Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2145Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God

Expand Messages
  • Deane Galbraith
    Apr 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't know that "bi-sexual" is the best word for the sexuality of God and adam: the term usually refers to those who have sex with both men and women. While Yahweh certainly had sex with his divine consort, Asherah, I don't know of any male gods Yahweh had intercourse with. There is that moment in 1 Sam 16.12, where Yahweh seems so overcome with David's physical beauty that he chooses him as king rather than Saul: "Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome, and Yahweh said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.'" But while there may have been a little divine lust involved here, the Bible of course does not mention any sex between Yahweh and his anointed one.
       
      The usual explanation, along these lines, is that God and adam are "androgynous" rather than "bi-sexual". Phyllis Trible, for example, links the creation of adam in Gen 1 to other creation myths involving the creation of a primal androgyne. Stephen Moore has more recently argued that the reason that Yahweh only showed his rear end to Moses was to hide the fact that he had both male and female genitals up front. Whether he is right or not, it does logically follow that if adam was created as an androgyne, and adam was created in the (at least physical) image of God, then God too must possess both penis and vagina.
       
      I tend to think, however, that the shift from plural to singular adam in Gen 1 and 5 indicates that "adam" refers both to corporate humanity and the individual named "Adam", rather than an androgyne combining male and female elements. It's hard to tell, though, and the coincidence of a shift from plural to singular in describing both adam and God is curious.
       
      Deane Galbraith
      Antipodes
       

      ________________________________
      From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
      To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012 4:59 AM
      Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God


       
      וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
      Dever has speculated on the basis of archaeological finds that Asherah may have been an integral part of Israelite religion.  I'm wondering whether this passage might be a remnant of the conception of the divine council as being bi-sexual  Man, i.e. humanity may here be represented as being in the image of God in being bi-sexual in nature  If so, this would represent an older stage of Hebrew religion before Yahweh alone was conceived as being the God of Israel and the sole God 
       
      george
      gfsomsel

      search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus 
       

      _________


      >________________________________
      > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:47 AM
      >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
      >
      >
      >

      >
      >Hi George,
      >
      >Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not pre-critical only. Both during the critical period, as well as today in a period that is somewhat post-critical, the more traditional view has many qualified academic proponents, though certainly with modifications. Additionally, not only compositional but tradition history comes into play.
      >
      >Blessings,
      >
      >Jerry
      >
      >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
      >Associate Professor of Old Testament
      >Taylor Seminary
      >11525 - 23 Avenue
      >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
      >CANADA
      >Office: (780)431-5250
      >Home: (780)434-1164
      >Fax: (780)436-9416
      >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
      >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
      >
      >________________________________
      >
      >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
      >Sent: Sat 3/31/2012 11:28 AM
      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
      >
      >That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one-prior to the rise of critical views-you MUST view it as you state). I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position. Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models. I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.
      >
      >george
      >gfsomsel
      >
      >search for truth, hear truth,
      >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      >defend the truth till death.
      >
      >- Jan Hus
      >_________
      >...
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic