Isn’t it a common Protestant complaint about Catholicism though, that the latter is (supposedly) fixated on icons and physical objects not even associated with God or Jesus but of various humans venerated as saints?
For anybody, though, Protestant or Catholic, if one starts treating the cross around one’s neck or hanging on the wall as something like a lucky rabbit’s foot, I suppose that distracts from trying to know God and might possibly be idolatrous in that sense. But I don’t know anything . . .
Iconoclasts have historically, on occasion, objected to the use of the image of Jesus on a crucifix, and insisted on its being replaced by a plain cross.
I’m inclined to agree with you. However, if the direct Hebrew to English citation above is correct then it sure seems to favor the legitimacy of the KJV over the OAB on this matter.
Another complication to interpretation is that the Ten Commandments show up in multiple places in the Old Testament, and not with exactly the same wording each time.
Plus, of course, Judaism has hundreds of commandments, not just ten. IIRC, the Ten are regarded by Jews not as commandments in and of themselves, but as categories of commandments.
Nothing would, that’s why I’m asking. I want to know if anyone knows how the Hebrew to English translation took place to see which is more true to the original. My NOAB wasn’t “annotated” to say how the difference came to be. The difference does seem meaningful.
If you’ve got an agenda could you come out and state your case? When somebody repeatedly acknowledges others’ points with “but how do we really know? I’m just asking . . .” IME it’s usually revealed as a passive-aggressive attempt to promote some non-mainstream theory.
Orthodox Jews definitely still believe that one should not own sculpted images of anything. However, this prohibition applies only to actual, 3-dimensional likenesses, not relief sculptures (as on coins) or images that are entirely 2-dimensional. Also, the likeness has to be extremely life-like in order to be prohibited. An image can be made permitted by simply removing a piece of what the real-world item has (e.g., removing an ear from a scuplture of a person). Something as crude as, say, a Raggedy Ann doll would not be prohibited.
I once asked my rabbi about more life-like dolls such as Barbie or G.I. Joe. He said that most authorities (including himself) consider children’s toys to be an exception as they are being subjected to abuse rather than to respect. However, a sculpted piece that is meant to be admired (even if not worshipped as a diety) is forbidden as a “graven image.”
I just want to know if the translation is squarely in one camp, the other camp, or if there is agreement that nobody really knows.
If someone knows or could link the wording the original Hebrew, and could link a Hebrew/English dictionary that might remove some of the confusion, or at least illustrate where much confusion there is and where it comes from. Or are there conflicting accounts in the original Hebrew even before it’s translated to English. That’s what I’m trying to find out. I would have posted this in “general questions” but since it’s religious and I thought it might be contentious I put it in “great debates.”
Sounds like nobody knows. Funny because people jump out of the woodwork to tell you what’s in the original manuscripts of the New Testament and how it should be translated.
The New Testament books weren’t written in Hebrew, and the graven image prohibition isn’t featured prominently there anyway AFAIK. That aside, well, I guess you showed us.
Personally, I studied Greek and Latin, but not Hebrew. There are people on the board who know Biblical Hebrew, but they apparently haven’t wandered into this thread.
I know Biblical Hebrew, and I had wandered into this thread. I didn’t realize that the translation was still in doubt, it seemed well covered pretty early on.
The Hebrew word that is translated as “graven image” is “Pesel” which means “sculpture.” The root of the verb (P-S-L) pretty much means “declare/render unfit”, and the process of sculpture is to take a block of material and remove/discard the pieces that do not belong, thus creating the desired form. (Also forbidden is “Masecha”, translated as a “molten image”, i.e., cast from molten metal - or plastic, in modern times - rather than sculpted solid.)
Barbie, G.I. Joe, etc would seem to be safe based on the other part of your explanation anyway as they are missing various… errrmmm… “attributes” found on their real-world equivalents. On the other hand, anyone owning a Realdoll is probably breaking an additional commandment.
I should specify: it’s mainly the realism of the face that matters. The rest of the body not really so much. (I am not a Rabbi; I could be a little mistaken in the precise details.)
One thing I’m curious about: I get the perhaps superficial impression that Christians take a more metaphorical approach to these kids of rules whereas Jews take a more literal approach. E.g., my link to the scene from Dogma above – it seemed like the two angels were more enraged by the executives’ worship of money and power (metaphorical idolatry) than by the fact that there was a literal golden calf in the room. Am I off base in this?
