The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art

Medieval Academy of America

The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval ArtAuthor(s): Charles BarberSource: Speculum, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 1019-1036Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2865956 .

Accessed: 01/08/2013 03:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSpeculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.212.0.156 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:10:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2865956?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art

By Charles Barber

It is now forty years since the publication of one of the defining papers on early- medieval art, Ernst Kitzinger's "The Cult of Images in the Age before Icono- clasm."1 This article remains a deeply influential study on early-medieval attitudes toward visual culture, arguing, as it does, that the political crises of the later sixth

century helped produce a turn toward a new function for religious imagery as belief in the political and military strength of the Byzantine Empire crumbled. The

implications of the subsequent rise in the cult of images have been exhaustively discussed in numerous further papers.2 In a footnote to his paper Kitzinger intro- duces the interesting question of a turn to iconoclastic activities at this period by the Jews of Palestine.3 He suggests that this physical action, including the deliberate destruction of some images, might be linked to a Jewish reaction against the

growth in the use of images by Christianity, a reaction attested in a form of Chris- tian-Jewish polemic that developed in the middle years of the seventh century. Kitzinger's central concern in this essay is the cult of images in the Byzantine Empire, and he does not develop this hypothesis. Taking his footnote as my start-

ing point, I will directly address some possible causes of Jewish iconoclasm. In so

doing, I will examine how attitudes toward religious imagery played a role in the construction of cultural identity at this period. Images and their cults are not

simply a matter for Byzantine Christianity, for the points drawn from a discussion

Abbreviations used in the following notes include Mansi = Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplis- sima collectio, ed. Giovanni Domenico Mansi, 54 vols. in 58 (Venice, 1759-98; repr. Paris, 1901- 27); PG = Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, ed. Jacques Paul Migne, 161 vols. (Paris, 1857-66); PO = Patrologia Orientalis, ed. Rend Graffin and Francois Nau, 1- (Paris, 1904-). Iwould like to thank Jean-Michel de Tarragon, O.P., and his colleagues at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem, for their kind provision of photographs for this article.

1 Ernst Kitzinger, "The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 85-150, repr. in Ernst Kitzinger, The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies, ed. W. Eugene Kleinbauer (Bloomington, Ind., and London, 1976), pp. 90-156.

2 For example: Peter Brown, "A Dark Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy," English Historical Review 88 (1973), 1-34; Averil Cameron, "Images of Authority: Elites and Icons in Late Sixth-Century Byzantium," Past and Present 84 (1979), 3-35; Robin Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons (London, 1985), pp. 9-45; John Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century (Cambridge, Eng., 1990), pp. 405-24; Averil Cameron, "The Language of Images: The Rise of Icons and Christian Representation," in The Church and the Arts, ed. Diana Wood, Studies in Church History 28 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 1-42. The article by Peter Brown has been particularly influential in challenging the model of popular pressure proposed by Kitzinger as a stimulus for the rise of the cult of icons.

3 Kitzinger, "Cult," p. 130, n. 204.

Speculum 72 (1997) 1019



1020 The Truth in Painting of Jewish iconoclasm carry wider implications for the analysis of the place of images in early-medieval society.4

My point of departure is a mosaic floor from the synagogue at Na'aran (Fig. 1).5 This synagogue was first uncovered in 1918 and was excavated in 1921. Before the entrance to the synagogue proper is an image of the menorah candle- stick (Fig. 2). Within the synagogue itself there is a large floor mosaic occupying the center of the building. Half of the mosaic contains a pattern of hexagons and circles. Originally, figural images were to be found within the twenty-three spaces created by this framing geometrical lattice. Only four survive: a bird in a cage, a basket of fruit, and two birds.6 In the next area of the mosaic (moving toward the Torah shrine end of the synagogue) the remains of a cosmological design are to be seen. At its center was the figure of Helios (Fig. 3). This was surrounded by the twelve signs of the zodiac. At the corners of this design were the four seasons. Each of these figures has been removed, sometimes carefully, sometimes more casually, leaving the trace of their identities in their outlines and in the accompanying Hebrew inscriptions. For example, the figure of the ram of Aries has been excised, leaving behind only the inscription (Fig. 4). The third part of the program consisted of an image of Daniel between lions, two menorahs, and a Torah ark.

4 The points raised in this paper find some echoes in Oleg Grabar's treatment of Islamic attitudes to the arts in The Formation of Islamic Art, 2nd ed. (New Haven, Conn., 1987), esp. pp. 43-98; in John Haldon's discussion of the formation of Byzantine iconoclasm, "Some Remarks on the Background to the Iconoclast Controversy," Byzantinoslavica 38 (1977), 161-84; and in the preface to the Libri Carolini in Libri Carolini sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de imaginibus, ed. Hubert Bastgen, MGH Conc Supplementum, pp. 1-6. A new edition, prepared by Ann Freeman, is in press: Opus Caroli Regis contra synodum (Libri Carolini), MGH Conc Supplementum. For a discussion of the process of cultural differentiation written into the Libri Carolini see Celia Chazelle, "Images, Scripture, the Church, and the Libri Carolini," Proceedings of the Patristics, Mediaeval, and Renaissance Conference 16-17 (1992-93), 53-76. Space will not permit the development of such comparisons in this paper.

5 Bibliography on the synagogue at Na'aran is reasonably extensive, as it features among the canonical group of mosaics attesting to iconoclast activity. The fundamental studies are Hugues Vincent, "Le sanctuaire juif d'Ain Douq," Revue biblique 28 (1919), 532-63; Hugues Vincent and B. Carriere, "La synagogue de Noarah," Revue biblique 30 (1921), 579-601; Eleazar Sukenik, AncientSynagogues in Palestine and Greece (London, 1934), pp. 28-31 and 65; Michael Avi-Yonah, Mosaic Pavements in Palestine (London, 1933), pp. 20-22; The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (New York, 1993), pp. 1075-76. Additional photographs of this floor mosaic can be found in Hershel Shanks, Judaism in Stone: The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (New York, 1979), p. 149, and Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. Lee Levine (Jerusalem, 1982), p. 136.

6 No thorough attempt has been made at defining the reasons for the survival of these images. Chance might be suggested, but the deliberate quality of the iconoclasm elsewhere in this mosaic suggests that these remains hold some significance, although there is, as yet, little basis for an elucidation of their potential significance. In a series of essays Andre Grabar has offered some interpretations of the motif of the bird in the cage: "Recherches sur les sources juives de l'art paleochretien," Cahiers archeologiques 12 (1962), 115-52, esp. pp. 124-28, and "Un theme de l'iconographie chretienne: L'oiseau dans la cage," Cahiers archeologiques 16 (1966), 9-16, esp. p. 16. Grabar points to the example of the sixth-century synagogue at Nirim, where the motif of the bird in the cage, interpreted as a symbol of territory and security, is found alongside the key symbols of the Jewish faith. Such comparisons, while suggesting positive reasons for the maintenance of some motifs at Na'aran, do not provide enough material to sustain readings of the destruction of the remaining motifs found in that synagogue's largest mosaic. This paper will therefore concentrate on the zodiac, Daniel, and symbols com- partments of the floor where both internal evidence and external comparisons can open up avenues toward an interpretation of the iconoclasm carried out here.



NAIU.:::: :::: , .,,

" DF)

~fI M ivFN SFIv1LE,

, , 9 . . . .. .. .. .

Lr ~ CP -dE~

'p*~~a~13~1~*

I ~~f~~~iiiii;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :'~~~C~~~,~~5~~~ "'i~"'~~~;

~ E...

. ;. . ...........: .

ilifi~!i',:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'~'~9 : ,,,-: . . . .

:B ti ~ C,............... ;BIlll::,,~i~x .~ -'"..,, ...

1~~~~~~~~~~. Syaggu atN'rn,lo oac, draw by~~ Loi-Hge Vicn.

Fran~~~~~~aise, ~ ~ ~ N Jeusle.

·f'. .16

"E's

fES

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ....

"' ; . .....~'it.~"' '*~ :" ~ "'i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

i,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i :l···

.:' I I: . /'%: ~i .· '~D .., .,

,, e.,.x.i ,'-~Xj~i: ..~ . . . . . , ....................~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......... ..... . ... :'.. . :. .. ....:..,... . . ............, ... ...., , ... '<.'.";.~!, .'.:...~ , .... . ....,5 . ....... ......, ..:: ........ ..,,. .. .... ...~/ ' : ,, .." .... .... , ...

.............. .. ...........w " ....

i,~ ilj jL;~.. . ........................ ... .. "~!;';I::. '. .......': '~.~ e;,,,.<.,.~

':....'....... .. .. ..- ...............

Igy~ ~ ~~~~~~,. ® i ; ':i~i~%-, "'~,:4,~::

"'~ ~ ~ ?:'.: .. I' ·cua

Franqaise,~~~~~~~~~~ Jeusle.

·;!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i~~~~~~~51C~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,~', ·-··~ .-,.;~ ir ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~.~. ,, ~.~,~ ......

/~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ d b· . . . . ~~~.,, ,,~I' ~ ~, ~ a,

1. Synagogue at Na'aran, floor mosaic, drawn by Louis-Hugues Vincent.~~~~~ A l ht or ah b erisoofteEleBbiqu t cl A r; ·chlgiu

Fran ;ise J erusa klem.

I

4

1

I



2. Synagogue at Na'aran, menorah before the entrance.



3. Synagogue at Na'aran, zodiac floor, Helios.



4. Synagogue at Na'aran, zodiac floor, Aries.

:. - .su.: NA·, - ..:h.",

M>t " .- m:." . i4.:



The Truth in Painting 1021

Of these the living images have been erased, while the traditional symbols of the faith (Torah ark, menorah candlesticks) remain. The whole floor is enclosed by a knot-and-wave border. Accompanying the imagery are identificatory inscriptions in the zodiac panel and dedicatory inscriptions in all of the floor areas.7 The dedication inscriptions suggest a local and communal interest in the construction and decoration of the synagogue. From this brief description and the accompanying illustrations it will be evident that this mosaic has undergone a major al- teration. Almost every living creature has been plucked out of the decoration.

At the start of this century a basic Jewish antipathy to images was a dominant assumption within the discourse on the origins of Christian art. This understanding, based largely in verbal sources, was, however, undermined by a series of discoveries.8 Floor mosaics in Palestine, Jewish catacombs in Rome, and the synagogue decoration at Dura Europos all raised serious questions about the assumption of a consistently aniconic Jewish religious culture.9 From the visual material it has become evident that some Jews in late antiquity accepted figural imagery even within the confines of their religious spaces. Beyond the presence of "Jewish" subject matter, the decoration of a number of floor mosaics also demonstrates the adoption of a broader range of visual reference. Na'aran provides us with one example in the presence of a cosmological symbol at the heart of the floor, an image focused upon the figure of the pagan sun god Helios. Na'aran was

7 The dedication inscriptions are written into different areas of the mosaic floor. The following translations from the Hebrew are taken from Avi-Yonah, Mosaic Pavements, pp. 20-21. Mosaic before entrance: "Honored be the memory of Pinhas the Priest, son of Yusta, who donated the price of the mosaic from his own means and the roof.. ." and "Honored be the memory of Rebecca the wife of Pinhas." Zodiac mosaic: "Honored be the memory of Halifu, daughter of Rabbi Safrah, who has shared in this holy place, Amen." Daniel panel: "Honored be the memory of Benjamin the manager, the son of Yoseh. Honored be the memory of all those who exerted themselves and gave or who shall give for this holy place either gold or silver or anything of value. Let them . . . their part (?) in this holy place"; "Daniel, Peace"; and "Honored be the memory of Samuel." Torah and symbols panel: "Honored be the memory of Marutah (and) ... Tonah and Yair their son who exerted themselves to embellish this place.... May they share in this holy place, Amen," and "Honored be the memory of Maru ... (and) ... son of Cris[pa?] ... to them in (this holy place, Amen)."

8 Jean-Baptiste Frey, "La question des images chez les juifs a la lumiere des recentes d6couvertes," Biblica 15 (1934), 265-300, remains the fundamental study on this issue. To this can be added Kurt Weitzmann, "Zur Frage des Einflusses jiidischer Bilderquellen auf die Illustration des Alten Testa- ments," Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum, Erganzungsband 1 (1964), 405-15, repr. as "The Question of the Influence of Jewish Pictorial Sources on Old Testament Illustration," in Kurt Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. Herbert Kessler (Chicago, 1971), pp. 76-95. For a thoroughgoing analysis of the Jewish relation to imagery as revealed in the Mishnah see Efraim Urbach, "The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts," Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959), 149-65 and 229-45.

9 This material has generated a good deal of discussion. On the floor mosaics see Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues; Shanks, Judaism in Stone; Levine, Ancient Synagogues. On the catacombs see Hermann

Beyer and Hans Lietzmann, Die jiidische Katakombe der Villa Torlonia in Rom (Berlin, 1930). On the

synagogue at Dura Europos see Carl Kraeling, The Synagogue, The Excavations at Dura Europos, Final Report 8/1, augmented ed. (New York, 1979); Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert Kessler, The Fres- coes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 28 (Washington, D.C., 1990); and Annabel Wharton, "Good and Bad Images from the Synagogue of Dura Europos: Contexts, Sub- texts, Intertexts," Art History 17 (1994), 1-25.



1022 The Truth in Painting not alone in this. Parallels can be found in the fourth-century synagogue at Ham- math-Tiberias and the sixth-century synagogue at Beth Alpha.10 These examples suggest that some Jewish communities within Palestine saw no difficulty in ab-

sorbing figural and "late-antique" imagery into the vocabulary of their synagogue decoration.

The imagery of living creatures and the symbols that might be considered to reach beyond a normative sense of Jewish religious visual expression were the

prime focus of the iconoclasm at Na'aran. This activity perhaps marks a changing situation. As described above, the iconoclastic activity is not total; it is specific. The imagery of the floor has not been entirely erased. Figural and pagan imagery are rejected; the signs of the zodiac and the figures of Helios and the seasons are excised. What remains are the Hebrew language, the symbols of Judaism, and the birds and fruit. The nature of these survivals has led to the belief that the iconoclasm was pursued by the Jewish community that used this synagogue." Through

10 Recent surveys of this material include those cited above, n. 9. To these can be added: Ancient

Synagogues: The State of Research, ed. Joseph Gutmann (Chico, Calif., 1981). Some specific studies can be found: Eleazar Sukenik, The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha (Oxford, 1932), and Moshe Dothan, Hammath Tiberias (Jerusalem, 1983).

11 That the iconoclasm is Jewish is the widely accepted opinion of the authorities cited above, n. 5. The maintenance of the Hebrew inscriptions and the symbolic imagery of the faith are key points in this interpretation. In this paper I offer an interpretation of the iconoclasm at Na'aran that would date its occurrence to the later sixth or early seventh century. As such, I resist the temptation to link this iconoclasm to that instigated by Caliph Yazid II in 721 (for discussion of the relevant sources see Alexander A. Vasiliev, "The Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, AD 721," Dumbarton Oaks

Papers 9-10 [1956], 25-47, and now, Geoffrey King, "Islam, Iconoclasm, and the Declaration of

Doctrine," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48 [1985], 267-77). The link between the iconoclasm evident in the synagogue and this edict is made plausible by the report that Yazid's decree was directed against all animate imagery (Kitzinger, "Cult," p. 134; Vasiliev, "Iconoclastic Edict," pp. 29-30, n. 13). The main text, found at Mansi, 13:198A-200B, explicitly states that both

"every representational image (6tccav EiKovticiv 8tacCoypa6(pqctv)" and "likenesses of any kind

(ota6ijnoT 6aoic(ogaTaa)" were to be destroyed no matter where they were found. The implications of this text deserve a fuller treatment than can be offered here.

The issue that is central to this paper is whether Yazid's text can be read as a general statement on

representational art (and therefore can be interpreted as providing the basis for an external source for the iconoclasm at Na'aran), or whether it can be considered as being more specifically directed at the Christian communities under Yazid's control (this reading would at least question the link between Yazid's decree and the synagogue at Na'aran). The text does not refer to synagogues, while it does

explicitly refer to Christian churches. The implication of this silence can be developed by considering the representation of the Jews in this text. First, the text tells us that the instigator of this policy is a

Jew. Second, those who carry it out are also Jews. The text as a whole and on its own terms suggests that the Jews were already considered iconoclastic by this date. On the one hand, this should not

preclude the possibility that the iconoclasm at Na'aran was carried out by Jews in 721. On the other hand the text does not exclude the possibility of an earlier date for this iconoclasm (for considerations of the place of the Jews in this text see Patricia Crone, "Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2 [1980], 59-95). Rather than linking this iconoclasm to the short-lived and limited policies of Yazid, I would argue that it should be placed within the context of the earlier Jewish-Christian polemic over images, one that derives from the period when new Jewish synagogue mosaics were aniconic, a feature that suggests a turn against imagery had occurred within the Jewish community prior to any Islamic actions. I suggest that it is this material

context, akin to that of eighth-century iconoclastic Byzantium, that provides a fitting framework for the acts of iconoclasm witnessed at Na'aran.




this action the visual space is rewritten. The specific reasoning behind the revision is, however, unclear.12 That a turn against iconic imagery occurred in the later sixth century is apparent from the greater number of newly created aniconic dec- orations that can be plausibly dated to the later sixth century. For example, the late-antique synagogue excavated at Jericho is nonfigural and contains only the symbols of the faith.13 Such a deployment of aniconic floor decoration, allied with the refiguring actions of iconoclasts, points to a change in the visual horizons of this culture. That such a broad shift happened gains support from the Christian representation of the Jews as being opposed to images in the Jewish-Christian disputes written down in the seventh century (discussed below). Both these texts and the visual material suggest that the Jews broke from a broader late-antique visual culture. Kitzinger has suggested that this activity marks a reaction against the increasing cult of images in Christianity that opened the early-medieval period and transformed both the forms and functions of that visual culture. If so, then an understanding of Jewish iconoclasm can only add to our ability to define the "birth" of early-medieval art. In what follows I will explore the bases of this "reaction" and so offer an interpretation of the acts of iconoclasm visible at Na'aran. So far I have identified a change in this material; now I shall turn to its possible significance.

There is little direct evidence for the specific nature of the Jewish critique of images that produced their acts of iconoclasm and turn to aniconism in the later sixth and early seventh centuries. To a great extent we depend upon the representation of this aniconism as it is given to us in the Adversus Judaeos literature of the seventh century.14 The texts that will concern me are those that date to c. 630-

12 No lengthy discussion of this issue exists. Brief attempts at an analysis can be found in Frey, "La

question," pp. 298-99, who notes the attack on images of living creatures and suggests an influence on later Byzantine iconoclasm; and Michael Avi-Yonah, Oriental Art in Roman Palestine (Rome, 1961), p. 42, who describes the Jewish iconoclasm as being "in protest against and in opposition to the use of images by the church." Cf. idem, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest (Oxford, 1976), p. 239: "As pressure on the Jews in Byzantine times continued and even grew stronger and stronger, there was an evident retreat from the liberal

interpretation of the Second Commandment, and a movement in the direction of greater rigour"; Kitzinger, "Cult," p. 130: "Could this have been caused by the spectacle of vastly increased image worship among the Christians, which the Jews could hope to exploit more effectively for polemic purposes if they themselves could claim to be strict observers of Biblical Law?" and Andre Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1984), pp. 116-20.

13 For discussion of the mosaic at Jericho see Shanks, Judaism in Stone, pp. 108-10 and 150. 14 This material has generated a lengthy bibliography. Works that I have found valuable include A.

Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance

(Cambridge, Eng., 1936); Vincent D6roche, "L'authenticit6 de l'Apologie contre les juifs de Leontios de N6apolis," Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 110 (1986), 655-69; idem, "La polemique anti-

judaique de VIe et VIIe siecle. Un memento in6dit: Les Kephalaia," Travaux et memoires 11 (1991), 275-311; Gilbert Dagron, "Judaiser," ibid., pp. 359-80; Kathleen Corrigan, Visual Polemics in the

Ninth-Century Byzantine Psalters (Cambridge, Eng., 1992), esp. pp. 27-61; Heinz Schreckenberg, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches Umfeld, 2 vols. (Frankfurt a.M. and Bern, 1982, 1988), esp. 1:445, 449, 465-68; Gedaliahu Stroumsa, "Religious Contacts in Byzantine Palestine," Numen 36 (1989), 16-42. It is the material evidence of Jewish iconoclasm found in the

synagogue floors that provides us with some notion of the reality that lies behind the textual reference to Jewish iconoclasm.



1024 The Truth in Painting c. 700 (precise dates are not plausible).15 These, in slightly varying formats, pur- port to represent public disputations between Christians and Jews. It is a genre of literature with a long history, marked by numerous conventions, and does not necessarily record actual debates.16 These seventh-century texts are notable for their introduction of religious images into their terms of reference.17 As such, they have been used to identify the Christian perception and defense of images in the period prior to the outbreak of Christian iconoclasm in the eighth century.18 I want, however, to use this notional polemical exchange, first, to understand the framing of the Christian perception of the Jewish critique of images and, second, to establish the terms by which images are employed within these disputes. From this latter point I will return to the question of the significance of the Jewish iconoclasm found at Na'aran.

The lengthiest text, and the one that will form the basis of the following discussion, is that of Leontios of Neapolis, perhaps datable to the 630s or 640s.19

15 These texts include the following, selected because they provide valuable insights into the treatment of the image in this literature: (1) the Apology of Leontios of Neapolis, available in Mansi, 13:44A-53C = PG 93:1597B-1610A; Bonifatius Kotter, ed., Die Schriften Johannes von Damaskos, 5 vols. (Berlin, 1969-88), 3:156-59 and 178-81, and at PG 130:293B-296A; Jean Baptiste Pitra, ed., Spicilegium Solesmense, 4 (Paris, 1858), pp. 371-72; and now in a new edition Vincent D6roche, "L'Apologie contre les juifs de Leontios de N6apolis," Travaux et memoires 12 (1994), 45-104, esp. pp. 61-85 (this edition arrived after this paper was written; I have incorporated references to the texts edited by D6roche but have provided only passing references to his discussion); (2) a Dialexis sometimes attributed to John of Thessalonica, Mansi, 13:165E-168C; (3) Stephen of Bostra, Fragments, in Alexander Alexakis, "Stephen of Bostra: Fragmenta contra Iudaeos (CPG 7790): A New Edition," Jahrbuch der 6sterreichischen Byzantinistik 43 (1993), 45-60, esp. pp. 51-55; (4) Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, ed. Arthur C. McGiffert (Marburg, 1889); (5) Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem, nos. 39-42, attributed to Pseudo-Athanasios, PG 28:621-24; (6) Jerome of Jerusalem, in Kotter, Schriften, 3:194; and (7) The Trophies of Damascus = Les trophees de Damas, ed. Gustave

Bardy in PO 15:169-292. For an assessment of these and other texts and of their relative dates in the seventh century see D6roche, "La polemique," pp. 276-81.

16 There is some debate on this subject, with opinion being divided as to whether this genre of

disputation text is simply a literary conceit or whether it reflects, to varying degrees, the actualities of intercommunal confrontation. For a range of opinion see Stroumsa, "Religious Contacts," p. 21;Averil Cameron, "Disputations, Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine Period," in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Medieval Near East, ed. Gerrit Jan Reinink and Herman L. J. Vanstiphout, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 42 (Leuven, 1991), pp. 91- 108, esp. pp. 102-5; and Sidney Griffith, "The Prophet Muhammad, His Scripture and His Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century," in Vie du

prophete Mahomet: Colloque de Strasbourg, octobre 1980 (Paris, 1983), pp. 99-146, esp. p. 117. David Olster's strong argument for the purely Christian identity of these polemics should now be added to the above list: David Olster, Roman Defeat, Christian Response, and the Literary Construc- tion of the Jew (Philadelphia, 1994).

17 This addition to the subject matter of the debate is called "spectaculaire" by Deroche, "La polemique," p. 290.

18 For example, Kitzinger, "Cult," pp. 130-31,135, and 140-41, refers to these texts (and especially that of Leontios of Neapolis) in order to help define the Christian case for images. A similar use can be found in Norman H. Baynes, "The Icons before Iconoclasm," Harvard Theological Review 44

(1951), 93-106. 19 This text has been preserved in a number of versions; see above, n. 16. To these can be added the

useful side-by-side presentation of the Mansi, Kotter, and Pitra editions of the text in Hans Georg Thiimmel, Die Friihgeschichte der ostkirchlichen Bilderlehre: Texte und Untersuchungen zur Zeit vor




The title given to the excerpted text tells us that it is taken from the fifth book of Leontios's Against the Jews. It is written in the form of a dialogue. As with the other examples from this genre, the text purports to represent an actual speech event. As the audience for these texts we are drawn through this convention into the process of the arguments and thereby serve as witnesses to the truth claims written into them.20

In the Leontios text the Jew is constructed as the opponent of the Christian interlocutor and of the Christian faith and, hence, is castigated as one who con- demns God: "If then you wish to condemn me with regard to images, condemn God for having commanded the making of these things as a memorial of him for us."21 It is apparent from this passage that the religious image has become one of the canonical points of dispute between Christians and Jews.22 The relationship that either party can construct with regard to the image will consequently be a sign of their relationship to God, this last relationship being the basis for their different religious identities. For the Christian writers of these texts, acceptance of religious images has become a litmus test of true faith. The Jew, within the Christian text, must necessarily be cast in the role of an opponent of images. Having established the image as a point of differentiation, the Christian can then

dem Bilderstreit (Berlin, 1992), pp. 340-53, with discussion at pp. 127-36. The text is extensively discussed in D6roche, "L'authenticit6." In this analysis of the text Deroche defends the authenticity of Leontios's writing against the critique offered by Paul Speck in, "FPA(DAIE H FAY(DAIS. Zu dem

Fragment des Hypatios von Ephesos iiber die Bilder, mit einem Anhang: Zu dem Dialog mit einem Juden des Leontios von Neapolis," lHoLK2Ua Bvavnrvd, 4: Varia, 1 (Bonn, 1984), pp. 211-72, esp. pp. 242-49. Their debate is continued in Paul Speck, "Der Dialog mit einem Juden angeblich des Leontios von Neapolis," HotKi2a Bvcavrtvd, 6: Varia, 2 (Bonn, 1987), pp. 315-22; Deroche, "La polemique," p. 278, n. 4; Speck, "Schweinefleisch und Bilderkult: Zur Bilderdebatte in den sogenannten Judendi- alogen," in To 'EX22rvlKov: Studies in Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., 1: Hellenic Antiquity and Byzan- tium, ed. John Langdon, Stephen Reinert, Jelisaveta Stanojevich Allen, and Christos Ioannides (New Rochelle, N.Y., 1993), pp. 368-83; and D6roche, "L'Apologie," pp. 46-47. In this paper I follow Deroche's sensitive reading of the text and his belief in its being a product of seventh-century Jewish- Christian polemical literature. The date of the text is dependent upon the identification of the dates of Leontios's hagiographical activities, for which see Cyril Mango, "Leontios of Neapolis: A Byzantine Hagiographer at Work," in Byzanz und der Westen, ed. Irmgard Hutter (Vienna, 1985), pp. 25-41, esp. p. 33. The various editions that we have of this Leontios text, and its already fragmented nature, indicate that it will be difficult to claim either an absolute unity in the writing that we have or an authentic voice for Leontios. On the difficulties regarding the production of a definitive edition see the discussion in D6roche, "L'Apologie," pp. 59-61.

20 This is made explicit during the exchange on images in Trophies, p. 246, lines 2-9: "The Christian said: 'Then if I establish that you also worship something other than God, what shall we do? If I can

prove (cuTo) it, then you will become Christians; if I speak falsely (vEi6oo0,at), then I shall become a Jew....' And they replied saying: 'Teach us; prove these things.' The Christian, wishing finally to shame them with the truth, repeated for a second and a third time his proposition, and called on all the people to be his witness." On the issues that arise from the authority given to such speech events see the discussion in Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri C. Spivak (Baltimore, 1976), pp. 3-93.

21Mansi, 13: 44C, lines 8-10; PG 93:1597C, lines 6-9; Kotter, Schriften, 3:178, section III.84, lines 18-20; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 12-13, cf. p. 80, X1, lines 12-14.

22 This point is well made by D6roche; see above, n. 17.



1026 The Truth in Painting assume the role of the one who defends the image and therefore God/the truth: "so that the mouths of those speaking unjustly be stopped."23

Having established the premise of a basic opposition between Christian and Jewish attitudes to imagery, the Christian must then overturn the various charges made both explicitly and implicitly by the Jew. From this material we can begin to define the ways in which Christians believed Jews to be opposed to images, and hence to define some possibilities for the Jewish turn against images.24 That the image can enter this dialogue is a matter of some consequence for the art historian, marking as it does a moment when the Jews can be represented within this literature as aniconic. Such a change might have been stimulated by the reported attacks by Jews on Christian images, but these writings indicate that for the Chris- tians the Jews are necessarily opposed to images per se.25

The primary charge leveled by Jews against the Christians in these texts is the fundamentalist one that the biblical text does not permit the making of images. Leontios's response is to note the ban on graven images given in the Second Com- mandment, while placing an emphasis upon those instances when God commanded that images be made: "Terrible the command that forbade Israel to make any graven thing, neither image nor likeness of things in heaven or of things that are on the earth; and yet he commanded Moses to make graven figures of cherubim, and he showed to Ezekiel the temple full of images and likenesses, of graven figures, of lions, palm trees, and men."26 For Leontios, the seeming clarity of the commandment's prohibition is undermined by those instances when God has also ordained that images be made. Since the texts appear to offer no conclusive stance on whether images themselves are licit or illicit, the dialogue moves on to its main topic of discussion, the implications of the worship of images.

The interpretation of the proper limits of engagement with the image becomes the issue that will separate the Jew from the Christian: "The Jew says, 'But these likenesses were not worshiped as gods, but were only intended as reminders.' The Christian says, 'Well said; neither are our figures, or images, or renderings of the

23 Mansi, 13:44B, lines 2-3; PG 93:1597B, lines 2-3; Kotter, Schriften, 3:178, section III.84, lines 4-5; D6roche, "L'Apologie," p. 66, lines 1-2, cf. p. 79, i1, line 2.

24 Such a method has been applied in the study of Byzantine iconoclasm, where the views of the iconoclasts have been distilled from the refutations brought to bear on them by their iconophile op- ponents. One example, among many, of this practice is provided by Milton Anastos, "The Ethical

Theory of Images Formulated by the Iconoclasts in 754 and 815," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 151-60. An obvious problem with this method, if one is seeking an authentic iconoclast voice, is that we are inevitably working with texts redefined by their iconophile representation. Nevertheless, as will be shown below, there is reason to believe in a degree of correlation between the Christian representation of Jewish attitudes to the arts and the evidence that survives for those attitudes.

25 For the attacks on images see the reports surrounding the Jews of Antioch in 592, in Agapius, Kitab al-'Unwan (Histoire universelle), pt. 2, ed. and trans. Alexander A. Vasiliev in PO 8:439-40. For the activities of the Jews when they controlled Jerusalem in the period c. 614-17, see Frederick

Conybeare, "Antiochus Strategos' Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614," English Historical Review 25 (1910), 502-17, esp. pp. 507-8.

26 Mansi, 13:44B, line 10-44C, line 4; PG 93:1597B, line 10-1597C, line 2; Kotter, Schriften, 3:178, section III.84, lines 10-15; Deroche, "L'Apologie," pp. 66-67, lines 5-9, cf. p. 80, '1, lines 7-10. This charge appears to be standard in the literature; see Dialexis, Mansi 13:165E, and Trophies, p. 245.




saints, worshiped as gods.' For if they worshiped the wood of an image as divine, then they would certainly worship all manner of wood."27 Several points are raised in this exchange. The Jew draws a distinction between the worship of images (illicit) and the use of the image as an aide-memoire (licit). To worship the image is to cross a boundary, making the image itself the locus of the divine. The Chris- tian appropriates this attack and emphasizes that Christians do not worship the material object. This passage discloses that the point of contention is the material nature of the object that is the focus of worship. In attempting to control the

significance of this materiality, the dialogue needs to address the meaning given to the worship brought to the object. As noted above, the Christian quickly remarks that the image is not the object of worship; rather it is the one represented there who receives due honor. For the Christian this places a great onus upon the

viewing/worshiping subject: "for, as I have often said, the intention of every embrace and of every act of worship should be examined."28

This question of intention becomes a key means by which Leontios can distin-

guish between apparently similar actions. For the Jew, it follows from the act of

worshiping performed before images that the Christians are idolaters. As a defense, the Christian again erects a boundary, this time separating his coreligionists from paganism (the paradigm idolaters): "so let us consider the images of the Gentiles and Christians: their images are for the worship of the devil; ours are for the remembrance and the glory of God."29 This point of differentiation is predi- cated upon the belief that the identity of the object represented will have an effect

upon the meaning of the response to the image. When a devil is represented, veneration of an image produces idolatry. When Christ is represented, veneration of an image produces memory and glorification. This point is developed when Leontios explains why he is able to worship the images of saints: "Then tell me, are you not ashamed or trembling, or seething or blushing, when you see me every day throughout the world destroying the temples of idols, and building the temples of the martyrs? Now if I worship idols, how can I still honor the martyrs who overthrew the idols?"30 The martyrs are necessarily valid objects of worship; they have overthrown that which is evil and therefore must be good.

Having defined the difference between pagan and Christian worship in terms of their respective objects, Leontios turns to the relation between Jewish and Chris- tian worship: "In every city and land, every day and hour, we Christians take up arms against the idols, sing against the idols, write against the idols, pray against the idols and demons. How then can the Jews call us idolaters? Where now are

27 Mansi, 13:44C, line 10-44D, line 4; PG 93:1597C, line 9-1597D, line 1; Kotter, Schriften, 3:179, section 111.86, lines 2-4; Droche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 14-18, cf. p. 80, '3, lines 1-3. The need to deny that these images are treated as gods can be found in the following texts: Dialexis, Mansi

13:168A; Fragments, p. 51, lines 4-5; Quaestiones, in Kotter, Schriften, 3:109, section 59, lines 3-6; Jerome of Jerusalem in Kotter, Schriften, 3:194, section 125, lines 12-14.

28 Mansi, 13:45E, lines 1-3; PG 93:1601A, lines 2-4; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines

18-19; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, lines 60-61, cf. p. 81, s5, lines 1-2. 29 Mansi, 13:49D, lines 10-13; PG 93:1605A, lines 12-14; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 69, lines 132-

33. 30 Mansi, 13:48B, lines 1-6; PG 93:1601B, lines 8-13; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines

32-35; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, lines 73-76, cf. p. 81, v6, lines 3-5.



The Truth in Painting their customary sacrifices of sheep and oxen and children to the idols? Where are the odors; where are the altars and sprinklings of blood? We Christians know nothing whatever of altar or sacrifice."31 Not only does the Christian deny that they treat the image as an idol, but he turns the accusation around, in order to point to the reputed idolatrous practices, or at least traditions, of the Jew. Through this gesture Leontios proposes a seizure of the moral high ground from his Jewish critic.

This series of definitions regarding idolatry suggests one aspect of the discourse operating in this text, that the image has become a locus for the establishment of cultural difference. This difference is elaborated in a negotiation over the possession of the common Judaeo-Christian heritage. For Leontios, as for much of the Adversos Judaeos literature, this process of taking possession is expressed through the idea of memory: "For the sake of Christ and Christ's suffering we represent in churches, in houses, in markets, in images and on cloths, on chests and on gar- ments and in all other places, so that having these continually in view we may remember (67rnoLtLvrlKCDL90Qa) and never forget (rl 7niit av0avd6 0s9a) as you have forgotten (in;Ua00olu) the Lord your God."32 It is here in this play on the notion of memory that an understanding of the importance to Christianity of the image (and with it material culture) can be located. The importance of the image is enhanced because the image has become central to the act of remembering.

As will be shown below, the materiality of the image becomes a site for the disclosure of the true God, a God that dwells in the material world that he has created. The image thus becomes a means of locating origins. It is implied that the Jews have in effect forgotten their God through their having rejected the material world, in the form of images, as a site for the disclosure of God. By making the issue of memory a central feature of the image, Leontios propels the image into the center of the definition of the Christian truth claims.33 This is achieved by a refutation of the Jew's critique of the Christian focus upon materiality in worship and the construction of a Christian claim over the material world.34 This

31 Mansi, 13:49C, line 6-49D, line 3; PG 93:1604D, line 7-1605A, line 4; D6roche, "L'Apologie," p. 69, lines 122-25.

32 Mansi, 13:45B, lines 5-10; PG 93:1600B, lines 8-13; Kotter, Schriften, 3:179, section III1.87, lines 2-6; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 39-42, cf. p. 80, V4, lines 1-4, and A1, lines 1-4. Memory provides one of the constant themes of the Adversus Judaeos literature of the seventh century: Dialexis, Mansi, 13:168A; Trophies, p. 248, lines 12-14; Fragments, pp. 54-55, lines 39-48. D6roche, "L'Apologie," pp. 92-93, touches on the subject of memory, linking it to the desire provoked by the absence of God and the saints. Byzantine studies needs a study of the function and significance of

memory comparable to that of Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Me- dieval Culture (Cambridge, Eng., 1990).

33 The relationship of truth, memory, and art is treated admirably in Martin Heidegger's essay, "The

Origin of the Work of Art," trans. Albert Hofstadter, Philosophies of Art and Beauty, ed. Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns, rev. ed. (Chicago, 1976), pp. 651-708. My paper owes a great debt to that essay and to the provocative reading of it found in Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoff Bennington and Ian McLeod (Chicago, 1987), pp. 255-382. For a historian's view of the

place of truth in the discussion of images see Cameron, "Language of Images," pp. 40-42. 34 On materiality in the Adversus Judaeos literature see Cameron, "Language of Images," pp. 35-

40. Note the discussion on some of the implications of Leontios's celebration of the material world in Nicholas Gendle, "Leontius of Neapolis: A Seventh Century Defender of Holy Images," Studia patris- tica 18/1 (1985), 135-39, and now D6roche, "L'Apologie," pp. 89-92.

1028



The Truth in Painting

critique stems from the injunction against the worship of any created thing. Once again the Christian is compelled to make a distinction, arguing that the object serves as a medium for worship, rather than as its end: "Thus, O Man, when Christians embrace crosses and images, they do not bring reverence to the wood or the stones, to the gold or the perishable image, or to the container or the relics, but through these they offer glory, greeting, and reverence to God, the creator of them and of all things."35 This differentiation (appropriated from the Jew) serves as Leontios's keynote in his defense of Christianity's relationship to the material world.

The material aspect of Christian worship is given a broad definition in this text. The prime example is the cross, which provides a paradigm for the Christian relation to the material trappings of worship: "When, therefore, you see Christians worshiping the cross, know that they offer worship to the crucified Christ, and not to the wood."36 This text reiterates the difference between the object and its referent. This difference is then given a point of mediation in this clause: "as long as the two planks of the cross are bound together, I worship the sign (RnpoK:uvo Tov Tiznov) for the sake of Christ, who was crucified thereon; but, after they are separated from each other, I throw them away and burn them."37 Here the power of the image is distinguished from its material. The cross is empowered only by the formal likeness that is common between the image of the cross and the cross itself. By focusing on the quality of likeness Leontios plays down the importance of the material and can therefore offer to burn the "unlike" matter.

This denial of the power of the material is, however, seemingly contradicted: "Moreover God has made us hear of many miracles wrought by wood, naming a tree of knowledge and a tree of life; calling another Sabek, which brings forgive- ness. Again: by the staff he overwhelmed Pharaoh, divided the sea, sweetened the water, lifted up the serpent, cleft the rock, brought forth water.... Having wrought so many miracles by means of wood, tell me why cannot God work miracles by means of the honored wood of the Holy Cross?"38 It is clear that the material is not devoid of potential power, particularly when it is the authentic relic of the true cross (the apparent referent in this passage). As this is so, Leontios needs to maintain some control on the limits of this material power. He deals with this in two ways. First, emphasis is placed upon the role of the worshiper. Second, the importance of God's investment in the material world is stressed.

The role of the worshiper leads to the image being treated in a double, if not ambiguous, manner. The image is the primary site of encounter, and yet this encounter is circumscribed to the point of denial: "hence when I worship the image

35 Mansi, 13:49A, line 13-49B, line 8; PG 93:1604C, lines 2-9; Deroche "L'Apologie," p. 69, lines 111-15.

36 Mansi, 13:52E, lines 7-11; PG 93:1608B, lines 11-14; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 70, lines 175- 76. For comparison with this text and that of n. 38, below, one might employ the discussion in the Libri Carolini: see Celia Chazelle, "Matter, Spirit and Image in the Libri Carolini," Recherches au-

gustiniennes 21 (1986), 163-84, and "Images, Scripture." 37 Mansi, 13:44D, lines 6-10; PG 93:1597D, lines 4-7; Kotter, Schriften, 3:179, section III.86, lines

5-8; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 19-21. 38 Mansi, 13:49D, line 13-52A, line 4; PG 93:1605A, line 14-1605B, line 14; Deroche,

"L'Apologie," p. 69, lines 134-42.

1029



The Truth in Painting of God, I do not worship the wood and the colors-God forbid!-but, grasping the lifeless figure (cov axu)xov xapaKT lpa) of Christ, I seem through this to grasp and to worship Christ,"39 which is echoed by: "all Christians when in the flesh we grasp and embrace the image of Christ or of an apostle or martyr, we believe that we grasp in this way in the spirit Christ himself or the martyr."40 The distinction drawn between "in the flesh" and "in the spirit" is the crucial area of negotiation, separating permitted worship from idolatry. It is an ill-defined region, fluid and potentially dangerous, as Kitzinger amply demonstrates. In attempting a definition, Leontios proposes two arguments. First, the materiality of the icon is identified as a condescension to human nature: "For the creature does not worship the Creator except through some medium."41 Second, in order that this medium be licit, without falling into the problems of the idol, the notion of the image and its mediatory function is invoked as a safeguard: "We do not say this of the cross, nor of the forms of the saints: 'You are our gods,' for they are not our gods, but likenesses and images of Christ and of his saints, which are set forth and worshiped as a memorial and to the honor and glory of the churches."42 The worshiper is thus able to occupy a twilight zone in which the medium of the image presents an unstable boundary between the viewer and the one represented, where encounters can and cannot take place. An unresolved ambiguity is Leontios's control.

Two examples of the material culture of religion-relics and pilgrimage sites- provide Leontios with opportunities to explore God's legitimating and continuing investment in the created world. On relics he says this: "If it is impious to honor bones, why were the bones of Jacob and Joseph brought with every honor from Egypt? Why did the corpse of a man come to life after touching the bones of Elisha? And if God works miracles through bones, it is obvious that he can through images, through stones, and through many other things."43 Here the play of tradition is read in a manner that provides a means of sanctioning the material world; to paraphrase, God can empower material things with miraculous power, indeed has done so, and who can gainsay this? "Tell me how can we be idolaters who worship and honor the bones, the ashes, the rags, the blood, the coffin of the martyrs who did not sacrifice to the idols? The Jew says, 'Why, then, has God

39 Mansi, 13:45B, line 13-45C, line 4; PG 93:1600C, lines 2-6; Kotter, Schriften, 3:179, section III.87, lines 8-11; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 44-47, cf. p. 80, X4, lines 6-9, and pp. 80-81, Al, lines 6-9. The reference to the "lifeless figure of Christ" could be interpreted as an image of the dead Christ. As such, it would appear to predate the widely discussed reference to an image of the dead Christ on the cross found in the Hodegos of Anastasios of Sinai: Anastasii Sinaitae opera: Viae dux, ed. Karl-Heinz Uthemann, Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 8 (Turnhout, 1981), 12.1.1-30. For discussion of this passage see Anna Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton, N.J., 1986), pp. 40-67, where reference to earlier literature can be found. It is perhaps more likely, given the specific context, that the "6auXvov" in Leontios should be read as emphasizing the lifelessness of the material that carries the image of Christ.

40 Mansi, 13:45C, line 10-45D, line 1; PG 93:1600C, lines 12-15; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines 16-18; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 50-52, cf. p. 80, X4, lines 12-14, and p. 81,

s, lines 1-2. 41 Mansi, 13:49A, lines 1-2; PG 93:1604B, lines 5-6; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 69, lines 104-5. 42 Mansi, 13:53A, line 38; PG 93:1608C, lines 3-8; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 70, lines 178-81. 43 Mansi, 13:52A, lines 4-9; PG 93:1605C, lines 1-4; Kotter, Schriften, 3:157, sections 1.56 and

11.52, lines 21-26; Deroche, "L'Apologie," pp. 69-70, lines 143-46, cf. pp. 82-83, F, lines 1-5.

1030




throughout the Scriptures commanded us not to worship any creature?' The Chris- tian says, 'Tell me, are not the earth and the mountain creatures of God?' He says, 'Certainly.' The Christian, 'How therefore does he teach: Exalt the Lord our God and worship the footstool of his feet, that is holy? .. .' The Jew says, 'But not as gods, as through them you worship him who made these things.' The Christian says, 'The point is good; therefore know that I also worship through heaven, the earth, the sea, wood, stones, relics, churches, the cross, the angels, men, and every creature visible and invisible the Creator, Lord and only maker of all.' "44 Here the sanctioning of matter implied in the act of Creation is understood to sanction the use of matter as a medium for the return to the Creator.

This praise of the material culture of religion spreads into a further significant area. The loci of Christian pilgrimage are included in Leontios's list: "Hence, all we, the faithful, worship the cross of Christ as his staff, his all-holy tomb as his throne and couch, the manger and Bethlehem, and the holy places where he lived as his house, the apostles, and holy martyrs and other saints as his friends; we reverence Sion as his city; we embrace Nazareth as his country; we embrace the Jordan as his divine bath. Out of the great and ineffable love we bear toward him we reverence and worship as the place of God what he touched, or where he appeared, or ascended, or wholly overshadowed: not honoring the place, nor the house, nor the country, nor the city, nor the stones, but he who dwelt and appeared and was made manifest in the flesh in them."45 The treatment of these pilgrimage sites falls into the same category as that employed on images, the cross, and relics. Christ has touched these objects, occupied these spaces. In so doing he has invested these material things with their value. Nevertheless, Leontios is compelled to deny that these places and objects can be considered as being themselves the focus of worship. They can only be the medium for the worship that is, in fact, directed toward Christ or the saints. As such, Leontios's discussion of pilgrimage sites serves as a reiteration of his discourse on the proper and somewhat ambiguous limits to the expectations of the worship brought to these objects.

The investment in the material culture of pilgrimage has a political edge that sharpens Leontios's appropriative dialogue. With his inclusion of the topography of Palestine Leontios claims the Holy Land from the Jews. This had long been an issue in Christian-Jewish dialogue, although it was perhaps given greater urgency by the upheavals of the early seventh century.46 What Leontios bring to this discourse is a much stronger originary claim on this territory, thanks to his heightened reading of Christianity's materially mediated relationship to the Creator God. In so doing, he draws a link between the memory invested in the material world and the construction of identity.47

44 Mansi, 13:48D, line 5-48E, line 12; PG 93:1601D, line 9-1604B, line 5; Deroche, "L'Apologie," pp. 68-69, lines 90-104.

45 Mansi, 13:45A, line 1-45B, line 3; PG 93:1600A, line 9-1600B, line 7; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 67, lines 30-38.

46 Stroumsa, "Religious Contacts." 47 Here I might note the relationship between topography and iconoclasm to be found in the floor

mosaics at Madaba and Ma'in. In these examples the topographical representation of Palestine is retained, even while the Christian imagery is excised from these floors. On Madaba see Michael Avi-

Yonah, The Madaba Mosaic Map (Jerusalem, 1954), and Michele Piccirillo, Madaba: Le chiese e i

1031



1032 The Truth in Painting In this construction of a Christian notion of the image and the material world,

Leontios has also carefully constructed a point of difference between Christians, Jews, and pagans. He is at pains to distinguish Christian practice from the charges of latent paganism while at the same time demonstrating that the Jewish rejection of images is unfounded. The defense of the image has become a means of defining religious, and therefore cultural, identity.

This question of identity becomes an issue of defining the truth in painting. Leontios accuses his opponent in this way: "the truth (fl akn0Qtta) is wronged by them."48 This truth is, first, the tradition that is represented by the common language of the biblical texts. The Jews are accused of denying their own tradition in that they ignore the evidence of the biblical texts. For the Christian this tradition is good and its denial an act of bad faith: "great is the callousness of the lawless, truly great the blindness of the Jews, great their impiety."49 Having noted the centrality of this tradition, Leontios then places the Jews outside of their own tradition. They have become the "lawless," blind, and impious. Their fault lies in their denial of the tradition that Leontios has appropriated: "For if, O Jew, you had in your temple two graven images of cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat, any Gentile idolater might have entered your temple, and, having seen these things, found fault with the Jews for themselves worshiping idols; tell me, how would you have answered him with regard to these two cast cherubim, and the oxen, the palm trees, and the lions which, though graven, were in the temple? In truth you could say nothing to him but this: that we do not have these in the temple as gods, but that we have these cherubim in the temple for the remembrance and glory of God. Now, if this is the case, why do you accuse me in the matter of images?"50 In this passage we see the manner in which Leontios reiterates his appropriative gesture. If the Jews do not agree with the version of history now given by Leontios, then they must be false witnesses to their past, a past that has now been written into the Christian narrative. For Leontios images have become a part of the Ju- daeo-Christian tradition, and "this tradition is lawful."5' Hence, to deny images is to blind oneself to the biblical narrative (as rewritten by Leontios) of origins that constructs one's true (i.e., Christian) identity.

Leontios's method is marked by the deployment of Jewish history within his own text on the belief in images: "You see how many scriptural embraces and instances of worship we have laid before you, and you have not condemned

mosaici (Milan, 1989). On Ma'in see Rolande de Vaux, "Une mosaique byzantine a Ma'in," Revue

biblique 47 (1938), 227-58. In these instances we are perhaps witnessing Islamic iconoclasm enacted in and over Christian spaces; see the discussion above, n. 11.

48 Mansi, 13:48C, line 4; PG 93:1601C, line 10; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, line 43; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, line 82, cf. p. 82, V6, line 12.

49 Mansi, 13:48C, lines 2-4; PG 93:1601C, lines 8-10; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines 41-43; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, lines 81-82, cf. p. 82, J6, lines 11-12.

50 Mansi, 13:52B, line 3-52C, line 3; PG 93:1605C, line 11-1605D, line 9; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 70, lines 149-56.

51 Mansi, 13:44B, lines 3-4; PG 93:1597B, lines 3-4; Kotter, Schriften, 3:178, section III.84, line 5; Deroche "L'Apologie," p. 66, line 2, cf. p. 80, /l, line 3.



The Truth in Painting them."52 Hence the honor shown by Jacob to the top of Joseph's staff serves as a paradigm for the honor shown to the cross.53 In turn, Joseph's and Sarah's bodies, the stones of Jacob and of Joshua serve as models for the veneration of relics.54 The predominant (although not exclusive) use of Old Testament passages is an important aspect of this construction of a tradition, serving the double purpose of creating a Christian identity out of this appropriation and the concomitant possibility of exclusion from within that identity through the accusation of bad faith (or forgetfulness) toward a rewritten history.55 Through this gesture the discussion over images is firmly embedded in the longer tradition of AdversusJudaeos literature and the refutation of the Jewish critique of Christianity.

By means of the reiteration of these examples Leontios constructs a tradition that now excludes the Jews who "have forgotten their God." The Christians, thanks to their correlation of the image and material creation, remember their God through the medium of the material world. Of necessity this material points to its own origin, and because of this it can be worshiped. The image has thus become a grounding point for the truth claim in Christianity and a point of differentiation between Christianity and Judaism. Its material nature becomes the location for the disclosure of truth through the act of remembering. In a similar manner, the relics of the Old Testament, serving as paradigms for those of Chris- tianity, and the very territory of Palestine, now the Christian Holy Land, have been drawn into this materialist economy that is read as having its point of origin in a Christian God.s6

The Leontios text demonstrates the significance of images in the construction of a Christian identity. Both the defense of the material image and the negotiation of the proper limits to its worship allow the Christian to claim a privileged access to the Creator God. The text also represents the Jews as being opposed to this Christian interpretation of images and the material world. Within the text they are shown to be aniconic, and thus to be distanced from the Christian interpretation of the divine economy. From the evidence of the iconoclastic activities and the changing forms found in some synagogue floor mosaics it appears that by the mid-seventh century there was some substance to this representation of the Jews. From the verbal material we can also surmise some aspects of this Jewish objection to images. First, they appear to have appealed to textual tradition as a basis for their aniconism. In particular, the representation of anything created is called into question. Second, they appear to have objected to Christian practices before im-

52 Mansi, 13:48A, lines 4-6; PG 93:1601A, line 15-1601B, line 1; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines 28-29; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, lines 68-69, cf. p. 81, s5, lines 8-9.

53 Mansi, 13:45E, lines 3-9; PG 93:1601A, lines 4-9; Kotter, Schriften, 3:180, section III.87, lines 19-24; Deroche, "L'Apologie," p. 68, lines 61-64, cf. p. 81, s5, lines 2-5, and p. 81, (1, lines 1-4.

54 Mansi, 13:52A, line 4-52B, line 3; PG 93:1605B, line 14-1605C, line 11; Deroche, "L'Apologie," pp. 69-70, lines 143-49.

55 On this question of identity formation see Cameron, "Disputations," pp. 106-7; Stroumsa, "Re-

ligious Contacts," pp. 20-24. 56 The Jewish acts of iconoclasm might then be read as providing the opportunity for Leontios to

build a Christian tradition around the image. While a possibility, in terms of immediate cause, thought would also have to be given to the increasing use of images as a means of constructing identity within

Byzantium at this period: Cameron, "Images of Authority" (see above, n. 2).

1033




ages, accusing them of pagan idolatry. Both of these concerns suggest that the Jews were offended by the materialism of Christian worship, the very point that is the primary concern in Leontios's text. In the texts cited here, therefore, the Jews are defined as espousing a rigorous fundamentalism in opposition to the perhaps rela- tively new identification of Christians with images. But should this Jewish position be understood solely as a response to the Christian use of images? I have shown above how Leontios made use of the materialism of the image in order to elaborate a much wider truth claim differentiating Christianity from Judaism. Might not the iconoclasm at Na'aran reveal a similar intention?

As noted above, the damage to the mosaic at Na'aran is specific. The cosmological imagery and almost all living creatures are removed from the floor area. What remain are the writing and the symbols of Judaism. This seems to be in accordance with the strictures represented in the Adversus Judaeos literature: the rejection of the representation of living creatures, the retreat from pagan imagery, the turn to a more symbolic God-given visual language. All of these factors are an indication of change and seem to support the premise that Jewish iconoclasm was spurred by a reaction against developments within Christianity. But there is a second form of representation present in these mosaics that should be taken into account. While the visual representation of the cosmos and living creatures has been excised, their verbal representation has been maintained. The labels that name the donors and the various parts of the mosaic remain largely untouched.57

This difference in the treatment of the verbal and the visual should not surprise. We have seen that the Jews objected to the presence and use of images. The example of Na'aran might then simply reiterate this return to a rigorism that rejects iconic representation, while permitting the naming of the now-banished creature. But a second level of significance can be read into the retention of this script, one that develops the meaning of this "return" to rigorism. The texts set into this floor were written in Hebrew. Although this is the ancient language of the Jews, the potential significance of its retention here within the total text of this floor should be understood in light of a law issued in 553.58 In an imperial novella (no. 146) Emperor Justinian I settled a dispute in a Constantinopolitan synagogue over whether the readings should be in Hebrew or in a Greek translation. Justinian ordained that the Greek text be employed, and he stipulated other changes in the liturgy of the synagogue. His novella, although engendered by a local dispute, was addressed to all synagogues. We cannot be certain of the extent of the reach or

57 Avi-Yonah, Oriental Art, p. 42, and Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues, p. 30, both stress this retention. 58 The text can be found in the Corpus iuris civilis, 3, ed. Rudolf Sch6ll and Wilhelm Kroll (Berlin,

1895; repr. Hildesheim, 1988), pp. 714-18. The readings of the impact of this pronouncement vary. For Andrew Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (New York, 1971), pp. 24-

25, it represents the action of an emperor attuned to interfering in the religious affairs of his subjects. Given this, the use of Greek is interpreted as carrying the potential for conversion, thanks to the greater proximity of the now-purified Hebrew text and that of the Christians. For Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, pp. 249-50, the novella is more explicitly sinister, as it reveals a development of Justinian's "divisive aims." Again, the use of Greek texts is understood as being intended for the inducement of conversion. This law and other cultural infringements are interpreted as the provocation for a return to a "zealotic

spirit" (p. 251). Further legal texts are gathered together in Schreckenberg, Adversus-Judaeos-Texte, 1:406-15.

1034



The Truth in Painting the success of this legislation; nevertheless the implications of this action are wide- ranging. First, Justinian felt able to interfere in the religious practices of the Jewish community. In this he was extending his prerogative as emperor beyond his normal Christian province and into the alternative religions within the political bound- aries of the empire. Second, the novelty of this interference was given greater significance by the fact that the law proposed a rejection of the ancient religious language of the Jews. By these means he was asserting the primacy of Greek over Hebrew culture. Third, this interference in the culture of the synagogue was given a proselytizing edge. In his introduction to the novella Justinian expressed the intention behind the law. He stated that Greek was to be employed so that the

prophecies of Christ's coming might not be obscured. By these means, the texts heard in the synagogue were intended to assist in the conversion of the Jews to the truth of Christ's incarnation. The retention of the Hebrew texts on the floor at Na'aran, while the related visual material was removed, can be interpreted as an assertion of the Hebrew-based Judaic culture of the synagogue.

In this light, the mosaic at Na'aran perhaps marks a point of resistance.59 Not

only does it reject iconic representation, but it also asserts (through selective retention) the importance of Hebrew to Jewish culture. In these two ways the mosaic

represents a counter to the form of the Christian claims written into the Adversus Judaeos literature. The Christian appropriation of the texts of Jewish history is resisted through a fundamentalist reassertion of an aniconic Hebrew culture. That there was pressure at this period on the Jewish community's identity is apparent. From the 550s through to the 630s the laws and actions of the dominant power, Byzantium, threatened Judaism. This culminated in 632 in the forced baptism of the Jews under Herakleios, an action that confirms the relationship between reli-

gious and political identity at this time, indicating, as it does, Herakleios's desire to overcome Jewish difference by means of enforced religious unity. Jewish resistance to these Christian measures can be seen in the riots of 556, 578, and 592 and in the actions of the brief Jewish rule of Jerusalem in 614-17.60 On those occasions when the Jews turned against their Byzantine rulers, it is notable that one mark of their resistance was the destruction of Christian buildings and images, an activity that perhaps produced the introduction of the image into the seventh-

century Adversus Judaeos literature.61 The iconoclasm in Na'aran's mosaic should therefore be understood as marking

an important moment at the opening of the early-medieval period. Under attack from an imperial Christianity, Judaism attempted to reconstruct an identity that differed from the materialism of Christian religious culture. This point of differ-

59 One might note that Na'aran was renowned as a center of Jewish resistance and activities. See Antiochos of Sabas, Homily 84, at PG 89:1689C-1692C, esp. col. 1692A.

60 Avi-Yonah, Jews of Palestine, pp. 246-78; Sharf, Byzantine Jewry, pp. 1-60; and especially Joshua Starr, "Byzantine Jewry on the Eve of the Arab Conquest (565-638)," Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 15 (1935), 280-93.

61 On the destruction of images see the references above, n. 25. For a Jewish response to the events of the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem see Israel Levi, "L'Apocalypse de Zorobabel et le roi de Perse Siroes," Revue des etudes juives 68 (1914), 129-60; 69 (1919), 108-21; 71 (1920), 57-65. The relationship between the acts of iconoclasm and the polemics is suggested in Kitzinger, "Cult," pp. 129-30.

1035



The Truth in Painting ence became manifest in attitudes toward the religious image. For both Christian- ity and Judaism the image defined their relationship to the divine. For Christianity this meant the celebration of a Creator God present in the material world. For Judaism this led to a reassertion of the written revelation, in Hebrew, not in Greek. In marking this difference we should perhaps see the iconoclasm at Na'aran not only as a response to the Christian devotion to images but also as an assertion of a Jewish identity. Given this, both the Leontios and the Na'aran texts mark the importance of the visual medium as a site for the grounding of a given culture's truths in the early-medieval period.62

62 This point has been made in the field of Islamic art by Oleg Grabar in his Formation of Islamic Art (n. 4 above), pp. 43-71. Mention should also be made of the papers in Persons in Groups: Social Behavior as Identity Formation in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, ed. Richard C. Trexler, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 36 (Binghamton, N.Y., 1985).

Among a number of pertinent studies that have appeared since the writing of this article, I would like to signal the papers gathered in Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine (New York and Oxford, 1996).

Charles Barber is Assistant Professor of Art History at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556-5639.

1036



Documents

The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art