Theodore Lewis assesses Tryggve Mettinger’s comparative study of Israel’s aniconic tradition in a 1998 issue of JAOS . Lewis’s enumerated conclusions are (the next few paragraph are directly quoted):
1. Aniconic traditions (i.e., Mettinger’s “de facto ani-conism”) are not uniquely Israelite.
2. Cultures can have both aniconic and anthropo-morphic traditions at the same time.
3. The repudiation of divine images is very rare in the ancient Near East apart from Israel. A type of programmatic aniconism is attested in Egyptian Amarna theology, yet it lasts only briefly. Mesopotamian Anu is rarely portrayed in art but this may very well be due to his obscure nature rather than any programmatic ani-conism for which we have no evidence. Only ancient Israel developed and sustained a theological programme against representing a deity iconographically.
4. To judge from the literary evidence, Israelite masseboth (Mettinger’s “material aniconism”) were used in a variety of ways with only two clear examples of a massebah representing a divine symbol. As for the archaeological evidence, we do have examples of masse-both in clear cultic contexts from the Iron I and Iron II periods including established religion (cf. Arad, Dan, Megiddo?) as well as the local popular cultus (Bull Site, Lachish, Tell el Farcah). When the masseboth occur in clear cultic contexts, they seem to represent the deity or deities, with our best examples being found at Arad. Yet, if one wanted to adopt a minimalist perspective, even here they could have been seen as markers of the sacred space where one came into contact with the deity or deities (similar to Jacob’s use of a massebah in Gen. 28:18-22). It is impossible to describe which individual deities are represented by the masseboth . Thus this “material aniconism” was practiced by certain segments of society at the same time that the Jerusalem cultus was practicing “empty space aniconism” (i.e., the cherubim throne in the Solomonic temple). Eventually empty space aniconism prevails and is reflected in the various prohibitions of images found in the Bilderverbot (cf. Exod. 20:3-6,20:23,34:17; Lev. 19:4; Deut. 5:8-10,27:15), the deuteronomistic descriptions of the empty cherub throne, and the parodies against making cult images found in the prophetic corpus (cf. Jer. 10:1-6, 50:2; Isa. 40:18-20, 41:7, 44:9-20, 46:5-7; Hos. 8:4-6, 13:2-3; Mic. 5:12- 13; Ezek. 5:11, 20:7-8, 22:3-4; Hab. 2:18-20) and the Psalter (cf. Pss. 115:3-8, 135:15-18).
5. Yahweh seems never to have been depicted anthropomorphically. All of the bronze figurines suggested to date to Iron I are problematic. In theory, Yahweh could have been depicted theriomorphically, yet we have no clear evidence of such. The best candidate, the Bull Site bronze, would seem to point more to El and Baal imagery. A massebah could in theory represent Yahweh. Astral images may have been symbolic of Yahweh in his role as a solar deity.
6. Goddesses (primarily Asheroth) are attested in certain segments of ancient Israelite society and are rep-resentedi conographicallyw ith anthropomorphica nd vegetative imagery. These conclusions are supported by a growing corpus of literary evidence (the Hebrew Bible, Kuntillet Ajrud; Khirbet el-Qom) that mention the di-vine symbol of the goddess Asherah.
7. “Empty space” aniconism is well attested in the literary traditions regarding the cherub throne in the Solomonic temple. Attempts at documenting “empty space” aniconism through the archaeological record (e.g., the Taanach cult stand) are speculative.
Back to me: Mettinger’s work is indicative a current trend toward examining Israelite religion in the context of surrounding cultures, and toward stressing the continuities between Israel and their neighbors. On that general trend, I have a few observations:
1) Recent studies have enriched the historical portrait of Canaanite and Israelite religion. It helps us to pinpoint more carefully the differences that existed. Hurrah for scholarship!
2) But: In the end what have we learned. That Israel employed images in worship? The Hebrew Bible tells us as much. Ripping Israel away from the liturgies of her neighbors was a centuries-long process.
3) Despite the assertion that “Israel is not uniquely aniconic,” Lewis immediately goes on to say that there was something unique about Israel’s aniconic worship - it persisted .
4) All this shows, once again, the corrupting effect that critical scholarship - applied to such tediously mundane issues as dating texts - has had on our understanding of Israel and of the ancient world in general. If you late-date the Pentateuch, then it’s sensible to look for precursors to Israel’s aniconism. Suppose that the texts are Mosaic, and you’ve got a completely different picture. Assume, too, that Israel was just as likely to influence as to be influenced, and again you have a quite different picture of ancient history. Hurrah for scholarship, again! But nearly all of it needs to be turned on its head before it’s right side up.