In the Ancient Near East, deities seem
to have been envisioned as primarily anthropomorphic, yet, rather than being cast
as bigger and better humans, they transcended the human model in various ways.
In addition to the vast differences in power and spheres of influence, a
primary difference lay in a deity’s ability to adopt multiple forms as the need
arose. Deities even seem to have been able to occupy multiple forms in multiple
places simultaneously and, in some cases, multiple forms in the same place. In
turn, the relationship between a “single” deity’s various manifestations was
complex. . . . Since there was no way to capture, copy, or control the divine
in all of its perceived glory, divine presence was further concretized and
localized in the form of a cult image. More than simply living in a space
marked off as sacred, the deity was persuaded, often through elaborate rituals,
to in some way inhabit a tangible human-made form, its cult image. The
connection between statue and deity was perceived to be so strong that when the
image was present, the deity was often assumed to be present as well. This
remained the case even when the image left the sacred precinct, primarily
during processions on festive occasions. Not only was the deity present in the
mage, but the well-being of the image also seems to have been connected to that
of the deity Thus, it follows logically that how the worshipers treated their
deity in the form of its image determined how the deity created them and their
nation. (Michael B. Hundley, Gods in
Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East [Writings
from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2013], 139, 140-41)
Evidence for the construction and
composition of Egyptian cult statues is minimal. Few, if any, remain. Likewise,
although occasionally grandiose, the textual descriptions often fail to note
specifics. Nonetheless, various clues allow for possible reconstructions.
First, the sizes of their resting
places suggest that the cult statues were rather small. The remaining stone
shrines tend to be no more than 19 to 23 inches tall (50-60 cm). Inside one
would have found an even smaller wooden shrine, which housed the divine statue.
From this, we may infer that most cult statues would have been at most little
more than a foot (40 cm) tall. (Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings:
Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East [Writings from the
Ancient World Supplement Series 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2013], 158-59)
There is also ample evidence for
visual renderings of the gods (e.g., other divine statues, stelae, wall
reliefs, drawings, as well as various textual descriptions. From these we may
deduce that Egyptian deities were primarily displayed in one of three forms: 1)
human; 2) animal; or 3) a mixture of the two. The mixed form, with a human body
and an animal head, figured prominently yet by no means fully usurped the other
forms. The symbol and the so-called aniconic representation are also attested.
(Ibid., 160-61)
The bull, associated with both Baal
and El, was a particularly common theriomorphic form. However, given the lack
of accompanying inscriptions and the uncertainty whether some such forms came
from cultic contexts, there is some debate as to how to interpret them. Did
they represent: 1) the deity itself in its animal form; 2) more distantly the
deity in symbolic form; 3) the divine pedestal, mount, or accessory; or 4)
votive offerings to the deity? Various texts from Ugarit describe deities
taking theriomorphic form, suggesting that at least in some cases theriomorphic
cult images may have been depictions of the deity in its theriomorphic form.
However, there are also various instances that distinguished the deity from its
associated animal, such as the common portrait of a deity astride its
representative animal, such that animal forms may have associated the image
with a particular deity without actually visually depicting that deity. Thus,
an animal image could serve as a symbol for a deity, representing that deity by
association rather than by physical resemblance. When the animal form appears
alone, especially when the animal has post holes in its back, it is also
possible that the originally attached deity has been lost. Thus, we are left
with a variety of options and, without further information, cannot easily
decide between them. (Michael B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and
Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East [Writings from the Ancient World
Supplement Series 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 345)
DEPORTATION AND DESTRUCTION OF DIVINE IMAGES
Evidence for deportation of
Syro-Palestinian divine images comes primarily from Neo-Assyrian inscriptions
and reliefs. For example, Tiglath-pileser III’s eighth-century inscriptions and
a palace relief depict the exile of cult images form Syria. The Amarna archives
mention the capture of “the gods” from Gubla and record Lab’aya’s complaint
that “the city, along with my god, was seized.” (EA 134, 252) The textual
evidence for the destruction of divine statues also comes from primarily
Neo-Assyrian sources, while the archaeological evidence is more regionally
dispersed. For example, at Hazor “the heads and hands of the statues were the
primary targets” of destruction.
How then should we explain the
evidence? In each of the sources, the exile of the statue was equated with the
exile of the god. The statue-divine symbiosis was understood as the city deity,
such that the statue’s departure meant the deity’s departure. In addition to
the humiliation inherent in such an action, the statue’s deportation meant that
the city no longer had (regular) access to the deity and the deity’s protection
was no longer to be expected. (Interpretations of godnapping varied according
to one’s perspective. Conquerors often interpreted it as a demonstration of the
superior might of their deity, while the conquered often saw it as a sign of
divine disfavor) Destruction carried the humiliation and divine alienation one
step further. Rather than being in exile, the destroyed statue meant that the
deity as deity-status symbiosis was no longer present in the human sphere. With
regard to Baal, with the destruction of Ugarit and the disappearance of the
cult image. Baal of Ugarit was no more, effectively dead, and the source deity
Baal of Sapan lost part of himself (i.e., his manifestation at Ugarit).
However, with the hypothetical repopulation of Ugarit and the reinstallation of
an acceptable divine image in the temple, Baal of Ugarit could be reborn if the
people could prompt Baal of Sapan to symbiotically join with the new cult
image. In sum, it would seem that a statue is usually treated as a deity,
whether as a deity in its own right or part of the lager divine constellation.
Deportation did not dissolve the connection, and the deportation of one cult
statue did not prohibit the installation of a new cult statue, enabling the
otherwise absent deity to receive service and offer its protection in return.
Since the (permanent) death of a god was unpalatable, the destruction of its
statue prompted a theoretical distinction. The statue as vessel of
manifestation could be destroyed, yet the deity itself remained immaterially
present somewhere in the cosmos or even materially inaccessibly present beyond
the bounds of the human sphere until a suitable replacement was found. (Michael
B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient
Near East [Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2013], 358-60)
