Prohibitions against the production and worship of images representing one's own or other deities (oft en referred to in the singular as 'image ban' or Bilderverbot)-as much as their seeming corollary, the so-called aniconic worship of a single supreme deityare commonly held to be distinctive characteristics of ancient Israelite and Judahite, Jewish and Islamic religion. Th e two aspects (the normative rejection of a given ritual practice and the realization of its opposite as alternative practice) are oft en considered as two faces of a coin. Yet the relation between the two is much more complicated. Th e terms image ban and aniconism are problematic and both certainly need to be properly defi ned and qualifi ed. 1 Scholars such as Tryggve Mettinger (1995 , 2006), Brian Doak (2015), Milette Gaifman (2012) and others have recently off ered important contributions to that end, focusing on fi rst-millennium-bce Israel, Phoenicia and Greece. Th e present chapter aims at continuing this conversation while putting it into a wider horizon, both disciplinary and theoretical. Neither programmatic prohibitions of cultic images nor de facto abstention from producing and using them in cultic rituals or imageless rituals are exclusive to early West Semitic traditions, Judaism and Islam (see the essays collected in Gaifman and Aktor 2017); 2 however, they distinguish these traditions from many others past and present. Moreover, both scholars and the wider public associate these traditions with the concept of monotheism. To be sure, none of the traditions studied by Mettinger, Gaifman and Doak should be considered monotheistic in any way. But the history of Western Asiatic and Mediterranean religion\s since late antiquity seems indeed to privilege an elective affi nity of sorts between the belief in a single, invisible, transcendent deity on the one hand ('monotheism') and the injunction not to represent that deity in a cultic image on the other hand. Monotheistic theologies have

Die Annahme zur Veröffentlichung erfolgt schriftlich und unter dem Vorbehalt, dass das Manuskript nicht anderweitig zur Veröffentlichung angeboten wurde. Mit der Annahme zur Veröffentlichung überträgt der Autor dem Verlag das ausschließliche Verlagsrecht für die Publikation in gedruckter und elektronischer Form. Weitere Informationen dazu und zu den beim Autor verbleibenden Rechten finden Sie unter www.mohr.de/hebai. Ohne Erlaubnis des Verlags ist eine Vervielfältigung oder Verbreitung der ganzen Zeitschrift oder von Teilen daraus in gedruckter oder elektronischer Form nicht gestattet. Bitte wenden Sie sich an

Written from the point of view of a historian of religion\s, the article asks why the so-called “visual turn” has not left a major effect on the study of religion\s as an academic discipline and how things could be improved to that effect. It offers a synthetic account of earlier and contemporary involvements of scholars of religion and scholarly networks with images and visual culture, pointing to a general lack of sustained training and little exposure to relevant methodology and theory developed in relevant neighbouring disciplines. The author argues that the study of religion\s would benefit from increased attention to images and visual culture, emphasizing the potential of earlier (iconology in the Warburg-Panofsky tradition and the Groningen trajectory) as well as more recent approaches developed in Europe and theu.s., which theorize the visual in terms of visual culture, visual media, visual and scopic regimes, religious aesthetics and material religion.

No abstract