Abnormal Interests

I agree with the biblical literalists on at least one account; unless the text clearly indicates otherwise, readers should take it literally. Of course, that doesn't mean that one need agree with it. So let's look at the textual basis of Kleiman's claim. Genesis 1: 26 and 27 reads,

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (בצלמנו כדמותנו). And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created man in his own image (בצמו), in the image of God (בצלם אלהים), he created him; male and female he created them.

Before one can understand what this literally means one needs to look first at a couple of Hebrew words to be clear as to what they mean and then one needs to look at the context of the passages within the Genesis 1 creation story.

Let's start with the two Hebrew words, צלם and דמות. The first word, often translated in these passages as "image" is the same word that in many other contexts means image in a very general sense. More on this later. The second one, translated "likeness" is from a verbal root meaning to be like or resemble. "Resemblance" is a good first order translation of the feminine noun. Note Genesis 5:3, which also contains both roots but in the opposite order of Genesis 1:27,

And when Adam has lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

What we have here is what one might call a generic resemblance. They looked alike. We are not told that Seth had any particular "spiritual" affinity with Adam. In context after context, both words literally describe how things and objects look.

Ezekiel 1:5 says,

And from the midst of it (a fire) came the likeness (דמות) of four living creatures. And this was their appearance (דמות): They had the form of men . . .

These creatures of the fire looked like men with a couple notable exceptions. We can see the same thing in passages like Isaiah 40:18 and 19.

To whom then will you compare God, or what likeness (דמות) is comparable to him?
The idol! A workman casts it, a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains.

Again, whatever else the idol is, it is a visual entity. We may be able to see it but we are told it does not look like God.

This brings us to the word that is used three times in Genesis 1:26 and 27 (צלם) to describe man. With a possible exception that we need to look at, this word also always means a visual image or appearance. The possible exception is itself instructive. In Psalm 38:6b-7a in most translations and 39:6b-7a in the Hebrew Bible the lamenting singer sings,

. . .standing as a mere likeness.

But this is not some symbol of lost spirituality. It is itself a visual image. The singer is in such bad shape that he only looks like a person and just barely that. I even wonder if one might rather translate this passage into modern vernacular, "looking terrible." By the way, most translations paraphrase this as "going about mourning" or the like which I think may well be correct but it loses the power of the imagery (pun intended) of the Hebrew passage.

To what extent does the larger context help us? In the Genesis 1 account of creation which runs through Genesis 2:3 (and maybe Genesis 3:4a), the god of this story creates the earth and everything within it, including humankind, in six days. In the "day" before creating the land animals and humankind, god created the sea creatures according to their "kinds." On the sixth day, god first makes the land animals according to their "kinds." You may remember that I wrote about the Hebrew work often translated "kind" in an earlier post. There is no obvious symbolic content in any of this. There is symbolic content in the whole of the story. That symbolism provides the reader with an etiology for keeping the Sabbath. And of course, that is the point of the whole story and the only moral that one can take away.

So, both of our Hebrew words involve visual effects in every context. A literal reading of Genesis 1:26, 27 can only be that man looks like god and I mean this literally. Lest you think this farfetched; remember that most of the gods looked like something. El looked like a bull for example. And it wasn't only symbolic. In the Genesis passages, there is not a hint that the reader should take this in any way other than completely literally. There is nothing in the story to make one think that one should somehow see man as sacred, only created. He is just a last creation that god made and god made him to look like himself. No reason or explanation is given. Likewise, there is no reason to think that the story or the two "image" words themselves are a metaphor for anything. As I have said, the story is an etiology for a weekly ritual event and the words should be taken very literally.

Kleiman and many others are simply wrong in thinking that there is any deep moral claim or sacred identity for man in anything in Genesis 1 beyond keeping the Sabbath. Kleiman is far from alone in his misreading. Over the long history of Christianity and Judaism, many have read other Biblical passages, as well as later Christian and rabbinic doctrine, into this creation story. I see no justification within Genesis 1 for any such readings. This is particularly true if, like me, you are a biblical literalist.

There is no "direct and convincing argument in favor of universal human rights" in Genesis 1. In fact, there is not even the smallest indication that this passage has anything to do with human rights at all. The Genesis 1 creation story has no more to do with human rights than it has to do with modern biology. It simply is mute on both.

Just for the record, I do think there are direct and convincing argument(s) in favor of universal human rights; they just aren't in Genesis 1.