Classical Values :: Exactly what's engraved in granite?

September 29, 2005

Exactly what's engraved in granite?

I'm having a conceptual problem with the term "graven image," and I don't find the literal words especially illuminating:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
-- Exodus 20: 4 (KJV)

According to this liberal Episcopalian site, the words have to be interpreted:

Despite what God seems to say in the King James translation, he is not really forbidding representational art -- just representation of divine things. Among all ancient deities, Yahweh is uniquely abstract, and the most insistent not only on his ineffability but also on his singularity (all other gods are "false"). As he famously puts it in verse 5, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God" -- a claim he will prove over and over again in the Hebrew Bible.

Other passages in Exodus (15: 11; 18: 11; and 32: 4, for example) suggest that the Israelites acknowledged pagan gods as real. Yet they saw Yahweh as a greater god and were monotheists in the practical sense, worshiping only him -- except, that is, on those all-too-frequent occasions when heathens enticed them into their loose rituals. And on the matter of "graven images" -- carved statues -- they were absolutely rigorous; no archeologist has ever excavated a statue of Yahweh.

Now that's really puzzling. I mean, I could see prohibiting only statues of Yahweh, but if that's the intent, then why not say so? And if statues of pagan deities are prohibited, to whom is their manufacture (making) prohibited? Everyone? Or just the ancient Israelites? In other words, is it a total ban, including possession? And for everyone? Surely the Israelites did not consider their laws to be binding on the world at large.

It seems to come down to interpretation. I'm wondering whether the fundamentalist interpretation is helpful, or whether there's a rule against any interpretation. Because, if the latter is the case, then there's no way anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the rule against graven images can be allowed to make any graven image of anything.

Right there I should back up for a second. Is it a rule, or is it a law? I don't mean to be facetious here, but the language I am attempting to analyze is popularly known as the "Second Commandment" and there are a number of people -- in unorganized as well as organized groups -- who maintain that it should somehow be considered part of the laws of the United States. The "Organic Laws" or something like that. So I don't think asking what it might mean is an entirely idle act. Nor should it be considered an irreverent one. After all, if we are to be ruled by something (or placed under its jurisdiction), is it not reasonable to ascertain what it means if its language is not plain on its face?

This Second, um, "Commandment" gets even more complicated in light of the additional language omitted by the liberal Episcopalians. As far as I can determine it, here's the full text:

2nd Commandment; Verses 4-6: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

What's this about "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"? How can such a law be followed? It reads more like a threat. And an unconstitutional one at that. (Reminds me of Philadelphia's $5 million "Slavery Mall" scolding at taxpayers' expense....)

According to ReligiousTolerance.org, there are a number of interpretations of the phrase "graven image," and a split between liberals and conservatives over whether the additional language was original or tacked on. The conservative view is that "God wrote the Ten Commandments as they have been passed down to us."

Really? Then why is it that the commonplace depictions (Roy Moore's sculptural depiction will do fine as an example), omit the extra phraseology? To abbreviate? And what's with engraving them on stone, anyway? Why isn't that an image? Why isn't a photograph of them an image?

The Amish consider photographs to be graven images, and violative of the Second Commandment.

Austin Cline doesn't think that it is reasonable to "pick and choose" which parts of this "commandment" should be enforced:

Picking and choosing what parts of the Ten Commandments they will endorse is just as insulting to believers as endorsing any of them is to nonbelievers. In the same way that the government has no authority to single out the Ten Commandments for endorsement, the government has no authority to creatively edit them in an effort to make the as palatable as possible to the widest possible audience.

This is making less and less sense to me. I don't understand what the Commandment means, how to interpret it, anything!

Let's compromise, and suppose for the sake of argument that the Commandment only prohibits images of deities, whether or not the deities "exist." The same courts which are said to be under its jurisdiction often have statues of the Roman Goddess Justitia in and in front of their courtrooms. (She's the one wearing the blindfold and holding the scales of justice.) If the Commandment means anything and if we are bound by it, I can't think of a clearer violation than its presence in thousands of courthouses around the country.

Are we bound by Justice, by Justitia? Does that mean we are ruled by a pagan goddess?

(Ought to provide food for thought, for those who believe in "organic law"....)

posted by Eric on 09.29.05 at 09:11 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2734

Comments

I am both an artist and a photographer. So if the fundamentalist interpretation of graven images holds, I am totally screwed.

B. Durbin · September 30, 2005 12:30 AM

Darn it, Eric. You really got me on this one. Always assumed it meant carved idols of deities - but does it? It doesn't exactly say that. But since the context of the Ten Cs is God, surely the point must be objects of worship or things that might become objects of worship - or why else would it be in there? Idols were always carved things, back then. Or is God making a simple statement against sculpture??? Heck, this is like interpreting the Constitution.

bird dog · September 30, 2005 06:17 AM

Very interesting blog. You may or may not be aware that in the Jewish reckoning of the 10 commandments, the commandments "You will not have other gods before me" and "You will not make graven images" are reckoned together as the Second Commandment. In this tradition, the First commandment is "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt."

I find this reading helpful contextually in understanding the intent of the commandment against graven images.

Also, I like your critique (and its implicit humor) of the difficulties of enforcing said laws. The problem is that the Ten Commandments presuppose some sort of religious commitment. Otherwise, they don't make much sense.

Brian Russell · September 30, 2005 02:37 PM

Extremely interesting. Brian Russell is right that, for the Jews (who would seem to me to be the rightful proprietors of the Ten Commandments), the First Commandment is:

"I am the Lord thy G-d, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
-Exodus 20:2

Since YHVH didn't bring the Egyptians out of Egypt, nor the Greeks, nor the Chinese, nor my ancestors, I can only assume He is addressing the children of Israel. "You shall be My people and I shall be your G-d." Therefore, it applies to them and not us. Note that it does not say that there are no other Gods, it says only that "you" (i.e., a Jew) shall have no other Gods before YHVH. We Gentiles are instead bound by the commandment given to Noah after the Flood, notably:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of G-d made He man."
-Genesis 9:6

And also:

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: an in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
-Genesis 12:3

I'm glad I'm not a Nazi. I hate potato salad.

Eric, from your reference to the Commandment forbidding graven images as the Second, I gather that you went to a Protestant (but not Lutheran) Sunday School. (I went to a Unitarian Sunday School and so didn't learn anything.) Catholics and Lutherans count that as the First Commandment (against worshipping "strange Gods") and then divide the Commandment against coveting into two parts.

Lutherans single out "Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's house", while the more sexually-oriented Catholics single out "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife", tying this in with the Commandment against adultery. That Commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" has long been my favorite. Holy Dawn must struggle against wicked Wanda's temptations, must eternally be bound in holy wedlock to her holy Negro wife Norma....

Anyway....! As to graven images, while I have seen plenty of Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, etc., sculptures and paintings, including of their Gods and Goddesses, and Catholic statues and paintings of Christ and the Virgin, I have yet to see one Hebrew statue or painting. That's one thing I have long observed about the Jews, from Moses to Rand, is that they instead excel in the verbal arts. I would set the Old Testament beside Shakeapeare, Homer, the Eddas, the Vedas, or any other of the greatest literature of the ages.

Sunni Muslims also take the Commandment against graven images with the utmost rigor, flatly prohibiting representational art of any kind. Instead, they have produced the arabesque and elaboration on their script.

That ties in with an argument that Dawn and Norma have had since they first met. Dawn always loved the square style of Mondrian, while Norma has always felt that real art must be representational, portraying myths, glorifying the Gods and the Goddesses. Being the painter and sculptor, her view has won out, while Dawn, the composer, rules in the realm of music.

As to their interpretations of the First (in the Catholic enumeration) Commandment: Dawn has always agreed with Cardinal de Bey's analysis, i.e., that the Holy Trinity and the Virgin Mother (the Queen of Heaven) must be worshipped above all other Deities, and that (drawing upon Plato) one may worship the form of the statue but not the matter.

Norma disagrees, as she worships the matter as well, and she really prefers the above-mentioned Hebrew interpretation that, in the light of what the Jews consider the First Commandment, it applies only to them, and for such as herself, an absolute Polytheism, an infinity of Gods and Goddesses, prevails instead. (I know, I know, it is a paradox, she is so Pagan she's Jewish in a way....)

Wanda is an atheist and has deliberately broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Their styles....

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · October 1, 2005 09:51 PM

Well reading it from the Torah says "thou shall not make for yourself any sculptured image..." and then includes that strange list that mentions the waters under the earth...as if the Hebrew sojourners had ready access to scuba gear.

My intial reaction is that the commandment was a safe-guard aginst cultural exploitation by displaced spiritual beings...ie: "Lucifer the first unemployed worship leader"...

The pagan cultures that the Israelites removed from the promised land had extensive history in carvings and body art, all designed to empower the sculpter/tatoo-ee with the strength of his object of affection.

G_d apparently has issue with people drawing their strength from another source, even if its just a reminder.

Iomegaman · October 2, 2005 12:40 AM

mdnbpipodreykhaftccwagxczmpggyiikmv
link http://vhgkaoy.fvdjxrf.com

zxyovrf · October 13, 2005 05:53 AM