THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN - Tyndale House

78 TYNDALE BULLETIN
5:1 םיהלא תומדב
5:3 ומלצכ ותומדב
9:6 םיהלא םצב
makes it impossible, it is argued, to draw any conclusions
from the choice of the particular preposition. 116 To this we
may reply: (i) From the point of view of method, when we
suspect that two terms are synonymous, we ought to examine
whether any difference of meaning can be established
between them. The fact that their meanings overlap does
not prove that they are always synonymous. (ii) Consequently,
we must ask whether the variation between ְּב
an ּכְ
may not be exegetically grounded. We hope to show below
that a satisfactory exegetical reason exists for the aberrant
use of the prepositions in 5:1, 3. 117 (iii) When the reference is
to the image of God and not to Adam's image (5:3), the
preposition with םֶלֶצ is always ְבּ . This could be accidental,
but we suggest that it is not. (iv) The confusion in meaning
between ְּב
and ּכ ְ which we must admit exists to some extent
in biblical Hebrew, can operate in two directions. It need
not mean that the ְּב
must be a ְּב
of comparison or norm; it
could perhaps be that the ּכ ְ is virtually a kaph essentiae. 118
(v) The confusion between ְּב
and ּכ ְ has been established most
clearly for Hebrew of the exile and later. While the usual
literary analysis assigns the document 'P' to such a date, it is
doubtful whether the priestly tradition enshrined in Genesis
1 attained its present form so late as the post-exilic period. 119
We have moreover, in the case of the statements about the
image of God, one piece of evidence which points quite
clearly to an early date, namely the occurrence of the phrase
םיִהֹל ֱא םֶלֶצְּב
within a complex which bears the marks of
116 P. Humbert, ibid.; W. H. Schmidt, Schöpfungsgeschichte 133.
117 Gn. 5:1, 3 does not speak of the transmission of the divine image (for it
belongs to man as such, and so cannot be transmitted; cf. below, pp. 99ff.), but of
Seth's likeness to Adam; hence the aspect of the image doctrine that is of interest
to the writer at this point is that Adam was made 'in the likeness' (which is the
same thing as 'according to the likeness') of God. Thus verse 1 has תומדב, and
not םלצב. Seth is not Adam's image, but only like Adam's shape; so verse 3 has not
ומלצב, but ומלצכ. Thus Gn. 1:26 is not to be interpreted by 5:1, 3, but vice versa.
118 Acknowledged by T. C. Vriezen, OTS 2 (1943) 91f., citing Zc. 4:10, Ps.
104:2ff.; cf. also the ‘kaph veritatis’ (BDB 454a).
119 'It is becoming increasingly difficult not to believe that the bulk of the
material in P is of pre-exilic, even of quite ancient, origin' (J. Bright, 'Modern
Study of Old Testament Literature', in The Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed.
G. E. Wright, Routledge, London (1961) 13-31, especially 22).