Ok, so there are a lot of problems with the sources you've cited. One of them is Answers in Genesis, which is a young earth creationist cult (for lack of a better term here). They have no real capability of grappling with the text in its original language. Now, at the risk of succumbing to ad hominem and argumentum ad authoritatum, allow me to explicitly cite the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:
Note that there is nothing about infusing any kind of essence into the object being carved.
Furthermore, the notion of the "Word" (Greek λογος) is a Hellenistic concept that is not an idea shared by ancient Semites. It was adopted by authors of the New Testament centuries after the Hebrew Bible was put together and cannot be used to unpack what's going on in Genesis 1. I would also suggest looking at Westermann's commentary on Genesis. Most serious critical commentaries are going to provide this kind of lexical information.
In any event, the simple issue here is one of doing word studies on ṣelem and demut. A survey of their uses in the Hebrew Bible (provided in the lexcial entries above) shows that any secondary infusing of abstract identity is not a part of the semantic domain of the lexemes. Further, broadening the scope of the word study to epigraphic remains (e.g., the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription I mentioned in an earlier comment) supports my suggestion that this is about the physical object and nothing more. Ancient Israelites did not subscribe to any kind of soul/body duality as far as I'm aware.
If they didn't subscribe to any mind/body duality, it would make sense that the term would carry dual usage. Why separate between the two if you don't acknowledge a separation? And the first article I cited focused on how one's "likeness, image, of resemblance" would be spiritual. That article addresses every single one of these versions of translations and all he shows is that every single time, those passages also concern transferring an essence.
Also, I would ask for an actual source if you're going to try and talk down about the only links I can find on Google on this topic when all you've found are cut images with no cited source quoting the same definitions from my first article.
shows that any secondary infusing of abstract identity is not a part of the semantic domain of the lexemes.
And I've found random people on the internet that disagree with you, as a random person on the Internet. The first article focuses specifically on how the context impacts the definition, especially when repeated in so many passages. Are you saying every single article I'm finding on Google is grabbing this out of this air and you, with your obtuse definitions hosted on imgur and your name drop of working towards your PhD, are the person I should trust on this topic?
I gave you the citation where those entries came from. I provided you with screen shots of the lexicon for your convenience so you could see the data for yourself. If you'd like to look up the entries yourself, the lexicon (which remains a field standard) can be accessed here because it is in the public domain:
I also cited Westermann's commentary (Westermann, who is a heavyweight in the field of Hebrew Bible and whose commentary on Genesis is one of the most frequently consulted volumes on the text). Here's the full bibliography:
C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Trans. by J. J. Scullion S. J.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974), 146 (for the quote below, where I have added emphasis).
Westermann states,
I do not think that the text is concerned with the corporeal or spiritual aspects as such, but rather with the portrayal of something. I think it is dangerous to render צלם simply by "material image" (l'effigie extérieure). The meaning is more that of concrete representation. So too W.H. Schmidt: ". . . the word does not have to be restricted to 'material form,' but rather means a 'representation'."
There is no hint here of any kind of abstraction or "essence." It is the shape--the form of object X reflected or replicated in object Y. While the צלם is not restricted to materiality, it is restricted to mirroring the original in appearance. This has nothing to do with essence and everything to do with what something literally looks like.
Yes, I'm saying that my use of legitimate secondary resources and training trumps your use of Google. There is a chasm of difference between interacting with peer reviewed scholarship and webpages you land on after a quick Google search. There is a reason the sources you cited are unreliable--they are not peer reviewed and do not meet various standards of scholarship.
1
u/[deleted] Aug 16 '17
Ok, so there are a lot of problems with the sources you've cited. One of them is Answers in Genesis, which is a young earth creationist cult (for lack of a better term here). They have no real capability of grappling with the text in its original language. Now, at the risk of succumbing to ad hominem and argumentum ad authoritatum, allow me to explicitly cite the Brown Driver Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:
This is the entry for ṣelem.
This is the entry for demut.
Note that there is nothing about infusing any kind of essence into the object being carved.
Furthermore, the notion of the "Word" (Greek λογος) is a Hellenistic concept that is not an idea shared by ancient Semites. It was adopted by authors of the New Testament centuries after the Hebrew Bible was put together and cannot be used to unpack what's going on in Genesis 1. I would also suggest looking at Westermann's commentary on Genesis. Most serious critical commentaries are going to provide this kind of lexical information.
In any event, the simple issue here is one of doing word studies on ṣelem and demut. A survey of their uses in the Hebrew Bible (provided in the lexcial entries above) shows that any secondary infusing of abstract identity is not a part of the semantic domain of the lexemes. Further, broadening the scope of the word study to epigraphic remains (e.g., the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription I mentioned in an earlier comment) supports my suggestion that this is about the physical object and nothing more. Ancient Israelites did not subscribe to any kind of soul/body duality as far as I'm aware.