Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 08/09/2005 14:15, Kevin Graham wrote:

> ==  Kevin, please stop saying things like "scholars are generally in 
> agreement", and come up with some good arguments against this rather 
> obvious point that the meaning and purpose of the image of God in 
> Genesis 1:26 is explicitly stated in that same verse, that humanity 
> will have dominion.
>
> Peter, please don't pretend I've presented ZERO arguments, but merely 
> relied on consensus. The text only says dominion was a consequence of 
> being in the image, it does not say that dominion is the defining 
> element of the image. I have the consensus of scholarship backing me 
> on this point, so how can you sit there and say your interpretation is 
> such an "obvious point" and that it is "explicit"?


Dominion is explicitly described in the same verse, although not 
explicitly as the meaning and purpose. The link of meaning and purpose 
is a very obvious implication, even if the so-called scholars have 
refused to take it because it does not fit with their theological 
reconstruction.

> == Dominion was God's purpose in creating humanity, and this was 
> possible because the image of God distinguished them from the animals 
> etc.
>
> But this doesn't say what the image is. The blessing of dominion was 
> granted AFTER man was created in the image of God. ...


No. God pronounces that they will have dominion (1:26) before he 
actually creates them (1:27). There is no separation here between the 
two actions.

> ...
>
> == While I would not claim that this is all there is to the image, the 
> link in this verse is so close that "defining element" seems to me 
> exactly how it should be described.
>
> I've provided plenty of conflicting evidence in my other post. There 
> appears no reason to believe this to be so other than theologica, and 
> you've provided no reason to believe otherwisel. All the early 
> references or allusions to Gen 1:26, even in the Hellenistic period,  
> undermine your thesis.  For instance, one Jewish tradition recalls 
> that the angels worshipped Adam shortly after his creation, because 
> they mistook him for God Almighty. Why? Because he was created in 
> God's glorious image. He looked just like him. There is nothing 
> supporting the domonion explanation and nothing to support the 
> morality explanation prior to the middle-ages. So if you want to keep 
> pushing these arguments, you have to deal with the mountan of 
> conflciting evidence I've presented, and give us something more 
> authoritative than your blase dismissals


The dominion explanation is supported by the plain meaning of the Hebrew 
text. I cannot believe that anyone reading 1:26-28 without theological 
presuppositions would not see that dominion was at least one of the 
purposes of humanity being created in the image of God.

> I would think that if any of the modern apologetic explanations held 
> any water, then there would at least be SOME evidence of these 
> arguments in the Jewish tradition prior to the Rabbinic period. But 
> you've offered absolutely nothing by way of pre-rabbinic evidence. 
> Instead, again, everything alluding to the image of God implies the 
> very interpretation I've been suggesting. Were the Jews getting their 
> own scripture wrong for thousands of years?
Psalm 8 also refers to humanity's dominion and implies that this was the 
purpose of their creation, also Psalm 115:16. But yes, the scriptures 
may have been misinterpreted for thousands of years, or more probably 
the earliest surviving interpretations, from Hellenistic times, were 
already based on a serious misunderstanding of the text. Especially in 
such a case where there are no reliable ancient interpretations, I 
prefer to look at what the text actually says, and the text links 
dominion very closely with the image.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 07/09/2005