Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-03T12:19:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Silas Cardoso2.pdf: 1303036 bytes, checksum: 6bfbab99f1aee463f9c257e694559274 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-05-25 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The research aims the Torah as an aniconic cultic object in the postexilic, revealing its ritualistic face in the Ancient Israel worship. It is proposed that the centralization of Torah in the Second Temple Period will be an ideological and macrostructural construction i.e., an invented tradition of the post-exilic priesthood that aims to unify the nation that rebuild itself. For that analysis, three cuts related to the question are persecuted: (1) the cult materiality in its continuities and ruptures with the pre-exilic Israelite religion, from the material culture and biblical analysis of four central cultic objects presented in the Deuteronomistic History, bamah, massebah, Asherah and Ark; (2) the redactional practices that defend the Torah centralization that inspires in the other cults of Ancient Israel, especially observed in the exegetical analysis of Ps 19, one of the major Torah Psalms of the Hebrew salter; (3) the canonical texts editing that was legitimator retroprojected visions of the posterior and centralized vision of Torah, from the creation of a text materiality typology, from the exegetical analysis of the texts. With that environment we propose a model of four instances of construction of post-exilic aniconism, centralized on Torah and reaching the different layers from judahite religion. / A pesquisa trabalha a Torá como objeto de culto anicônico no pósexílio, apresentando sua face ritualística no culto do Israel Antigo. É proposto que a centralização da Torá no período do Segundo Templo seria uma construção ideológica macroestrutural i.e., uma tradição inventada do grupo sacerdotal pós-exílico em vista de unificar a nação que se reconstruía e reconfigurava. Para tal análise, observam- se três recortes distintos ligados à questão: (1) a materialidade do culto em suas continuidades e rupturas com a religião israelita pré-exílica, a partir da análise da cultura material e da análise da literatura bíblica de quatro objetos cúlticos centrais da OHD, bamah, massebah, Asherá e arca; (2) as práticas redacionais que advogavam a centralização da Torá com inspiração nos demais cultos e concepções do divino no Antigo Israel, especialmente observada na análise exegética do Sl 19, como um dos principais Salmos da Torá que teriam sido produzidos no período para promulgar a nova prática; e (3) a editoração dos diversos textos canônicos que teriam sido retroprojeções legitimadores da visão posterior centralizadora da Torá, através da criação de uma tipologia da materialidade dos textos e da Torá advinda da análise exegética de diversos textos. Com tal panorama, sob pesquisa exegética de orientação histórico-crítica, é proposto um modelo de quatro instâncias de construção do aniconismo pós-exílico, centralizado na Torá e atingindo as diferentes camadas da religião judaíta.

The aim of this study is to highlight the significance of the prohibition of making any image of God as found in the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 with its inner-biblical interpretations in Exodus 32:1-6 and in Isaiah 40:18-20. This study has discussed the close connection between the prohibition of making any image of God in the second commandment of the Decalogue, the idea of Yahweh’s incomparability in the introduction and the command to worship God only in the first commandment. God’s incomparability prevents Israel from worshipping any other god by making images of them or making any image of God. The ‘construct of the introduction and the first two commandments of the Decalogue’ serves as a linchpin concept in our understanding of the prohibition of making any image of God. The aniconism matriculated in the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 in relation with the introduction and the first commandment in Exodus 20:2-3 forms the basis for the prohibition of making any image of God from the Sinai event onwards. This construct in Exodus 20:2-6 is shared with Exodus 32:1-6 and Isaiah 40:18-20. There an inner-biblical interpretation of the aniconism of the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 in reaction with the introduction and the first commandment in Exodus 20:2-3 explicates and applies the meaning of the command in a new situation. Chapter 1 deals with the statement of the problem and the hypothesis of this study, its methodology, theological rationale, and the aim of this study. Chapter 2 discusses that the prohibition of making any image of God in the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 is important, not only as a phenomenon in the Pentateuch, but also as the provenance of aniconism in the rest of Old Testament. Exodus 20:4-6 can be considered as the explicit traceable provenance of the prohibition of making any image of God in the Pentateuch and the rest of Old Testament. The ‘introduction and first two commandments of the Decaologue construct’ provides a framework within which the meaning of the prohibition of making any image of God in the second commandment can be understood in the context of the introduction of the Decalogue in Exodus and the first commandment of the Decalogue. The second commandment of the Decalogue is sometimes backed up by only the first commandment of the Decalogue and sometimes by both of them. The origin of the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 as the prohibition of making any image of God whether it comes from the early or later stages of Israel’s history is discussed with the discussion on the arrangement of the Decalogue in the Sinai pericope (Ex 19:1-24:11) and the relation between the two Decalogues in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The sharp differences of opinions on the provenance of the prohibition in the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6 is dealt with. This study supposes that the dating of the prohibition on making any image of God of the Decalogue should be attributed to Moses’ time as stated in the text of the Pentateuch. Chapter 3 deals with one key Pentateuchal text for the prohibition of making any image of God, Exodus 32:1-6, as an example that the second commandment represents the prohibition on making any image of God in relation with the introduction and the first commandment of the Decalogue proclaiming God’s incomparability, which is called ‘the introduction and the first two commandments of the Decalogue construct’ in this study. Exodus 32:1-6 is regarded to be an interpretation of the prohibition of making any image of God in the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:4-6. Chapter 4 deals with Isaiah 40:18-20, which forbids idol-fabrication and the worship of an image of God in its relation with the proclamation of God’s incomparability, as well as with the worship of other gods and their images. This chapter deals with the similarity of the negative attitude toward worship of God through images found in the legal and prophetical parts of the Hebrew Bible. Theologically speaking, Isaiah’s message is in line with the Pentateuch, and flows from the office of the prophet as a plenipotentiary of God to condemn the transgression of the covenantal law. This similarity of the idea between them is seen in respect of its linguistic aspects. Considering the rules of the nature of analogies between texts, there can be seen a correlation between the introduction and first two commandments of the Decalogue in Exodus 20:2-6 and the passage dealing with the incomparability of God and the idol-fabrication in Isaiah 40:18-20. The final chapter summarizes the flow of the argument in this thesis dealing with three phenomena of aniconism in the Old Testament and suggests the conclusion of this thesis based on the result of the exegetical and thematic study on the three passages. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Old Testament Studies / unrestricted

From Ancient Near Eastern texts, the Bible and archaeological artefacts, we are able to glimpse an over arching belief in a feminine deity. During the occupation of the Temple Mount by the Knights Templars, earlier traditions were ”re-discovered” and accepted as a de facto tradition. William St Clair at the threshold of the Renaissance, mindful of the danger of heresy, was intellectually able to bring together many traditions into a broad Biblically-based theology that recognised the early Israelite traditions as the foundation of Christian belief. All this is evident in Rosslyn Chapel. / OLD TESTAMENT & ANCIENT NE / MA (BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY)

From Ancient Near Eastern texts, the Bible and archaeological artefacts, we are able to glimpse an over arching belief in a feminine deity. During the occupation of the Temple Mount by the Knights Templars, earlier traditions were ”re-discovered” and accepted as a de facto tradition. William St Clair at the threshold of the Renaissance, mindful of the danger of heresy, was intellectually able to bring together many traditions into a broad Biblically-based theology that recognised the early Israelite traditions as the foundation of Christian belief. All this is evident in Rosslyn Chapel. / OLD TESTAMENT and ANCIENT NE / MA (BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY)