Facing the Facts About the “Face of God”

038

In the most recent issue of BAR,^a Yosef Garfinkel claimed that an anthropomorphic (human-shaped) clay head from Khirbet Qeiyafa, two similar clay heads and two horse figurines from Tel Moẓa, and two anthropomorphic vessels from the Dayan Collection should be viewed as a new type of male figurine from the early Iron Age II (tenth–ninth centuries B.C.E.).¹ He interprets three of these figures as representing a rider and a horse. He also suggests that the Hebrew Bible sometimes depicts Yhwh as a rider on a horse and, consequently, declares that the clay heads from Qeiyafa and Moẓa form a unique iconographic type of figurine that represents a male god, possibly Yhwh.

Unfortunately, his argument is highly problematic, and his methodology disregards available evidence on ancient coroplastic (terracotta) art and the study of religion in ancient Israel. We reject Garfinkel’s presentation of the figurative clay artifacts, his interpretative framework, and the alleged metaphor of Yhwh as a seated horseman.

Presentation of Figurines

Garfinkel’s iconographic and typological discussion is based on the grouping of seven clay artifacts: an anthropomorphic head from Khirbet Qeiyafa, two anthropomorphic heads and two horse figurines from Tel Moẓa, and two unprovenanced vessels from the Dayan Collection that originated in the antiquities market—a Philistine-type strainer jug and a rider-and-horse-shaped vessel. He asserts that the four items from Moẓa represent only two artifacts, arguing that each of the two separate heads should be paired with a horse. Yet Garfinkel over-looks their obvious typological, stylistic, and technological differences, all of which negate such a grouping. Further, the rudimentary, schematic representation of the horse-and-rider pottery vessel, which was fashioned as a single, inseparable dispenser of liquids, is markedly different from the detailed facial features of the Moẓa and Qeiyafa anthropomorphic heads and elaborate trappings and 039harness of the Moẓa horse figurines.

The figurines from Moẓa form the backbone of Garfinkel’s identification of the items as depictions of a deity. Since the Moẓa objects were found in a clear cultic context, their intrinsic religious nature and significance are unquestionable. But in the absence of any divine markers and given their similarity to clay figures throughout the region, they cannot be assumed to depict gods.

The four Moẓa figurines were hand modeled out of local Moẓa marl clay.^b One human head is about 1.1 inches high and 1 inch wide, while the other is about 1.3 inches high and 1.1 inches wide. They are fashioned “in the round” out of a solid piece of clay. Clay appliqués were attached to form the hair, a round headdress with raised edges, and prominent facial features, including a nose with punctured nostrils, ears, pellet eyes punctured in the center to simulate the pupil, and a pointed chin. One of the heads has puncturing on the chin that simulates a beard and indicates its male gender; the other does not. Close inspection of their backs indicates that the heads were free-standing figures and probably originally belonged to figurines. Perhaps one was even the rider mounted on the larger horse figurine. However, they might as well have been attached to a vessel or another object, such as a clay stand or shrine model (e.g., see the shrine model from Tel Reḥov).^c

The Moẓa zoomorphic (animal-shaped) figurines depict harnessed horses with similar incised mouths and punctured pellet eyes and nostrils, but the two differ in size, detail, and production. The large figurine (c. 5 in high and 6 in long) is meticulously fashioned, and its somewhat realistic details include trappings and the feet and left leg of a rider, whose body is not preserved; the rider may be represented by one of the anthropomorphic heads, but this cannot be proved. Although the horse’s body is hollow, its head and limbs are solid. The smaller figurine (c. 1.4 in high and 3 in long) is completely solid and crafted in a more schematic and rudimentary form, depicting remains of a pack or rider on the back of the horse and blinders flanking the eyes.

Garfinkel disregards typological, technological, iconographic, and contextual discussion of the figurines from Moẓa and their interregional context.² He also ignores other early Iron Age artifacts that share stylistic characteristics with the Moẓa and Qeiyafa artifacts. Anthropomorphic figurines, for example, are known from Ashdod along the coast and Tel Kinrot on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, while horse heads discovered 040at Tell el-Far‘ah North (biblical Tirzah) in the central highlands and at Tel Rehov in the Jordan Valley exhibit the same puncturing technique, facial features, headdress (for the anthropomorphic figures), and trappings (for the horses). These provide significantly better parallels for both the Moẓa and Qeiyafa figurines than the unprovenanced vessels.³

The similarities in the headdress, eyes, and puncturing technique, exhibited in the human heads from Moẓa and Qeiyafa do not distinguish them as members of a special group. In fact, the opposite is true—the large size and atypical facial proportions of the Qeiyafa head distinguish it from the other figurines of the period, including from the Moẓa heads.

As for the significance of horses and riders, horses are the most common type of animal represented in coroplastic art during the Iron Age (c. 1200–586 B.C.E.), and horse figurines appear in increasing numbers, along with horse-shaped vessels, throughout the tenth–ninth centuries B.C.E., primarily in the Kingdom of Israel. Their appearance has been linked to the emerging importance of cavalry and horse-driven chariots across the ancient Near East.⁴ Horse figurines, schematically rendered and at times mounted by a rider, become ubiquitous in the southern Levant from the eighth century B.C.E., and in Judah they appear in masses.⁵

In his presentation and interpretation of the finds from Qeiyafa, Moẓa and the antiquities market, Garfinkel makes several flawed arguments:

(1) He claims that the horses from Moẓa are hollow, akin to pottery vessels, and, along with the human heads from Moẓa and Qeiyafa, are typologically, stylistically, and technologically similar to the two vessels from the antiquities market.

However, apart from the body of the larger figurine, the horse figurines from Moẓa are not hollow, and they are not vessels. The disproportionate ratio of the small horse figurine compared to the human heads precludes the possibility that one of the human heads could have been its rider. These four figurine fragments from Moẓa, therefore, do not represent two horse-and-rider figurines.

(2) He argues that the head from Qeiyafa, the figurines from Moẓa, and the two vessels from the antiquities market form a new type of male figurine, with three representing a rider on a horse.

Garfinkel’s grouping ignores the typological, stylistic, and technological dissimilarity among the artifacts and simultaneously overlooks all of the contemporary parallels that do exhibit common traits. Additionally, the Qeiyafa head does not have a beard or any other clear gender marker, and its widening neck has led even Garfinkel to note that it may not have been a figurine and could just as well have been attached to a pottery vessel. This would, of course, render the identification of the head as a rider on a horse impossible.

(3) Finally, Garfinkel argues that the Qeiyafa and Moẓa heads are remarkable in their large size—compared to anthropomorphic figurines dated from prehistoric times to the 041Iron Age—and in their emphasized and well-modeled facial elements (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and beard), and that the same iconographic approach is seen in the two vessels from the Dayan Collection. He connects these attributes to the biblical expression “before the Lord,” reading it as “face of Yhwh,” which he believes might relate to a pilgrimage experience of seeing an actual statue or figure at a cult center.

This argument rests on a mistake in Garfinkel’s drawing of the Moẓa anthropomorphic heads.⁶ He based his drawings on the published photographs of the items, and, apart from the inherent inaccuracies stemming from drawing artifacts from a photo alone, they depict an erroneous scale for the anthropomorphic heads from Moẓa. In other words, although the Qeiyafa head is larger than average, the Moẓa heads are not, and their facial features are not unique and appear on figures throughout the region. These facial features do not, however, appear on the rider and horse of the vessel from the antiquities market, and yet Garfinkel still includes the vessel in support of his argument.

In short, there is no reason—based on similarity, date, or findspot—to single out the anthropomorphic figures from Moza, Qeiyafa, and the antiquities market as unique or as belonging to a single, special class.

Interpretative Framework

Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic clay figures of the tenth–ninth centuries B.C.E. exhibit distinctive features that disappear in the mass-produced assemblages of the eighth–sixth centuries B.C.E., and they deserve special and detailed consideration. The main methodological problem in Garfinkel’s article is the nearly complete disregard of current scholarship on clay figurines and coroplastic art from the ancient Levant and beyond. Although past mainstream interpretation considered anthropomorphic clay figurines as representations of deities, recent scholarship shows that although some clay figurines could represent deities, most served other purposes, such as votive offerings placed by worshipers or charms used in rituals.⁷ Recent research has amassed considerable evidence to prove, for example, that not every naked female figure is a fertility goddess (let alone God’s wife),⁸ and that although some zoomorphic figures might depict divine attributes, others were most probably used for mundane purposes.

Garfinkel ignores these recent scholarly developments and interprets the objects relying on outdated scholarship and an unsupported assertion. To support the novelty of his claim, he notes a biblical tradition in which Yhwh is portrayed as riding on a horse. Yet there are several issues regarding his interpretative framework of linking uninscribed clay artifacts with written sources.

If the mere association of an anthropomorphic figure with a horse is enough to identify it as divine, then several questions arise:

(1) Since the large horse figurine from Moẓa clearly had a rider that was perhaps represented by one of the human heads, what purpose does the unprovenanced horse-and-rider vessel presented by Garfinkel serve in this discussion?

(2) If the anthropomorphic figures on the unprovenanced strainer jar and the unprovenanced horse-and-rider vessel represent the same type of “new male figurine” as the items from Qeiyafa and Moẓa, why are they not all identified as gods? After all, the horse-and-rider vessel actually depicts a rider, but the Qeiyafa head does not. By Garfinkel’s logic, the unprovenanced objects should depict Yhwh as well.

(3) Furthermore, since the anthropomorphic figure on the unprovenanced strainer jar is part of Garfinkel’s new unique group, despite being neither a figurine nor a rider or even clearly male, should all depictions of anthropomorphic figures with prominent ears, nose, and punctured eyes be identified as gods?

According to Garfinkel’s methodology, shouldn’t all Iron Age horse riders be identified as divine representations, and perhaps depictions of Yhwh, whether figurines or vessels, regardless of their divergent iconography and lack of divine symbols? By association, shouldn’t all male anthropomorphic heads, even without any associated 042horse, such as the head from Qeiyafa, be identified as divine representations?

Garfinkel further claims that the physical depiction of Yhwh ceased in the eighth century B.C.E., “because these figurines, resembling the literature of ancient Canaan and Israel, have been discovered in contexts dating to the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E., but not in the eighth century.” This statement is patently incorrect, since the eighth century is precisely the period in which horse-and-rider figurines become ubiquitous in Judah and throughout the ancient Near East and eastern Aegean.⁹ If we were to extrapolate from Garfinkel’s suggested new typology, which includes the schematic horse-and-rider vessel from the antiquities market, then there are dozens of horse-and-rider figurines that could be identified as Yhwh from the eighth–sixth centuries B.C.E.¹⁰ This is highly unlikely.

Although we cannot rule out the possibility that the anthropomorphic heads from Moẓa and Qeiyafa depicted gods, methodological considerations have hindered the identification of uninscribed clay figures as divine.¹¹ In the absence of identifying inscriptions on clay figurines, scholars have to rely on attributes and visual codes, such as horns, crescents, and bulls, which might point to the divine character of the depicted. In our case, these are absent.

The only putative divine attribute Garfinkel identifies is horse riding, and this leads him to identify the anthropomorphic figures with Yhwh. Yet when ancient Near Eastern gods were depicted with attribute animals, such as Ba‘al with his bull or Ishtar with her lion, they typically did not sit on them. They usually stood on them like throne pedestals or held the animals with their hands, like the mistress of lions on the Ta‘anach cult stand.

In the ancient Near East, male gods depicted on horses are always standing (e.g., Ba‘al and possibly Reshef, a Canaanite deity of plague and war). The notable exception of a seated deity is the Late Bronze Age depiction of a female goddess on horseback in Egyptian stele, ostraca, and glyptic imagery.¹² At times standing and at times seated on a throne atop a horse, the divine identification of the goddess is based on defining features, such as the Egyptian double or atef crown, horns, armor, and a smiting position, as well as (in some cases) an accompanying inscription that identifies the goddess as Astarte.

Alleged Biblical Metaphor

Furthermore, the biblical texts Garfinkel cites do not support his case. He is correct to say that Yhwh is depicted, like the Canaanite god Ba‘al, as a “cloud rider,” even sharing the same epithet, as many scholars have noted. The entire point of this epithet, for Ba‘al and for Yhwh, is that the cloud (or clouds) is conceived as his chariot. Neither god is ever mounted on his own horse. In fact, storm gods of the ancient Near East were commonly depicted as riding chariots pulled by lion-dragons, bulls, and horses.¹³ Yet not one of his cited biblical texts supports the idea of Yhwh as a mounted horseman. While citing most of the verses containing the Hebrew verb rākab (רכב), meaning “to ride [a horse],” he conveniently ignores 2 Samuel 22:11 and Psalm 18:10 (v. 11 in Hebrew), where it says Yhwh “rode on his cherub and flew.” Recall that cherubim are winged beings (see Exodus 25:20). Meanwhile, Deuteronomy 33:26 speaks of God (El, not Yhwh) “riding the heavens for your help, the clouds in his majesty.” The Hebrew verb rkb implies that the heavens or clouds are El’s chariot, and the psalm depicts the clouds as El’s vehicle.

Second Kings 2:11-12, the famous narrative of Elijah’s wondrous departure, specifically says Elijah was taken up in a fiery chariot (rekev; Hebrew: רכב) pulled by fiery horses. Yhwh is not seen by Elisha, but the implication is that the chariot and horses are registered in his name. Garfinkel also cites Psalm 45:3-4, but this famously difficult text almost certainly refers to the human king, not God (called Elohim in this psalm), when it says, “Gird your sword … Ride on in the cause of Truth” (NJPS). And even here, the psalm envisions the king “riding” his war chariot (from which he fires arrows at his 043enemies in Psalm 68:5v. 5 [v. 6 in Hebrew]). Isaiah 19:1 specifies that “Yhwh is riding upon a swift cloud,” where the cloud again is the analogue of the royal war chariot. The exact same point is made in Psalm 68:4, where God is called “rider of the clouds.” After citing these texts, Garfinkel writes, “some biblical traditions, then, describe Yhwh as a rider on the sky or clouds.” Actually, they all do.

So how can Garfinkel accomplish the feat of getting Yhwh out of his chariot—or off his cloud—and mounting him on an actual horse? To move from Yhwh as chariot or cloud rider to Yhwh as mounted horseman, Garfinkel claims that “some texts [plural] present a new development in which he is riding on a horse.” But this is an interpretive sleight of hand. Garfinkel cites exactly one text, Habakkuk 3:8, and claims that it depicts Yhwh himself riding a horse. His interpretation of this verse is incorrect, as the entire history of scholarship makes clear.

In this poem, dated by many scholars to the early monarchy, and so earlier than the eighth century, Yhwh is depicted as a Divine Warrior going into battle, flanked by his allies.¹⁴ In the decisive verse 8, the poet says of Yhwh, “You drove your horses, your chariots, to victory” against the cosmic foes, Sea and River. The Hebrew phrase, tirkab ‘al sûsêkā (סוסיך–על תרכב), does not mean “you rode upon your horses,” but rather “you drove your horses and chariots.”¹⁵ The verb for “driving,” again, is rkb and is used here for driving a chariot and its horses (or a cloud by analogy), possibly at the head of a brigade.

Like the king in Psalm 45, Yhwh also fires his bow from his chariot (Habakkuk 3:11). Since the “Sea” (Yamm) is one of Yhwh’s enemies, the poet declares further, “You make your horses [note the plural] tread the sea” (v. 15). These are, of course, his chariot horses. The same idea and identical phrases also appear in Psalm 77:18 (v. 19 in Hebrew) where God, mounted on his celestial chariot (“your thunder rumbled like wheels”), fires his arrows (Psalm 77:17 [v. 18 in Hebrew]), and treads upon the sea.

In Habakkuk, therefore, just as in all the other examples, Yhwh drives (rkb) his war chariot, which is powered by his several war horses. Yhwh never rides atop his own horse. And in case there was any doubt, earlier in 044Habakkuk, the prophet expressly uses the terminology for a mounted horseman: parash (Habakkuk 1:81:8). It is not used of Yhwh, but of Chaldean cavalrymen.

Garfinkel argues that a shift occurred in the depiction of Yhwh: He moved from his chariot and mounted his steed. This step is critical for Garfinkel to make the case that the horse-and-rider figures depict Yhwh. The interpretation of Habakkuk 3:8, however, is erroneous. Neither this text, nor any of the biblical references he cites, sustains his argument.

Closing Thoughts

The finds from Qeiyafa and Moẓa provide a significant contribution to the study of cult and religion in Israel and Judah, especially during their formative period (tenth–ninth centuries B.C.E.), and allow us to reevaluate previous finds and studies and advance our understanding. However, they are not exceptional in their 045appearance and do not exist in an intellectual or material void.

It is unfortunate that Garfinkel presents an unfounded and speculative identification as factual. The evidence and argumentation offered above should lay this issue to rest.