Interpreting
the bible is not an easy job; the numerous translations, languages, fragmented
manuscripts, and expectations that people have for the text all contribute to
the difficulty. Sometimes, the difficulty does not come from the many
complexities present in the history and content of the text, but trouble occurs
when a line is taken out of its context. In the case of the second commandment,
often cited as a prohibition of art, the misinterpretation is a result of not
reading quite far enough.
As is clear
by the numerous medieval illuminated Bible manuscripts as well as records of
mosaics and of Jews painting murals on the walls of their homes, this
interpretation was not how the passage was understood in the medieval
period. Instead, the next line was
included as well, specifying that sculptures and images were not to be bowed to
or worshipped (37). This issue also
comes up in reference to Muslim art, where it has been asserted that Islam
strictly prohibits the depiction of humans, at the very least. In fact, animal and human forms were often
depicted in art (38). There have been
some arguments made that part of the commandment was added on, though which
part was the original is unclear. Even
in this case, the artists clearly did not care if part was a later addition or
not, and just took the commandment as a whole.
This sort
of interpretation is fascinating to me.
The misunderstanding is so very easily cleared up: by just reading the
next line, the thought that the second commandment prohibits art is dismissed.
If not by the text itself, the artifacts and evidence that the readers and
followers of the text made art and accepted it (even within the pages of the
holy book itself!) are plenty to prove that art and the human form were not
prohibited. It is not a difficult
mistake, but it is also not difficult to remedy, and that it has maintained a foothold
as an interpretation of the text is indicative of how important context and
careful reading are to interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment