Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred Batairwa K. Paulin Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Fu Jen Catholic University Abstract: Aniconism refers to the proscription of religious imagery and representations of the Divine, sacred beings, and holy personages. Due to the influence of the Abrahamic religions, aniconism provides the hermeneutic framework to interpret the absence of religious imagery and the preponderance of symbolic representations of the divine and holy people in religions in general. This paper holds that sacramentality offers a better horizon to address the riddles inherent to the representation of the sacred. Key Terms: Aniconism, Sacramentality, Religious Imagery, Religious Representations Introduction Representation of the divine across religious traditions and cultures is an enterprise cluttered with theoretical and practical riddles. The puzzle emanates from the discrepancy between concrete and clear aniconic proscriptions in religions and the range of practical solutions to circumvent the injunctions. Aniconism is a general term referring to the absence of images or figurative representations. Generally speaking, it is a phenomenon supposedly bound to monotheistic traditions, mostly because of their articulated stand against images and portrayals of the divine. But in reality, aniconic culture expands beyond the confines of monotheistic boundaries. The field of religious art for instance has substantial proofs of aniconism in other ancient traditions—Greco-Roman, Hinduism and Buddhism. A further observation is that no matter the form, the motivation, and the intensity of the proscription, aniconism, sooner or later, enables a subculture of mitigated -59- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 forms of representations. On the one hand, the mitigation affirms that no effective religion can exist without images or representations. On the other hand, it calls for a reflection on the highly debatable nature of the byproduct of the process of mitigation itself. Aniconic representations are subjects of plural and conflicting interpretations and receptions. 1 Proper hermeneutic assessment is required then to comprehend the intricacies of the aniconic mitigations. The hermeneutic process in question can elucidate many interrogations: why is re-presentation so crucial? Ultimately, what is the nature and value of a “representation” of what is considered really invisible? Can the inner tension between aniconic proscriptions and the need for representation be reconciled? If that is the case, how? To enhance that much needed hermeneutic process, the present paper assumes that within an aniconic framework, image making and representations of the invisible real are intrinsically a conflict steered enterprise. Moreover, it fosters a functional notion of sacrament as a pragmatic way of countering the theoretical restrictions of aniconism. The first moment of this reflection is explorative. It looks into aniconism, its implications, and the mitigated ways through which its proscriptions have been handled. The second moment is argumentative. It focalizes on the structure of sacrament—as an efficacious sign or symbol of the divine, as a recognized in-dwelling of the real invisible. As concrete embodiment of the divine, sacraments mediate communion between the believer and the divine. They fearlessly accommodate the invisible real, beyond the dreadful suspicion of 1 Just to mention a few examples of responses to the adaptation of aniconism, I refer to past iconoclasm and, recently, to the recurrent violent reactions to the depiction and caricaturing of the Prophet Muhammad. With regard to aniconism in the 8th-9th Centuries of the Byzantine Empire see Thomas F. X. Noble, “Art, Icons, and their Critics and Defenders Before the Age of Iconoclasm” and “Byzantine Iconoclasm in the Eight Century,” in Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians, by Thomas F. X. Noble (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), pp.10-110; Anne McClanan and Jeff Johnson (eds.), Negating the Image: Case Studies in Iconoclasm (England: Ashgate, 2005), pp.1-10. As for recent interpretations of reactions to the depictions of Prophet Muhammad, see Marion G. Müller and Esra Özcan, “The Political Iconography of Muhammad Cartoons: Understanding Cultural Conflict and Political Action,” PS: Political Science & Politics (2007): 287-291, Rachel Saloom, “You Dropped a Bomb on Me, Denmark—A Legal Examination of the Cartoon Controversy and Response as It Relates to the Prophet Muhammad and Islamic Law,” Rutgers J. Law & Relig. 8(2006): 3-17; Pernille Ammitzbøll and Lorenzo Vidino, “After the Danish Cartoon Controversy,” Middle East Quarterly 14.1(Winter 2007): 3-11; Giovanni Sale, “Le Immagini nell’Islam Contamporaneo: La raffigurazione di Maometto in epoca Moderna,” La Civilta Cattolica, Quaderno 3895(6 ottobre 2012): 3-15. -60- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred idolatry, reductionism, and anthropomorphism often denounced in aniconism. Aniconism and the Quest for Representation of the Invisible Real Because of the complex ways they are perceived, representations of the divine among cultures and religions are surrounded with mystifications, restrictions, and st ill unveil a pattern worthy of investigation. Either in the monotheistic or in the polytheistic traditions, the notion of God or the Divine brings along a set of theoretically contrasting attributes. It would not be the Ultimate Divine if it were not transcendent, extraordinary. And yet, in order to be acknowledged as such, it must also be accessible to believers. Hence, transcendence must cohabit with immanence. To be divine is to be both invisible and yet ubiquitous, immutable and yet ever changing, compassionate/all loving and punishing, etc. The dilemma inherent to the concept of aniconism can be explored at its best when it comes to a complete representation or rendering of the divine. The central question is about the existence of effective and unquestionable means to render a presence which, though operative and real, is invisible and beyond the reach of the senses. In other words, can the divine be effectively represented? How can such a representation be achieved without either belittling the divine or falling into idolatry? Questions of these kinds are not marginal to religions; they instead permeate religious praxes; they shape the theoretical and practical expressions of the believers’ religiosity. An Unsolved Riddle in the Abrahamic Religious Traditions Aniconism is a predominant feature of monotheistic religious traditions, namely those rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Disdain and condemnation of religious imagery is a common thread running through Judaism, Christianity, Islam (and to a certain extent Sikhism). Patterns of aniconism are present in these religious traditions under different expressions or manifestations: avoidance of religious imagery, prohibition of representing divine beings, primarily God, and with certain variations, angels, prophets, holy people, etc. In its mild way, aniconism is expressed through a censoring of religious images, and -61- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 instructions instilling a sense of disdain for religious representations. Apprehension against idolatry is part of the common features among Abrahamic religious traditions. Images are seen as potential breeders of idolatrous behaviors. To prevent deviations, clear and repeated injunctions are given regarding the making of religious imageries and the representation of the divine. But if we look at them in a positive way, those restrictions aim at fostering the demands of God’s commandment. Out of fear of idolatry and misuse of divine mediums, religious traditions insistently control the creation of forms of representation of the divine. In a particular way, monotheistic religions have constantly forbidden and condemned any representation of the divine. Based on theoretical basis, aniconism has rather been the general rule in monotheistic tradition. In reality, though, each religion developed ways circumventing those restrictions, creating thus a range of permissible forms of representing the invisible. In what follows, I will illustrate how Judaism has set the analogical model for the management of the concrete tension within aniconic proscriptions. As the purest expression of monotheistic religion passed on to other Abrahamic religions, Judaism has the clearest formulations of aniconic injunctions and also the concrete mitigations of those proscriptions. Judaism In the Judaic tradition, the second commandment offers the referential framework to interpret the aniconic culture which developed within it and the religious traditions that evolved from it. The passage in question reads as follows: “you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me…” Ex. 20: 2-6.2 As Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit note, “the prohibitions against idolatry are an attempt to dictate the ways in which God may be represented. It is forbidden not only to worship other gods such as Ba'al but also to represent God himself by means of a statue 2 All biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). -62- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred or picture.”3 The importance of preventing idolatry is reiterated by the numerous parallels of this passage in the Torah. Leviticus 26: 1; Num 33: 52; Dt. 4: 16; Dt. 27, 15 and others are all proscribing the creation of images and/or idols. As for the contribution of the prophetic tradition to the Israelite culture of aniconism, Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit stipulate that Israelite prophets interpreted and even emphasized the perception of religious imageries as idols.4 In a recent article commenting on the institution of prophet Ezekiel,5 C. A. Strine goes a step further. He argues that the passage is a denigration of the ritual of cleansing and empowering of religious imageries or statues in other religions. While in pagan religions believers need “empowered” statues to interact with the divine,6 in Israel it is not the case. God cleanses Ezekiel’s mouth, fills his belly with divine words so as he can speak out the will of God. Israel needs no images, no wooden statues to interact with the divine. In other words, prophets are the living and empowered images of the divine. They are the mediums that God institutes to cater to his people. Ezekiel is the opposite of the description the psalmist makes of the idols of the nations: The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; they have eyes, but they do not see; they have ears, but they do not hear, and there is no breath in their mouths. Those who make them and all who trust them shall become like them. 7 One of the pertinent questions inherent to Judaic aniconism is whether there was no 3 4 5 6 7 Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, “Idolatry and Representation,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics (1992): 19. Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, “Idolatry and Representation,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics (1992): 19-32. Ez. 3: 1-11. C. A. Strine, “Ezekiel’s Image Problem: The Mesopotamian Cult Statue Induction Ritual and the Imago Dei Anthropology in the Book of Ezekiel,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76.2(2014): 252-272. Ps. 135: 15-18. -63- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 religious imagery at all. And if there has been one, how did tradition account for it? The answers to these questions are important to establish whether there is an analogical pattern in the other monotheistic religions. For this end, one needs to turn to the explanations made of elements and symbols used in the liturgy and worship. A complete ban of images will mean dry liturgies, without symbols, decorations or any visible representation. A careful inquiry of the liturgy of the Israelites however unveils the opposite. The ban of idolatry did not mean an indiscriminate eradication of religious imagery. It instead entailed a double process: condemnation and exclusion of representations that could compromise the monotheistic principle on the one hand, and theological elaboration on those images or representations capable of mediating divine presence on the other. Based on this double process, tradition condemned the golden calf 8 and theologically justifies the erection of the cherubim as a symbolic representation of the Ark of the Covenant. The tabernacle, which is understood as the “original portable sanctuary for the Ark of the Covenant,”9 the Arch of Covenant, and later symbolic representations such as the finger or the hand of hand of God, are part of the repertory of allowed, mitigated forms of re representing the Divine. The philosophy of mitigation has helped the Jewish people cope with the demands of changing times which exposed Judaism to a multiplicity of cultures and religious traditions. Still, the Jewish tradition can contemplate its impact on the other monotheistic (Abrahamic) traditions. Christianity Being an offspring of Judaism, Christianity naturally absorbed elements of the Judaic aniconism. While Christian aniconic views still reflected the monotheistic concern for idolatry, the emerging hermeneutic framework of Christianity was widening the understanding of the concept of “idolatry.” For Christians, the fundamental framework to rethink aniconism was that of incarnation; that is, Jesus the Nazarene is God incarnate, he 8 9 Ex. 32: 1-6. D. Apostolos Cappadona, Dictionary of Christian Art (1994); P. Murray & L. Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture (1996); Quoted in quoted in Religion, Past and Present, vol.12 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), p.462. -64- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred is the “image of the Invisible God.” 10 Stipulating that YHW, who is invisible and transcendent, can become a human person would be an aberration for Jewish programmatic aniconism. It was not the case for Christianity. For these reasons, in the early Christian praxis, aniconism developed different nuances and emphases from the ones in Judaism. In several occasions, St. Paul harangued the believers to shun away from idolatry. 11 In those exhortations, however, the meaning of idol was not primarily and exclusively identified with religious imagery, it was instead extended to cover obstructive practices to a moral Christian life, such as sexual immorality, greed and evil desires. 12 Furthermore, early Christians developed theological doctrines and explanations to counter possible misunderstandings emanating from the application of a strict aniconism to Christian doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity provided the conceptual monotheistic framework that affirmed, both and in a non-contradictory way, the claim of the divinity of Jesus without compromising the unicity of God. 13 Meanwhile, the fathers of the Church set the foundation for sacramental theology, a contribution that was crucial for an orthodox understanding of those signs and symbols through which the faithful commune with the Divine. St. Augustine defined the “sacraments” as “invisibilis gratiae visbilis forma” invisible grace made visible in form; Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux’, and Hugh of St. Victor developed that foundation as they defined them as “invisibilis gratiae visibile signum.”14 The present definition of sacrament shows their influence, particularly the one by Hugh of St. Victor: “a sacrament is a physical or material element set before the external senses, representing by likeness, signifying by its institution [by Christ], and containing by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace.” 15 Despite these mitigations, recurrent aniconic concerns still emerged throughout the development of Christianity. While religious imageries scattered in Christian places of worship and even became specific mark of Christianity in public cemeteries and the catacombs, still, there was a persistent reservation regarding the status of images from the 10 11 12 13 14 15 Col. 1: 15. 1Cor. 5: 11, 6: 9-10, 10: 7, 10: 14; Gal. 5: 19-21, Eph. 5: 5, Col. 3: 5. Col. 3: 5. Did first Christians worship Jesus… “Sacraments,” in Religion, Past and Present, vol.11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), p.335. (De Sacramentis christianae fidei 1.9.2) quoted in Religion, Past and Present, vol.11, p.335. -65- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 early Church on; such concern had been passed from Judaism to early Christianity. The advice aimed at countering idolatry was twofold: first, one should not seek for vis ions; second, in case there has been one, one should refrain from representing what has been seen. During the first century, St. Paul discussed religious imagery in relation to idolatry. To counter idolatry, 2 nd and 3rd century Christians categorized religious imageries according to their functions: decorative, symbolic, didactic, etc. From the fourth century, voices opposing images, especially those that incited a cultic veneration, were growing and anticipated the iconoclastic crisis of the 8 th and 9th century, 16 Christian aversion to religious imagery was again manifest in the iconoclastic crisis on the 8 th and 9th centuries17 and later in the attitudes and thoughts of protestant reformists in the 16 th century. All these instances developed their forms of mitigation which fostered serious reflections on the proper manner of conceiving, talking, and representing the Divine given its unfathomable and invisible nature. From their early stages, the reflections took inspiration from Pseudo Dionysius, a monastic spiritual writer who during the fifth Century wrote about methods of reaching union with God. He spoke of the kataphatic—or the affirmative way which holds that God can be found in created things. This way uses analogies to speak of God and employs images to enhance spiritual experiences. Beside the “image driven” method, Pseudo Dionysius spoke also of the apophatic—or negative way. It is an “imageless” and “wordless” approach that denies to God all “qualities of the creatures, until it reaches the super essential darkness.” 18 Kataphatic—apophatic thoughts had tremendous and lasting impact in the field of theodicy, theology, and spirituality from 16 17 18 The synod of Elvira in 305 went as far as discommending their use; Eusebius in 339 warned against the danger of idolatry involved in the depiction of Jesus in a human form; Bishop Epiphanius (+403) in his letter to John (Bishop of Jerusalem + 394) narrates how he tore images of Christ and asked that others should follow in his steps, since those images are opposed to the Christian faith. One illustration of the spread of resistance to image in the early church is the treatment of the subject in the Spanish Synod of Elvira (c.305). The synod bluntly asked not to place pictures in churches, “so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.” See Canon 36, <http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/elvira.htm.> (accessed on April 12, 2014). See Thomas F. X. Noble, Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), pp.1-9. Coppleston, 110. Barbara Mujica, “Beyond Image: The Apophatic-Kataphatic Dialectic in Teresa de Avila,” Hispania 84.4(December 2001): 741. -66- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred the high middle ages down to modern times. 19 Their influence can be delineated in the systematic reflections on the attributes of the divine (in the field of theodicy) as well as in sacramental theology of the scholastic period. When in the sixteenth century, protestant reformers, in a trend of radical interpretation of aniconism, condemned and even banned religious imagery;20 it was in the kataphatic-apophatic traditions that Catholic counterreformers such as John of the Cross, Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Avila took their inspiration.21 When remaining in the context of the Christian tradition, Kataphasis and apophasis exemplify one concrete way of addressing theological issues related to aniconism. Future developments in the history of Christianity saw other instances of difficulty in drawing a clear line of demarcation between imagery and idolatry. In a synthetic way, the Christian way of dealing with religious imagery presents features it inherited from Judaism, namely the difficulty for monotheistic religions to make a demarcation line between the usage and misuse of images. It could be argued that for Christianity, the puzzle is even more complex because of the subtleties of the Trinitarian framework. The Trinitarian framework affirms that the invisible God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. This theological statement has diverse implications for aniconism in different Christian denominations. For instance, the Orthodox underlines that God the Father is invisible, consequently He ought not to be represented in no way. This has implication for the representation of the Holy Trinity, which can only be represented symbolically, alluding for instance to biblical passages interpreted as unveiling the Holy Trinity. 22 Apparently, only Jesus Christ could be represented but even with Jesus, there is fear that such a representation reflects only his human side leaving out hence the divine 19 20 21 22 See for instance the article of Barbara Mujica, “Beyond Image: The Apophatic-Kataphatic Dialectic in Teresa de Avila,” Hispania 84.4(December 2001): 741-748. Most protestant reformists in the sixteenth century, such as Andreas Karlstadt, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin banned and preached against images. But they were compelled in the meantime to find alternatives or mitigated solutions which they mostly found in the calligraphy of biblical texts and in other cases the illustrations of biblical passages. See Mia M. Mochizuki, “Supplanting the Devotional Image after Netherlandish Iconoclasm,” in Negating the Image: Cases Studies in Iconoclam, edited by Anne McClanan and Jeff Johnson (England: Ashgate, 2005), pp.137-157; John Murray, “Pictures of Christ,” The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine 7.4(Winter 1993). Barbara Mujica, “Beyond Image: The Apophatic-Kataphatic Dialectic in Teresa de Avila,” Hispania 84.4(December 2001): 741. Gn. 18-1-15. -67- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 part which cannot be approached with visible eyes. In fact, radical aniconism would exclude also any representation of Jesus preferring instead illustrations of biblical scenes alluding to his work and presence among people. The purpose of imagery would hence be catechetical rather than liturgical. In certain protestant circles, the pictorial representation of Jesus remains a question of actuality. John Murray succinctly reformulated the riddle in a keynote address entitled “Pictures of Christ.” 23 The position states the imperative necessity to reflect on the question given the “profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people.” 24 He affirms that the only legitimate purpose of such pictorial representations consists in conveying “some thoughts or lessons representing him, consonant with truth […] the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration.”25 Moreover, he justifies the plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ as follows: “The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical sense, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man. Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.” 26 In another passage pleading for the need of pictorial representations of Jesus, he refers to a passage of the Letter to Hebrews: “Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible.” However, despite all this argumentation, Murray’s conclusion is still a very cautious repudiation of pictorial reproduction of Jesus Christ. He enlists three reasons. First, there is a lack of proper revelatory data providing the ground to make a pictorial representation. Pushing harder will only lead to creative inventiveness deprived of any historical and truthful ground. Second, “pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the seco nd commandment;” third, he writes that “the second commandment forbids bowing down to 23 24 25 26 The content of that address was reprinted in two important protestant journals, Reformed Herald 16.9(February 1961) and The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine 7.4(Winter 1993). Still to stress the actuality of the question, the text is available in several protestant websites. For further inquiries, see: John Murray, “Pictures of Christ,” <http://www.reformed.org/misc/murray_picture.html> (accessed on Jun 4th, 2014). Murray, “Pictures of Christ.” Murray, “Pictures of Christ.” Murray, “Pictures of Christ.” -68- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water, under the earth. […] when we worship in front of a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids.”27 The conclusion is hence clear that there should not be any pictorial representation of Christ for fear of violating the commandment. As for the Holy Spirit, the symbols associated with his representation are biblically inspired: the tongues of fire, white dove, etc. Other sacred images, such as those representing the Blessed Virgin, angels, saints, martyrs…, have also been subject of aniconic concerns. Prohibitions and mitigations differ from denomination to denomination. For instance, the play on colors in an icon has a pedagogical purpose conveying theological statements. Red represents the divinity whereas blue stands for humanity. With such a combination, it is possible to stress in an unequivocal way, the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ, the sanctified human nature of the Blessed Virgin, the apostles, martyrs, and so on. The theological answers of reformed churches do not leave space for mitigations. The only representations allowed are illustrations of biblical passages, because they cannot lead to idolatry. Aniconism was very much a particular feature of the protestant reform in the sixteenth century. This resulted from the strong opposition to religious imagery that key Protestant reformers such as Andreas Karlstadt, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin preached. Under their influence, reformed churches got rid of everything associated with what they perceived as idolatrous Catholic practices, namely religious pictures, statues, relics of saints. They instead replaced them with biblical illustrations and biblical calligraphy—the Ten Commandments being the most spread. 28 A pertinent observation regarding Christian aniconism was nothing else but a tension between two categories or approaches to the divine and different nuances of the Christian perception and articulation of their faith. This can be observed from the early church to the present. The first approach to the divine is the one made by the theologically-trained elite. 27 28 Murray, “Pictures of Christ.” See Mia M. Mochizuki, “Supplanting the Devotional Image after Netherlandish Iconoclasm,” in Negating the Image: Cases Studies in Iconoclam, edited by Anne McClanan and Jeff Johnson (England: Ashgate, 2005), pp.137-157; John Murray, “Pictures of Christ,” The Presbyterian Reformed Magazine 7.4(Winter 1993). -69- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 Since their approach to religion and to the divinity is speculative, they will find satisfaction in the limitless arena that the ideas of the divine can offer them. Images constrain and limit the grandeur of the divine that they can contemplate and interact with. It is not surprising then that they abhor any device representing the real invisible. The contempt is that any attempt of re-presentation risks to domesticate, to limit or set boundaries on the Infinite. Doing so, sooner or later compromises orthodoxy. The second group, however, has a different concern and approach to religion and to the divine. They are more for the orthopraxis of religion. Images are good and crucial to mediate the meeting and the communion with the divine. Representation is highly needed because without it, the believer will hardly feel the closeness of the divine. For them, the image is a medium, the meeting place between the divine will to unveil itself and the believer’s aspiration to come into touch with the invisible real. Put in this way, I would argue that aniconic tensions emerge whenever and wherever the perspective of the interpreter is not taken into account; that is, the image or representation is read and interpreted without taking into account the perspectives of the one handling it. The interpretation forgets that each perspective has its sets of priorities and concerns. Those with a theological training abhor religious imagery seeing them as a danger for pure faith; the common believers, instead do not see such dangers. In the long run, the persistence of religious imagery was tributary to the latter. Without enlarging the context, it is very possible to ask the wrong questions and nurture non-contextual expectations. Islam and the Religious Representation Aniconism in Islam is a complex phenomenon, perhaps one whose recurrent manifestations incite a rain of hermeneutic questions. The reactions and turmoil to the representations of Prophet Muhammad are just an example. 29 It is one of the features of the strictest interpretation of the monotheistic faith of the Abrahamic religious traditions. 29 See Flemming Rose, “Why I Published Those Cartoons,” The Washington Post, Sunday, February 19, 2006. -70- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred As a general rule, Islamic aniconism proscribes the creation of images of God, the depictions of Prophet Muhammad, invisible beings such as the angels and all sentient beings, living beings, including human persons. Theoretically speaking, radical interpretation of the restriction will proscribe every image, including pictures of human beings. But in reality, as Giovanni Sale shows, there have been layers of interpretations of the same prescripts depending on schools and sensitivities. What is unanimous is the regulation regarding the representation of God and the prophet Muhammad. 30 As in other Abrahamic religions, Islam has developed its own mitigated forms of religious imagery. These are mostly in forms of calligraphy of Quranic passage and symbolic representations conceived not for liturgical use but for didactic purposes. Moreover, fear and avoidance of idolatry remain the main motifs of Islamic aniconism. Believers must shun away from images and representations of the divine and other sentient beings. They are all potential idols that might trap them in adoring them, curbing hence God’s command to monotheistic faith. In the second part of this reflection, I will turn to other religious traditions, especially non monotheistic ones whose primary concern is not orthodoxy but orthopraxy, inquiring on how the question of representation has been addressed Religious Imagery beyond the Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions The interest for a scholarly research on religious representation beyond the Christian circle started in the late 19 th century and early 20 th century. It was part of the development in the redefinition of various disciplines of humanities, among which the scientific study of religion as an academic discipline. The trend ignited an unprecedented interest for Asia due to its long aged philosophical, religious and cultural heritage. The Orient was becoming the testing ground for the heuristic methods the new disciplines of humani ties offered. Observation, field work, collection of data, and interpretative theories were advanced for the understanding of the data gathered through ethnographic and/ 30 Giovanni Sale, “Le Imagini nell’islam contemporaneo: la raffigurazione di MOmetto in epoca moderna,” La Civilta Cattolica 3895(6 ottobre 2012): 3-15. -71- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 anthropological research. The new approach was to bring about a new appreciation of religions by fostering theories that could help a better understanding of the facts unveiled. The absence and/or proscriptions of religious images or figurative representation of divine beings and personages considered to be holy were parts of the phenomena that attracted intellectual curiosity. In shifting their attention from Christianity to other religions, researchers sooner discovered phenomena which were similar to what monotheistic traditions had interpreted as aniconism. 31 In Buddhism for instance, Alfred Foucher was the first to apply the term aniconism as an explanation for the absence of anthropomorphic representations of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni in the earliest surviving Buddhist art. 32 In fact, early depictions avoided to show an entire image of the Buddha; they preferred to use symbols evoking Buddha or events related to his life. Foucher noticed how early representations depicted 31 32 Aniconic injunctions are best illustrated in the Great Monotheistic Traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) with the aim of curbing the threat of idolatry. Hinduism, Buddism and ancient GrecoRoman religions had their forms of aniconism. See Alain Besancon, The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000); Tryggye N. D. Mettinger, “The Absence of Images The Problem of the Aniconic Cult at Gades and its ReligioHistorical Background,” SEL 21(2004): 89-100; Regarding the Judeo Christian tradition, see: Yitzag Feder, “The Aniconic Tradition: Deuteronomy 4 and the Politics of Israelite Identity,” Journal of Biblical Literature 132.2.(Summer 2013): 251-274. As for Islam, see Oleg Gabar, “From the Icon to Aniconism: Islam and the Image,” Museum International 55.2(September 2003): 46-53; Ismail Ozgur Sogranci, “Islamic Aniconism: Making Sense of a Messy Literature,” Marilyn Zurmuehlen Working Papers in Art Education 1(2004), Art.1. With regard to Buddhism see the discussion between Susan L. Huntington and Vidya Dehejia on aniconism in the Buddhist tradition. See Vidya Delhejia, “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems,” Ars Orientalis 21(1991): 45-66; Susan L. Huntington, “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism,” Art Journal; Susan L. Huntington, “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems: Another Look,” Ars Orientalis 22(1922): 111-156; Klemens Karlos, Face to Face with the absent Buddha: The formation of Buddhist Aniconism, (Upasala: Acta Universitas Upasaliensis, 2000). As for the Hindu tradition, see Tiziana Pantillo and Mario Piera Condotti, Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond (UK and USA: Anthem Press, 2013). See Alfred Foucher, “The Beginnings of Buddhist Art,” in his The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1917), pp.1-29. This essay was originally published in Journal Asiatique, January-February 1911; See Alfred Foucher, “The Greek Origin of the Image of the Buddha,” in Beginnings of Buddhist Art, pp.111-137. This essay was first presented as a lecture at the Musee Guimet and published in Bibliotheque de vulgarization du Musee Guimet 38(1913): 231-272. -72- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred the tree near a stone to mean the enlightenment of the Buddha, the wheel to refer to the first sermon of Buddha at Sarnath, the two feet to mean the one who walks the Law. He pondered at length on the motives of this evident avoidance and the choices for mitigated solutions. Though he could not find written evidence, he thought that the choice could only emanate from a formal proscription of representing the Buddha. Foucher had numerous sympathizers in Western circles. But a hundred years later, Susan L. Huntington did challenge the enlisting of Buddhism as an aniconic religion. 33 She called directly on Foucher and his Western followers, arguing that they had forced a Western monotheistic intellectual schema to an Asian situation. It is interesting to note that as Foucher, Huntington’s interests to the issues of the representation of the Buddha were not primarily of religious type. She entered the debate from the perspective of the history of art. She disagreed with the historical starting point that Foucher set and according to which “the Buddha image was first created in the Greco Roman-influenced region of Gandhara, thus claiming an essentially Western origin for the idea of the image.” 34 She advocated for the necessity for an expanded horizon of interpretation. “The development and passionate advocacy of the aniconic theory constitutes an intriguing chapter in intellectual history and involves an array of political, social, and cultural factors. For instance, it is doubtful that the theory of aniconism would have achieved its sanctified place in art-historical writings if the related issue of where the first Buddha image was made had not been so hotly debated.”35 In her further arguments, she mentioned some Indian critics, disapproving the foundation of Foucher’s theory using arguments peppered with anti-colonial sentiments. She writes: “Indian nationalist sympathizers, perhaps attempting to cast off the yoke of Western imperialism, asserted a strictly Indian origin at Mathura. In retrospect, the arguments can be viewed in light of twentieth-century political issues that polarized European and Indian scholars. Yet so intent was each cultural camp on claiming the primacy of its contribution to Buddhist art, that other, potentially more important issues 33 34 35 Susan L. Huntington, “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems: Another Look,” Ars Orientalis 22(1992): 111-156. Susan L. Huntington, “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems: Another Look,” Ars Orientalis 22(1992): 111-156. Susan L. Huntington, “Aniconism and the Multivalence of Emblems: Another Look,” Ars Orientalis 22(1992): 111-156. -73- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 were overlooked. Indeed, throughout the debate, what I believe to be a more fundamental question was never posed: Was there really an aniconic period?” 36 Besides Buddhism, aniconism is also thought to exist in Hinduism. Nonetheless the preponderance of anthropomorphic representations does not foster an excessive insistence on aniconism. In fact, unlike the proscriptions of Abrahamic religions, the Bhagavad Gita understands the necessity of religious imagery as a requirement of the human conditions. We grasp and perceive through senses. 37 Gerard Colas, in a study examining the significance of image worship in several authors in classical India, raises questions that are particular to monotheistic interpretation of aniconism. The questions are formulated as follows: “Does the worshipper consider the image as a thought stimulator in a process of presenting material offerings to a basically invisible being? Or does the worshipper consider the image as a living being or embodied god and, consequently, as the real recipient of the offerings?” 38 The study concentrates on philosophical systems with less interest on religious images such as Mimamsa, Advaita and Nyaya and concludes that for those schools, aniconism was a “secondary and accidental subject.”39 He writes that “in Vedic texts, the physical appearance of the gods is anthropomorphic, though only in a shadowy manner. The most substantial and individualized part of their bodies consists of Vedic formulas. The epics also describe anthropomorphic gods as possessing physical characteristics not found in human beings: ‘they do not blink; they have no shadows.’”40 It is interesting to note that there are no condemnations following these descriptions 41 because of the basic acceptance of religious imagery as necessary for human perception. 36 37 38 39 40 41 Ibid. Bhagavad Gita 12: 5. Gerard Colas, “The Competing Hermeneutics of Image Worship in Hinduism (Fifth to Eleventh Century AD),” in Images in Asian Religions: Texts and Contexts, edited by Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara (Canada: UBC Press, 2004), p.149. Gerard Colas, 150. Gerard Colas, 150. This description can find its analogical parallel in PS 135: 15-18 with a consistent tone of deprecation against idolatry. “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; they have eyes, but they do not see; they have ears, but they do not hear, and there is no breath in their mouths. Those who make them and all who trust them shall become like them.” PS 135: 15-18. -74- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred Though not directly connected or affiliated to any religious tradition, the academic field is another area of great interest for the appraisal of aniconism beyond the Abrahamic religious traditions. As mentioned earlier, in their strive for a scientific explanation of religious phenomena, from the late 19 th century on, scholarly research has unearthed considerable amount of evidences of avoidance of representation of the divine and/ or sacred beings across religions. Animated with a scientific mind, researchers attempted to offer a comprehensive explanation of the phenomena observed. These explanations can now be considered as a scientific background for a reassessment and re-interpretation of the aniconism in the Abrahamic traditions. Recently, the area of religious art has been the focus of particular attention because of its considerable investigation and contribution to the understanding of aniconism. Aniconism and Religious Art In recent times, the study of aniconism seems to have been largely relegated to the fields of religious art and aesthetics. 42 Within that context, investigations were broadened beyond the confines of the monotheistic traditions and were able to confirm that aniconism not restricted to monotheism. In fact, it was present in the ancient cultic praxes of the Greco-Roman Empire;43 it can be ascertained in Hinduism 44 as well as in Buddhism. 45 The investigations which scholars in religious arts fostered have unearthed materials and data which have widened the horizon for the appreciation of aniconism. With artistic appreciation as a goal, many fundamental questions would remain unaccounted for. One could even question whether theories advanced in religious art can fully account for aniconism. In fact, the nature of questions inherent to the debate of aniconism require a 42 43 44 45 For further details see Alain Besancon, Alain Besancon, The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000). Tryggye N. D. Mettinger, “The Absence of Images The Problem of the Aniconic Cult at Gades and its Religio-Historical Background,” SEL 21(2004): 89-100. Tiziana Pantillo and Mario Piera Condotti, Signless Signification in Ancient India and Beyond (UK and USA: Anthem Press, 2013). Susan L. Huntington, “Early Buddhist Art and the Theory of Aniconism,” Art Journal 49.4 (Winter, 1990): 101-108. -75- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 broader framework than the one provided by religious art and aesthetics. It is absolutely necessary hence to investigate other theories and see the extent to which they can adequately explain the dilemma at the core of aniconism. Beyond the Hermeneutics of Religious Art: Addressing Different Forms of Aniconism The interest for the absence of religious imagery and/or its substitution by symbolic representation beyond the confines of the Abrahamic religious traditions has compelled to broaden the horizons of interpretations of aniconism. The trend led even to a deepening and extension of the definition of aniconism. For instance, Tryggve N.D. Mettinger led an inquiry into the absence of images in ancient Greek and Roman worship. 46 In the process, he revisited the definition of aniconism and came to define aniconism as a “cult without image.”47 He expanded the definition offering concise details of its applications to specific instances. Accordingly, aniconism refers to “cults where there is no iconic representation of the deity (anthropomorphic or theriomorphic) serving as the dominant or central cultic symbol.”48 He also spoke of it as “absence of images” 49 of which he delineated a “defacto aniconism” and a “programmatic aniconism,” “empty space aniconism and material aniconism.” 50 He writes: “We must maintain a distinction between the mere absence of images, on the one hand, and the programmatic demand for a cult without images, the repudiation of iconic objects, on the other. I shall call the first type de facto aniconism, the other programmatic aniconism.” 51 Mettinger’s definition is very important in that it locates the conceptual problem of aniconism in the context of cult, of worship, of rituals, in a nutshell in the framework where religion is performed rather than where it is theorized. In fact, it is in the context of cult 46 47 48 49 50 51 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “The absence of Images: The Problem of Aniconic Cult at Gades and its Religio-Historical Background” SEL 21(2004): 89-100. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 89. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 90. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 90. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 95. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 90. -76- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred and worship that the dilemma of aniconism is most felt. This distinction sheds light on the interpretation of the phenomena of images in religions. The relation of the image to worship is the key point in the distinction made. This is crucial for it shows that the role and the place of the image in cult, worship, in the interaction of the believers and the deity is the crux of the aniconic discourse. In that short, distinction, Mettinger establishes further that programmatic aniconism is a rare phenomenon best exemplified in the Abrahamic religions. The contrast between other religions and the Abrahamic one is succinctly put in the comparison he makes of the two kinds of aniconism. He writes: “De facto aniconism probably tended to be tolerant, while programmatic aniconism, having been subjected to the rigours of theological reflection, was likely characterized by a conscious and programmatic attitude which may have led to outright iconoclasm.” 52 In the last part of this reflection, I will illustrate the potential contribution of this explanation to a self reflection on the monotheistic interpretation of religious imagery. Aniconism and Sacramentality The overview of scholarly investigation shows that a consideration of religious imagery and representation deprived of the fear of the interference of idolatry is possible. It is likely conceivable primarily in religions with a pragmatic approach to images and representations and hence foster a de facto aniconism. Images in these religions play a sacramental role. They re-present the invisible real and act as bridge nurturing communion between the believers and the invisible real. They act beyond the theoretical divide of “the permitted and forbidden” of programmatic aniconism. In this non-monotheistic context, references to religious images are not exposed to the conflict of perspectives between the intellectuals (philosophers and theologians) and the common believers. The former are primarily concerned with orthodoxy and nurture their communion with the Invisible Real by abiding to the abstract and ideal precepts. For the latter instead, orthopraxis is the guiding rule and images are the ways to their union with the Divine. As Neal Walls puts it, religious images in monotheistic religions do in fact illustrate this contrast. “While biblical 52 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, 90. -77- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 prophets ridiculed the notion of human fashioning an idol that they would then worship, ancient Near Eastern theologians developed a sophisticated religious system in which divine beings could be physically within the material of a cultic image without being limited by that embodiment.” 53 In the light of the emphasis of the relationship between images and cult, worship, religious performance and so on, I am inclined to think of religious imagery and representation not primarily in the framework of aniconism but rather, in the broad notion of sacramentality, that is gestures, symbols, and images disclosing the presence of the Invisible Real. As Theodore J. Lewis says, “it seems that humans have always viewed the divine in tangible as well as abstract ways.” 54 Sacramentality refers to signs emphasizing or actualizing communion with the invisible presence of the divine. Though the clearest and systemic discussion of the concept of sacrament was developed in the Christian tradition, in reality the pattern referred to is intrinsic to every religion, monotheistic and polytheistic as well. Sacramentality affirms the indwelling of both the transcendence and the immanence of the Real Invisible, a co existence which is beyond the suspicion and the polemics of programmatic aniconism. Moreover, sacramentality is encoded in the inner structure of religions as they strive to disclose real communion and interaction with the invisible but real presence of the divine. In Christianity, the experience and discovery of God’s presence is complex but ultimately mediated through Jesus Christ, the Sacrament of the Invisible God and other effective signs He instituted. As Osborne states regarding Christianity, “Jesus is the revelation of God for humanity, and sacraments function as means of continuing to experience this revelation in the Church;” 55 or said in different words, “In Christianity, the incarnation of the Son of God and the dispensation of the Sacraments as visible signs of the invisible grace are but two of the many divine accommodations to the needs of man in his spatio-temporal condition.”56 As for the rest of Abrahamic religions, all the mitigations that programmatic 53 54 55 56 Neal H. Walls, Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005), p.vii. p.105 Theodore J. Lewis, “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” in Walls, Neal H., Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East (USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005), p.69. Osborne quoted in New Catholic Encylopedia, vol.13, p.473. New Catholic Encylopedia, vol.3, p.662. -78- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred aniconism allows have in fact a sacramental value. They unveil and conceal at the same time; they affirm and concomitantly refer to and by re-presenting, they partially affirm the absence of what they evoke. But all this appears in a non-conflicting way because of the properties of religions themselves. “Since in a different and higher category, they are ideally suited for expressing not only abstract notion and mental operation but also spiritual and religious truth—none of which can be pictured in any literal way. Symbolism avoids the complexities of formal analogy. It provokes an immediate ascent or movement of transcendence in the beholder. It offers one of the simplest and most powerful vehicles for expressing man’s spontaneous attitudes and affections in his secular as well as in his religious life.”57 A close comparison on the Tabernacle in the Judeo-Christian and the god statues or deities of Taiwanese popular religion can serve as an illustration of the homeomorphism at work in religions. Just as the Tabernacle is the clearest sign and strongest affirmation of God’s presence and dwelling among his people in the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it is with the statue of the deity in the pantheon of popular religion. Explaining the process of and the motivations for sculpting god statues in a Taiwanese village, Lin Weiping reports the explanation that “god statues are concrete expressions of intangible spiritual beings […], god statues make the formless omnipresent gods settle down and build a stable connection with the villagers, who worship them in return for protection; this creates a strong reciprocal bond between the villagers and the gods.” 58 Both phenomena are mitigations of the riddles of representing the invisible, transcendent, immutable presence at the core of effective religious worship. The tenets of this comparison are not always perceivable because of the strong impact of aniconic interpretation of other religions, and 57 58 New Catholic Encylopedia, vol.13, p.662. Lin Wei-ping, “conceptualizing Gods through Statues: A Study of Personification and Localization in Twain,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 50.2(2008): 460. -79- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 mostly the so-called folk religions. 59 Finally, there are many more inquiries regarding aniconism which will remain undetermined answers once considered in the wider horizon of recent scholarly discussion. Given the mitigations existing in programmatic aniconic religions, all be considered idolaters; what to say of a religion without sign? Why religions cannot completely do away with images, symbols and signs? Is there an adequate way of manifesting the invisible real? The emphasis here is on the contrast between the transcendent nature of the divine and limited or confined perception the human person has of the divine. Moreover, what is the “ultimate nature and value” of the thing representing the “invisible real?” What makes those images different from common ones? Why do they easily become objects of veneration and or worship? Can they be equated to the real invisible? If not, why do those images or representations inspire veneration? Where do they get their power? Through which mechanisms do they become powerful images dictating the respect and veneration of believers? All these are queries of theological and philosophical nature inherent to aniconism, being addressed now from different academic perspectives. Conclusion This paper ponders on that gap between the theoretical and practical management of aniconism. Because of their condition—as incarnate beings, humans need concrete means, incarnate forms that mediate the invisible presence of the divine. As a result, there are in fact ranges of divine representations circumventing the aniconic instructions. Moving from a perspective of the philosophy of religion, this paper has modestly proposed sacramentality as a hermeneutical framework to rethink the dilemma inherent to the 59 There are many accounts of how deities choose to communicate with their followers, requests that statues and images be made of them so they could commune and dwell with their followers. Unfortunately, many of these tales have been ignored or interpreted within monotheistic labels calling for idolatry everywhere. For further inquiries, see Lin Wei-ping, “Conceptualizing Gods through Statues: A Study of Personification and Localization in Taiwan,” Comparative Studies in Sociology and History 50.2(2008): 454-477; Margaret Chan, Ritual is Theatre, Theatre is Ritual, Tang-ki: Chinese Spirit Medium Worship (Singapore: Singapore Management University & SNP Publishing, 2006), p.45. -80- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred interpretation of aniconic representations across religions. Bibliography Lewis, Theodore J. 1998. “No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” The Free Library (January, 1), <http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern...-a020913997> (accessed June 19 2014). Ali, Wijdan. “From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet Muhammad’s Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman art,” Electronic journal of Oriental studies 4(2001): 1-24. Evans, C. D. “Cult Images, Royal Policies and the Origins of Aniconism,” in S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy (eds.). The Pitcher is Broken, Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (JSOT Supplement 1995): 192-212. Gaifman, Milette. Aniconism in Greek Antiquity. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Grabar, Oleg. “The Story of Portraits of the Prophet Muhammad,” Studia islamica (2003): 19-IX. Halbertal, Moshe, and Avishai Margalit. “Idolatry and Representation,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics (1992): 19-32. Mettinger, T. “The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God in Ancient Israel,” in H. Biezais (ed.). Religious Symbols and their Functions. Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 10, Stockholm, 1979, pp.15-29. Naiden, F. S. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice from the Archaic through Roman Periods. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pernille Ammitzbøll and Lorenzo Vidino. “After the Danish Cartoon Controversy,” Middle East Quarterly 14.1(Winter 2007): 3-11 Theodore J. Lewis. “Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Divine Images,” in Walls, Neal H. Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. USA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005, pp. 69-107. Walls, Neal H. Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. USA: -81- 哲學與文化 第四十一卷第十期 2014.10 American Schools of Oriental Research, 2005. Date of first draft: Jul. 11, 2014 Approved after review: Oct. 01, 2014 Executive editor: Lu, Hsuan Yu (盧宣宇) Author: Batairwa K. Paulin (鮑霖)： 輔仁大學宗教學系博士 輔仁大學宗教學系助理教授 通訊處：24205 新北市新莊區中正路 510 號 輔仁大學宗教學系 E-Mail：085227@mail.fju.edu.tw -82- Batairwa K. Paulin：Aniconism and Sacramentality: Rethinking the Riddles of Representing the Sacred 神像的禁止與聖事：重新思考再現神聖之謎 鮑霖 輔仁大學宗教學系助理教授 內容摘要： 神像的禁制 Aniconism 是指宗教成像的禁制，禁 止神明 神聖存在者與聖人的形象化 由於亞伯拉罕宗教的影響， 神 像的禁制 提供一個詮釋的框架 這框架被視為能解讀一般宗教成像 的缺乏；整體上又能解釋宗教對使用符號來描述神聖與聖者的優勢 而本文則認為 聖事 sacramentality 提供更好的視域解決一道謎 題——神聖的再現 representation 固有的謎 關鍵詞：神像禁止論 聖事 宗教意象 -83- 宗教再現