Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylon.” Pp. 157–74 in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Edited by G. Mauer and U. Magen. AOAT 220. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Landsberger, B., and T. Bauer. “Zu neuveröffentlichten Geschichtsquellen der Zeit von Asarhaddon bis Nabonid.” ZA 37 (1927): 88–94. Langdon, S. Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Translated by R. Zehnpfund. VAB 4. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912. LaRocca-Pitts, E. C. “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters. HSM 61. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Lauterbach, J. Z. Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes. 3 volumes. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933–35. Layard, A. H. The Monuments of Nineveh. 2 volumes. London: Murray, 1849–53. ———. Nineveh and Its Remains. 2 volumes. London: Murray, 1849. Leach, E. “Ritual.” Pp. 520–26 in vol. 13 of The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Edited by D. L. Sills. 19 volumes. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Lee, T. G. “Propaganda and the Verse Account of Nabonidus’ Reign.” Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 28 (1994): 31–36. Levine, B. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levy-Bruhl, L. Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures. Paris: Alcan, 1918. ———. La mentalité primitive. Oxford: Clarendon, 1931. Lewis, T. “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel.” JAOS 118 (1998): 36– 53. Lincoln, B. Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 184 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

184

Bibliography

Linrothe, R. “Inquiries into the Origin of the Buddha Image: A Review.” East and West 43 (1993): 241–56. Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Long, V. P., ed. Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Israelite Historiography. SBTS 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Lowery, R. H. The Reforming Kings. JSOTSup 120. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Luckenbill, D. D. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926. ———. The Annals of Sennacherib. OIP 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924. Macaulay, T. B. The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches of Lord Macaulay. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, 1871. Machinist, P. “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah.” JOAS 103 (1983): 719–37. ———. “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria.” Pp. 152–88 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. ———. “Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and Its Contexts.” Pp. 35–60 in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity. Edited by L. J. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn. New York: New York University Press, 1994. ———. “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” Pp. 196–212 in Ah Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by M. Cogan and I. Ephªal. ScrHier 33. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. Machinist, P., and H. Tadmor. “Heavenly Wisdom.” Pp. 146–51 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by M. E. Cohen, D. C. Snell, and D. B. Weisberg. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993. Mack, B. “Explaining Religion: A Theory of Social Interests.” Paper presented to the Larkin-Stuart Lectures, Trinity College, Toronto, October 1999. ———. “Social Formation.” Pp. 283–96 in Guide to the Study of Religion. Edited by W. Braun and R. T. McCutcheon. London: Cassell, 2000. Margaliot, M. “Jeremiah X 1–16: A Re-examination.” VT 30 (1980): 295–308. Martin, D. The Corinthian Body. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Marx, K. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Moscow: Foreign Languages, 1961. Masuzawa, T. “Culture.” Pp. 70–93 in Guide to the Study of Religion. Edited by W. Braun and R. T. McCutcheon. London: Cassell, 2000. Matsushima, E. “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and Their Interaction with the Society.” Pp. 209–19 in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Edited by E. Matsushima. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1993. Mazar A., and E. Netzer. “On the Israelite Fortress at Arad.” BASOR 263 (1986): 87– 90.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 185 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

185

McCarter, P. K. “Books of Samuel.” Pp. 260–76 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ———. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 8a. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. McCutcheon, R. T. Critics Not Caretakers: Redescribing the Public Study of Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. ———. Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and the Politics of Nostalgia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. McKane, W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 volumes. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. ———. “The History of the Text of Jeremiah X.1–16,” Pp. 297–304 in Mélanges bibliques et orienteaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot, S. Legasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT 215. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. McKay, J. W. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 bc. SBT 2nd Series 26. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1973. McKenzie, J. L. Second Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 20. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968. McKenzie, S. L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ———. “The Trouble with Kingship.” Pp. 286–314 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Melugin, R. F. The Formation of Isaiah 40–55. BZAW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Mettinger, T. N. D. “Aniconism—A West Semitic Context for the Israelite Phenomenon?” Pp. 159–78 in Ein Gott allein? Jhwh-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ———. “Israelite Aniconism: Developments and Origins.” Pp. 205–28 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. ———. “The Roots of Aniconism: An Israelite Phenomenon in Comparative Perspective.” Pp. 219–33 in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. VTSup 66. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God in Ancient Israel.” Pp. 15–29 in Religious Symbols and Their Functions. Edited by H. Biezais. SIDA 10. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979. ———. “Yhwh Sabaoth—The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.” Pp. 109–38 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 186 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

186

Bibliography

Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, Japan, 5–7 December, 1979. Edited by T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns / Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha, 1982. Milgrom, J. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991. ———. “The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in Eighth–Seventh Century Judah.” HUCA 69 (1998): 1–13. Miller, P. D., and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. JHNES. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Mitter, P. Much Maligned Monsters: A History of European Reactions to Indian Art. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977. Moorey, P. R. S. Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Moorey, P. R. S., and S. Fleming. “Problems in the Study of the Anthropomorphic Metal Statuary from Syro-Palestine before 330 b.c.” Levant 16 (1984): 67–90 with plates. Muilenburg, J. “The Book of Isaiah Chapters 40–66.” Pp. 381–773 in Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Edited by G. A. Buttrick et al. IB 5. New York: Abingdon, 1956. Müller, F. M. Introduction to the Science of Religion. London: Longmans, Green, 1873. Naªaman, N. “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research,” ZAW 107 (1995): 179–95. ———. “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah.” TA 18 (1991): 3–71. ———. “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image? Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of Yhwh in the Pre-exilic Period.” UF 31 (1999): 391–415. Needham, R. “Introduction.” Pp. vii–xlviii in Primitive Classification by E. Durkheim and M. Mauss. Translated and edited by R. Needham. London: Cohen & West, 1963. ———. Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. ———. Symbolic Classification. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear, 1979. Negbi, O. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1976. Nelson, R. D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Niehr, H. “In Search of Yhwh’s Cult Statue in the First Temple.” Pp. 73–96 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. North, C. R. “The Essence of Idolatry.” Pp. 151–60 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran. Edited by J. Hempel and L. Rost. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 187 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

187

Noth, M. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. A. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972. ———. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1943. Nylander, C. “Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated Sargon’s Head?” AJA 84 (July 1980): 329–33. O’Brien, M. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. OBO 92. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. Oden, R. A., Jr. “Religious Identity and the Sacred Prostitution Accusation.” Pp. 131–53 in The Bible without Theology. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987. Olyan, S. M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ———. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———. “The Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a.” ZAW 99 (1987): 254–59. ———. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. ———. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” JBL 115 (1996): 201–18. ———. “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemia as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community.” JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16. ———. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. ———. “The Status of the Covenant during the Exile.” Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Edited by I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. AOAT 350. Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2008. ———. “ ‘We Are Utterly Cut Off ’: Some Possible Nuances of wnl wnrzgn in Ezek 37:11.” CBQ 65 (2003): 43–51. Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. ———. “The Golden Garments of the Gods.” JNES 8 (1949): 172–93. Overholt, T. W. “The Falsehood of Idolatry: An Interpretation of Jer. X. 1–16.” JTS n.s. 16 (1965): 1–12. Parpola, S. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993. ———. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts. AOAT 5/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1970. Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss. 8 volumes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–58. Pfeiffer, R. H. “Images of Yahweh.” JBL 45 (1926): 211–22. ———. “The Polemic against Idolatry in the Old Testament.” JBL 43 (1924): 229– 40. Pongratz-Leisten, B. ina sulmi irub: Die Kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der Akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien um 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Mainz: Zabern, 1994.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 188 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

188

Bibliography

Porter, B. N. “Gods’ Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy: Essarhaddon’s Return of Marduk’s Statue to Babylon.” Pp. 9–24 in Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Edited by L. Martin. Religion and Society 33. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. ———. Images, Power and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (681–669 b.c.). MAPS 208. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993. ———, ed. One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World. TCBAI 1. Chebeague, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. Preuss, H. D. Verspottung fremder Religion im Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971. ———. “lyla, ª´lîl.” Pp. 285–87 in vol. 1 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ———. “µylwlg, gillûlîm.” Pp. 1–5 in vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Pritchard, J. B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. w/sup. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Propp, W. H. C. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2a. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Pury, A. de, and T. Römer, “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues.” Pp. 24–143 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Rad, G. von. Wisdom in Israel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Rainey, A. “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Altars at Beer-Sheba and Arad.” Pp. 333–54 in Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, and L. E. Stager. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Reenan, D. van. “The Bilderverbot, A New Survey.” Islam 67 (1990): 27–77. Reiner, E. Astral Magic in Babylonia. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1995. Renger, J. “Kultbild. A. Philologisch.” Pp. 307a–14b in vol. 6 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980–83. Roberts, J. J. M. “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective.” Pp. 183–87 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Edited by M. de Jong Ellis. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 19. Hamdon, CT: Archon, 1977. Rosenthal, D. M. “Dualism.” Pp. 133–38 in The Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy. Edited by E. Craig. New York: Routledge, 1998.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 189 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

189

Rost, L. The Succession to the Throne of David. Translated by M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. ———. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Stuttgart: Kolhammer, 1926. Roth, W. M. W. “For Life, He Appeals to Death (Wis 13:18): A Study of Old Testament Idol Parodies.” CBQ 37 (1975): 21–47. Rudolph, W. Jeremia. HAT 1/12. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. Sahlins, M. D. How “Natives” Think: About Captain Cook, for Example. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Sass, B. “The Pre-Exilic Hebrew Seals: Iconism vs. Aniconism.” Pp. 194–256 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg, April 17–20, 1991. Edited by B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Sass, B., and C. Uehlinger, eds. Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg, April 17–20, 1991. Edited by B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Schaper, J. “A Theology of Writing: Deuteronomy, the Oral and the Written, and God as Scribe.” Pp. 97–119 in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Research. Edited by L. Lawrence and M. Aguilar. Leiden: Deo, 2004. Schearing, L. S., and S. L. McKenzie, eds. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1999. Schmidt, B. B. “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts.” Pp. 75–105 in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by D. V. Edelman. CBET 13. Kampen: Pharos, 1995. Schroer, S. In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament. OBO 74. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Schwartz, S. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 b.c.e. to 640 c.e. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Scott, J. C. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Segal, R. “In Defense of Reductionism.” Pp. 132–63 in The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader. Edited by R. T. McCutcheon. London: Cassell, 1999. Seidel, U. “Kultbild. B. Archäologisch.” Pp. 314b–18a in vol. 6 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by E. Ebeling and B. Meissner. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980–83. Seybold, K. “lbh, heb2el.” Pp. 313–20 in vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Silberstein, L. J. “Others Within and Others Without: Rethinking Jewish Identity and Culture.” Pp. 1–34 in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 190 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

190

Bibliography

of Jewish Culture and Identity. Edited by L. J. Silberstein and R. L. Cohn. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Smelik, K. A. D. “The Ark Narrative Reconsidered.” Pp. 128–44 in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OtSt 25. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Smend, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pp. 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70 Geburtstag. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. Smith, J. Z. “Classification.” Pp. 35–44 in Guide to the Study of Religion. Edited by W. Braun and R. T. McCutcheon. London: Cassell, 2000. ———. “A Matter of Class: Taxonomies of Religion.” Pp. 160–78 in Relating Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. ———. “Religion, Religions, Religious.” Pp. 269–84 in Critical Terms for Religious Studies. Edited by M. C. Taylor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. ———. To Take Place: Toward a Theory of Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. ———. “What a Difference a Difference Makes.” Pp. 3–48 in “To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Scholars Press Studies in the Humanities. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Smith, M. “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East.” Pp. 15–27 in vol. 1 of Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. 2 volumes. Edited by S. J. D. Cohen. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ———. “Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in Retrospect.” JBL 86 (1967): 53–68. Smith, M. S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Smith, S. Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon. London: Methuen, 1924. ———. Isaiah Chapters XL–LV: Literary Criticism and History. The Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology, 1940. London: Oxford University Press, 1944. Sommerfeld, W. Der Aufstieg Marduks. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Spieckermann, H. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Spycket, A. La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien. HO 1/2. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ———. Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens: Des origines à la Ire. dynastie de Babylone. CRB 9. Paris: Gabalda, 1968. Spykerboer, H. C. The Structure and Composition of Deutero-Isaiah with Special Reference to the Polemics against Idolatry. Meppel: Krips Repro, 1976. Streck, M. Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s, volume 2: Texte. VAB 7/2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916. Swearer, D. K. Becoming the Buddha: The Ritual of Image Consecration in Thailand. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 191 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

191

Tadmor, H. “The Inscriptions of Nabonaid: Historical Arrangement.” Pp. 351–64 in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger. Oriental Institute Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Tadmor, H., and M. Cogan. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988. Talon, P. The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enuma Elis: Introduction, Cuneiform Text, Transliteration, and Sign List with a Translation and Glossary in French. SAACT 4. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005. Thomas, D. W. “Isaiah XLIV.9–20: A Translation and Commentary.” Pp. 319–30 in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Philonenko. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971. Thompson, R. C. The Prisms of Esarhaddon and of Ashurbanipal Found at Nineveh, 1927–28. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1931. Thureau-Dangin, F. Rituels accadiens. Paris: Leroux, 1921. Tigay, J. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. HSS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Timm, H. “Die Ladeerzählung (1 Sam. 4–6; 2 Sam 6) und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” EvT 29 (1966): 509–26. Toorn, K. van der. “The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah.” Pp. 229–48 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. “Israelite Figurines: A View from the Texts.” Pp. 45–62 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by B. M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. ———. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Tov, E. “4QJerb.” Pp. 172–76 in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets. DJD 15. Edited by E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, and R. E. Fuller. Oxford: Claredon, 1997. ———. “The Characterization of the Additional Layer of the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah.” Pp. 52–56 in ErIsr 26. F. M. Cross volume. Edited by B. A. Levine et al, 1999. ———. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” Pp. 211–37 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by J. H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Turner, V. The Ritual Process: Structure and Antistructure. Chicago: Aldine / Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969. Uehlinger, C. “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images.” Pp. 97–156 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by K. van der Toorn. CBET 21. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. “Arad, Qi†mit—Judahite Aniconism vs. Edomite Iconic Cult? Questioning the Evidence.” Pp. 80–112 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by G. Beckman and T. J. Lewis. BJS 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006.

page is 6 points long

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 192 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

192

Bibliography

———. “Gab es eine joschijanische Kultreform? Pladoyer für ein begrundetes Minimum.” Pp. 57–89 in Jeremia und die “Deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Gross. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. ———. “Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals, Iconography and Syro-Palestinian Religions of Iron Age II: Some Afterthoughts and Conclusions.” Pp. 257–88 in Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Fribourg, April 17–20, 1991. Edited by B. Sass and C. Uehlinger. OBO 125. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Ussishkin, D. “The Destruction of Lachish by Sennacherib and the Dating of the Royal Judean Storage Jars.” TA 4 (1977): 28–60. Valeri, V. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. ———. “Pouvoir des dieux, rire des hommes: Divertissement théorique sur un fait hawaiien.” Anthropologie et Societé 5/3 (1981): 11–34. Vanderhooft, D. S. The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. HSM 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Van Seters, J. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Veijola, T. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975. Volz, P. Der Prophet Jeremia. KAT 10. Leipzig: Deichertsche, 1928. Waghorne, J. P. “The Divine Image in Contemporary South India: The Renaissance of a Once Maligned Tradition.” Pp. 211–43 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Waghorne, J. P., and N. Cutler. Gods of Flesh, Gods of Stone: The Embodiment of Divinity in India. Chambersburg, PA: Anima, 1985. Walker, C. B. F., and M. B. Dick. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. SAALT 1. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001. Wambacq, B. N. “Jérémie X, 1–16.” RB 81 (1974): 57–62. Waters, M. A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. SAAS 12. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000. Watts, J. W. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Weinfeld, M. “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy.” JNES 23 (1964): 202–12. ———. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Weiser, A. Das Buch der Propheten Jeremia. 2 volumes. ATD 20–21. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 193 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Bibliography

193

Westermann, C. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. White, M. “ ‘The History of Saul’s Rise’: Saulide State Propaganda in 1 Samuel 1– 14.” Pp. 271–92 in “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long. Edited by S. M. Olyan and R. C. Culley. BJS 325. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000. Winch, P. The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1990. Winter, I. J. “ ‘Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JRitSt 6 (1992): 13–42. Winston, D. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Yadin, Y. Hazor III–IV: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavation, 1957–1958. Edited by A. Ben-Tor and S. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Zimhoni, O. “The Iron Age Pottery of Tel ºEton and Its Relation to the Lachish, Tell Beit Mirsim and Arad Assemblages.” TA 12 (1985): 63–90.

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 194 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 195 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Authors Ackroyd, P. R. 45, 47–50, 71 Albertz, R. 1, 40, 59, 76–77, 129, 152, 154–155 Allen, T. 12 Ambos, C. 127 Andersen, F. I. 77 Andrew, M. E. 47 Avigad, N. 10, 149 Avner, U. 10 Bahrani, Z. 12–15, 28, 34, 38, 87–88, 99, 102, 105–106, 109–110, 112, 116, 120, 126, 165–167 Barasch, M. 2, 7 Barstad, H. M. 58 Barth, F. 36 Bauer, T. 123 Beaulieu, P.-A. 71, 116, 122–124, 129 Beck, P. 10, 159 Becking, B. 10, 159 Begrich, J. 58 Beit-Arieh, I. 150 Belanger, W. A., III 12 Bell, C. 14, 21, 23–28, 30, 34, 56, 79, 81, 126 Ben-Dov, J. 47–49, 64 Bentley, G. C. 36 Ben-Tor, A. 109 Beran, T. 102, 105, 109 Berger, P. R. 71, 116, 123 Berlejung, A. 13, 47, 52, 59, 73, 86, 88, 90–96, 99, 106 Bidmead, J. 119 Bietak, M. 109 Black, J. A. 120 Bland, K. 11, 172 Blenkinsopp, J. 57–60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 72, 141, 152 Bloom, P. 7 Boden, P. J. 92, 95, 126

Bodi, D. 156–157 Bogaert, P.-M. 47–48 Borger, R. 1, 51, 88, 101, 104, 107–111, 113, 116–119, 127, 146, 167–168 Botta, P.-E. 106 Bottéro, J. 121 Bourdieu, P. 14, 30, 34, 38, 41–42, 79, 164, 171 Boyce, M. 124 Brerewood, E. 22 Briant, P. 109 Brinkman, J. A. 104 Brown, R. J. 3 Buchanan, C. 2 Buren, D. van 86 Cagni, L. 118 Campbell, A. F. 132–133, 135, 142, 155 Carroll, R. P. 8, 11, 47, 64 Clifford, J. 36 Clifford, R. J. 57–59, 61 Cogan, M. 38, 102–104, 110, 144–145 Cohen, H. R. 61 Cohn, R. L. 37 Cole, S. W. 106, 126 Cross, F. M. 54, 70, 121, 133, 143, 150, 153 Crowell, B. 137 Curtis, E. M. 3, 6, 89 Cutler, N. 3, 12 Davidson, R. 47, 49, 64 Davis, R. H. 2–3, 12, 38 Delcor, M. 102, 137 Descartes, R. 7 Dick, M. B. 1–3, 45, 47, 51–52, 57–58, 60–61, 63, 86, 88, 90–93, 96, 98, 101, 105–106, 110–111, 118–119, 126, 132, 150, 160–161 Dietrich, W. 9, 11, 143

195

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 196 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

196

Index of Authors

Dillon, J. M. 7 Dohmen, C. 9, 59, 132, 150–151, 160– 161 Duhm, B. 47–48, 58, 64 Durkheim, E. 20, 28, 30 Ebeling, E. 89, 96 Eck, D. L. 3, 12 Elliger, K. 58 Evans, C. D. 11 Evans-Pritchard, E. E.

8, 12, 14, 36

Fabry, H.-J. 4 Faur, J. 90, 101, 103 Feliu, L. 137 Feuerbach, L. 20–21 Fine, S. 12 Flandin, E. 106 Fleming, S. 10 Foster, B. 112–114, 120–121 Foster, J. 2 Foucault, M. 29, 34, 82 Fox, N. 9 Frame, G. 104, 113–115, 117, 121, 129, 139, 146 Frankfort, H. 3 Freedberg, D. 172 Galilei, G. 7 Garr, W. R. 88 Geertz, C. 24, 28 Geffcken, J. 7 Gelston, A. 57 Gennep, A. van 28, 92 Geoghegan, J. C. 143 George, A. R. 96, 115 Giesebrecht 48 Gilbert, M. 2 Gnuse, R. K. 9 Goodenough, E. 12 Goody, J. 38 Görg, M. 60 Gramsci, A. 84 Graupner, A. 74 Grayson, A. K. 103–104, 106, 110, 119, 122–123, 127 Grimes, R. L. 23–24, 28

Grinker, R. R. 15 Gruber, M. I. 74, 157 Guthrie, S. 21 Halbertal, M. 2, 6–7, 15 Hallo, W. W. 37, 87, 99 Halpern, B. 9, 30, 38, 144, 147 Handy, L. K. 65 Haran, M. 138, 160 Harvey, V. A. 21 Hawting, G. R. 3 Hayman, P. 9 Hendel, R. S. 11 Herzog, Z. 149 Hocart, A. M. 2 Hoffmann, H.-D. 144 Holladay, W. L. 44–47, 49–50 Holloway, S. W. 102–103, 105–107, 109–110, 128, 167–168 Holter, K. 59 Horowitz, W. 4, 93 Hossfeld, F.-L. 151 Hume, D. 21 Huntington, S. L. 12 Hurowitz, V. 90, 96, 156 Hurvitz, A. 153 Hutchinson, S. E. 36 Jacobsen, T. 12–13, 86, 88, 90, 96, 102, 112, 114–115, 120 Jones, G. H. 144 Joüon, P. 60 Karlsson, K. 12 Kaufmann, Y. 8, 23 Keel, O. 10, 149 Kennedy, C. A. 6 Kennedy, J. M. 11 Kertzer, D. 28–29, 31, 41, 126 Keyes, C. F. 36 King, G. R. D. 3, 12 Klawans, J. 153, 170 Kletter, R. 9, 159 Klopfenstein, M. A. 9, 11 Knippschild, S. 99, 102, 105–111, 126, 167 Knohl, I. 153

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 197 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Authors Knoppers, G. N. 144 Kraeling, C. H. 172 Kuhrt, A. 99, 118–119, 124, 127 Kutsko, J. F. 102–103, 110, 112, 116– 118, 154–156, 158, 165 Lackenbacher, S. 124 Lambert, W. G. 87, 91, 114 Landsberger, B. 123 Langdon, S. 116 LaRocca-Pitts, E. C. 10, 78, 147, 156 Lauterbach, J. Z. 152 Layard, A. H. 103 Leach, E. 24 Lee, T. G. 124 Lemaire, A. 11 Levine, B. 153 Levy-Bruhl, L. 8 Lewis, T. 11, 159–160 Lincoln, B. 30, 34, 82, 84 Linrothe, R. 12 Long, A. A. 7 Long, V. P. 144 Lowery, R. H. 144 Luckenbill, D. D. 104, 106–107, 109, 111, 146, 168 Macaulay, T. B. 2 Machinist, P. 4, 37, 99, 105–106, 124, 126, 152, 169 Mack, B. 21, 33, 80, 82 Marcus, G. E. 36 Margaliot, M. 47, 49, 64 Margalit, A. 2, 6–7, 15 Martin, D. 4, 6–7, 12 Marx, K. 21, 34 Masuzawa, T. 7 Matsushima, E. 86 Mauss, M. 30 Mazar, A. 149 McCarter, P. K. 101, 132–133, 135– 140, 142, 157 McConville, J. G. 144 McCutcheon, R. T. 22 McKane, W. 44–50 McKay, J. W. 38, 102, 144 McKenzie, J. L. 58

197

McKenzie, S. L. 144 Melugin, R. F. 59 Mettinger, T. N. D. 6, 10–11, 15, 19, 138, 159–161, 166 Milgrom, J. 6, 149, 153 Miller, P. D. 102–103, 106–108, 110, 112–114, 116–118, 132–133, 135– 140, 142 Mitter, P. 2 Moorey, P. R. S. 10 Muilenburg, J. 59 Müller, F. M. 85 Naªaman, N. 11, 147, 149 Needham, R. 6, 30, 56 Negbi, O. 10 Nelson, R. D. 143 Netzer, E. 149 Niehr, H. 10, 159 North, C. R. 3, 58, 74, 152 Noth, M. 133 Nylander, C. 102, 105, 109 O’Brien, M. 143 Oden, R. A., Jr. 37 Olyan, S. M. 6, 28–30, 34, 37, 55–56, 64–66, 75, 78, 81, 83, 89, 121, 141, 150, 153–154, 158–159, 167, 171 Oppenheim, A. L. 71, 86, 88, 123 Ornan, T. 11 Overholt, T. W. 47–48, 50 Parpola, S. 126 Paul, S. 61, 123 Peirce, C. S. 5–6, 15, 19 Pfeiffer, R. H. 3 Pongratz-Leisten, B. 120 Porter, B. N. 87, 99, 110, 118, 121, 125 Preuss, H. D. 47, 58, 73–74, 152, 157 Price, S. R. F. 126 Pritchard, J. B. 120 Propp, W. 9, 138, 160 Pury, A. de 144 Rad, G. von 58 Rainey, A. 149 Reenan, D. van 12

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 198 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Authors

198

Reiner, E. 94 Renger, J. 86 Richardson, S. 112, 124, 126–127 Roberts, J. J. M. 102–103, 106–108, 110, 112–114, 116–118, 132–133, 135–140, 142 Römer, T. 144 Rosenthal, D. M. 6–7 Rost, L. 132–133, 135, 137–138, 142 Roth, W. M. W. 47, 58–59, 73–74 Rudolph, W. 47–48 Sahlins, M. D. 3, 14–15, 21 Sass, B. 10–11, 149 Schaper, J. 167 Schearing, L. S. 144 Schmidt, B. B. 11 Schroer, S. 10, 12, 52, 59, 68, 74, 157 Schwartz, S. 12 Scott, J. C. 31, 84 Sedley, D. N. 7 Segal, R. 22 Seidel, U. 86 Seybold, K. 45, 53 Silberstein, L. 36 Smelik, K. A. D. 132–133, 135, 142 Smend, R. 143 Smith, J. Z. 2–3, 6–7, 22, 30, 32, 35–36, 39, 56, 81, 85, 162, 164–165 Smith, M. 12 Smith, M. S. 4, 9, 63, 90, 92 Smith, S. 123–124 Sommerfeld, W. 113 Spieckermann, H. 38, 102, 144 Spycket, A. 86 Spykerboer, H. C. 59 Steiner, C. B. 15 Streck, M. 106–109 Swearer, D. K. 3, 12

Talon, P. 120 Thomas, D. W. 58, 60–62 Thompson, R. C. 110 Thureau-Dangin, F. 120 Tigay, J. 103 Timm, H. 135, 142 Toorn, K. van der 9, 31, 78, 95, 159 Tov, E. 47–48 Turner, V. 28 Uehlinger, C. 10–11, 103, 149–150, 159 Ussishkin, D. 150 Valeri, V. 19–21, 23, 26 Van Seters, J. 133 Vanderhooft, D. S. 66, 120 Veijola, T. 143 Volz, P. 47–48 Wacquant, L. J. D. 41 Waghorne, J. P. 2–3, 12 Walker, C. B. F. 1, 51, 86, 88, 90–93, 96, 98, 101, 105–106, 110–111, 118–119, 126 Wambacq, B. N. 47 Waters, M. 109 Watts, J. W. 29 Weinfeld, M. 143–144, 146, 150, 152 Weiser, A. 47–48 Wellhausen 132 Westermann, C. 58, 62 White, M. 132 Winch, P. 15 Winston, D. 2 Winter, I. J. 87, 89, 99, 105, 125–127 Yadin, Y.

109

Zimhoni, O. Tadmor, H.

116, 124, 145

149

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 199 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Scripture Genesis 1 54 1:1–3:24 63 1:2 4, 60 1:6–10 4 31:19 131 31:34–35 131 35:4 131 35:5 44 Exodus 9:15–16 140, 157 14:4 65 14:17–18 65 15:11 35 19–40 9, 138, 160 20:3 152 20:4 131, 151, 160 20:4–5 151 20:23 73, 131, 151, 160 24:12 167 31:18 167 32:4 131 34:1 167 34:8 131 34:17 131, 151, 160 Leviticus 1–16 153 19:4 131, 151–153, 160 26:1 131, 151–153, 160 26:30 131, 157 Numbers 1–20 153 5:11–31 153

Numbers (cont.) 12:14 66 33:52 131 Deuteronomy 1–3 150 1–11 150 4 150 4:1–40 150 4:15–19 151 4:15–25 151, 160 4:16 131, 143 4:16–25 161 4:23 131, 143 4:25 131, 143 4:25–27 155 4:25–28 143, 150 4:25–31 150 4:28 73, 131, 143, 146 4:31 83, 158 5 150 5:7–8 151 5:8 131, 143, 151, 160 7:5 131, 143 7:25 131, 143 9:12 131, 143 9:16 131, 143 10:2 167 10:4 167 12:1–5 168 12:2–3 143, 148 12:3 131, 143, 148 12:5 148 12–26 148 25:9–10 66 27:15 131, 143, 146, 151, 160 28:36 131, 143 28:64 131, 143, 146

199

Deuteronomy (cont.) 29:16 157 29:17 131, 143 30 150 31:29 146 Joshua 6 136 Judges 5:4–5 121 17:3–5 131, 143 18:14 131, 143 18:17–18 131, 143 18:20 131, 143 18:30–31 131, 143 1 Samuel 1–14 132 2 136 2:12–17 133, 135 2:22–25 133, 135 4–6 17, 72, 118, 132– 133, 135, 139 4:1–22 135 4:3 135–136, 140 4:4 160 4:6–7 136 4:8 140 4:22 142, 154 5:1–4 66, 136–138, 160, 168 5:1–7:1 135 5:3 137 5:4 137 5:6 141 5:6–11 140 7:1 139 12:21 60

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 200 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

200 1 Samuel (cont.) 15:23 131, 143 19:13–16 143 19:13–19 131 31:9 74, 131, 138, 143 2 Samuel 5:11 60 5:17–25 139 5:21 74, 131, 139, 143 6 121, 133, 135, 139 7 132, 165 1 Kings 5:1–9:14 165 12:28 131, 143 12:32 131, 143 14:9 131, 143 15:12 131, 143, 157 16:7 146 21:26 131, 143, 157 2 Kings 11:18 131, 143 14:10 65 17:12 131, 143, 157 17:16 131, 143 17:41 131, 143 18–19 145, 151 18:22 146 18:25 146 18:33–35 145 18:35 145 19:11–13 145 19:14–15 146 19:15 145–146, 160 19:15–19 143, 145, 168 19:16 145–146 19:18 131, 143, 146, 148, 152 19:19 146 19:34 147, 156 21:7 131, 143 21:11 131, 143, 157 21:21 131, 143, 157 22:17 146

Index of Scripture 2 Kings (cont.) 23:24 131, 143, 157 Isaiah 1–35 59 1–39 59, 152 2:6–19 58 2:8 59, 131, 146, 152 2:18 59, 131, 152 2:20 59, 131, 152 10:10 152 10:10–11 59, 131, 152 10:10–12 151 19:1 59, 131, 152 19:3 59, 131, 152 21:1–10 71 21:9 71–72, 127, 141 23:9 65 30:22 131, 152 31:7 59, 131, 152 37:19 146 40 58 40–46 125 40–48 57, 59, 66–67, 75, 78, 107 40–55 57–60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 72, 141 40–66 62 40:1–2 74 40:12–31 71 40:17 60 40:18 84 40:18–20 57, 67 40:18–26 169 40:19–20 1, 59, 131, 169 40:21–23 169 40:21–24 47 40:23 60 40:25–26 169 40:26 47 40:28–30 47 41 58 41:5–7 57 41:6–7 1, 67 41:21–29 57, 62, 67 41:23–24 169

Isaiah (cont.) 41:24 169 41:25–29 70–71 41:29 60, 127, 131 42:5 47 42:8 57, 59, 67, 131, 154, 158 42:16 83, 158 42:17 1, 57, 59, 67, 131 42:18–19 89 43:16 47, 69 43:19 69 44 42, 53, 58, 62–64, 66–67, 69–70 44:1–8 62 44:6 66, 74, 84 44:6–8 62, 169 44:8 60, 63, 169 44:8–9 65 44:9 59, 60[LXX], 63– 64, 89, 169 44:9–10 131 44:9–20 1, 57, 60, 62– 64, 97 44:10 59, 64 44:11 63–64 44:12 44, 60[LXX] 44:13 63 44:14 63, 107, 168 44:15 59, 63, 131 44:17 59–60, 63, 131 44:18 63, 127 44:18–19 89 44:19 63 44:21–22 62 44:21–28 62 44:23 63 44:24 63 45 71 45:5–6 47 45:16 131 45:16–17 1, 57, 67 45:18 47, 60 45:19 60 45:20 1, 59, 131 45:20–21 57, 67 46 58, 67–69

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 201 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 46:1 59, 72[LXX], 74, 131, 141[LXX] 46:1–2 127 46:1–4 69 46:1–7 1, 57, 67 47:8 66 47:10 66 48:5 1, 57, 59, 131 48:11 156 49:4 60 49:14 83, 158 51:15 47 52:7 71, 154 54:7 83, 158 57:5 61 62:4 83, 158 65:7 145 Jeremiah 1:16 146 2–3 48 2:5–13 48 2:27 77–78, 157 2:27–28 48 3:1–5 48 5:20–25 48 8:19 45, 131 9:22–10:25 49 10 6[LXX], 42, 44– 50[LXX], 47, 50, 52[LXX], 54, 62, 64, 66, 69, 73–76, 76[LXX], 78 10:1 41 10:1–2 44, 50 10:1–16 1, 44, 47–50, 52, 55–59, 62, 64, 107 10:2 16, 44, 50–51, 54–55, 81, 111 10:2–3 94 10:3 44[LXX], 52–53, 55, 60 10:3–5 44, 50, 52–53 10:4 52–53, 55 10:4–16 97

Jeremiah (cont.) 10:5 45[LXX], 47[LXX], 53, 55, 89, 127 10:6 55 10:6–7 45, 50, 53, 55, 120 10:7 55, 146 10:8 54–55, 89 10:8–9 45, 50, 52–53 10:9 45[LXX], 47[LXX], 52–55 10:10 46, 50, 53, 55, 120–121 10:10–12 146 10:11 46, 50–51, 54– 55 10:12 51, 54–55 10:12–13 46, 53, 120– 121 10:12–16 47, 50 10:13 51, 54–55, 73– 74, 121 10:14 46[LXX], 53–55, 64, 89, 131 10:14–15 46, 50, 52, 108, 127 10:15 53, 55 10:16 46, 50, 53–54, 56, 66 14:14 131, 152 14:22 45, 48 16:19–21 48 25:6 146 25:7 146 31:35 47 32:18 47 32:30 146 40:19–20 49 41:6–7 49 41:21–29 49 42:17 49 44:8 146 44:9–20 49 46:1–7 49 50–51 49 50:2 74, 131, 157

201 Jeremiah (cont.) 50:38 131 51 50 51:15–19 50 51:17 131 51:47 131 51:52 131 Ezekiel 5:11 156 5:22–32 156 6:4–6 131, 155 6:9 131, 155 6:13 131, 155 7:20 97, 127, 131, 155– 156 8:6 156 8:9 156 8:10 131, 155 8:13 156 10–11 157 10:1–22 165 11 154–155 11:14–25 155 11:16 155, 165 11:17 157 11:18 156 11:21 156 11:23 154 13:5 62 14:3–7 131, 155 14:6 156 16:17 131, 155 16:17–19 156 16:36 131, 155–156 18:6 131, 155 18:12 131, 155 18:15 131, 155 20 140, 156–158 20:7–8 131, 155 20:8 156–157 20:9 156 20:16 131, 155 20:18 131, 155 20:23–24 131 20:24 155 20:31 155

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 202 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

202 Ezekiel (cont.) 20:31–32 131 20:32 155, 157 20:32–44 157 20:33 158 20:39 131, 155 21:26 155 22:2 156 22:3–4 131, 155 23:7 131, 155 23:14 155 23:30 131, 155 23:36 156 23:37 131, 155 23:39 131, 155 23:49 131, 155 30:13 131, 152[LXX], 155 33:25 131, 155 36:18 131, 155 36:25 131, 155 37:6 4 37:11 65 37:23 131, 155 40–48 35 44:10 131, 155 44:12 131, 155 Hosea 3:4 131, 152 4:17 74, 131, 152 8:4 74, 131, 152 8:4–6 73 11:2 131, 152 13:1–3 58 13:2 74, 131, 152 14:4 146 14:9 74, 131, 152 Amos 4:13 47 5:8 47 5:26 131, 152 9:5–6 47 Micah 1:7 74, 131, 152 5:12 131, 146, 152

Index of Scripture Nahum 1:14 131 3:10 65 Habakkuk 1:6 77 2:6–20 77 2:18 51, 77, 108, 152 2:18–19 1, 72, 77–78, 131 2:19 77–78, 127, 157 2:20 77 Zephaniah 2:15 66 Zechariah 10:2 131 11:17 152 13:2 74, 131 Psalms 24 121 29:1–2 65 68:8–10 121 73:20 131 74:12–19 54 77 77 78 155 78:56–66 155 78:58 131 78:58–61 155 89:6–13 121 89:9–10 54 96:5 131, 152 97:7 131, 152 104:3–9 54 106:36 74, 131 106:38 74, 131 115 1, 72–74, 78 115:1 75, 83, 157 115:1–8 72 115:2 74, 84, 145 115:2–8 1 115:3 75 115:3–8 1 115:4 74, 88, 131 115:4–7 127

Psalms (cont.) 115:4–8 73 115:5–7 89 115:8 89 135 72, 74, 78 135:2 73 135:5 74, 84 135:7 46, 73–74 135:13–18 1, 73 135:14 74–75 135:15 74, 131 135:15–18 1, 73 135:17 108 135:21 73 137:4 100 Job 5:9–16 47 9:5–10 47 12:17–25 47 13:4 152 26:7–8 47 38:1–11 54 40:15–41:34 54 Proverbs 16:22 45 Lamentations 1 65 1:8 65 5:20 83, 158 Daniel 2:31–32 131 2:34–35 131 3:1–3 131 3:5 131 3:7 131 3:10 131 3:12 131 3:14–15 131 3:18 131 Ezra 1:2–4 71, 123

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 203 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Scripture Nehemiah 9:18 131

1 Chronicles 10:9 74 16:26 152 29:4 62

203 2 Chronicles 24:12 60 24:18 74

Deuterocanonical Literature / Apocrypha Epistle of Jeremiah 70 45

Wisdom of Solomon 13–15 2 13:18 2, 47

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 1–8 2 Jubilees 11:4–12:8

2

Letter of Aristeas 134–38 2

Sibylline Oracles 3:8–45 2 5:403–7 2

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 204 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Other Ancient Sources BIWA A §56 107, 146 A §57 107–108, 127, 146, 168 F §31 107, 146 F §32 107–108, 127, 146, 168 K 3062 + 82-3-23, 20 109, 167 K 3087 // K 3405// Rm 2.558 110 T §14 107, 146 “Cursing of Akkadê” 112 Cyrus Cylinder 71, 122–124 Enuma Elis 51, 54, 57, 65, 120–121, 127, 169 Erra Epic 118 Inschriften Asarhaddons (ed. R. Borger) §11 Bab. C 110 §11 Bab. F 110 §23 Klch C 118 §27 Nin. A 110, 118, 167 §53 AsBbA 1, 51, 88, 101, 104, 110–111, 116, 118–119 §57 AsBbE 101, 110–111, 116, 118–119, 128 §60 AsBbH 101, 110–111, 116, 118–119, 128 KTU 1.3 III 65 1.3 VI 65 1.4 IV 65 1.4 VIII 65 “Lament for Ur” 112 “Marduk Prophecy” 113, 117 OIP 2 p. 35 104 p. 83 106, 111, 146 p. 84 106–107, 146, 168 p. 137 106–107 p. 138 107 p. 159 109

Philo Contempl. 7 2 Decal. 52–75 2 Flacc. 41–42 2 Gig. 59 2 Legat. 134 2 Mos. 2:205 2 Qumran 1QIsaa 61–62, 68 1QPHab 77 4QJera 47–48, 50 4QJerb 47–50, 52, 76 4QJerc 48 Rabbinic Sources Mek. Ba˙odesh 6:1–124 170 6:18–27 152 m. ºAbod. Zar. 3:1–10 170 4:1–5 170 m. Sanh. 7:6 170 Sifra Qed. 1 170 Sifre Num. 1:131 170 t. ºAbod. Zar. 5 170 6 170 t. Shabb. 6–7 170 17 170 Ancient West Asian Sources ABC Chronicle 1 119 Chronicle 7 122–123 Chronicle 14 106, 110, 119, 127 Chronicle 16 106, 119

204

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 205 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Other Ancient Sources RIMA 2 A.0.87.1 103–104 A.0.87.4 103 A.0.87.10 103 RIMB 2 B.2.4.5 113 –114, 117, 121, 146 B.2.4.7 115 B.2.4.8 114–115, 129 B.2.4.9 114–115, 121, 139 Rituels accadiens (ed. F. ThureauDangin) pp. 127–54 120 SAA 13 no. 190 106

205

SAALT 1 BR 91–98, 126 IT 3 96–99, 121, 126 IT 4 97–99, 126 IT 5 99, 126 IT 6/8 91, 98 NR 90–94, 96–99, 126 PBS 13:35 90 STT 199 96–97, 168 “Shulgi Prophecy” 113 VAB 4 Nabonid 8 116 VAB 7/2 p. 50 107 p. 54 108 p. 214 109 p. 242 106 Verse Account 123–124, 127, 168

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 206 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Topics Adad 103, 111 n. 99 Agum Kakrime 112 n. 101 Akitu festival 57, 119–122, 124, 127, 129 n. 162, 139 Amagestin 105 n. 69 aniconic monotheism see monotheism, aniconic aniconism and icon parodies 43 Israelite 9, 11–12, 31–32, 85, 132, 159–163, 171–172 West Semitic 159–160 n. 78 animism 8 n. 18 anthropomorphism 21 Anu 103 Arad 149 n. 52, 172 n. 27 Aramaic language 50, 51, 54, 129 n. 162 ark 12 n. 27, 139, 145, 146 as cult image 137, 138, 159 Ark Narrative 71–72 n. 76, 121 n. 130, 132–143, 146, 154, 170 as iconic politics 118, 134, 142–143 Ashdod 137 asipu 92 n. 19, 94, 98 Assur 111, 116 Assurbanipal 105, 107–109, 119, 126, 128 n. 159, 167 Assur 103, 104, 110, 111, 128 Avaris 109 n. 87 Baalism 147, 162 Babylon 105, 106–107, 113–114, 115– 117, 128 n. 159 Behistun inscription 109 n. 87 Bel 119 see also Marduk Bilderverbot 9 n. 23, 132, 151, 160–161 bit mummi 93 n. 27, 111 see also icon workshop

Borsippa 119, 129 n. 162 bronze sea 12 n. 27 Buddhism 12 n. 26, 89 n. 7 bull cult 171 n. 26 “Canaanite way” 149 see also “way of the nations” Canaanites 147, 148–149 canonization see icon parodies, canonization of cherub throne 12 n. 27, 145, 146, 154, 160 city-lament literature 112 classification 7 n. 17, 29–33, 158–159 in the Deuteronomistic History 144, 146, 147, 148–150 in Ezekiel 158–159 in icon parodies 16–17, 19, 41–43 and social formation 80–85, 149, 150 see also dualism; taxonomy clean/unclean 81 n. 103, 153 n. 59, 159 n. 76 community 36 cosmogonic myth 51, 54, 107 cosmography, West Asian 4 n. 11 cosmology, Mesopotamian 51 covenant 65–66, 75, 140–141, 156–157, 158 creation see Akitu festival creation ideology 54–55, 60 n. 43, 70, 73, 74, 121, 146, 169 creation-kingship motif 121 n. 130 cult image 6 n. 12, 7 n. 15, 131 n. 1 abduction and return of 68–69, 142 as seen by vanquished 101–102, 112–118 as seen by victors 101, 102, 103– 104, 117

206

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 207 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Topics cult image (cont.) construction of 1 n. 2, 48 n. 20, 51, 52–53, 54 n. 33, 61 n. 47, 62, 88, 96, 156 destruction of 146, 146 n. 46 Hebrew terms for 59 n. 40, 73– 74 n. 80, 77–78, 151–152 n. 56, 155–156 n. 68, 157 n. 70 Israelite 10–11 in Mesopotamian sources 86–129 mutilation of 35, 101, 104–109, 138, 167–168 repair and return of 89, 104 n. 68, 109–111, 112–116 sensory powers of 74, 89–90, 97–98, 140, 146, 167 signification of 15, 21 and social power relations 16, 28 in warfare 100–109 see also Ark Narrative; icon; icon parodies; mis pi ritual; representation, cult image as; royal image; ßalmu cultic personnel 92 see also asipu Cyrus 70–71, 111 n. 99, 122–124 Dagon 72 n. 76, 134, 135, 137, 138– 140, 141, 168 Darius I 109 n. 87 decapitation 141 deity 12–15, 17, 20–21, 55–57, 121– 122, 139, 167 see also divine abandonment and return; enthronement deuteronomic 143–144 n. 37 Deuteronomistic 143–144 n. 37 iconic discourse 78, 132, 143–153, 162–163 literature and ritual classification 37– 38, 144, 146, 147, 148–150 “reform” 30, 31, 147, 150 n. 53 school 35 Deuteronomistic History 143–153 see also Ark Narrative discourse as instrument of power 33– 34, 42, 82–84, 125, 164, 167 see also classification; writing

207

divination 44 n. 6, 51, 111 divine abandonment and return of Marduk 101–102, 112–117 of Yahweh 139, 141, 153–155 see also Yahweh, presence and absence of divine warrior 35, 121, 139 n. 25, 140 dualism 4, 6–8, 13, 14 “dumb objects” 15, 25 n. 15 Dura Europos 172 n. 27 Ea 93, 94, 94 n. 29, 96, 121 n. 129 Ehulhul 124 Ekallate 111 n. 99 Ekarzagina 94 n. 29 Elam 107–109, 112–115 enthronement 92, 98–100, 118–125, 139, 158 Esagila 101, 111, 115 n. 111, 116 and mis pî ritual 92, 94 n. 29, 94 n. 35, 95 Esarhaddon reinscribes images 110, 128, 167 restores images 51, 88–89, 91, 100– 101, 109–111, 116, 118–119 ethnic identity 36–37 exile cultic 153–154 impact on Israel 23, 43–44 and literary innovation 1, 40, 57–59 exiles, location of in Babylonia 129 n. 162 exodus theme 54 n. 32, 69 n. 72, 70, 140, 156–157, 169 Ezekiel 153–159, 170 fetishism 8, 23 Fremdgötterverbot 9 n. 23, 160–161 garden, in mis pî ritual 93, 94, 98 genres, hybrid 76–77 god see deity Haldi Temple 106 Hallusu 108–109, 167 Harran 124 Hatti 113 n. 104 Hawaii, premodern 14–15, 20 n. 1, 26 Hazael 110, 167

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 208 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

208

Index of Topics

Hazor 109 n. 87 Hezekiah 143 n. 37, 145–146 hierarchy, defined 22–23 Hinduism 38 historiographic literature Israelite 143–153 Mesopotamian 100–118 Hittites 112 n. 101, 113 Holiness school/source 35, 153 n. 59 honor see shame and honor hymns 47 n. 18 see also Yahwistic hymns icon defined 5 n. 12, 19 as living deity 95 see also cult image; mis pî ritual icon craftsman 53, 88–89 n. 5, 92, 93– 94, 95 n. 39 see also cult image, construction of; icon workshop icon parodies 1 n. 2, 40–85 and Akitu festival 120–121 and Ark Narrative 139–140, 141 authors of 16, 31, 32, 38, 82, 84 n. 110, 129 Babylonian setting of 76, 80 and Bilderverbot corpus 151 canonization of 75–77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 125 and classification 17, 29–30, 32, 35 n. 52, 41–43, 55–57, 80–82, 164–165 as discursive acts of power 167–170 and Enuma Elis 121 n. 130 and Ezekiel 158 as genre 40–44, 51–52, 75–80, 84 n. 110, 169 in Hellenistic Jewish literature 2 n. 5 and Hezekiah’s prayer 146 as iconic politics 16–17, 118, 130 as literary representation of ritual 29, 78–80 and mis pî ritual 89–90, 97, 100, 127 as mutilation of cultic image 66 as parody plus Yahwistic hymn 50, 51– 52, 56, 58–59 n. 39, 67, 73, 75–76

as “Scripture” 16, 69, 72, 78 and social formation 16–17, 32, 34– 39, 40–44, 170 West Asian context of 4–5, 166 icon workshop 88, 97, 101 n. 59, 111 in mis pî ritual 92, 93, 96 see also icon craftsman “iconic book” 78 iconic diplomacy 109 iconic politics 15–16, 67, 72, 122 and Ark Narrative 142–143 and cult image abduction 101–102, 117–118 in Ezekiel 158–159 in Israel 118, 125, 130–163 in Mesopotamia 125–129 and mis pî ritual 100 in Second Isaiah 57 see also icon parodies iconic ritual 20–22 iconism 12, 31–32 iconoclasm 3 n. 6, 11, 149 n. 51 iconodule 53 iconolatreia 5 n. 12 identity 22–23, 36 idol 5–6 n. 12 idol parody 2 see also icon parodies idolatry 2–6, 87 n. 2, 172 n. 28 index, defined 19 n. 1 India 2 Iskallatu 110 Islam 3 n. 6, 12 n. 26 Israel 43 n. 5 distinctiveness of 3–4, 7, 9 n. 21, 87, 130, 169 knowledge of Mesopotamian cult 57, 129, 155–156 “Israelite way” 17, 51, 56, 81, 148–149 Istar 103 Jericho 136 n. 13 Jerusalem, siege of 145, 146–147 Josiah 144 n. 37 Judah, Judahite 43 n. 5 Judaism 12 n. 26

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 209 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Topics Katmuhu 104 n. 66 king see royal images kingship see Akitu festival; Yahweh, as king Kudur-Nahunte 112, 117 Kuntillet Ajrud 10 Kusibanda 94 n. 33 liminality 28 n. 27 Lugal-zagesi 104 n. 69 Marduk 93 abduction and return of 106, 107 n. 77, 107 n. 79, 111, 112, 112 n. 101, 113 n. 104, 128, 139 n. 25 and Akitu festival 119–121, 127 travels of 112–117, 118 n. 119 Marduk-nadin-ahe 111 n. 99 Merodach-baladan 104 Mesopotamian cult 86–129 and icon parodies 64, 67–70, 73, 76, 80, 125–129 mis pî ritual 29, 51 n. 27, 57, 88–100, 139 and enthronement 118–119, 126– 127 Israelite knowledge of 129 n. 162 and refurbishment of images 100– 101, 104 n. 68, 111 and social formation 100 monism 4, 6 n. 15, 15 monotheism 43 aniconic 18, 24, 66–67, 132, 161 n. 83 Israelite 3, 8–9, 161 mouth opening see pit pî ritual; mis pî ritual mouth washing see mis pî ritual Mußaßir 105, 106, 128 n. 159 myth 8 n. 20, 23, 51 n. 26 classification of 55–57, 75 and ritual 40–41, 75 and social formation 80 Nabonidus 71, 111 n. 99, 116–117, 122–125, 168 Nabopolassar 116 n. 113

209

Nabu 119 Naramsin, Victory Stele of 105 n. 72 Nebuchadnezzar I 112, 113–116, 117, 117 n. 115, 128–129 New Year festival see Akitu festival Ninagal 94 Nineveh 66 n. 69, 90, 91 n. 13, 105, 110 Ninlil 103 Ninuldu 94 n. 33 Nippur 129 n. 162 “other,” “otherness”

36, 39

Philistines 135–137, 138, 140, 142 pit pî ritual 89 see also mis pî ritual Platonism 6 polytheism 8, 24, 161 power, defined 33–34 presencing 165 see also divine abandonment and return; Yahweh, presence and absence of Priestly school/source 35, 153 n. 59 Psalms 72–75 purification of cult image 95–97 purity/impurity 81 n. 103, 100, 153 n. 59, 170 n. 25 Qitmit

150 n. 52

Rab-shakeh 145, 146 rationality, cultural locality of 14–15 religion 20 n. 3, 21–23, 125–126 representation cult image as 13 n. 30, 13 n. 32, 16 n. 41, 19 n. 1, 38 n. 60, 159– 160 n. 78, 165 n. 7 textual 15–16, 17, 19, 29, 78–80, 131 n. 1, 147 n. 49, 164, 166 ritual classification of 30–31, 37–38, 55–57 defined 23–24 and myth 23, 40–41, 67 and power 16, 20–28 representation in icon parodies 29, 78–80 see also iconic ritual

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 210 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

210

Index of Topics

ritual conquest motif 121 n. 130 ritual mastery 27, 29–31, 56 ritual practice 16, 17, 19–20, 23, 24– 25 n. 15 see also ritual ritual specialists 126 ritualization 25–26 royal images 99 n. 57, 105 nn. 71–72, 108–109 ßalmu 13, 13 n. 30, 16 n. 41, 165 n. 7, 166 n. 10 Sargon II 105, 128 n. 159 satire 49 n. 22 “Scripture” see icon parodies, as “Scripture” Second Isaiah 49, 57–72, 76, 78, 121, 124, 140, 158 n. 72 Sennacherib 89 n. 6, 104, 128 n. 159 and abduction of Marduk 116, 117 and Babylon 106–107, 108, 168 and Jerusalem 145, 146–147 and return of images 110 n. 93, 111 n. 99 Shala 111 n. 99 Shamash 93, 121 n. 129 shame and honor 64–66 Shutruk-Nahunte 105, 167 n. 11 sign, signifier, signified 13, 15 n. 40, 19 n. 1, 166 n. 10 “silver and gold” 48 n. 20 see also “wood and stone” Sîn 121, 124, 168 “slippage” 14, 170 social formation 16, 69, 128, 162 Babylonian 111 and classification 75, 80–85 defined 33–34 in Deuteronomistic writings 148–150 Israelite 34–39, 40, 70, 130 see also icon parodies, and social formation; writing, and social formation stamp seals 10 standing stones 10, 85 n. 113 storm-god imagery 46 n. 13, 51, 54–56, 121 n. 130

Sugu 103 Suhu 103 Susa 105, 107, 128 n. 159 symbol, divine 6, 14–15, 21 symbolic classification, defined 30, 56 see also classification “symbolic spoliation” of deities 41, 131 in Ark Narrative 139, 141 Taanach cult-stand 159 n. 77 taxonomy 20, 30, 82 n. 104, 164 see also classification temple in mis pî ritual 92–95, 97–99 see also Akitu festival Tertullian 6 n. 12 Tiglath-pileser I 103, 111 n. 99 totemism 8 n. 18, 99 n. 57 trial scene, and icon parodies 62–63 n. 55 unclean see clean/unclean Urra†inas 104 vivification of cult image 158

92, 93, 97–98,

warfare, and cult images 100–109 “way of the nations” 17, 51, 56, 81 wisdom theme 55 “wood and stone” 48 n. 20, 78, 146 n. 45, 155 n. 68, 157 wordplay 63–64 writing on captured cult images 110, 128, 166–167 and social formation 38, 43–44, 79– 80, 84–85 see also icon parodies, as “Scripture”; representation, textual Yahweh 54–55 as creator 63–64, 70, 146 “glory” of 141–142, 154, 158 “hand” of 140, 141 iconography of 10–12, 159 n. 77 incomparability of 55, 56, 67, 84, 120, 168–169

00-Levtow-UCSD11.book Page 211 Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:39 PM

Index of Topics Yahweh (cont.) as king 64, 158 “name” of 156, 158 presence and absence of 13–14, 74– 75, 78, 83 n. 107, 154–155, 157– 158, 165–166 as sanctuary 155, 155 n. 64, 166 n. 8 see also ark; cherub throne; creation ideology; divine warrior; stormgod imagery

211

“Yahweh-alone” ideologies 9 Yahwistic hymns 47, 50, 53–55, 62–63 see also icon parodies Yakin and Boaz 12 n. 27 zaqiqu

108, 124 n. 142, 125