¹ Marmorstein, Arthur, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, vol. 2: Essays in Anthropomorphism (London: Oxford, 1937).Google Scholar

² A quite different situation exists in early Christian theology; see, however, Paulsen, David, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” HTR 83 (1990) 105–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Heschel, Abraham J. (Theology of Ancient Judaism [2 vols.; London/New York: Soncino, 1965] 2. 22Google Scholar [Hebrew]) has already explained the significance of fire as a descriptive category of the divine and all that is associated with it, such as the Torah. From his discussion, it seems that Heschel is aware of the possibility that fire may constitute a solution to the problem of anthropomorphism. The present discussion will concentrate on the body of God, as reflected in its image—the human body. Much room is left thereby for extensive discussion of the components and qualities of the divine body itself.

⁴ Pines, Shlomo, “Points of Similarity between the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sefirot in the Sefer Yezira and a Text of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: The Implications of this Resemblance,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 7 (1989) 64.Google Scholar The sources discussed by Pines are also relevant for our present discussion concerning the type of body ascribed to God in Sefer Yeẓirah.

⁵ Pines (ibid., 103) considers this sentence a later gloss, for it contradicts the possibility of seeing the divine form, which is mentioned above. See, however, Col 1:15. “Invisible” may refer to the ordinary state, and not to the exceptional condition that the pure-hearted ones attain.

⁶ Alexander Altmann has based his reading of the rabbinic understanding of ẓelem on targumic fine points, while ignoring the positive evidence found in the talmudic and midrashic literature. See Altmann, Alexander, “Homo Imago Dei in Jewish and Christian Theology,” JR 48 (1968) 235–39.Google Scholar

⁷ Smith, Morton, “The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols,” BJRL 40 (1958) 473–512.Google Scholar See further Smith, Morton, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles,” in Neusner, Jacob, ed., Religions in Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 315–26.Google Scholar In the former article, Smith concentrated on the human being—and not on the body—as the image of God. Only in reaction to Jacob Jervell's denial of any form to the human image of God (see below n. 41) did Smith emphasize the bodily as one aspect of ẓelem.

⁸ I believe this is why Smith, in his earlier article (“The Image of God”), believed that those who understood ẓelem in this manner were borrowing ideas from the cult of the emperor. In this article, the bodily meaning of ẓelem was not fully seen. This enabled Smith to draw parallels with the emperor cult. Once the theological underpinnings of this use are recognized, the force of the parallel wanes.

⁹ A11 tannaitic and amoraic sources referring to ẓelem have been analyzed in the context of the present study. One should admit, however, that in the Tanḥuma literature we find several paraphrases that expand the meaning of ẓelem to include eternal life (Tanḥuma [Buber ed.].Shelaḥ 2; compare Wis 2:23), divine glory (Tanḥuma.Pekudei 2), and righteous behavior (Tanḥuma. Bereshit 7). It is important to note that these expansions occur only within this very specific, and younger, set of texts. Moreover, it seems to me that these expansions do not override the older understanding of ẓelem as body, but rather expand it and are derived from it. A relevant example of such an expansion is found in Pesikta Rabati addition A to section A. Eternal life is here understood as a function of the divine light, emanating from the divine form. This accords with the understanding of ẓelem I shall offer below. Divine glory and eternal life can be the consequence of the fullness of ẓelem in its physical understanding. The notion of righteousness, however, seems to be secondary, and merely appended to the physical resemblance as a basis for moral demand. It should be noted that the Tanḥuma Midrashim also expand the meaning and usage of the term “eikonin” (a Greek loan word sometimes used as a substitute for ẓelem). See Tanḥuma (Buber ed.).Vayikra˒ 15; Bamidbar 10; and Tanḥuma.ḥayei Sara 3.

¹⁰ The translation of this and the following texts are from Smith, “On the Shape of God,” 319–20.

¹¹ See also t. Ber. 4.1, and compare b. Šabbat 50b.

¹² Christian exegesis differs greatly from classical Jewish exegesis on this point. The distinction between image and likeness is one of the fundamental features of the Christian interpretations of Gen 1:26. See Thunberg, Lars, “The Human Person as Image of God, Eastern Christianity,” in McGinn, Bernard, ed., Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century (World Spirituality 16; New York: Crossroad, 1985) 297–99.Google Scholar It is only under the philosophical influences of the Middle Ages that the Jewish interpretation of this verse did resort to the distinction between image and likeness, as expressing the distinction between body and soul. See below n. 21. In conversation, Moshe Idel has pointed out that the various processes of diminution of the human body are all expressed in terms of demut rather than ẓelem. See t. Yebamot 8.7 (below p. 191), where the Hebrew refers to demut rather than ẓelem. See also the rabbinic parable in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma˒el.Baḥodesh 8. It seems to me, nevertheless, that while this may indeed be an example of a particular linguistic usage, it does not reflect any significant distinction between ẓelem and demut. The point is best illustrated in the Tosefta's proof text for diminishing the demut, where man was created in the ẓelem of God.

¹³ Schechter, Solomon, ed., Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (1887; reprinted Hildesheim/New York: Olms, 1979) (A) 2 (p. 12).Google Scholar

¹⁴ See, however, the attempt in this passage to limit this image to the image fit for the human and to remove the implications concerning the divine body, in ḥupat Eliyahu, in Eisenstein, Judah David, Oẓar Midrashim (New York: n.p., 1928) 178.Google Scholar See also Sefer Yeẓira 1.2. Concerning the divine image and circumcision, see also the Genizah benediction, Asaf, Simḥa, “From the Palestinian Prayer Order,” in Baer, Yitẓhak et al., eds., The Dinaburg Festschrift (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1949) 121 [Hebrew]Google Scholar; and compare Louis Ginzberg's comments, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (4 vols.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1941) 3. 230 [Hebrew].Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Hoffman, David ẓvi, Midrash Tanaed˒im (Berlin: n.p., 1908) 132.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma˒el. Baḥodesh 8.

¹⁷ See also b. ˓Aboda Zar. 43b, where making an image of a human face is forbidden on the grounds that it is making an image of the divine.

¹⁸ Wolfson, Harry Austryn, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947) 1. 390.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For the Christian understanding of the creation of the human in the image of God, see Thunberg, “The Human Person as Image of God,” 291–312, esp. 295. See also Paulsen, “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity,” 110, 116.

²⁰ See the parable introduced immediately after this parable in Leviticus Rabbah. See also the discussion of Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 241–52.Google Scholar It is possible that a greater polarization of body and soul also led to a reinterpretation of the image of God in some of the later midrashim. See above n. 9.

²¹ See Mid. Hag. on Gen. 1:26 where the two terms, “image” and “likeness,” correspond to soul and body. This post-Maimonidean midrashic compilation is the earliest midrashic reference to the soul as image. I cannot follow Smith's reading (“On the Shape of God,” 318) of Pesikta Rabbati 21.

²² The story about Hillel's bathing his body as the image of God is followed by a story about Hillel regarding his mealtime as a time in which he, as body, hosts a guest—the soul. The juxtaposition of these stories supports our claim that the body-soul relationship does not threaten the physical understanding of ẓelem.

²³ Scholem, Gershom, Elements of the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1976) 358–80 [Hebrew].Google Scholar

²⁴ 1 Cor 15:35–51.

²⁵ Gen. R. 12.6.

²⁶ We lack a clear methodology for tying together different rabbinic dicta. Thus, we can only point to the possible connection between the cosmic dimensions of this body of light, which extends from one end of the world to the other, and the ability of Adam (or, possibly, humans in general) to see from one end of the world to the other by means of the special light that prevailed during the six days of creation (b. ḥag. 12a). If we note the transition, bordering on confusion, between the light of the six days of creation and the light emanating from Adam's body, as found in Gen. R. 12.6, we recognize that we may have before us a network of myths that form a coherent whole when read together. Our recognition of the luminous aspect of Adam's being may constitute an important clue to uncovering and bringing together these different sources. As long as our basis for these associations is thematic, rather than terminological, however, we are in danger of projecting latter-day understandings onto the rabbinic sources. In any event, these possible connections would account for the ways in which later generations might have put the disparate rabbinic statements into a coherent whole.

²⁷ See Adam and Eve 20.2 (OTP 2.281). The nakedness, referred to in Gen. 3:7, reflects the loss of glory in which Adam and Eve were clothed. Glory may here be identical with the image of God, referred to in Adam and Eve 10 (OTP 2. 273).

²⁸ Gen 1:26. See Gen. R. 8. It should be noted that Adam's luminosity is not one of the themes elaborated by this section of midrash.

²⁹ The association of loss of luminescence with similarity to animals is also found in the Armenian text “The Words of Adam to Seth,” in Stone, Michael E., ed., Armenian Apocrypha Relating to the Patriarchs and Prophets (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1982) 13.Google Scholar In this text, however, the loss of divine light is the result of Adam's sin. See also Idel, Moshe, “Enoch is Metatron,” in Dan, Joseph, ed., Proceedings of the First International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism (Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6.1–2; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1987) 155 [Hebrew].Google Scholar

³⁰ See the many references to the beauty of the king, listed in Peter Schäfer, Konkordanz zur Hekalot-Literatur, s.v.

³¹ To think of beauty in terms other than luminosity is conceivable. It is possible, moreover, that proportion also defines beauty and that humankind shares in the divine proportions. Saul Lieberman has pointed out a parallel between the Talmud and the Shi˓ur Qomah. The same proportions are used to describe the perfect divine body and the body which a priest who is qualified to serve in the temple ought to have. Different proportions are considered a blemish. See Lieberman, Saul, Sheki˒in (Jerusalem: Vahrman, 1970) 12Google Scholar; and idem, “Mishnat Shir Hashrim,” in Scholem, Gershom, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Traditions (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965) 125.Google Scholar

³² Eccl. R. 8.1.

³³ See further Pesikta Rabbati 21 in which Israel at Mount Sinai shares in the divine light. The proof text from Ezekiel refers only to beauty.

³⁴ Gen. R. 8.10. Concerning the antignostic background of this legend, see Altmann, Alexander, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Legends,” JQR n.s. 35 (1945) 379–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some additional midrashim employing the same motif are adduced by Altmann.

³⁵ It should be noted that to the extent that we have already had a tampering with the divine image, it is not the result of human sin, but stems from the need to differentiate the human form from the divine form. A further instance of identity between the human and divine image is discussed in Shamma Friedman, “Graven Image,” Graven Images 1 (forthcoming). Friedman analyzes the description of the sleeping Jacob, whose image is identical to God's image which is above (Gen. R. 68.12). Not only is this a further instance of identity of image, but also a parallel to the sleeping image of God, as found in Gen. R. 8.

³⁶ A later reworking of midrashic motives associates the diminishing of the macroanthropic proportions with the problem of the angelic confusion of the divine and the Adamic forms. See Otiyot de-Rabbi Akiva (B) in Wertheimer, Shlomoh, Batei Midrashot (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Ketav ve-Sefer, 1955) 2. 412.Google Scholar

³⁷ A11 the proofs that Marmorstein marshalled for nonanthropomorphic rabbinic views relate to bodily functions and not bodily existence. We cannot assume that the denial of bodily function implies the denial of bodily existence. See Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism, 24–42.

³⁸ See b. Soṭ 10a; five were created in the pattern of above. After the removal of ẓelem these five individuals were given special qualities, resembling the divine qualities or the divine form.

³⁹ This luminosity, however, is not necessarily the original ẓelem. The dialogue of Adam and Moses may be based on the notion that the ẓelem has been lost.

⁴⁰ Jellinek, Adolph, Beit ha-Midrash (6 vols.; Leipzig: Niese, 1853; reprinted Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1967) 3. 168.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Jervell, Contra Jacob, Imago Dei: Gen l,26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis, und in den paulinischen Briefen (FRLANT 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 83.Google Scholar Jervell's whole thesis is based on the limiting of ẓelem to Israel through the Sinai event. Even though we find references to Sinai as a reflection of the Adamic sin (b. Šabbat 146a), nowhere is this expressed in terms of ẓelem. The references above to the light received at Sinai do not consciously relate to the divine image. The only possible restoration of ẓelem is in the messianic future. Our explanation of ẓelem may account for this fact.

⁴² In this context I have not included certain sources that could be considered relevant to the present discussion. Gen. R. 8.10 describes God as placing sleep upon Adam in order to counteract the undesired effects of Adam's physical identity with God. This source does not associate the sleep placed upon Adam with a loss of ẓelem. One could, of course, offer such an association, but one would then have to regard all changes in the original Adamic form as a loss of ẓelem. See below n. 46.

⁴³ See Adam and Eve 37.3 (OTP 2. 272). I understand this text to designate human vulnerability to animal attacks as a result of sin.

⁴⁴ See also 3 Enoch 5 (in Odeberg, Hugo, ed. and trans., 3 Enoch; or The Hebrew Book of Enoch [New York: Ktav, 1973] 14–15)Google Scholar where Adam and Eve are sitting at the gates of the garden of Eden and contemplating the image of the splendor of the Shekinah. The text informs us that whoever contemplates this splendor is protected not only from demons, but from illness, mosquitoes, and flies. Here it is the divine effulgence, and not the human effulgence, that offers protection. Moshe Idel, in conversation, has suggested that Adam and Eve are contemplating the divine effulgence and receiving protection from it since their own light has been lost.

⁴⁵ Asaf, “From the Palestinian Prayer Order,” 121. See also Mann, Jacob, “Genizah Fragments of the Palestine Order of Service,” HUCA 2 (1925) 277.Google Scholar See also Ginzberg's attempt to disregard the theological implications of this benediction in his A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, 3. 230.

⁴⁶ The more common blessing (“who created man in his image”; b. Ketub. 8a), recited at the time of marriage, may refer to Adam, but clearly also to his progeny. The ẓelem is the basis for the propagation of further generations, who share in this ẓelem. One should note that this benediction can also be related to the restitution of a lost ẓelem, or at least a lost unity. According to the midrashic tradition (Gen. R. 8.1) the original Adam was both male and female. The creation of Eve was a process of separating this original unity. It is only when man and woman are united in marriage that this unity is reestablished. It would therefore be appropriate to make a blessing referring to the creation in God's image at this particular occasion. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the midrash the term ẓelem is not related to Adam's bisexual nature, but see Gen. R. 8.9: “Not man without woman, and not woman without man, and not both of them without the divine presence.” This comment explains the words, “in our image and likeness.” This sharp interpretation, however, may dissociate this image from the divine image. See also Gen. R. 8.11, “the heavenly beings were created in image and likeness, and do not propagate.” Humans are to share in the divine likeness, as well as to propagate. Thus, it would seem that propagation is not in and of itself an attribute of the divine image. Concerning the appearance of the term ẓelem in conjunction with Adamic myths, see Tanḥuma (Buber ed.).Tazri˓a 10, where the adjacent notion in Genesis Rabbah, relating Adam's cosmic dimensions, is connected to the divine image.

⁴⁷ This idea may perhaps follow traditions such as Gen. R. 19.3.

⁴⁸ Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma˓el.Baḥodesh 11; Hoffman, Midrash Tana˒im, 140. See also b. Mo˓ed Qaṭ 15b: every person who dies is an image of God that has been removed.

⁴⁹ See esp. Jervell (Imago Dei, 113–14), who relies on Ginzberg, among others.

⁵⁰ See esp. Moore, George Foot (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era [3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927] 1. 446–49)Google Scholar, who makes no mention of the possibility of losing the divine image and sees in the image a universal moral principle; see further 1. 479. Kittel, Gerhard (“εὶκὡν,” TDNT 2 [1964] 393)Google Scholar explicitly denies the idea that the image was lost and limits the possibility of losing the image to individuals rather than to humanity as a whole.

⁵¹ Smith, “On the Shape of God,” 320.

⁵² The other aspects of the image would be those mentioned in the later Tanḥuma literature; see above n. 9.

⁵³ These texts include m. ˒Abot 3.14; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma˒el. Baḥodesh 8, 11; Hoffman, Midrash Tana˒im, 140.

⁵⁴ See Altmann, “The Gnostic Background.”

⁵⁵ See, for example, Tanḥuma. Yitro 17; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. Friedmann, Meir; Vienna: n.p., 1880) 21/108b.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ An illustration of such a conceptual approach, although without the active use of ẓelem, may be found in two teachings of Rabbi Meir, which I have cited above. In one passage, we find him referring to Adam's garments of light. In another, the hanged man's corpse resembles the divine form and therefore must not be left hanging on a tree. See also Adam and Eve 10; 12 (OTP 2. 273; 275). As I understand it, the animal can both attack Seth, because of the loss of the divine image, and yet be reprimanded for it, on account of the creation in the image of God, which subsists in some form.

⁵⁷ It should also be noted that for the most part Genesis 9 is used, rather than Genesis 1. Ginzberg, Louis (“Adam Kadmon,” JE 1 [1901] 138)Google Scholar has raised the question concerning Rabbi Akiva's choice of a proof text in m. ˒Abot 3.14. Ginzberg ascribes to a noncorporeal understanding ẓelem, which he uses to explain this difficulty. I can only suggest that perhaps this verse was chosen because it translated the concept of image into a practical commandment.

⁵⁸ I suggest that Hillel, who washes his body, regards his body as the other. The Philonic use of the word εὶκὡν (“image”) would enable reference to the εὶκὡν as self.

⁵⁹ See Henry Fischel's discussion of the Ben Azzai traditions; Fischel tries (Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy [Leiden: Brill, 1973] 92)Google Scholar to tie the two notions together. There is no textual evidence for this association. See, however, the juxtaposition of the regard for the divine image and God's identification with Israel (Mid. Tan. to Deut 21:23 [Hoffman, Midrash Tana˒im, 132]).

⁶⁰ See the extensive discussion in Marmorstein, Essays in Anthropomorphism, 62–68.

⁶¹ This is why the growing polarity of soul and body itself should not be seen as a reason for the minimal usage of ẓelem.

⁶² See m. ˒Abot 3.14. There is a clear hierarchy leading from ẓelem to Torah. It should be noted that this is the only passage in rabbinic literature that builds on ẓelem as a positive category that endows humanity with value. See also (t. Yebamot, discussed below, p. 191. Ben Azzai prefers the Torah to the possible effects on the divine image of not having children. The Torah is the basis for owning and losing the ẓelem in Deut. R. 4.4, discussed above, p. 184.

⁶³ Jervell, Imago Dei, 83.

⁶⁴ Smith, “On the Shape of God.”

⁶⁵ See Exod. R. 30.16. See also Smith, “On the Shape of God,” 325.

⁶⁶ The elaboration of this point would call for a detailed assessment of the place of myth in rabbinic literature and how much polemic is expressed in the various Adam legends. These questions are beyond the scope of this paper.

⁶⁷ This is my understanding of (“great principle”) in this instance. It should be noted that this is the only nonhalakhic instance of the term in rabbinic literature. It is also the only case of disagreement over what is the “great principle.” See also Bacher, Wilhelm, Erkhei Midrash (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1923) 56.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Sifra on Leviticus (ed. Weiss, Isaac H.; Vienna: n.p., 1862) 89b (Lev 19:17).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ I should note that Ben Azzai is not the only one mentioned in the following passage. The corroborative evidence of these two passages, however, enables us to speak of his beliefs. These beliefs may not have been exclusive to him.

⁷⁰ Parallel versions, such as Gen. R. 24, read “diminishes” instead of “annuls.”

⁷¹ A third possibility may exist; if the human is analogous to the emperor's statue (see above n. 16), the diminishing of life is a diminishing of the king's representation. Although such a reading is indeed possible, I favor the other explanations discussed in the article. The starkness of the unique expression—“annuls the image”—is lost in this third interpretive possibility, which might have been better phrased: “annuls the image of makom [a common rabbinic epithet for God],” or even “the image of the king,” as in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma˒el. Baḥodesh 8.

⁷² It is important to note that humanity, and not the world as such, would be the divine body. The only rabbinic source in which the world—and not people—is seen as the divine image is Exod. R. 15.22, with the parallel in Tanḥuma.ḥayei Sara 3. This, however, fits in with the wider use of “eikonin” in the Tanḥuma Midrashim. See above n. 9.

⁷³ Such a notion would accord with other notions of the time regarding the great macroanthropic being. See Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G., “Forms of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ,” HTR 76 (1983) 269–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This understanding of the divine image need not exclude the simple understanding of physical resemblance. The structure of the part may reflect the structure of the whole.

⁷⁴ Perhaps we should contrast this with Rabbi Akiva's lesson from the creation of the image of God—“beloved is man.” For Ben Azzai, who is willing to use the image as the great principle, being a part of the greater image of God may be an ontological statement. It should be noted that if this understanding of Ben Azzai is correct, this notion does not seem to find further expression in rabbinic literature. The fact that the divine image would necessarily include Gentiles may serve as an explanation. See Jewett, Robert, Paul's Anthropological Terms (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 240.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ For this understanding of “golem,” see Idel, Moshe, Golem (New York: SUNY Press, 1990) 34.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Exod. R. 40.3.

⁷⁷ The association of body and plan is related to the book metaphor that appears in the midrash, based on Ps 139:16. See Gen. R. 24.2.

⁷⁸ See also y. Ned. 9.4, where Rabbi Akiva and Ben Azzai's controversy is adduced and the metaphor of body is used explicitly to effect proper behavior between the different components of the body.

⁷⁹ Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948) 45–57Google Scholar; Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms, 239–45.

⁸⁰ For a survey of possibilities for the origin of this concept, see Barth, Markus, Ephesians 1–3 (AB 34; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 183–210.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The concept of Christ as image is commonly seen as drawing upon the Hellenistic identification of image and wisdom. This obviously would have little to do with any understanding of Christ as body. See, for example, Lohse, Eduard, Colossians and Philemon (ed. Koester, Helmut; trans. William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris; Hermeneia; Fortress: Philadelphia, 1971) 46–48.Google Scholar See also Altmann, “Homo Imago Dei,” 244–47.

⁸² On the relation of Jesus and the first Adam, see Rom 5:12–19; 1 Cor 15:20–22.

⁸³ Nevertheless, the image is not a natural category, but one that must be attained through joining the community of believers.

⁸⁴ Idel, Moshe, Kabbalah—New Perspectives (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1988) 158.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ These are, of course, not the only aspects. The notion of the diminishing of the divine form is reflected in Jesus' incarnation. See Phil 2:6–8; and Stroumsa, “Forms of God,” 283.

⁸⁶ See Gen. R. 12.6. Compare also the Genizah benediction discussed above. The juxtaposition of ẓelem and the restoration of the temple may imply the simultaneous reinstatement of both. See further Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 152–56.

⁸⁷ See the recent discussion of Paffenroth, Kim, “Paulsen on Augustine: An Incorporeal or Nonanthropomorphic God?” HTR 86 (1993) 233–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar