This goes all the way back to
April 2018 when I discussed Genesis 1:26 and showed that naaseh was
mistaken for a masculine plural qal verb when it’s really a masculine singular
nifal. The other answer was that verse 27 uses elohim with a singular
verb, so there’s no reason to think that the verses have different grammar.
But there’s another issue in verse
26; it also contains the words b’tsalmenu and ki-d’mutenu, the
endings which “normally” reflect 1st plural usage.
Well, not normally, only in some
spots. In a new pass through Torah while finishing Narrating the Torah, I
became aware of verses that show that the -enu ending is also 3rd
singular. See Genesis 18:22, 43:9, and 44:14, and Exodus 22:20. In each of
those verses there’s an -enu (OK in 43:9 it’s just -nu) which can’t
be anything except a masculine singular.
So the real translation
of Genesis 1:26, which brings out what all the grammar and words mean, could be
“Gd said the making of man is decreed with his image according to his likeness,” with “his”
referring to adam, not to elohim.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם,
וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ.
Some of you are saying “But I
distinctly remember it saying man was created in Gd’s image.” You’re thinking
of verse 27.
וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ
בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם:
The only thing in this material,
implying that man was created in Gd’s image, is the trop under b’tselem
elohim, a mercha and a tipcha, the first a conjuction, the
second cutting elohim off from bara oto. This impression is contradicted
immediately after the etnach by saying “male and female He created them”. This is a topic order clause emphasizing “male
and female”. Gd is incorporeal and has no simanim of gender.
Now remember that the
preposition b’ can be translated a lot of ways other than “in”: “against,
with, by means of, at the time of” are examples. What if we think of it as “by
means of the image of Gd”? What if tselem means “imaging, the faculty of
creating images”? This would mean that Gd gave an image to humans, according to
His powers, not according to His own form – which He doesn’t have.
What I’m getting at is something
I say on the Fact-Checking thread: translation is not meaning.
Now let’s look at another
consequence of b’tselem as meaning Gd’s faculty of imaging. Look back at
verse 26. From this new standpoint, it could mean “by means of His power of
creating images,” and then we could have “according to His likeness.” What
likeness? Well, a few verses later we have the very first specification
of Shabbat and Gd observing it Himself. Humans being the likeness of Gd, they
should follow His example.
In the next narrative, the Gan Eden narrative, Gd says “the man is become as one of Us,” meaning people are now like Gd in being able to distinguish good from evil. In midrash, that leads directly to the next statement, what if man eats from the Tree of Life and lives forever? Then nothing else on earth will be able to distinguish Gd from man. I mean, the angels can’t distinguish good from evil; they simply obey Gd’s commands without thinking about it. That’s what they’re for. Now, not only does man have somebody to argue against his actions – his wife, his helper k’negdo – but so does Gd. That plays out in Avraham’s argument about destroying the Cities of the Plain, and it plays a role in the book of Job. But Avraham and Job are not immortal because Gd expelled people from the Gan before they could eat from the other tree.
In the next narrative, the Gan Eden narrative, Gd says “the man is become as one of Us,” meaning people are now like Gd in being able to distinguish good from evil. In midrash, that leads directly to the next statement, what if man eats from the Tree of Life and lives forever? Then nothing else on earth will be able to distinguish Gd from man. I mean, the angels can’t distinguish good from evil; they simply obey Gd’s commands without thinking about it. That’s what they’re for. Now, not only does man have somebody to argue against his actions – his wife, his helper k’negdo – but so does Gd. That plays out in Avraham’s argument about destroying the Cities of the Plain, and it plays a role in the book of Job. But Avraham and Job are not immortal because Gd expelled people from the Gan before they could eat from the other tree.
I emailed my Talmud teacher with the citations using the singular object suffixes and, with my permission, he
posted the citations I give on his blog. So now some people are turning this
over in their minds to see what falls out. I just said what fell out when I
turned it over.
You never get to the end of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment