Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jason Hare" <jason AT hareplay.com>]

Kevin,

I would have to say that I agree with you. To take the BET as your friend
has suggested is going beyond its semantic domain, if you ask me. I would
have to oppose such an interpretation without a good demonstration of other
uses of BET in such a manner. Personally, I have never seen it used in this
way ("I have made you [as / to be] such-and-such").

It would seem to me that your friend's hang-up comes in dealing with the
(homonymous) word CLM [tselem]. I assume that since his belief about G-d
necessitates that G-d *not* have a physical form, then he has trouble
reckoning this word as though it were G-d's image. I think a resolution may
be found in chapter 1 of the Rambam's / Guide for the Perplexed /:

<quote>
Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew CLM [tselem], the shape and
figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to
believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they thought that the
words "Let us make man in our [tselem]" (Gen. i.26), implied that God had
the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and shape, and that,
consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered faithfully to this view, and
thought that if they were to relinquish it they would /eo ipso/ reject the
truth of the Bible: and futher, if they did not conceive God has having a
body possessed of face and limbs, similar to their own in appearance, they
would have to deny even the existence of God. The sole difference which they
admitted, was that He excelled in greatness and splendour, and that His
substance was not flesh and blood. Thus far went their conception of the
greatness and glory of God. The incorporeality of the Divine Being, and His
unity, in the true sense of the word--for their is no real unity without
corporeality--will be fully proved in the course of the present treatise. In
this chapter it is our sole intention to explain the meaning of the words
[tselem] and DMWT [demut].

I hold that the Hebrew equivalent of "form" in the ordinary acceptance of
the word, viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is [to'ar]. Thus we find
"[And Joseph was] beautiful in [to'ar] ('form'), and beautiful in
appearance" (Gen. xxxix.6): "What form ([to'ar]) is he of?" (I Sam.
xxviii.14): "As the form ([to'ar]) of the children of a king" (Judges
viii.18). It is also applied to form produced by human labour, as "He
marketh its form ([to'ar]) with a line," "and he marketh its form ([to'ar])
with the compass" (Isa. xliv.13). This term is not applicable to God.

The term [tselem], on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz.,
that which constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it
is; the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man
the "form" is that constituent which gives him human perception: and on
account of this intellectual perception the term [tselem] is employed in the
sentence "In the [tselem] of God he created him" (Gen. i.27). It is
therefore rightly said, "Thou despisest their [tselem]" (Ps. lxiii.20); the
"concept" can only concern the soul--the specific form of man, not the
properties and shape of his body. I am also of the opinion that the reason
why this term is used for "idols" may be found in the circumstances that
they are worshipped on account of some idea represented by them, not on
account of their figure and shape. For the same reason the term is used in
the expression, "the forms [tsalme] of your emerods" (1 Sam. vi.5), for the
chief object was the removal of their injury cause by the emerods, not the
change of their shape. As, however, it must be admitted that the term
[tselem] is employed in these two cases, viz. "the images of the emerods"
and "the idols" on account of the external shape, the term [tselem] is
either a homonym or a hybrid term, and would denote both the specific form
and the outward shape, and similar properties relating to the dimensions and
the shape of material bodies; and in the phrase "Let us make man in our
[tselem]" (Gen. i.26), the term signifies "the specific form" of man, viz.,
his intellectual perception, and does not refer to his "figure" or "shape."
Thus we have shown the difference between [tselem] and [to'ar], and
explained the meaning of [tselem].

<snip>

As man's distinction consists in a property which no other creature on earth
possesses, viz., intellectual preception, in the exercise of which he does
not emply his senses, nor move his hand or his foot, this perception has
been compared--though only apparently, not in truth--to the Divine
perception, which requires no corporeal organ. On this account, i.e., on
account of the Divine intellect with which man has been endowed, he is said
to have been made in the form and likeness of the Almighty, but far from it
be the notion that the Supreme Being is corporeal, having a material form.
<end quote>

Sorry to send such a long reply, but I thought that you would like to have
context for my supposing that your friend's insistence on BET meaning "as"
in this passage is based on a misunderstanding of the word CLM. This way,
you have a reference from Maimonides that you can use to lay his argument
down. I hope it helps.

Shalom,
Jason Hare

P.S. This is not intended to spur on theological discussion. I just thought
it was applicable given the nature of the question. Best regards!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Barney" <klbarney AT yahoo.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:06 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Gen. 1:26--Connotation of the beth preposition


> I have a friend who is arguing that the inseparable
> beth in Gen. 1:26 does not mean "in" (IE man was
> created *in* the image of God), but rather "as" (IE
> man was created *as* the image of God).  The parallel
> suggested for this usage is Exod. 6:3, where the
> preposition does indeed appear to have this type of a
> connotation.
>
> (The point of this argument is to say that God doesn't
> have an image of his own, and he created man to be his
> image, as a representation of him, or something like
> that.)
>
> His proposal strikes me as an unnatural reading, but I
> am curious what people here think.  So,
>
> Does the preposition *be* sometimes mean "as" (in a
> representational sense)?
>
> Is that its likely meaning in Gen. 1:26?  Why or why
> not?
>
> If that were the intended meaning of the text, is
> there a more natural way to say it in Hebrew than with
> a beth preposition?
>
> (BTW, I have checked a bunch of translations, and I
> cannot find this idea attested in the English
> translational tradition.)
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Kevin Barney
> Hoffman Estates, Illinois
> klbarney AT yahoo.com