Well, the ancient theological tradition is that the "image of God" was not physical but moral and spiritual.
But this is not true. The ANE evidence demonstrates that the "image of God" conveyed no message of man's "morality." You´re referring to a much later innovated explanation that dominated Christian apologia. The problem with this is that Genesis was written in an ANE cultural context, not later hellenization/Christian period, from whence this explanation originated.
The nonphyisical resemblance of image and object represented should be kept in mind. ANE modes of representation are highly metaphoric and symbolic. Thus, the same Egyptian god can appear as a human figure, in the form of a hieroglyph, or as an animal, and queen Hatsepsut can be the image of a male deity (cf. Clines, 72-73). Thus, the image of the god is not a matter of physical resemblance, but of power and prerogative, often connected with expressions like "under the feet" (Lichtheim, AEL 2:36-37; cf. Ps 8:6b).
According to Clines, however, since God has no form, humankind is not made /in/ God's image, but rather /as/ God's image; thus, humanity is his representative and agent here on earth. The expression "likeness" guarantees that humans will be a faithful and adequate representative of God on earth. Humans, thus, embody "God's lordship over the lower orders of creation" (Clines, 101).
It is hard to be sure how ancient that understanding is. It could well be as old as the text,
Not likely. Most commentators will readily admit that in all likelihood, the Ancient mind did not think so abstractly. Some argue that they were incapable of it. ...
... All the ANE evidence leans towards a literal reading. Can you name one single piece of ANE evidence that would support the "morality" interpretation?
== What was it that Moses actually saw? The text refers
to God's 'AXORIYM, a word which can refer to the rear parts of an object or a person, but is more commonly rather metaphorical, so the translation might be more like "from behind".
Can you demonstrate how the Hebrew in this instance was used elsewhere to refer to something that didn't really have a "behind"? If God is an invisible, incorporeal mass of spirit - as so many theologians insist -then how could Moses presume to refer to a front of back? Or God's hand which blocked his view? ...
... Tselem refers to a three-dimensional image, does it not? Everytime it is used in the Bible (with the possible exception of Ps 73) it refers to a physical object.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.