4 ms·

> As God’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Esther, it was considered permissible to illustrate it. Wow. Does anybody have some good info abut t

by acqq 10y ago

> As God’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the Book of Esther, it was considered permissible to illustrate it. Wow. Does anybody have some good info abut this aspect of Judaism, wikipedia doesn't have much. Specifically I'd like to know the historical reliable sources about it, not the qoutes from the Bible, that is, I'm interested in the evidence for and against the use of illustrations among the Jews.

js2 10y ago
In Judaism, G-d has no physical form nor image, so there would be no way to illustrate G-d: http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image and http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm This may be the wikipedia page you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism
- akoster 10y ago
  I heard a similar explanation from a rabbi just a few days ago. Quite interesting and thanks for sharing.
- cobookman 10y ago
  Due to this belief you get some interesting Jewish thoughts. Such as Atheist Jews who do not believe a supernatural being exists. But that G-d is the spirit / will / empathy of the people in aggregate. For example a Jewish Atheist would say it was not some super natural being's doing that saved the Jews from the holocaust, but the good nature of people in aggregate. And it was that good nature that represents G-d. Finally as the joke goes in Judaism. You've got 2 Jews in a room and 5 conflicting opinions.
  - relics443 10y ago
    They way I remember it, it was 10 conflicting opinions...
    - mbubb 10y ago
      binary 10 ?
    - tovmeod 10y ago
      it was 3. Or maybe at least 3
relics443 10y ago
It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine. As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations. Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities. Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.
- ars 10y ago
  > It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. You should be more exact: It's not possible to make an image of G-d since G-d does not have a form, so it doesn't matter what image is made, it's certain that that is not an image of G-d. What's forbidden is to make an image and consider it a (or as) G-d. Not that it is (necessarily) an image of G-d.
  - ajarmst 10y ago
    The canonical discussions of just this issue through Torah, Midrash and Talmud, as well as later Rabbinic writings span literally volumes. It is not possible to be "exact" about the halakhah around portrayals of G-d, which include images, analogies, textual writings of the divine name, uttering and pronouncing the divine name, and describing the nature of the divine. If you want to lay claim to being "exact" we'll need to see some Tractate references.
ars 10y ago
I'm not aware of any such rule. If you notice all the illustrators mentioned in the article were Christian (at least they seemed that way to me from the names). What's prohibited is a 3 dimensional form (i.e. like a sculpture, not just thickness as from the layers of paint and the like). A 2D image is fine unless there is intent to worship it. There are some additional details, for example an image of a celestial being (sun, moon, angel, etc) is assumed to be for worship, unless known otherwise, while an earthy image is not assumed that way.
bradleyjg 10y ago
I'm not sure what they are getting at there. There are beautiful illustrated haggadahs (Passover prayer books, which certainly contain the divine name) dating back to the early middle ages. The British library (the linked site) owns several examples, including the Golden Haggadah: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_27210_f001r# http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_27210_f0...
- wycats 10y ago
  I grew up as an Orthodox Jew and virtually all of the stories of the bible are heavily illustrated in many forms, both recently and in ancient times. The fact that the Megilla doesn't contain the name of God is an interesting phenomenon and the source of a lot of commentary, but not for this reason.

by acqq 10y ago

js2 10y ago

In Judaism, G-d has no physical form nor image, so there would be no way to illustrate G-d: http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image http://www.jewfaq.org/human.htm#Image and http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm This may be the wikipedia page you're looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Judaism

akoster 10y ago
I heard a similar explanation from a rabbi just a few days ago. Quite interesting and thanks for sharing.
cobookman 10y ago
Due to this belief you get some interesting Jewish thoughts. Such as Atheist Jews who do not believe a supernatural being exists. But that G-d is the spirit / will / empathy of the people in aggregate. For example a Jewish Atheist would say it was not some super natural being's doing that saved the Jews from the holocaust, but the good nature of people in aggregate. And it was that good nature that represents G-d. Finally as the joke goes in Judaism. You've got 2 Jews in a room and 5 conflicting opinions.
- relics443 10y ago
  They way I remember it, it was 10 conflicting opinions...
  - mbubb 10y ago
    binary 10 ?
  - tovmeod 10y ago
    it was 3. Or maybe at least 3

relics443 10y ago

It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. I don't believe the permission to illustrate the megillah has anything to do with G-d's name not being mentioned, as there are accepted illustrations of Tanach (where G-d's name is mentioned) across the spectrum. As long as there is no depiction of G-d it is fine. As an orthodox Jew, I have no reason to believe that any other orthodox Jew would be OK with making a depiction of G-d. If someone else did, it would just be avoided. I can't speak for any other denominations. Another thing an orthodox Jew might do is preface any anthropomorphic mention of G-d with "kavayachol" meaning "as if it were possible" (loosely translated as "so to speak"), in recognition of the fact that G-d cannot be prescribed physical qualities. Edit: just saw your note about historical precedence. For an orthodox Jew there is no separation of what it says in the Torah and what has happened historically. We follow a masoretic tradition as to the interpretation of the Torah. So as I said above, I can't imagine an orthodox Jew being OK with a depiction of G-d from a Torah standpoint.

ars 10y ago
> It's related to the 3rd commandment to not make an image of G-d. You should be more exact: It's not possible to make an image of G-d since G-d does not have a form, so it doesn't matter what image is made, it's certain that that is not an image of G-d. What's forbidden is to make an image and consider it a (or as) G-d. Not that it is (necessarily) an image of G-d.
- ajarmst 10y ago
  The canonical discussions of just this issue through Torah, Midrash and Talmud, as well as later Rabbinic writings span literally volumes. It is not possible to be "exact" about the halakhah around portrayals of G-d, which include images, analogies, textual writings of the divine name, uttering and pronouncing the divine name, and describing the nature of the divine. If you want to lay claim to being "exact" we'll need to see some Tractate references.

ars 10y ago

I'm not aware of any such rule. If you notice all the illustrators mentioned in the article were Christian (at least they seemed that way to me from the names). What's prohibited is a 3 dimensional form (i.e. like a sculpture, not just thickness as from the layers of paint and the like). A 2D image is fine unless there is intent to worship it. There are some additional details, for example an image of a celestial being (sun, moon, angel, etc) is assumed to be for worship, unless known otherwise, while an earthy image is not assumed that way.

bradleyjg 10y ago

I'm not sure what they are getting at there. There are beautiful illustrated haggadahs (Passover prayer books, which certainly contain the divine name) dating back to the early middle ages. The British library (the linked site) owns several examples, including the Golden Haggadah: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_27210_f001r# http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_27210_f0...

wycats 10y ago
I grew up as an Orthodox Jew and virtually all of the stories of the bible are heavily illustrated in many forms, both recently and in ancient times. The fact that the Megilla doesn't contain the name of God is an interesting phenomenon and the source of a lot of commentary, but not for this reason.