On April 5th 2006, I responded to a thread started by David Bokovoy. I didn’t know he was the poster formerly known as ennumaelish, and this was the first exchange we had which went downhill from there on out. Here he inisists that the Bible says image always refers to a physical object. I did enough research into this to know he did not speak for the scholarly consensus, even though he tried to pretend he did.
As I said in this thread, from over a year ago, in a short exchange with ennumaelish
== In the Hebrew Bible, the word şelem “image” refers to physicality. Every time (and I do mean every time) it appears in the Bible one can touch that which has a şelem.
One exception may be found in Psalm 73:20 (? - I'm at work so I'm going from memory here) where tselem refers to a phantom or shadow from a dream. In any event, it is futile for orthodox Christians to deny the meaning of tselem, which always refers to a three-dimensional image (physical or not).
JP Holding is one Evangelical who at least realizes this futility, and has managed to work around it. He accepts the fact that the image in Gen 1:26 refers to a concrete physical image. But how he interprets it is this:
"Man was created as an image for God."
This is very different from the natural rendering of:
"Man was created in the image of God."
Holding borrowed this apologetic from scholars like Kenneth Mathews, but it is also argued by liberal scholars like David Clines that the Hebrew text could in fact be translated "as" an image as opposed to "in" the image.
...we should make sure we don't overstep our bounds when we suggest that tselem supports the notion that God has a physical body. I'm not sure this is what you are suggesting though. Even the scholars and Hebrew grammarians that support our argument on this verse (insofar as we argue that God was understood as having a "three-dimensional image"), do not agree that God is therefore "physical."
David Responded:
No offense Kevin, but you were wrong then and you are wrong now. I have established a very strong case for interpreting tselem in these passages in accordance with Dr. Marc Brettler’s observation.
Neither you nor Mark has presented a cogent argument to negate my readings. Moreover, Dr. Marc Brettler, whom I know personally (in fact I spoke with today regarding some views that I have concerning Psalm 114), agrees with my claims.
Exactly how much Hebrew have you and Mark studied? Dr. Brettler, an Orthodox Jew, began a serious study of biblical Hebrew at age four. He is the primary editor for the award winning Jewish Study Bible with the help of Adele Berlin and Michael Fishbane.
He’s been commissioned to write the forthcoming Psalms commentary for the Jewish Publication Society series for which Nahum Sarna did the Genesis and Exodus volumes and Jeffery Tigay did the Deuteronomy contribution (in fact, as the current faculty chair over the Near Eastern and Judaic studies department at Brandeis, Brettler holds Sarna’s old position).
Brettler is recognized as one of the foremost Old Testament scholars in the world. In sum, I can assure you, Dr. Brettler has forgotten more about the Hebrew Bible than the three of us will ever know in this lifetime.
That having been said, until you and/or Mark actually deal with the evidence I have presented in this thread, your replies amount to nothing more than a silly “no it's not” retort—that quite frankly, I’ve grown a bit tired of considering.
I strongly suggest that the two of you go back and read the articles I mentioned concerning the image of the sleeping God.
Kevin Graham said:
== No offense Kevin, but you were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Wrong about what exactly?
== I have established a very strong case for interpreting tselem in these passages in accordance with Dr. Marc Brettler’s observation.
If you’re sure your case is so compelling, why not present it in a scholarly venue and see how well it is accepted by other scholars. My point is simply this. I have read profusely on this issue and I believe I have read the most reputable Old Testament scholars. Perhaps one in ten actually believe God was physical for the Ancient Jews. You found one. He is your buddy. That is fine. But he does not represent the scholarly consensus, no mater how early he started studying Hebrew. Others scholars accept the point you are making about tselem usually or almost always referring to physical idols/objects, but others also acknowledge the plausibility for it referring to non-physical images such as shadows. This is why Scholem cut through the ambiguity and said it refers to a three-dimensional form – not necessarily physical.
== Neither you nor Mark has presented a cogent argument to negate my readings. Moreover, Dr. Marc Brettler, whom I know personally (in fact I spoke with today regarding some views that I have concerning Psalm 114), agrees with my claims.
I am not trying to side with Markk, so much as I am trying to make sure we as apologists do not overstep our bounds in what we are arguing. Sure, the Bible makes it clear that God has a form. What that form consists of cannot be deduced from the word tselem. Period. If God appeared as a spirit form to the Ancient Jews, tselem would have been a perfectly good word to use in describing the experience. To argue that tselem elsewhere refers strictly to physical objects, therefore it must also be referring to physicality in God, is a very weak, and fallacious argument.
== Dr. Brettler, an Orthodox Jew, began a serious study of biblical Hebrew at age four. He is the primary editor for the award winning Jewish Study Bible with the help of Adele Berlin and Michael Fishbane.
That is well and good, but he is not the foremost expert on the matter.
== He’s been commissioned to write the forthcoming Psalms commentary for the Jewish Publication Society series for which Nahum Sarna did the Genesis and Exodus volumes and Jeffery Tigay did the Deuteronomy contribution (in fact, as the current faculty chair over the Near Eastern and Judaic studies department at Brandeis, Brettler holds Sarna’s old position).
And you realize of course that Sarna disagrees with yours and Brettler’s position, right? Does Brettler Trump Sarna, who is clearly more respected in the field?
== Brettler is recognized as one of the foremost Old Testament scholars in the world.
According to what survey? If I had to guess, I would say he might be in the top 30.
== That having been said, until you and/or Mark actually deal with the evidence I have presented in this thread, your replies amount to nothing more than a silly “no it's not” retort—that quite frankly, I’ve grown a bit tired of considering.
What evidence? Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that tselem almost always, or always, refers to physical objects in the Hebrew Bible. But it does not logically follow that this proves tselem means physicality. This is inductive reasoning, not deductive.
Take the English word “image” for example. Suppose someone digs up an English text 3000 years from now and finds the word “image” used 20 times. It refers to the image of a dog, a house, a chair, a mountain, et cetera, all of which the future scholars of the Ancient English language recognize as physical objects. In one instance the word refers to the outline and image of a “SHADOW.” Suppose the word shadow is one that has lost its usage through the centuries and the future scholars of the Ancient English language do not know what it means. By using your logic, they insist a shadow is a physical object.
Why? Because the word image clearly refers to physical objects in other instances. But they only had two dozen instances to choose from. Ultimately, they are wrong.
In our present situation we are dealing with a word like shadow except it is GOD. Did “God” mean something physical to the Ancient Jews? Sure, there is some evidence that would make sense of this, but there is also plenty of evidence that would indicate God is an incorporeal enity, although he retains a form.
Bokovoy said:
== And you realize of course that Sarna disagrees with yours and Brettler’s position, right? Does Brettler Trump Sarna, who is clearly more respected in the field?
Absolutely. Sarna was far too conservative in his views. This is a case where the student has clearly passed up his mentor. Something that a good professor always hopes will happen.
Busy morning today. I’ll provide a detailed response later.
Have a good day.
Kevin Graham said:
== Absolutely. Sarna was far too conservative in his views.
And a conservative would argue that Brettler is far too liberal. Ultimately the labeling means nothing. You were arguing from authority, as if I had no authoritative support of my own. You made it clear Brettler was to be believed because he is a credentialed guy who knows the Hebrew better than any of us. Well, does he know it better than Sarna? You are probably the only person on the planet who might make that argument; I highly doubt Brettler would.
== This is a case where the student has clearly passed up his mentor.
I don't see how this is "clear" at all. It is merely asserted. Brettler's scholarly accomplishments haven't even begun to compare to those of Sarna, Westermann, von Rad, et al. And these guys are considered liberals as well.
PS: I am heading back to the States (Atlanta) tonight, and won't be back until the 18th.
Bokoyoy:
I’m not the only person in the world who knows this fact—though I suspect you are right that Brettler would be far too humble to admit it. This is why several PhDs from Brandeis who received degrees under Sarna quite regularly frequent Professor Brettler’s text courses.
Believe it or not; I am in a pretty good position to make this assessment.
A lot goes on in the world of biblical scholarship which unfortunately, the average intelligent lay reader does not have an opportunity to fully digest. Granted, names like von Rad, Sarna, and Westermann would not doubt sound more familiar to the average well-read lay person but, you’re missing an incredibly crucial point.
Gerhard von Rad was born in 1901, he died in 1971. Nahum Sarna was born in 1923, he passed away last year. As far as I know, Claus Westermann is still very much alive, though he was born in 1909.
Like you, I am a big fan of Westermann’s 1974 three volume commentary on the book of Genesis. In my estimation, this exhaustive treatise provides an outstanding analysis of form-critical issues, as well as Near Eastern parallels while moving in the direction of narrative theology. I dare say that Westermann’s is my favorite commentary on Genesis.
But… a lot has happened since 1974.
Take for example Mayer Gruber’s “In the Image of God’ What is it?” in Homage to Shmuel. Jerusalem: Bialik, 2001, 81-87 [Hebrew]. Like others before him, Gruber shows that the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription reveals the synonymous status of the terms demût and selem, both of which mean 'statue.'
Through his careful analysis, Gruber illustrates that the syntax of the biblical verses in which these terms occur disproves Tigay's view that their occurrences in Genesis are simply metaphorical. In the relevant texts the preposition b is beth pretii (cf. Gen 23:9). Hence, the biblical statements assert that whereas other ancient Near Eastern deities had statues, the image of Israel's God is to be found in human beings. Human beings are the selem.
John Kutsko made a similar discovery in the 1998 article “Will the Real selem elohîm Please Stand Up?: The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel” in SBLSP 1998: Parts 1 & 2 p 55-85. Atlanta: Scholars, 1998. David P. Wright was one of the scholars commissioned to critique Kutsko at the SBL convention and I have read his notes.
Hopefully, you are starting to catch the vision. Scholarship naturally builds upon the arguments and genius of previous generations. Hence, textual, archeological, and linguistic discoveries mean that Brettler has surpassed Sarna in understanding.
This fact has little to do with talent and/or abilities. It is the endless cycle of all things scholarly.
And yes, one of Sarna’s weaknesses is that he fails to approach the Bible critically. While his Genesis commentary has a few nice literary observations—his analysis is problematic in that Sarna fails to consider the implications of source criticism.
Kevin Graham:
David B., I have a couple of hours before I head out. You said " But… a lot has happened since 1974."
But you present no new evidence per se; just a few examples of post-1974 scholars who followed the likes of P.Humbert and Zimmerli. There is nothing new at all about his argument. It has been around for most of the 20th century and I see no reason to believe the view is winning over modern scholars, or that it does so through compellng argument. And I am fully aware of the fact that some scholars draw the conclusion that tselem must refer to corporeality in every single instance. They remain in the minority.
Your back-handed dismissal of Sarna and praising of those who disagree with him is a highly opinionated perspective. Now, I disagree with his exegesis of a few Exodus passages, but you cannot make the argument that he who knows Hebrew best, wins - which seems to have been wher you were heading all along. At some point subjective interpretation has to come into play. Your prefered scholar is a rookie. One day he might carry the weight of von Rad and Sarna, but as it is he is just borrowing the same argument that was forwarded by P. Humbert in 1940 (and Gunkel who followed up on his work in 1967). Theodore Nöldeke argued this as early as 1897.
We are talking about a view that is at least 66 years old in scholarly circles, but has been around for more than a century. This is hardly ground breaking, scholarly innovation by modern scholars who simply agree with him.
I see nothing in anything you have presented - though I would like to - by way of archeological or linguistic breakthroughs that would make this view rock solid. The scholarly consensus moves up and down as it has always done so I would not read too much into a recent fluctuation in our favor. A recent tendency towards a newer view doesn't necessarily prove the veracity of said view.
Bokovoy:
== But you present no new evidence per se; just a few examples of post-1974 scholars who followed the likes of P.Humbert and Zimmerli.
Followed them, and then took the argument to new levels. And I did provide a brief summary of this new evidence though you may want to consider the entire article if you are really interested.
My heavens!! I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to provide a detailed point by point summary of these essays in order to establish a valid point.
== There is nothing new at all about his argument.
I assume you mean Brettler. True, his argument is not new. But we have stronger evidence to support its correctness today then we did in previous generations. See my previous posts.
== I see nothing in anything you have presented - though I would like to - by way of archeological or linguistic breakthroughs, that would make this view rock solid.
Well, what scholarly argument is rock solid Kevin? Would you be happier if I stated all evidence appears to point this direction and that the best biblical scholars, in my humble opinion, acknowledge the clarity of my position?
I’m willing to state the argument this way if it makes you happy.
However, I’m not willing to post on this message board a detailed summary of every single scholarly piece of evidence presented over the past two decades to support my readings. I feel that I have provided enough information to prove that I’m not stretching the facts too far.
However, since you clearly do not agree, I’m willing to give it yet another try and draw your attention to the recent discovery by Werner Mayer discussed by Victor Hurowitz in JQR 87 (1997), 414 in which the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man and king appears. Hurowitz drew attention to the obvious link with Genesis 1:26.
The Akkadian salam is of course cognate with the Hebrew selem. Notice that the salam is created from clay. It is therefore a concrete, not an abstract image.
Kevin Graham:
== Followed them, and then took the argument to new levels. And I did provide a brief summary of this new evidence though you may want to consider the entire article if you are really interested.
I saw nothing that would indicate new evidence per se. The basic knowledge of tselem and its cognates have been well known for more than a century. Nobody is arguing against this.
== My heavens!! I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to provide a detailed point by point summary of these essays in order to establish a valid point.
I never requested that. But you did say that things have changed since 1974; implying that since then, the old argument has been completely turned on its head by recent evidences. What do we know from scholarship post-1974 that we didn't know pre-1974? That is all I am asking.
== True, his argument is not new. But we have stronger evidence to support its correctness today then we did in previous generations. See my previous posts.
But there was never any question that tselem had a concrete corporeal sense. The question is whether that is its only sense. Adding more examples of a corporeal connecton does not eliminate the possibility of other meanings.
== Well, what scholarly argument is rock solid Kevin?
That tselem refers to a three-dimensional form. That is rock solid. You said I was "wrong then" and I am "wrong now," simply because I said tselem does not, in and of itself demand physicality. This implies you feel your argument is rock solid.
== Would you be happier if I stated all evidence appears to point this direction and that the best biblical scholars, in my humble opinion, acknowledge the clarity of my position?
Well, that way would be better since it wouldn't give critics the opportunity to derail on an irrelevant point. This is an inductive argument, and inductive arguments are not to be concluded with absolute and dogmatic assertions.
== However, since you clearly do not agree,
The only thing we seem to disagree on is the required understanding of tselem in Gen 1:26. It is simply fallacious to insist that since it refers to physical objects in other verses, even all other verses, that this leaves no room for a possible abstract connotation.
== I’m willing to give it yet another try and draw your attention to the recent discovery by Werner Mayer discussed by Victor Hurowitz
You pointed this out a year ago (assuming you are ennumaelish). While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars. Scholars simply are not surprised or shocked to find new evidence of tselem referring to physicality. This is old news. But ultimately this says nothing about its meaning in Gen 1:26.
Bokovoy:
== I never requested that. But you did say that things have changed since 1974; implying that since then, the old argument has been completely turned on its head by recent evidences. What do we know from scholarship post-1974 that we didn't know pre-1974? That is all I am asking.
I answer this question towards the end of the post.
== It is simply fallacious to insist that since it refers to physical objects in other verses, even all other verses, that this leaves no room for a possible abstract connotation
Since Biblical Hebrew is a dead language, all we can go on is the way the word has been persevered.
But you're right.
Biblical authors never use the word tselem for a Tyrannosaurs Rex, but I suppose we can never know for sure whether someone, somewhere, might have used the Hebrew word tselem to describe a Tyrannosaur Rex.
As I have illustrated, all other verses connect tselem with physicality, but by all means, tselem could have referred to an abstract flesh eating lizard at one point.
== You pointed this out a year ago (assuming you are ennumaelish). While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars. Scholars simply are not surprised or shocked to find new evidence of tselem referring to physicality. This is old news.
Indeed its about 10 years old—which is old news. What does that say for Westermann’s commentary published in 1974?
== While interesting, it doesn' really provide anything compelling for scholars.
Allow me to explain why, contrary to your assessment, the evidence is quite compelling for scholars.
David Wright has recently published several preliminary papers concerning his discovery that the Covenant Code in Exodus derives directly from the Laws of Hammurabi (as I have mentioned the fuller version will appear through Oxford University Press later this year).
Also, in recent years, scholars have compiled additional evidence for the influence of Assyrian Vassal Treaties on the Book of Deuteronomy.
These discoveries have supported those scholars who for years have rightfully drawn our attention to underlying Mesopotamian influence on biblical texts as witnessed, for example, through the fact that Eden takes place in Mesopotamia, the biblical flood stories have been influenced by Atrahasis and Gilgamesh, the tower of Babel was a Babylonian ziggurat, Abram left Mesopotamia for Canaan, etc.
However, most importantly, at least for our discussion, the Babylonian kingship story Enuma Elish has had a direct influence upon the creation story presented in Genesis 1-2:4a.
Therefore, this evidence suggests that contrary to your claim that the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man “doesn’t really provide anything compelling for scholars,” this discovery is very, very significant.
== But ultimately this says nothing about its meaning in Gen 1:26.
Thank you for sharing your expert opinion, which runs contrary to, well… real expert opinions. I know for a fact that Michael Fishbane and Victor Hurowitz believe that this Mesopotamian text says a great deal about Gen. 1:26.
But alas, it is quite clear that you are interested only in debate and not in the opportunity to learn something new.
Kevin Graham:
== I answer this question towards the end of the post.
But it isn't new.
== Biblical authors never use the word tselem for a Tyrannosaurs Rex, but I suppose we can never know for sure whether someone, somewhere, might have used the Hebrew word tselem to describe a Tyrannosaur Rex.
But Tyrannosaur Rexs are not described as beings with attributes that would imply incorporeality. In fact, they are not mentioned at all. God, on the other hand, is.
== As I have illustrated, all other verses connect tselem with physicality, but by all means, tselem could have referred to an abstract flesh eating lizard at one point.
Which would still imply physicality.
All verses unambiguously connect tselem with a visually discernable three-dmensional form. Most scholars do not read physicality from the Psalms examples, even if we do.
== Indeed its about 10 years old—which is old news. What does that say for Westermann’s commentary published in 1974?
It says nothing. You are, of course, aware that Westermann's conclusions are favorable to ours.
== These discoveries have supported those scholars who for years have rightfully drawn our attention to underlying Mesopotamian influence on biblical texts as witnessed
For years! Exactly. So this "new" evidence in and of itself really proves nothing "new" since scholars have already conceded the Mesopotamian influence. You agreed that ten years is old news, but this was discussed in Eichrodt's Old Testament Theology ten years ago. Since the, “accounts of Babylonian culture of the creation of man, which frequently appears to have a physical similarity in mind,” he concludes that “it is certain that the original idea was of man's outward form as a copy of God's.”(p.122)
== However, most importantly, at least for our discussion, the Babylonian kingship story Enuma Elish has had a direct influence upon the creation story presented in Genesis 1-2:4a.
Well heck, even Sarna, Brettler's mentor, discusses the significance of the Enuma Elish, but he doesn't draw the same conclusion about tselem. So clearly it wasn't "compelling" for him.
== Therefore, this evidence suggests that contrary to your claim that the Akkadian phrase nibnima salam titti “let us create an image of clay” spoken by Belet-ili to Ea in a Mesopotamian myth dealing with the creation of man “doesn’t really provide anything compelling for scholars,” this discovery is very, very significant.
And again, this is old news. The proper ANE backdrop for the Old Testament texts has long since been recognized by scholars. But the next step involves applying the information and developing an interpretation based, usually in inductive reasoning.
== Thank you for sharing your expert opinion, which runs contrary to, well… real expert opinions.
As does yours. So what? When it comes to who has more scholars on their side, you lose. Period. It is poor logic to say that since term X means Y in other instances, that it must mean Y in all instances. It s an illicit leap in logic that amounts to a best guess, and I don't know any scholar who rests their case on this alone.
== I know for a fact that Michael Fishbane and Victor Hurowitz believe that this Mesopotamian text says a great deal about Gen. 1:26.
And I know for a fact that the majority of experts disagree with this interpretation of its influence. All you are left with really is an attack on the experts you don't like, which seems to have been the reason for your newer thread.
== But alas, it is quite clear that you are interested only in debate and not in the opportunity to learn something new.
Nonsense. I have asked you to present something new, and you decided to be offended. You have not been able to do this. While your commentary might seem new to the casual onlooker, it certainly isn't to me, and I can prove it. Everything you mentioned above was covered in a piece I researched more than two years ago.
I like you David. You remind me of me 5 years ago. I was always on the offensive when it came to apologetics, but I like to think I learned from my mistakes. Ultimately all this approach does is backfire, and gives the critics ammunition when they want to call us arrogant bigots or what not. Apologetics, by definition, should be about defending one's faith, not telling other theists that they have been getting it all wrong because their scholars are not really scholars. This comes across as petulant and unscholarly.
We should be content with the fact that a large portion of scholarship agrees with us that Gen 1:26 refers to a visual form. That alone provides enough plausibility for our case to silence most Evangelical bloviaters. It demonstrates that LDS doctrine is not anti-Bible. But you are not satisfied with that apologetic accomplishment. You have the taste for blood, and you won't stop until you've trashed all scholars who disagree with you.