Phoenician Aniconism in Its Mediterranean and Ancient Near Eastern Contexts

Archaeology and Biblical Studies #21

by Brian R. Doak

A close look at Phoenician religion

The Hebrew Bible contains a prohibition against divine images (Exod 20:2-5a). Explanations for this command are legion, usually focusing on the unique status of Israel's deity within the context of the broader Near Eastern and Mediterranean worlds. Doak explores whether or not Israel was truly alone in its severe stance against idols. This book focuses on one particular aspect of this iconographic context in Israel's Iron Age that of the Phoenicians. The question of whether Phoenicians employed aniconic (as opposed to iconic) representational techniques has significance not only for the many poorly understood aspects of Phoenician religion generally, but also for the question of whether aniconism can be considered a broader trend among the Semitic populations of the ancient Near East.



More than fifty images and illustrations Examination of textual and archaeological evidence Application of art historical methods Brian R. Doak is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Faculty Fellow in the William Penn Honors Program at George Fox University. He is the author of The Last of the Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel (Harvard University Press) and Consider Narratives of Nature and the Self in Job (Fortress).

Genres: History

Kindle Edition

Published November 30, 2015

Reviews

[Luke Wagner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a good overview of iconic (i.e., anthropomorphic/figural) and aniconic (i.e., non-anthropomorphic) Phoenician art from the Iron Age (and later). I found Doak’s discussion of specific terminology—such as “iconic,” “aniconic,” and even “image” (chapter three)—to be helpful. I also came into this book knowing next to nothing about Phoenician identity, religion, and iconography, and I’m thankful to finish this book knowing a bit more about these areas (although I still find it confusing how we determine what art is “Phoenician” and what art is not—an ambiguity that Doak himself highlights throughout the book). Many of Doak’s conclusions about the “reason(s)” for aniconism in Phoenician art are open-ended and tentative, and I appreciated his honesty about how much we don’t (and maybe never will) know.