Article

"Homo Imago Dei" in Jewish and Christian Theology
Author(s): Alexander Altmann

Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 235-259
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1202149 .
Accessed: 10/06/2014 18:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HomoImagoDei in Jewish and Christian
Theology*
AlexanderAltmann
The chasm that dividesJewish from Christiantheology manifestsitself

most clearly in the interpretationof topics which, at first blush, might
seem to provide common ground between the two religions. A case in
point is the biblical theme of man's creation in the image of God.
Jewish and Christian exegetes alike will agree that in the context of
Genesis, chapter I, the homoimagoDei motif is to be understood as an
emphatic affirmationof man's dignity and pre-eminence over the rest
of creation. Both sides will concede that Psalm 8:5-9 represents a
spelling out of this concept in poetic terms: " Thou hast made him but
little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and
honor." Yet here agreement ends. Theological considerations enter,
and discrepancies arise. The gulf widens as the original concept is
linked, on the Christian side, with the figure of Jesus, the doctrine of
original sin, and the trinitarian dogma. From Paul's Epistles down to
Luther and Calvin, the Christian interpretation of homoimago Dei
passedthrough a variety of stages of development, and so did the Jewish
treatment of the theme from the tannaitic period down to the medieval
philosophersand mystics. Historical conditions prevented a continuous
dialogue across the fence, but there were occasional exchanges of a
polemical nature, and beneath many a rabbinic utterance one may
discern a silent referenceto Christiandoctrine. I shall endeavorto trace
the broad outline of the ways in which the theme was understoodin the
two traditions.
Turning first to rabbinic sources, we note a certain reluctance to
define the meaning of the phrase "image of God." This is particularly
evident in the Aramaic versionsof the Pentateuch. The oldest of these,
the Targum Yerushalmi discovered by A. Diez Macho and dated by
him as pre-Christian,fights shy of rendering the term zelem,"image,"
* Paper delivered at a plenarysessionof the
Colloquium onJudaism and Christianity
arranged by Harvard University Divinity School in October, 1966.
235

The Journal of Religion
by or similar Aramaic equivalents and uses instead the more

innocuous
.alma' term demfitor "similitude," which carries with it the
demre,
association of imitatioDei, rather than any anthropomorphic concept of
God. Since Genesis I :26 speaks of both zelem and demi7t(" Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness"), this Targum translates the
second term by the synonymous phrase kad nafaq ken, meaning "in
similar fashion."' In verse 27, where the term occurs twice,
demzt and dema are used in the Aramaic version, and in order to avert
.elem
any suggestion of anthropomorphism, Elohim (" in the image of
God") is rendered bi-dem min qadam YT' ("in a similitude from before
be-.elem
the Lord"). The same turn of phrase is used in rendering Genesis 5:1
(where the Hebrew text itself has bi-demfitElohim) and Genesis 9:6
(where the Hebrew text has again be-zelemElohim).2 The position is not
very different in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan ben cUzi'el, which
incorporates a great deal of midrashic material and is therefore more
of an elaborate paraphrase than a straightforward translation. It, too,
avoids as far as possible the term "image" and replaces it by
deyoqna',which corresponds to the Hebrew (.alma')
demfit, "similitude," as is
evident from the paraphrase of Genesis I :26, where ki-demlltena(" after
our likeness") is rendered bi-deyoqndna'.In that particular verse
Pseudo-Jonathan has no hesitation translating by be-
zalmdna', because God's words are presented as an address
be-.almenu to the
ministering angels, the implication being that man was to be created
in the image of the angels. In Genesis I :27, however, be-zalmois trans-
lated by be-deyoqneh,"in His similitude," and this term is used again,
not only in the rendering of Genesis 5:i, where the Hebrew has bi-
demft Elohim, but also in Genesis 9:6, where the Hebrew has be-zelem
Elohim. Pseudo-Jonathan's term deyoqna'thus seems to correspond to the
1 We-'amar nibra'barnash kadnafaqken.Likewise Gen. 5:3 kadnafaq

rY bi-demuitenu
bah (the phrase which has its equivalent in the idiomatic form ka-yozeD bj in mishnaic
Hebrew).
2 A. Diez Macho announced the discovery of the old Palestinian
Targum in
Sefarad,XVII (I957), 119-21, and in the Supplement to the Oxford Congress of
VetusTestamentum (i959). His dating of the text as pre-Christian was challenged by
Roger Le D6aut and defended by Diez Macho in Sefarad,XX (1960), 3 ff. Since the
text has not yet been published, I consulted the manuscript Neofiti I of the Vatican
Hebrew Manuscripts,which constitutes Diez Macho's text, in the microfilmcollection
of Hebrew Vaticanaat the Goldfarb Library of Brandeis University. The significance
of this text and its possible relation to the other Aramaic versions are discussed by
Paul Kahle in Zeitschriftfiirdie Neutestamentliche XLIX (1958), o4 ff.,
Wissenschaft,
and in his The CairoGeniza (2 ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), PP.
201 ff.
236

HomoImagoDei in Jewish and ChristianTheology
old Targum Yerushalmi'sdemitor demsi.In both Aramaic versions we
have, therefore, evidence of the tendency to avoid speaking of the
"image of God," while both have apparently no objection to using the
phrase "similitude of God." 3 The only innovation found in Pseudo-
Jonathan occurs in the rendering of be-zelemElohimbara' '••t by
be-
zalma' TY bera'yateh ("in an image the Lord created him")-in other
words, by makingElohimthe subjectof the clause and separatingit from
be-zelem.The translator obviously wanted to retain the phrase ;elem
(zalma')and yet not incur any suspicion of anthropomorphism.Hence
he interpretedthe phrase in question to mean that God created man in
some image specific to him alone. Abraham Geiger, who dealt with this
subjectextensivelyover a hundredyears ago,4related this interpretation
to the way in which the Greek version of Symmachusparaphrasedthe
text of Genesis I1:27 "And God created man in a superior image,
upright created He him... ." , Whether Symmachuswas an Ebionite,
as is widely assumed, or a Jew, as Geiger claimed, he seems to follow a
definite trend in rabbinic exegesis.
Targum Onqelos may be claimed, with Geiger, as a representative
of this particularexegesis.Both the Sabbionetatext of Onqelospublished
by Abraham Berliner (Berlin, 1884) and the recent critical edition by
Alexander Sperber6 leave the phrase (bi-demat)Elohim in
Genesis I :27, 5:I, and 9:6 untranslated be-.elem
in the original Hebrew, as if
the translator did not wish to tamper with the text.7 Normally one
would have expected to find the translation da-YT'. There
are two anomalies here: first, zelemis left inbe-.alma'
its Hebrew form, and,
second, the Divine name Elohimwhich Onqelos invariably renders by
the Tetragrammaton wherever that name stands by itself (that is,
uncombined with the Tetragrammaton)8 is left here unchanged. The
reasonfor Onqelos' proceduremay be simply due to a desire to refrain
from meddling with a phrase so much charged with theological
ambiguity. It is also possible that by Elohimhe understood here the
3 Cf. the passages collected by J. Levy, Chalddisches Wdrterbuchiiberdie Targumim
(Leipzig, 1881), I, I70, s.v. deyoqna'.
4 First in his Urschriftund Uebersetzungen
... (1857), 323; then in Ozer Nehmad,ed.
Ignaz Blumenfeld, III (I86O), 4-6, 119-20; and in ZDMG, XV, 156 if.; finally, in
his JiidischeZeitschrift
fir Wissenschaft undLeben,I (1862), 39 if.
5 See OrigenisHexaplorum quaesupersunt,ed. Fridericus Field, I (1964), 0off.: kai
ektisenho Theostonanthrapon en eikonidiaphora,orthionho Theosektisenauton.
6 TheBible in Aramaic,ed. Alexander
Sperber (Leiden, 1959), vol. I: ThePentateuch
accordingto TargumOnkelos.
7 Cf. Samuel David Luzzatto, OhebGer (Vienna, 1830), p. 30.
8 Ibid.
237

angels, although, unlike Pseudo-Jonathan, he does not indicate by his

rendering of verse 26 that the plural "Let us make man" refers to the
angels. He could not have done so expressly, since his version is a
literal one, but the midrashic exegesis may have been presupposed.
There is a third possibility, and it is this one which was seized upon by
Geiger. Like Pseudo-Jonathan and Symmachus, Onqelos may have
separated be-zelem (bi-demat) from Elohim and understood the clause to
signify: "In a specific image God created him." Geiger was able to cite
in support of his interpretation of Onqelos no less an authority than
Don Isaac Abrabanel, who in his (second) Letter to Sha'ul Ha-Kohen
wrote as follows:9
You can see that Onqelos translated the [word] zelem mentioned in
Scripture always as separate and not combined with Him, blessed be He.
For he rendered be-zelemElohimbara' tWby be-zalma' Y' cabadyateh; and he
rendered likewise ki be-zelemElohimCasahet ha-'adamby be-zalma'T' cabadyat
Denasha':and Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra of blessed memory alluded to this
when he mentioned the view referred to.10
Obviously, Abrabanel's text for Targum Onqelos differed from the

one offered in Berliner's and Sperber's editions, yet not only is it
compatible with the exegesis suggested by Geiger but it leaves no other
alternative. For, by rendering be-gelem Elohim as and
be-.alma' T'
not, as one might have expected, as da-T', one has to assume
that the translator did indeed deliberately
be-.alma'"separate" the word God
from the word image and made the clause to read: "In an image
God created him." Nor can the existence of an exegetical tradition
to this effect be denied. Ibn Ezra makes specific reference to it in his
Commentary on Genesis 1: 26:
Some say that the word nacaseh [usually translated "Let us make"] is the
participle of the nifCal [passive form of the verb] as in Nehemiah 5:18. And
they say that be-zalmenuki-dematenza ("in our image," "after our likeness")
were Moses' words. And they interpret [the words] "And God created man
in his image" in the sense that "his" refers to "man." And they interpret
be-zelemElohimin the sense that "God" is connected with "created" so as
to say that God created man in "an image."
The same interpretation is attested in almost identical words by
Aaron ben Elijah of Nicomedia, the Karaite exegete and philosopher of
9 Abrabanel, She elot Sha ul Ha-Kohen (Venice, 1574), fol. I2b.

10 See Ibn Ezra's Commentary
on Gen. I:26.
238

the fourteenth century, in his KeterTorah." According to Geiger, this
particular exegesis may go back to Rabbi cAqiba's logionin Mishnah
Abot 3:I4: " He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the
image; still greater was the love in that it was made known to him that
he was created in the image, as it is written, 'For in an image God made
him.' " Geiger pointed out that if the verse quoted had been adduced to
support the view that man was created in the image of God, Rabbi
cAqiba should have used the expression, "Beloved is man for he was
created in the image of God." He might also have quoted Genesis I :27
rather than Genesis9:6. He chose, however, advisedly, Geiger suggests,
the latter verse because its construction lends itself more easily to a
separationof be-zelemand Elohim,the subject being otherwisemissing.12
It seems, however, highly doubtful whether this is not pressingmatters
too far. Most probably, Rabbi cAqibaused the term "in the image" (ba-
zelem)as an abbreviated form for "in the image of God" in the same
way in which he and others employed the term ha-demait as a shortened
form for man's "similitude to God." 13 In Abotde-RabbiNatan, Rabbi
cAqiba'slogionappears shorn of its second part in the name of Rabbi
Meir, and there it reads: "Beloved is man for he was created in the
image of God (be-zelemElohim)... .." 14 It is hardly plausible that Rabbi
Meir differed from his teacher Rabbi cAqiba in the interpretationof
Genesis 9:6. Geiger's sweeping thesis is thereforefar from convincing.
Besides,Rabbi cAqiba could not have originated this type of exegesis,
as Geiger surmised,15because it is already found in the old Targum
Yerushalmi, which is pre-Christian. The radically anti-anthropo-
morphic interpretation which separates the notion of "image" from
that of God is thus confined to the Aramaic versions and to a line of
tradition which most probably was taken over by the Karaites, as may
be inferredfrom the referenceto it in Aaron ben Elijah's KeterTorah.16
This is, however, not to say that other circleswere less concerned about
the theological implications of the image concept. In spite of the ease
with which the rabbis used anthropopathic imagery in haggadic
11 Ed. by Jehudah Sdwsakdn (Eupatoria, 1866). See fol. i8a.

12 See Ozar Nelhmad(n. 4 above), III,
5.
13See Tosefta,Yebamot 8:4; Talmud,Yebamot 63b.
14 See Abotde-RabbiNathan,ed. S. Schechter (1887), Recension A, chap. xxxix, p.
I I8; Judah Goldin, TheFathersaccording
to RabbiNathan(Yale Judaica Series, X [New
Haven, Conn., 1955]), p. 162. Recension B, chap. xliv, p. 124 in Schechter's edition
reads: "Beloved are the Israelites who were created in the image."
15 See Jiidische
Zeitschrift (n. 4 above), I, 4o-41.
16Where, however, it is rejected.
239

homilies, their theological stance was one of opposition to any sort of

anthropomorphism. Their reaction to prophetic passages, such as
Ezekiel I :26 and Daniel 8:16, is summed up in the statement: "Great is
the power of the prophets who compare the form to its Former!"17
In sharp contrast to the circumspect manner in which the Aramaic
versions deal with the homoimagoDei passages, the Greek translations,
with the exception of Symmachus, render the text literally.'s For a
hellenisticJew like Philo of Alexandria, the text carried Platonic over-
tones and thereby enabled him to conceptualize the "image" motif.
When reading in the Septuagint version of Genesis I: 26: kai eipenho
Theos* poijsjmen anthr6ponkat' eikona himeteran,kai kath' homoiisin, he
could not help being reminded of Plato's use of the term eikin (image).
He thereforedid not try to circumvent the full implicationsof this term
but worked out an elaborate exegesis built on it.19 For Plato the whole
of the sensible world is an "image" of the "ideas." For Philo, too, the
sensible world is an image of the ideas, but the ideas, or the Logos
(which representsthe totality of the ideas), are themselvesbut an image
of God who is their "pattern" (paradeigma)and "archetype" (arche-
typos).The world perceived by our sensesis, therefore,but "an image of
an image." 20The creation of man "afterthe image of God" Philo takes
to mean that man is not an immediate image of God but is made after
the immediate image, which is the Logos.21He distinguishesbetween
the man whose creation in the image of the Logos is described in
Genesis, chapter I, and the man whose formation is narrated in
Genesis, chapter 2: "There are two types of men; the one a heavenly
man, the other an earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the
image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and
17 GenesisRabba27:1. For parallel passages, see the note in J. Theodor's critical text
edition on p. 256.
18 See OrigenisHexaplorum(n. 5 above), pp. Io ff. This observation tallies with
Harry M. Orlinsky'sconclusion concerning the treatment of anthropomorphismsand
anthropopathisms by the LXX translatorsof the Pentateuch, Isaiah and Job: They
reproduced the Hebrew terms literally and correctly (see HUCA, XXVII [1956], 200;
XXX [1959], i53 ff.; and Arthur Soffer's discussion of anthropomorphisms and
anthropopathisms in the Septuagint of Psalms in HUCA, XXVIII [1957], 85 ff-).
For the theology of the LXX translator of Isaiah, see the penetrating study by I. L.
Seeligmann in Mededelingen en Verhandelingen vanhet Vooraziatisch-EgyptischGenootschap
"Ex OrienteLux", No. 9 (Leiden, 1948), chap. iv, pp. 95-121 (in English).
19 See Harry A. Wolfson Philo (3d printing, revised; Cambridge, Mass., 1962), I,
238 ff., 390 ff.
20 De
OpificioMundiVI, 25-
21 For references, see Wolfson,
Philo, I, 239, n. 8I.
240

terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the
matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls 'clay."' 22
Of the heavenly man, Philo says that he was "an idea or type (genos)
or seal (sphragis),noumenal, incorporeal, neither male nor female, by
nature incorruptible."23Although Philo's descriptionof the "heavenly
man" may be traced back to the Urmensch myth and may be linked with
the Jewish Adam Qadmon speculations,it appearsin a demythologized
form and simply denotes man's "mind" (nous)and "reason" (logos).24
Of the earthly man, PhilQsays that he is the "sense-perceptibleman"
and "a likeness of the intelligible type." 25
In several places Philo employs the term "seal" as an equivalent of
"image" in the active sense of its force as a pattern. In the first place,
the Logos is called " the archetypalseal,"26" the seal of the universe,"27
"the original seal" of which intelligible and incorporeal man is a
"copy." 28Yet the heavenly man too is called "an idea or type or seal"
because the earthly man is modeled after him. Moreover, Philo speaks
of a "form which God has stamped on the soul as on the tested coin." 29
A combination of these two motifs, namely, that of the seal and that of
the coin, appears in the Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, where it is used
preciselyin the context of the homoimagoDei concept, as is also the case
in Philo. The parallel passage in the Tosefta30quoted in the Talmudic
discussion. Sanhedrin 38a quotes Job 38:14 as proof text. It is, how-
ever, clear that the idea did not originate from an exegesis of this
biblical verse but stemsfrom elsewhere.ProfessorYizhaq Baersuggested
that the Mishnah concerned reflects direct Platonic influence, and he
cites a number of passages from Plato's writings in which the terms
"seal" (sphragis)and "impression" (typos)are said to occur as equi-
valents of "idea."31 On closer inspection of the passages quoted, it
appears, however, that nowhere is the noun "seal" used as such. Only
verbal forms of this word occur, and they, as well as the noun "impres-
sion," are used, as Baer himself mentions, only in contexts dealing with
22 Legum
Allegoria I, chap. xii, 31ifE
De OpificioMundiXLVI, '34-
23
24 Quod DeteriusPotiori Insidiari Soleat XXII,
83-84 ; Quaestioneset Solutionesin
GenesinI, 4.
25 Ibid.
26 De OpificioMundiVI, 25.
27 De MutationeNominumXXIII,
28 Quaestiones(see n. 24), I35.
I, 4.
29LegumAllegoria.(see n. 22 above), III, chap. xxxi,
95.
30 Sanhedrin 8:4.
31 Zion, XXIII-XXIV (1958-59), 24.
241

the absolutenessof the idea or with impressionsreceived in the process
of education. The motif of the "coin" is not mentioned at all. It seems
more than unlikelythat the rabbisof the early tannaiticperiod borrowed
their similes in Sanhedrin from Platonic passages completely
4"5
unrelated to the concept of man's creation in the image of God. They
obviously drew on the passages Philo and, in this indirect way,
in
allowed the Platonic notion of "image" to enter and shape their
thinking. In so doing, they not only absorbed Platonic material that
had filtered through Philo's mind but considerably enriched it by the
manner of its presentation. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 contains a
perorationto be addressedto witnessesin a court trial that may involve
the death penalty of the accused. The theme of the peroration is the
worth and dignity of the individual human being, and the witnessesare
cautioned against testifyingwithout absolutecertaintyof the facts. They
are reminded that " Man was created as a single being in order to teach
[us] that one who destroysone personis consideredas having, as it were,
destroyeda whole world, and [that] one who preservesone person has,
as it were, preserved a whole world . . .; in order [also] to tell of the
greatnessof the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, for a man
stampsmany coins with one seal, and all of them are alike, and the King
of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, stamped all men with the seal
of the first Adam, and no one is like the other. Hence every one is
obliged to say: For my sake the world was created...",32 The term
" the seal of the first Adam " (jhtamj shel Adam ha-ri'shin), as well as the
simile of the coin, is here used in the same sense in which Philo speaks
of the heavenly man or reason which is created after God's image as a
seal impressed on the earthly man and stamped on the soul (of every
individual man) as on a coin. To be sure, there is no mention in the
Mishnah of Philo's elaborate distinctions between God as the arche-
typal pattern, the Logos as God's image, heavenly man as the image of
the image, and earthly man as stamped with the latter. The Logos
concept was certainly absent from the rabbinic mind as expressedin the
mishnaicformulation.The term " seal of the firstAdam" does, however,
imply the other three concepts, that is, God as the archetypal pattern,
Adam as an ideal type, and earthly man. This is how Rashi (I040-I I05),
in his Commentaryon Genesis I:27, understood the Mishnah and the
parallel text in the Tosefta. Man, he says, "was made by a seal like a
coin that is made by an impression" (rishem),and the image (of this
32 On the authenticity of the text as quoted here, see Baer,

ibid., p. 22. n. 55.
242

"coin") that "was preparedfor him" was "an image in the similitude
of his Creator" (zelemdeyoqanyjzerj).33 What is entirely new and highly
characteristicof the rabbinic mind is the emphasis on the diversity of
men and on the value of each individual as a unique exemplar of
humanity. It is also noteworthy that the peroration addressed to wit-
nessesin a case where human life is at stake takes its cue from Genesis
9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God made He man."
The Mishnah thus accepted the homoimagoDei concept in its Philonic
and, ultimately, Platonic sense, but rather than dwell on its theological
implications,it put it to good use in the context of Halakah. It was made
to serve as a reminderof the dignity and value of each human individual.
It was also used as an argument against celibacy and thereby was again
placed within the framework of Halak'ah. One who refrains from
begetting children and from perpetuating the human species "dimi-
nishes," according to Rabbi Eliezer, "the similitude" or Divine image
on earth (memac~tet ha-demft),for the words (Genesis 9:6) speaking of
man as the image of God are immediately followed by the command-
ment (verse 7): "And you, be ye fruitful and multiply."34 A further
instance of halakic use of the image motif is the way in which the
biblical law in Deuteronomy 21:23 and the motivation of it as ex-
pressedin the same verse are linked with the notion of respect, even for
the corpse of a criminld, since every man bears a "similitude" or
"resemblance" to God.35It is obvious that what mattered to the rabbis
was the possibility of translating the imagoDei concept into halakic
categories, to put it in pragmatic rather than theological terms.
We may note in rabbinic sourcesyet another trend in the interpreta-
tion of the homoimagoDei motif, traces of which we have already found
in Philo's concept of the heavenly man. This strandof rabbinic thinking
33Lit., "an image of the similitude of his Creator," which might suggest the inter-
position of an immediate image (similitude) between the Creator and man as the
image of the immediate image. This would amount to the Philonic concept of man
as an image of the Logos, but it is unlikely that Rashi held such a view. It should be
noted, on the other hand, that Rashi interpreted the words "God created man in his
image" also in a manner reminiscent of the Aramaic versions and the exegesis quoted
(and rejected) by both Ibn Ezra and Aaron ben Elijah: "in a form (defas,typos)made
[especially] for him." Baer, who quotes this Rashi passage, wonders in what source
Rashi may have found a combination of these different motifs.
34 Tosefta,Yebamot 8:4; Talmud,Yebamot 63b.
35 Tosefta,Sanhedrin 9:7; Talmud,Sanhedrin 46b; Pseudo-Jonathan ben cUziel to
Deut. 21:23. Rashi's Commentary on this verse combines all the source material
mentioned.
243

is, however, purely haggadic and cannot be said to have had, within
early Judaism, any theological, let alone halakic, significance. It
assumed theological importance only late, in medieval Kabbalah,
which saw in the Adam Qadmon a symbol of the Divine realm of the
Sefirot. The descriptionof the dimensionsof Adam's stature and of his
beauty; his characterization as originally androgynous; these and
similarfeatures36belong to a stratumof rabbinic thinkingthat may owe
its origin partly to the Urmenschmyth which Reitzenstein and Bousset
traced to the Iranian Gayomard. There is here certainly a connection
with the androgynosmotif in Plato's Symposiumi89d D.E., i9od.D.B.; 37
and the descriptionof Adam's beauty is foreshadowedin Ezekiel 28:11
ff., where the king of Tyre is portrayedin analogy to Adam in paradise.
The mythical colors of this passage clearly indicate that already in
pre-rabbinic times the figure of Adam had become richly adorned. Of
special interest is the fact that the term "seal" occurs already in
Ezekiel 28:12: " Thou seal most accurate toknit), full of wisdom
and perfect in beauty."38The early rabbinic speculationsabout Adam
(.hItam
were taken up and dualistically interpreted by the Hermetist and the
Gnostics, who made a sharp division between the archetypal Man and
earthly man, the product of his Fall,39and in turn helped to produce a
variety of rabbinic reactions of a polemical nature in some of the
haggadic Adam legends which unmistakingly betray their gnostic
background.40The rabbis refused to differentiate between two Adam
figures. To them, the Adam endowed with all the attributesof original
splendor was identical with earthly man who, in punishment for his
sin, was reduced in stature, stripped of his glory, and expelled from
paradise.
Turning to the Christianunderstandingof the homoimagoDei motif,
let us note first that in Pauline theology it is Jesus who is "the image
[eikin] of the invisible God" (Col. I:15) and "in the form of God" (en
morphiTheou,Phil. 2:6), "form" representinghere, according to the
36 See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V
(I947), 79 if.
37 See ibid., pp. 88 ff. As for Philo's view, see ibid. and C. H. Dodd, The Bible and
the Greeks (London, I935), p. I51.
38 It is
improbable that the use of the term "seal of the first Adam" in Mishnah
Sanhedrin derives from the Ezekiel verse rather than from Philo. The Toseftaquotes
only Job 38:I4-
39 For the influence of the rabbinic Adam speculations on the Hermetist (in the
Poimandres) and on some gnostic sects, see Dodd, op.cit., I45-54; and Ginzberg, op.cit.,
p. 79, respectively.
40 See my article, "The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends,"
Jewish QuarterlyReview, N.S. 35 (I945), PP- 37I-9I1
244

Peshitta, the Hebrew demiltof Genesis 1: 26.41 The designation of Jesus

as "the image of God" (II Cor. 4:4) stems from a variety of concepts.
It expressesthe eschatological notion of the "Son of Man" (barnasha')
or, in Paul's terminology,the "last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45), also referred
to as the "coming Adam" (Rom. 5:14); and it is reflected in the
Pauline passagescontrastingthe putting off of the "old man" with the
putting on of the "new" (Col. 3:9-I o). This "new" or celestial Man
is said to be made in the "image" of God (Col. 3:Io; Eph. 4:24) and
bears a certain affinity to Philo's Logos as the direct image of God. As
Origen was to put it in precise Philonic terms, "Since the Father is
invisible by his nature, He begot an invisible image " (Deprinc.II, 6, 3;
IV, 4, I), while man is but "after the image" or "the image of the
image" (De orat. 22, 4).42 Viewed in the Philonic perspective, Paul's
concept of Jesus as the image of the Father derives both from an inter-
pretation of Genesis I:26 and from the mythical concept of Adam
Qadmon, the primordialor celestial Man, which he identified with the
barnasha'.There is a further,and theologically no less important, aspect
to the way in which the immage quality ofJesus was understoodby Paul.
Philo had interpretedthe pre-existentWisdom spoken of in apocalyptic
and rabbinic sources as the equivalent of the Logos.43 It is highly
doubtful whether he also identified the pre-existent, hidden Messiah
mentioned in the same kind of sources with the Logos.44Neither in
Jewish Wisdom literature nor in the apocalyptic and rabbinic writings
do we find an equation of the pre-existentWisdom or Torah with the
pre-existent Messiah.45Theologically speaking, Divine revelation and
Divine redemption in the eschaton were kept apart. Paul broke with this
tradition. He identified the pre-existent Wisdom or Torah with the
pre-existent Messiah.46Since wisdom, according to Jewish tradition,
41 See Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments(Tiibingen, 1958), p.

I80.
42 See P. Th.
Camelot, O.P., "La Thdologie de l'Image de Dieu," RevuedesSciences
Philosophiques et Thiologiques,XL (1950), 446, 453. For a bibliography of patristic
studies concerning the homoimagoDei motif, see p. 443, nn. I and 2. To the list should
be added Karl Ludwig Schmidt, "Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testa-
ment," Eranos-Jahrbuch, XV (1948), 149-95; John Edward Sullivan, O.P., TheImage
of God (Dubuque, Iowa, I963).
43 See Wolfson, op. cit. (n. 19 above), I, 266.
44See ibid., II, 415-
s5 See Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophyof theChurchFathers(Cambridge, Mass.,
1956), I, 159, and his reference to the discussion of this subject by W. D. Davies,
Paul andRabbinicJudaism(London, 1948), pp.
158-63.
4" See Wolfson, The Philosophyof theChurch Fathers,p. 159.
245

was God's instrumentof creation, he could now declare that by Christ,
who was "the image of the invisible God, the firstbornof every crea-
ture,"47 were all things created (Col. 1:15-16). The final step of
identifying Christ with the Philonic Logos was taken in the Fourth
Gospel.
This development meant that in the New Testament the image motif
acquired a central theological significance-that it now expressed a
definite, clear-cut concept in which were gathered the various strands
of interpretation that were present in the Jewish tradition. Jesus was
seen as the true image of the Father, as Wisdom or Logos incarnate.
This basic doctrine remained the common denominatorof the varieties
of Christianteaching that soon made their appearance. It underliesthe
Judaeo-Christian notion of the Pseudo-Clementine KerygmataPetrou,
which identifiedJesus with the firstAdam and, consequently,refusedto
acknowledge the veracity of the biblical story of Adam's sin.48 It is
found in Valentinian Gnosis, where Jesus is described as the "Logos
of the Father" whose "Image" he has revealed, and the one who
brought the " Gospel of Truth," the "living Book of the Living which
was written in the Thought and in the Mind of the Father and which,
even before the foundation of the All, had its abode in that part of Him
which is incomprehensible."49It oscillatesin patristicliteraturebetween
a plainly christological and a trinitarian interpretation.50And it finds
its dogmatic formulationin the Athanasian Creed.
The soteriological function which the incarnate Christ or Logos
assumes is linked with Adam's sin. It is this aspect of Heilsgeschichte
which is responsiblefor the transformationof the Philonic Logos into
the figure of the Redeemer. The Logos as the image of God and as the
archetype of man is shifted from the philosophical to the theological
level: "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord
from heaven... And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly" (I Cor. 15:47, 49). Origen
interprets this passage to mean that after the Fall man bears the image
of the devil and that Jesus had to come in order to restore the original
47 Cf. Prov. 8:22 and the Philonic passages describing the Logos in terms of
biblical Wisdom cited by Wolfson, Philo, I, 234, and The Philosophy of the Church
Fathers, I, 156 ff.
48 See Cullmann,
op. cit. (n. 41 above), p. 149.
49See EvangeliumVeritatis,ed. M. Malinine, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel (Zurich,
1956), fols. XIIr 27-35, Xr 35-Xv i-3. The term "the living Book" stems from the
Jewish tradition which equated the pre-existent Wisdom with the Torah.
5soSee Camelot, op. cit. (n. 42 above), pp. 443 f.-
246

image of God, which, if not entirely lost, is now deformed.The original

image he understandsin purely Philonic or Stoic terms as man's soul or
Logos or higemonikon. Christ is the restorerof the image.51 Athanasius
says similarlythat the Word of God, being the image of the Father, had
to take on a mortal body in order to destroydeath and renew the image
of God in men. He sees the whole of Heilsgeschichte centered in the motif
of the image, without, however, drawing on the Philonic tradition
which played such a vital role in Origen.52In Gregoryof Nyssa, on the
other hand, the Platonizing tendency again comes to the fore in its
Philonic form, and it is strong enough to repressthe view of the Christ
image as the restorerof the original image in which man was created.
He consideredinstead the image of man as realizing itself at the end of
time in the totality of mankind, the total Christ. Like his predecessors,
he admitted, however, that as a result of the Fall the image of God in
man had become tarnishedand (accordingto some passages)even lost.53
We need not pursuehere the long and checkeredhistoryof the Christian
debate on the consequencesof the Fall. Notwithstandingthe difference
of opinion between medieval scholastics like Thomas Aquinas on the
one hand and reformers like Luther and Calvin on the other, the
function of Christas restorerof the image seems undisputed.This means
that in the Christiantradition as a whole the doctrine of original sin is
fundamental for an understandingof the role of Christ.
In the rabbinic tradition, Adam's sin was widely discussedon both
the haggadic and halakic levels, but the debate remained fluid and did
not crystallizeinto a definite doctrine except at a late stage, that is, in
medieval Kabbalah. There emerged, however, in rabbinicJudaism the
concept of the two "inclinations" in man, namely, the "good inclina-
tion" (yegertob) and the "evil inclination" (yezer rac), both of which
were consideredpart of man's natural endowment as created by God.54
This concept implies that the evil perpetratedby men is the result of a
yielding to the evilyezerrather than of original sin,55that it manifestsa
person'smoral weaknessrather than an inherited perversionof the will
51 See ibid., pp. 451-56.
52 See ibid., pp. 456 ff.
5a See ibid., pp. 457-60.
54 See the source referencesin Solomon Schechter, Aspects
of RabbinicTheology(New
York, 1961), pp. 264 ff.; G. F. Moore, Judaism,I, 479-86; C. G. Montefiore and H.
Loewe, A RabbinicAnthology(London, 1938), pp. 295 ff.; Samuel S. Cohon, "Original
Sin," HUCA, XXI (1948), 304 f.
55 For an account of the views held in apocryphal and apocalyptic literature, see
Cohon, ibid., pp. 284-90.
247

or the individual's "radical evil" in the Kantian sense. To the intro-

spective rabbinic mind, the good and evil in man were in perpetual
conflict, the outcome of which was in no way predetermined. This view
is already clearly stated in Ecclesiasticus 15 ::I1-20 and represents the
rabbinic reaction to the gloomy and pessimistic estimate of human
nature found in the apocalyptic writings and in the Christian doctrine
of original sin. It has its parallel in the Stoic distinction between the
emotions and reason, the emotions being defined as "inordinate and
excessive impulse" originating from "lust" (libido) and "delight"
(laetitia), "desire" (concupiscentia)and "pleasure" (voluptas). Philo had
no difficulty in equating the rabbinic concept of the good and evil
yezer with this Stoic description of the dual nature of man.56 Similarly,
the medieval Jewish Neoplatonist Bahya ibn Paqudah (ca. Io8o) speaks
of " concupiscence" (Arabic: shahwa; Hebrew: ta'awah) and "reason"
(Caql; sekel) as the two conflicting "qualities" (achldq; midd6t) of the
soul. He explains that the force of reason needs strengthening by the
authority of the revealed Law or Torah because it develops late and
tends to be enfeebled as a result of the fact that the force of concupiscence
is prevalent in the soul of man from his birth and is vital to his physical
growth and to the perpetuation of the species.57 This notion Bahya
might have taken from Arabic gnomic literature, which says in the
name of Plato that concupiscence is closer to us because we are in its
company from the time of birth, while intellect develops much later.58
It is already found, however, in rabbinic sources (KoheletRabba 9:15;
Abot de-RabbiNathan, ed. Solomon Schechter, Recension A, chap. xvii),
where it is said that the evilyezer is with man from birth, whereas the
good yezer enters only at the age of thirteen.59 There is, then, a close
affinity between the rabbinic doctrine of the two yezarim and the Stoic
view expressed by Philo and Bahya.
The theological significance of this type of anthropology lies in the
role assigned to Torah for the strengthening of the good yezer and for
the overpowering of the evil one. In the words of Ritba: " Though God
created the evil yezer, He created the Torah as an antidote against it"
(Baba Batra I6a). The fulfilment of the Divine commandments
(mizwot) and, especially, the study of the Torah are considered the most
56 See Wolfson, Philo, II, 230 ff.; 288-90.

57 Al-HidayaOildFard'idal-Qulfb, ed. A. S.Yahuda (Leiden, I912), III, chap. ii,
130 ff.; Hebrew edition, Sefer Ilobot Ha-Lebabot (Tel-Aviv,
1948), pp. 217 ff.
58 See Georges Vajda, La Thdologie
AscitiquedeBabyaIbnPaquda(Paris, 1947), p. 28.
59This notion was adopted by the Zohar(I, I65b).
248

Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology
efficacious means of defeating the evil impulse: " My son, if this vile one
[the evil yezer] meets you, drag him into the House of Study (bet ha-
midrash). If he is a stone, he will be ground [into powder]; if he is iron,
he will be broken into pieces; as it is said, 'Is not my word like unto a
fire? saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaketh the rocks in
pieces?"'" (Jer. 23: 29; Qiddushin3ob). "Blessed are Israel; as long as
they are devoted to the study of the Torah and to works of loving-kind-
ness, the evil yezer is delivered into their hands" (cAbodahZarah 5b).
These utterances express no abstract theologoumenon but something of an
existential nature. The rabbis were keenly aware of the reality of the
evil yezer as concupiscence and the power of its temptation. They saw
its demonic side and identified it with Satan. Many stories told in
rabbinic literature testify to this.60 Yet they experienced also the
cathartic effect of the life of piety in obedience to the Divine command-
ments and in the study of Torah. Speaking in haggadic terms, they said
that the poison injected into Eve by the serpent was removed from
Israel when the Torah was received at Sinai.61 If this statement implies
a " crude theory of original sin," 62 it also includes the doctrine that the
Torah is the remedy of the Fall. In other words, the place occupied by
Jesus Christ in Christian theology is taken up by the Torah in Jewish
theological thinking. The Torah is the Way, the Light, the Truth, as
had already been stated in the Hebrew Bible, especially in Psalm
I19.
It is the healer of the breach, and through it man causes the Divine
Presence (Shekinah)to dwell on earth, nay, on man's face.63 It teaches
man how to practice imitatioDei: "As He is merciful and gracious, so be
thou merciful and gracious" (Mekilta 37a; Shabbat133b and parallels).64
What the Torah and its commandments as illumined by rabbinic
Halakah and Haggadah mean to the Jew brought up in the Tradition
and staying within its bounds is something difficult to explain to the
outsider. One prepared to attune his ear may catch a good glimpse of it
in some of Agnon's novels, particularly in his Oreakh Natah La-Lian ("A
Guest for the Night").65 It describes his return, after World War I, to
60 See the collection of such stories in Montefiore and Loewe, op. cit. (n. 54 above),
PP. 297 ff.
61 See the source references in Ginzberg,
op. cit. (n. 36 above), V, 133-
62 See Cohon, op. cit. (n. 54 above), p. 303-
63 See the references in Montefiore and Loewe, op. cit., General Index, s.v. Shek-
hinah, pp. 837 ff.; and Schechter, Aspects (n. 54 above), Index, p. 379.
64 See Schechter, Aspects, pp. i99 ff.; A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology
(London, 1950), 106-2 I.
65 Published in English by Schocken Books (New York, 1968).
249

his native town in Galicia, and the fascination which the old and
almost deserted House of Study (Bet Ha-Midrash)holds for him. It
evokes memories of a glorious past with its flowering of true piety and
rabbinic learning. The "key" to this Bet Ha-Midrashbecomes his
property, and the narrative woven around this theme contains reflec-
tions and even homilies of a poignant and often mystically iridescent
beauty in which the innermost secret of Jewish piety stands revealed.
There has been a continuous tradition of almost two thousand years in
which the Jewish love of Torah found its expressionin conformitywith
the spirit nurtured in the schools of the tanaitic teachers and their
successorsin both Palestineand Babylonia. It is, therefore,unrealisticto
suggest that the Jews living at the time of Jesus, who felt a sense of
allegiance to the Torah, might have allowed the Christian kerygmaor
didachJ to replace the Torah in its fullness,or might have renouncedfaith
in the love of God as manifestedin the giving of the Torah in favor of
faith in the love of God as revealed in Jesus. The time was certainly not
propitious for such a transfer of loyalty: The academies were in the
ascendent; rabbinic exegesis flourished; the Torah was considered the
way of life by Phariseesand Essenesalike. The abrogation of the com-
mandments as proclaimed by Paul did not fit into the pattern of
Heilsgeschichteas understood by the Jews. Adam had received only one
single commandment, Noah and his posterity were given seven laws,
and Israel had taken upon itself the Ten Commandmentsas well as the
"yoke of the Kingdom of God" as spelled out in the 613 command-
ments.66Biblical Heilsgeschichte thus showed an increase in the revealed
commandments,not a reduction to a single one. In the words of Rabbi
Hananya ben CAqashya(middle of the second century c.E.): "The
Holy One, blessedbe He, was pleased to make Israel worthy; wherefore
he gave them a copious Torah and many commandments" (Mishnah
Makkot3:16). Thinking in halakic categories, the rabbis pointed out
that Adam showed himself incapable of keeping a "light command-
ment" (mizwah qalah), while his descendants proved themselves
infinitely more obedient in observing much more difficult command-
ments.67 In view of the preponderance of the halakic viewpoint in
rabbinic Judaism, there was hardly any scope for the assertion of
original sin as a live option. God's covenant with Noah (which, by the
66The figure 6I 3 was originally of no halakic import but merely symbolized the
totality of the commandments (see Michael Guttmann, BehinatHa-Mizwot, Berichtdes
Seminars[Breslau, I928]).
jikdisch-theologischen
67 Genesis Rabba 2 1:3; 2 1:7; Leviticus Rabba 25:2.
250

way, reaffirms,according to Gen. 9:6, the creation of man in God's

image and thereby renders the notion of the "corrupted" image
irreconcilablewith the biblical text) was the first step toward a greater
abundance of grace through an increasein commandments.The giving
of the Torah to Israel furtherenlarged the area in which merit could be
acquired. In this context, salvation through faith in Christ made no
sense whatsoever.
On the haggadic plane we do meet with descriptions of the fatal
consequencesof Adam's sin which border upon the doctrine of the Fall.
Reference has already been made to the legend concerning the poison
injected by the serpent into Eve and to the way the rabbis countered
it. Then there are a number of sources68which speak of twenty-two or
twenty-four "blessings" which God had bestowed on Adam and of
which man was gradually deprived after the fall of Adam and the sins
of the following generations, but which mankind will receive again in
the days of the Messiah. Thus, Adam lost the image of God (that is, his
God-like splendor), tall stature, paradise, and the tree of life; the
generation of the Flood lost its gigantic strength, its longevity, the
multitude of children, and peace; and so on. Yet all this is purely
haggadic and remains in the realm of legend. The only theologically
relevant remark is Rabbi Levi's (GenesisRabba 14:6), which applies the
appellation "the greatest man among the giants" (ha-'adamha-gadol
ba-canaqim) (Josh. 14:I 5) to Abraham: He was called "the greatest
man" because he was worthy of being created first, prior to Adam, but
God said, "Perhaps Adam will spoil things (yeqalqel),and there will be
no one to put things right again [we-'enmZshe-yetaqen]." Hence Adam
was created first, and when he sinned, Abraham came to make amends.
Here Abraham assumes the role which Christian theology assigned to
Jesus. In medieval Jewish theology, this theme was developed by
Hasday Crescasin his OrAdonai(" The Light of the Lord"), which was
completed in Saragossa in the year 141o.69 In an earlier small treatise
written in Spanish and preservedonly in Joseph ben Shemtob'sHebrew
translation under the title Bit.tulclqqarj Ha-Nozerim,70 there is no men-
tion yet of this particular doctrine, although much scope is given to a
rebuttal of the Christian dogma of original sin and of mankind's
redemption throughJesus. In this earlierwork, Crescasattacksthe very
68 For references, see Ginzberg, op. cit., V, 113
I if
69 Quoted here after the Ferrara edition of 1555.
70 Quoted here after the edition by Ephraim Deinard (Carny, N.Y., 1904). This
treatise was presumably written ca. 1398.
251

notion of original sin as infecting the souls of Adam's posterity and as
resulting in eternal damnation. In his view, each individual soul is
created by God and hence does not bear any transmittedguilt due to
Adam's sin. Nor, in his opinion, does the soul's eternal felicity depend
on supernatural grace, seeing that the contemplative life directed
toward God naturally leads to life eternal. God could not deprive man
of this felicity without committing an act of injustice. As for the
Christian doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, Crescas
points out, human acts of sin can be remedied only by human acts of
redress,and even if it were possiblefor God to assume human.flesh, the
kind of redemption described in the Gospels is impossible for the
following reason: Healing of sins can be effected only by good deeds
(migwot),since they are the opposite of sins, even as rebellion can be
remedied only by obedience. The healing of a vile act by one still viler
is like the healing of rebellion by rebellion or of iniquity by iniquity.
Now, to assume that Adam's rebellion, which was of a minor nature,
involving as it did only one single light commandment,was to be healed
by the rebellion of God's chosen people against God himself (through
the alleged committing of deicide) is an absurdity. If it were true, the
salvation of mankind would have been purchased by allowing the
nation of God's elect to become an abomination and to be besmirched
by the greatest imaginable indignity. Would not the blood shed by
Jesus' circumcisionhave been a sufficientmeans of redemptionif he was
God incarnate? 71
In his OrAdonai(II, 2, 6, fol. 28a-b), Crescasno longer opposes the
notion of original sin. He quotes the haggadic statement about the
poison injected into Eve and explains it to mean that "apparently the
sin of Adam and Eve was a great rebellion in the sense of original sin
[lit., 'in its first root' (ba-shoresh Into the rock from which
ha-ri'shon)].72
A closely similar argument, to which Professor Gottfried W. Locher of Bern

71
University has drawn my attention, is found in Calvin's small tract, Ad Quaestiones

et
ObiectaIudaeicuiusdam(CalviniOpera,Corpus Reformatorum, IX, 659-74). Question I
by the Jew reads as follows: Quomodovos dicitis lesum venisse, ut mundare homines a
peccatis, et ut educereteos a gehenna, quumille dum occisus est, auxeritpeccatumIudaeorum,qui
cruci afxerunt eum? Nam nonpotest invenirimaiuspeccatum,quamsuspensioDei. The identity
of the Iudaeuswhom Calvin sought to refute has still to be established. Salo W. Baron,
"John Calvin and the Jews," Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee Volume, English Section
(Jerusalem, 1965), I, I55-59, tentatively suggested Josel of Rosheim as Calvin's
interlocutor. See now Gottfried W. Locher, "Calvin spricht zu den Juden," Theo-
logische Zeitschrift (Basel, 1967), XXIII, 180-89.
72 Cf. with this phrase its equivalent in
Bi.t.tulclqqare Ha-Nozerim, p. I7: bi-geoulat
252

HomoImagoDei in Jewish and Christian Theology
the human speciesin its generalitywas hewn a poison had been injected,
namely, the strong impress arising from the inclination toward things
material. For this reason the species as a whole was disposed toward
corruptionand destruction."Crescasthen refersto the "supernalgrace"
which provided the Torah as an antidote to that poison, since its
commandments admonish us in sufficient measure to turn toward
perfection, to subdue concupiscence, and to transformouryezer. He is,
however, not satisfied merely to spell out the haggadic reference to
Sinai. He needs the figureof a redeemeras the analogue to the Christian
savior, and he finds it in Abraham, the "very opposite" of Adam. For
while Adam, the handiworkof God Himself and destinedfor perfection,
went to the extreme of rebellion, Abraham, who was born among idol
worshipers,went to the extreme of love and became the most perfect
man. "Hence he was worthy of being brought into a 'new covenant'
(berithadashah)with God." This covenant took the form of the sacrificial
blood and flesh of circumcision by which the eternity of the human
species is assured.For it puts a sign on the very organ of concupiscence
restrainingits lust and is thus endowed with saving power. Crescasfinds
this idea expressedin the blessing spoken at the ceremony of circumci-
sion: "On this account, O living God, our Portion and our Rock, give
command to deliverfrom destruction the dearly beloved of our flesh, for
the sake of the covenant thou hast set in our bodies." Moreover,Crescas
sees in Abraham's readiness to sacrifice Isaac, the son of the promise,
the raisond'etreof the election of Israel. Mount Moriah, the scene of the
intended sacrifice or caqedah,is thus, by implication, set off against
Golgotha.73 Although the dramatispersonaeare different, Crescas'
theological thinking would seem to exhibit a decidedly Christian
pattern of Heilsgeschichte. On the other hand, his admission of original
sin was facilitated by the impact of kabbalistic notions concerning the
catastrophic results of Adam's sin and the salvational function of the
Torah. Fundamentally, these kabbalistic views are elaborations of
haggadic motifs which, in turn, reflect in many instances mythological
material, especially of the gnostic kind.
het" Adam ha-shorashiha-niqra?bi-leshonam"original" (" Concerning the redemption of

the root-sin of Adam called in their language 'original'").
73 The comparison of the two sacrifices is a theme which Franz Rosenzweig and
Eugen Rosenstock-Huessydiscussed in their letters on Judaism and Christianity (see
Franz Rosenzweig/Briefe [Berlin, 1935], pp. 663, 689). An English translation of the
correspondence (Briefe, pp. 641-720) by Professor Dorothy M. Emmet is being
published by Alabama University Press.
253

Medieval Jewish theology followed, on the whole, the Platonizing
interpretation of the homoimagoDei motif initiated by Philo. Whereas
the rabbis of the tannaitic period had discardedthe Philonic Logos, the
medieval Jewish philosopherssubstituted for it .either Plotinus' second
hypostasis,the Intellect (Nous),or Aristotle'sActive Intellect as the last
of the series of Intelligences related to the celestial spheres and their
souls. Man's pre-eminenceover the lower ranges of creation lay in his
rational soul or potential intellect, and his ultimate destiny was the
felicity achieved through the contemplative life of reason and con-
summated in the union of his intellect with either God (as in Neo-
platonism) or with the Active Intellect (as in medieval Aristotelianism).
Since God is (in Neoplatonism) the ultimate Ground from which
Intellect emanates, and since he is (in Aristotelianism) the supreme
Intellect, the essence of man, namely, his intellect, has been stated by
Scripture to be in the image of God and in his likeness. This is how
Maimonidesexplainsthe biblical phrase,and this interpretationbecame
commonplacein Jewish philosophyand exegesis.74Maimonidesadds an
interpretation of the nature of Adam's sin: In his state of innocence
Adam was completely absorbed in the contemplative life and hence
unaware of the difference between good and evil. For intellect is only
concerned with the true as against the false. When, however, he dis-
obeyed the commandment and yielded to concupiscence, he became
consciousof good and evil.75This interpretationis strikinglysimilar to
the one given by Athanasius (ContraGentes2, 3): "As long as the first
man kept his spirit attached to God and to the contemplation of God,
it was turned away from the contemplation of the body; but when ...
it betook itself to considering itself, they [Adam and Eve] were seized
by the desiresof the body, and they knew that they were naked."76The
differencebetweenJewish and Christianexegesisin the area of the homo
imagoDei motif concerned not so much the philosophical concept of
man's dignity as a rational creature-this remained, in fact, common
ground throughoutmedieval Christianscholasticism-as the theological
equation of Logos and Christ. Thus, a toposprevalent in practically all
Christianexegesisis the interpretationof the plural formin Genesis I :26
(" Let us make man ...") as referringto either the first two or all three
74 Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed,I, I. The extent to which Maimonides'
interpretationof the phrase was accepted may be gauged by the fact that the Yemenite
compiler of the MidrashHa-Gadoladopted it into his text. See Mordecai Margaliot's
edition (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 56, and the note to line 14.
75 Maimonides, op. cit., I, 2.
76 Quoted by Camelot, op. cit. (see n. 42 above), p. 456.
254

persons of the Trinity.77 The Jewish exegetes, taking their cue from
Targum Pseudo-Jonathanand GenesisRabba8:3-9 (where a variety of
interpretationsis offered),78 suggested,interalia, that God condescended
to address the angels. Since in the medieval understanding "angels"
was the biblical term for the hierarchy of supernal intelligences con-
nected with the celestial spheres,it was not difficultto find in the text an
allusion to the creation of man in the image of the angels and to inter-
pret the plural form, "Let us make. . . ," accordingly. This line of
exegesiswas adopted by Abrahamibn Ezra,79Abraham Maimonides,so
and, in a less philosophical vein, already by Rashi.81Isaac Abrabanel
states it as the second of two main types of interpretation.82Other
exegetes (David Qimhi, Nahmanides, Gersonides, and Nissim ben
Reuben Gerondi)83 stressedman's dual nature, composed as it is of an
earthy (material) and a spiritual (intellectual) part. God, therefore,
addressedthe earth, bidding her contributeher sharein man's creation.
Abrabanel, who states this interpretationas the first on his list, couples
it with the notion of man's dominion over the lower forms of creation,
which, he says, is valid and effective only as long as man keeps his own
lower instincts under the control of reason.84Finally, Saadya Gaon
explained that the tertiumcomparationis justifying the descriptionof man
as made in the image of God consistsin his role as lord of the earth as
stated in Genesis I :28-3o.85 This exegesis is supported by the equivocal
meaning of the Hebrew word Elohim,which may also mean "rulers" or
"judges."86 In view of these manifold possibilities of interpretation,
Jewish theologians were not unduly worried by the christological
77See M. J. Rouct De Journel, S.I., Enchiridiori
Patristicum(Freiburg Breisgau,
1956), pp. 93, 131, 190, 258, 361, 561; Ginzberg, op. cit. (n. 36 above), V, 69.
78 See
Ginzberg, ibid.
79 In his Commentary on Gen. I:26.
80 In his on Gen. I:26. See Ephraim J. Wiesenberg's edition of the
Commentary
Arabic text with a Hebrew translation (London, 1959), pp. 6-11. See also Samuel
Rosenblatt, The High Waysto Perfectionof AbrahamMaimonides(Baltimore, 1938), II,
225.
81 In his Commentary
on Gen. I:26.
82 See his Commentary
ontheTorah (Warsaw, 1862), reprinted in Jerusalem (undated),
fol. I4b.
83 All of them are quoted by Abrabanel, ibid.
84 Abrabanel quotes in this connection Sanhedrin
38b interpreting Ps. 49:13. Cf.
Rashi, op. cit. (n. 8i above) on the phrase we-yirdu("and they shall have dominion")
in Gen. 1:26.
85 See PerushiRabbenuSaadyaGaoncal ha-Torah, ed. Joseph Qapah (Jerusalem,
1963), pp. ff.; and Ibn Ezra's reference to Saadya's exegesis in his Commentary on
Gen. 1:26. x2 See also Geiger, Ne~lmad,op. cit. (n. 4 above), III, I 19 ff.
86 See Maimonides, Guide,Ozar1, 2.
255

exegesis of the homoimagoDei motif and the plural used in Genesis I : 26.
In his Eben Bohan ("A Tried Stone," see Isa. 28: I6), a voluminous tract
in defense of Judaism against Christian arguments from Scripture,87
Shemtob ben Isaac ibn Shaprut of Toledo quotes "the believer in the
Trinity" (ha-meshallesh)as saying: "It is written, 'Let us make man,'
which indicates that the Father speaks to his Son; and he says, 'in our
image, after our likeness,' which is likewise in the plural." The answer
given by "the believer in the Unity" contains several of the interpreta-
tions mentioned above.
It cannot be said that the exegetical debate between Christians and
Jews produced more than a firm entrenchment of each group in its
respective position. Thus, after reviewing the rabbinic interpretations
of the plural form in Genesis I: 26, Calvin concludes: "Christians,
therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a
plurality of Persons in the Godhead."88 However, the controversy
reached a new dimension-without being spelled out in direct polemical
references-when on the Christian side the Reformation brought about
a more radical conception of man's corruption through the Fall, and on
the Jewish side Lurianic Kabbalah accentuated the same stance in a
highly mythological gnostic form. The theological difference centered
now in the appraisal of the salvational means, rather than in the
diagnosis of man's spiritual ills. Yet common to both the Reformation
and the new Kabbalah was the collapse of the Platonic ontology that
had underpinned the homo imago Dei concept. According to the Re-
formers, man could no longer be considered to share in the Divine
Reason, and the whole notion of natural law went overboard. Nor was
God primarily Reason, but Will, Power. Man's nature was, conse-
quently, seen as incapable of spirituality by virtue of reason alone. Hence
Luther's rejection of the spiritual efficacy of natural institutions and of
works of the Law, including the sacramental system of the medieval
church. Hence also his emphasis on faith as the only means of salvation,
and his description of faith as worked within man by God's arbitrary
grace. Similarly, Calvin insisted on the voluntaristic rather than ra-
tional interpretation of the nature of God. Knowing God was, therefore,
not so much a function of reason as of the will, and what had been
corrupted by the Fall was the will of man to subject itself to the will of
87 The work, as yet unpublished, is extant in a large number of MSS. We quote
from Vatican MS 523 (folios unnumbered), Section (shacar)X, chap. v.
88John Calvin, Commentarieson the First Book of Moses CalledGenesis,trans. John
King (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1948), I, 92.
256

the Creator,while man's reason had remained adequate to the natural
purposesof man. Only through a total transformationof man by faith
and obedience to the will of God as expressedin the Scripturescould he
regain the lost status of imagoDei. Even in the prelapsariancondition,
this status had not implied an absolute and substantive nature of man
but merely the potentiality of acknowledging God in "rectitude" of
spirit. Calvin expresslyrejected the traditional Platonic interpretation
of man as an image or copy of God.89The natural consequence of the
voluntaristic concept of God advanced by Luther and Calvin lies in
their respective political theories. Both theologians reaffirmed the
Augustinianview of the state as an artificialcreationsanctionedby God,
since without it "men would devour one another.., .and the world
would be reduced to chaos."90 The authority of the state was held by
divine right because it alone mitigated the anarchic effects of sin upon
fallen man. The difference between Luther's and Calvin's doctrines as
applied to the relationshipbetween church and state need not concernus
here. Hobbes's political theory in the Leviathanwould seem to be in the
nature of a secularizedversion of the portrayalof man in his fallen state
adumbrated from the theological perspectiveby Luther and Calvin.
In Lurianic Kabbalah, the dominant influence in Jewish mystical
theology from the sixteenth centurydown to the emergenceof Hasidism,
the breakdown of the Platonic interpretation of the homoimagoDei
concept is no less conspicuous,though expressedin an entirely different
way and totally unrelated to problems of political philosophy. Here
theology takes the path of a radically introspectiveorientation spelled
out in the most bizarre forms of gnostic speculation. In the classical
Kabbalah of the thirteenth century, notably in the Zohar,the neo-
platonic outlook had been very much in evidence. Not only was the
"intelligent soul" consideredto be an image of God; the human body,
too, was held to be in the similitude of Adam Qadmon, the supernal
structure (binyan)of the Sefirot.91In Lurianic Kabbalah, on the other
89 Calvin, Institutesof theChristianReligion,trans.
John Allen (Philadelphia, I841),
I, Book I, chap. iii, 207, and chap. xv, 210o ff., quoted by Sandra Dell Rudnick,
From Createdto Creator:Conceptions of HumanNature and Authorityin Sixteenth-Century
England(BrandeisUniversity doctoral dissertation, 1963; University Microfilms, Inc.,
Ann Arbor, Mich., 1964), PP- 53, 54, n. 22. I am much indebted to this penetrating
study of Luther and Calvin and have made use of it in the presentation offered here.
90 Luther, "Secular Authority," in Worksof MartinLuther.With an Introduction
and Notes by A. J. Holman (Philadelphia, i930), III, 236.
91See my article, "The Delphic Maxim in Medieval Islam and
Judaism," in
BiblicalandOtherStudies,ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Mass., I963), pp. 208-
I3-
257

hand, there was no longer a clear-cut correspondence between man and

the upper world of Divinity.92 Nor was Adam's sin regarded as the
prime cause of evil. Here Adam appears on the scene after the catastro-
phic event of the scattering of the Divine light and the necessity of its
restoration (tiqqan) had already arisen. Man was created in order to
complete the process of tiqqlln, and the theogonic drama of the union
and reintegration of the forces of light was about to be completed when
Adam's sin threw everything back into confusion. Now it is the task of
man to re-enact the process of tiqqanthrough long and protracted effort
until the end of days. The advent of the Messiah means nothing but the
completion of tiqqan by way of fulfilling the commandments of the
Torah and mystical meditation (kawwanah)in prayer.93 As to the effects
of Adam's sin upon himself and mankind as a whole, Luria has a full-
fledged and elaborate doctrine of original sin.94
In the spiritual climate of nineteenth-century Enlightenment, Moses
Mendelssohn discarded the kabbalistic tradition, and, taking his cue
from the Natural Law School which had begun to influence even
Protestant ecclesiastical law, he boldly proclaimed his belief in the
essential goodness of man even in the state of nature. In brushing aside
Hobbes's theory, he implicitly rejected the theological doctrine of
original sin,95 and he said so clearly in his Gegenbetrachtungen iiber
Bonnets Palingenesie, which he wrote toward the end of the year 1769
(but never published), when he had been challenged by Johann Caspar
Lavater either to refute or to accept Christianity: "As for man, we
believe that he was created after the image of God, yet that he was
destined to remain a man, that is, liable to sin. We know nothing of
original sin. Adam and Eve sinned because they were human beings,
and they died because they sinned, and the same happens to all their
posterity. They sin and die."'96 This negation of original sin has
92This is precluded by the very fact that now a variety of Divine configurations, or
is assumed. The concept of the four worlds (see G. Scholem, Major Trendsin
par.;ufim,
Jewish Mysticism [rev. ed.], p. 272) cuts across the doctrine of the parzufim.The
question as to which of the four worlds is man's place of origin is variously answered
in Lurianic Kabbalah (see J. Tishby, Toratha-Racwe-ha-Qelipah be-QabbalatHa-:Ari
[Tel-Aviv, 1942], p. 104 if.).
93 See ibid., pp. 91 ff.; Scholem, op. cit. (n. 92 above), pp. 273
ff.
94 See Tishby, op. cit., pp. Io3
ff.
95 See Moses Mendelssohn, JerusalemoderiiberreligiiiseMacht undJudentum(Berlin,
1783), pp. 7-12 (reprinted in Moses Mendelssohns
gesammelteSchriften[18431, III,
259-61).
96 See MosesMendelssohn
gesammelte ed. Simon Rawidowicz,
SchriftenJubildumsausgabe,
(1930), VII, 96.
258

HomoImagoDei in Jewishand ChristianTheology
becomealmosta dogmain modernJudaism, butwhatmeaningattaches
to the phrasehomoimagoDei? Has it any functionotherthanto express
the notionof the dignityof man? HermannCohenstill triedto retain
its time-honoredPlatonicflavor,but he could do so only becausehe
interpretedthe Platonic "idea" in his own fashion as Grundlegung
(hypothesis).Hence "manin the imageor idea of God" meantto him
the logically understoodcorrelationbetween man's reason and its
"origin"or groundin God.97Yet Platonismas commonlyunderstood
has been proclaimeddead. Accordingto Martin Heidegger'sinter-
pretation,Nietzsche'sobituarynotice of Divinity meant to say that
Platos'supersensibleworldwasdead.98If the notionof Godhad indeed
come to be tied to Platonism,and assumingthat Platonismwas dead,
how do we understandthe homoimagoDei concept? Shall we, with
Lutherand Calvin,see in it the affirmation
of a bondto be achievedby
faithalone,or shallwe, with Luriaand his disciples,stressthe roleman
has to play in redeemingthe world-nay, God Himself-from the
forces of evil? Merely to speak of the "dignity of man" without
anchoringit in somekindof theologywouldseemratherfutile.Is there
a way in whichwe can againspeakof man as createdin God'simage
withoutsoundinghollowandtrivial?Do we stillbelievein manbecause
we believe in God? The question,it appears,concernsJews and
Christiansalike.
97 Cf. my article, "Hermann Cohens Begriff der Korrelation," In Zwei Welten,
Siegfried Moseszum75. Geburtstag (Tel-Aviv, 1962), pp. 377-99. Cohen's interpretation
of the image motif is found in his Die Religionder Vernunft
ausdenQuellendesJudentums
(Leipzig, i919), pp. ioo ff.
98 See Martin Heidegger, Holzwege (Frankfurt a.M., 1957), pp. 199 ff.
259


Article

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Article

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

"Homo Imago Dei" in Jewish and Christian Theology

Author(s): Alexander Altmann

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

The chasm that dividesJewish from Christiantheology manifestsitself

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

by or similar Aramaic equivalents and uses instead the more

1 We-'amar nibra'barnash kadnafaqken.Likewise Gen. 5:3 kadnafaq

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

angels, although, unlike Pseudo-Jonathan, he does not indicate by his

Obviously, Abrabanel's text for Targum Onqelos differed from the

9 Abrabanel, She elot Sha ul Ha-Kohen (Venice, 1574), fol. I2b.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

11 Ed. by Jehudah Sdwsakdn (Eupatoria, 1866). See fol. i8a.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

homilies, their theological stance was one of opposition to any sort of

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

32 On the authenticity of the text as quoted here, see Baer,

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

Peshitta, the Hebrew demiltof Genesis 1: 26.41 The designation of Jesus

41 See Oscar Cullmann, Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments(Tiibingen, 1958), p.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

image of God, which, if not entirely lost, is now deformed.The original

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

or the individual's "radical evil" in the Kantian sense. To the intro-

56 See Wolfson, Philo, II, 230 ff.; 288-90.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

way, reaffirms,according to Gen. 9:6, the creation of man in God's

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

A closely similar argument, to which Professor Gottfried W. Locher of Bern

University has drawn my attention, is found in Calvin's small tract, Ad Quaestiones

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

het" Adam ha-shorashiha-niqra?bi-leshonam"original" (" Concerning the redemption of

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

hand, there was no longer a clear-cut correspondence between man and

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.42 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:12:30 PM

Potrebbero piacerti anche