The Image of God in Genesis 1:27

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN GENESIS 1:27
MOTIVES OF TRANSLATION

by slaveofone, Oct 18, 20081

————————————

ABBREVIATIONS

PASSAGE – GENESIS 1:27

ויברא אלהים את־האדם בצלמו
בצלם אלהים ברא אתו
זכר ונקבה ברא אתם

God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them. (NET)

And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them. (FBM)

INTRODUCTION

We impose ourselves on every text we read. No written matter, however sacred, escapes the filter of our own perceptions, world-views, beliefs, or experiences. This is especially true in translation. The translations we will be comparing come from Genesis 1:27. Both break with the structural prose of P’s2 creation account by providing this poetic etiology. The poem3 exhibits an anthropological and theological focus. It describes the nature of humanity in terms of sexual differentiation and צלם אלהים, something that separates us from earth below because it is related to something in heaven above. Over the course of this paper, I will explore various ways of making sense of these dual topics as presented in P and then show that each perspective directly results in translational differences such as those apparent in NET and FBM.

MOTIVES

The first major issue that will direct translation of Genesis 1:27 along divergent paths is the interpretation of צלם אלהים. This is traditionally rendered in English as the image of God. But what is the image and who or what is God? In order to understand what the text is trying to convey, answers should be limited to an explanation that best supports the character and intricacies of the text while taking into account its ancient historical background.

Since אלהים functions as both a singular and plural noun, it can refer either to multiple deities or an individual one. But צלם אלהים is a construct chain. As such, each word should agree in number.4 If the use of אלהים was plural, צלם would have the plural construct form. It does not. When this evidence is linked with the singular pronominal suffix and verb forms in the rest of the poem, the dilemma appears to be solved. This is not the case, however, because the prose of Genesis 1:26 describes a plurality of image (our image) and contains a plural verb form (let us make). The plural description of אלהים also occurs in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7,5 which means we cannot dismiss it as an anomaly or the exception that proves the rule.

One way to make sense of the numerical discrepancy would be to emphasize the singular at the expense of the plural. This would occur if the plural speech forms were viewed as a unique kind of self-exhortation utilized to impel an individual to their task.6 Also, a correspondence could be made between the image in P and ancient Near Eastern conception. In Egyptian usage, Pharaoh was considered the image of God insofar as the monarch was the incarnation of a deity.7 While divine incarnation is contrary to the avoidance of anthropomorphic representation of deity and the segregation between creator and creation that is characteristic of P, a singular referent can still be retained. In Mesopotamia, the image of God signified a king’s ruling function and power.8 Perhaps the theophoric element in the names of ancient peoples and the power involved by invoking or writing a deity’s name was a way of bringing a particular deity’s image to the common person. What all these arguments have in common is the affirmation of one god over many gods. This intent is reflected in NET’s translation of line 1 as his own image, which limits reference to a single deity.

Another way to make sense of the discrepancy would be to emphasize multiplicity. Von Rad postulated that instead of Israel’s deity alone, צלם אלהים refers to the entire angelic host.9 Alternatively, us and our might indicate a chief deity and its heavenly court or council.10 Either argument could be brought into harmony with verse 27 by saying that as the narrative reached a climax, its style changed to reflect the importance of the event and subject-matter.11 This might better explain the shift from prose to poetry and caution against too literal a reading. FBM continually capitalizes personal pronouns and pronominal suffixes that refer to Israel’s deity (see lines 2 and 3 of verse 27), therefore its lack of capitalization in line 1 (his image) is telling. It clearly displays this kind of preference for a collective image.

Genesis 1:27 also speaks of human creation in terms of male and female. Depending on whether this sexual differentiation is understood as part of the image will determine how the rest of the passage is translated. If line 3 explains lines 1 and 2, those lines would be translated in a way that reflects line 3. Conversely, if line 3 is a progression from lines 1 and 2, they would be isolated in translation from line 3. Phyllis Bird follows the latter preference. Because she draws a hard line between line 3 and the rest of the poem, completely severing sexual differentiation from the image, she concludes that neither shared dominion nor sexual equality are in view.12

While that explanation may align with ancient perspectives generally and P specifically where cult, genealogical lists, and even the mark of the covenant are male-oriented,13 it seems a rather confounding situation. How can the image be present in humanity as a whole but not in male and female? Should we then assume that when P says on account of the image that whoever sheds human blood, their blood must be shed,14 this does not apply equally to the sexes? Leviticus 24:17-22, part of the Holiness Code of P that elaborates on the law of bloodshed, makes no distinction between male and female, Israelite or non-Israelite, sojourner or native. Instead, the point seems to be one law for all without qualification.

FBM follows this intent to make a clear division between sexual differentiation and the image by translating האדם as the human and ברא אתו as he created him. This moves the event of sexual differentiation to the last line where the image is not mentioned. Admittedly, this agrees with the Hebrew. However, as we’ve already seen, there is more involved in translation than mere grammatical equivalence. There is also judgment of meaning.

If the image of God was originally a corporeal characteristic, it probably involved gender. Von Rad seems to agree this is part of the equation based on the vision in Ezekiel 1:26 where the Israelite deity appears in the likeness of a human form.15 Also, the creation formula of every kind is missing from P’s anthropogeny,16 which indicates that male and female are considered the same kind. Characteristic word pairing in P such as heaven and earth, image and likeness, and fruitfulness and multiplicity, may provide further evidence that male and female are being treated equally by the text.

From a redaction critical standpoint, the poem may have originally belonged to an early Israelite tradition adopted from or adapted to local Canaanite religion. In that context, the sexual differentiation of humanity might mirror a head male and head female deity like El and Asherah (Athirat) or Baal and Anat.17 When the poem was incorporated into P, it lost its association with a divine dyad and was made to serve other purposes. Although this is highly theoretical, it would explain both why verse 27 is different from its surrounding context and how sexual differentiation could be part of צלם אלהים.

Unlike FBM, it is the intent of NET to equate sexual differentiation with the image of God. It does so by translating the personal pronoun אתו as them (quite contrary to its singular form in the Hebrew) and by dropping the definite article from האדם to give us humankind. This moves the event of sexual differentiation up to line 2, makes it synchronous with the creation of the image, and presupposes such distinction from the beginning of the poem. The result of this preference is a theology of racial and sexual equality which has influenced the fight for social justice and even become the foundation principle in declarations of independence.

CONCLUSION

Genesis 1:27 is a fascinating and conflicting verse. It forces us to struggle to understand its vision. From limited content springs an abundance of perspectives much like the Rabbinic adage that just as a hammer that strikes rock shatters it to many pieces, so Torah may provide many interpretations.18 Because NET and FBM interpret sexual differentiation and the image of God in different ways, they provide us with different translations. By comparing these differences, their unique perspectives are revealed. Neither translation is necessarily correct. Every translator must draw up the bucket from the well if we are to drink, but whatever doesn’t fit in a translator’s bucket will remain behind. That doesn’t mean the well has run dry.

WORKS CITED

1This was originally written as part of an introductory class to the Hebrew Bible. It has been modified slightly in form and content.

2Reference herein to P does not assume a complete documentary source, priestly author, or specific compositional date. Rather, it acknowledges a selection of texts with similar stylistic, grammatical, and literary features and thereby inherits their traditional designation.

3This verse is not offset as poetry like other parts of BHS . The question remains, therefore, whether we are in fact dealing with poetry. For the purposes of this paper, however, since the translations agree on this aspect, we will take it as given.

4Choon-Leong Seow, A Grammar For Biblical Hebrew (rev. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 117.

5Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 12.

6Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam To Noah (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 55.

7Phyllis A. Bird, ’Male and Female He Created Them’: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation, in I Studied Inscriptions From Before The Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 342; repr. from HTR 74 (1981).

8Bird, Male and Female in I Studied Inscriptions , 344.

9Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; rev. ed.; trans. John Marks; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 58.

10Sarna, Genesis, 12.

11Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, 11.

12Bird, Male and Female in I Studied Inscriptions , 352.

13Ibid., 358.

14Genesis 9:6.

15Von Rad, Genesis , 59.

16Sarna, Genesis, 13.

17It is certain that many ancient Israelites worshiped and served Canaanite gods like Baal, but it is not clear to what extent goddesses were involved. A few places that may offer insight are Jeremiah’s mention of the Queen of Heaven in 7:18; 44:17-19, and 25 as well as the numerous references to Asherah in the texts of the so-called Deuteronomistic History.

18Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 88b and Sanhedrin 34a. See Jer 23:49 for the original text and context.