THE LIKENESS OF THE IMAGE: ADAMIC MOTIFS AND ANTHROPOLOGY IN RABBINIC TRADITIONS ABOUT JACOB’S IMAGE ENTHRONED IN HEAVEN

ABSTRACT

The present article analyzes various texts concerning Jacob’s image engraved on the throne of glory and attempts to determine their possible tradition sources. It remarks that the Jacob texts employ terms and imageries used in Second Temple and early rabbinic writings to describe Adam’s special status as the image of God or the equivalent of a cultic representation of an ancient Near Eastern king or of a Roman emperor. Several texts of these Adamic traditions construct a dichotomic portrayal of the protoplast. In these traditions the protoplast’s earthliness encounters opposition and ridicule from angels, in contrast to his status as the cultic statue of the godhead, for which he receives angelic reverence. The Jacob texts similarly build a dichotomic portrayal of Jacob; the patriarch’s heavenly aspect (i.e. his image enthroned in heaven) is contrasted with his earthly dimension. The latter dimension encounters opposition and ridicule from angels, while Jacob’s heavenly status receives angelic worship. For the purpose of illustrating the iconic function of Jacob, the Jacob texts employ a parable about the connection between a king and his cultic statues. This parable is also present within Adamic traditions for the exemplification of Adam’s iconic value. The Jacob texts reveal a similar anthropology and terminology as the Adamic writings. The parallel investigation of the two traditions demonstrates a conspicuous dependence of the Jacob texts on the Adamic traditions.

The scarcity and the succinctness of the midrashic and targumic texts concerning the image of Jacob on the throne of the divine dwbk do not permit an exhaustive ascertainment of their possible tradition sources. Contemporary scholarship does not furnish any attempts for such an analysis.¹ This article analyzes the Jacob texts and contends that the tradition regarding Jacob’s image is built on traditions surrounding the protoplast. The Jacob texts employ terms and imageries used in Second Temple and early rabbinic writings to describe Adam’s special status as the image of God. The Jacob texts further construct a dichotomic portrayal of Jacob; the patriarch’s heavenly aspect (i.e. his image enthroned in heaven) is contrasted with his earthly dimension. The latter dimension encounters opposition and ridicule from angels, while Jacob’s heavenly status receives angelic worship. The dichotomous portrayal of Jacob is reminiscent of the anthropology of Adamic traditions. In these traditions the protoplast’s earthliness encounters opposition and ridicule from angels, in contrast to his status as the cultic statue of the godhead, for which he receives angelic reverence. For the purpose of illustrating the iconic function of Jacob, the Jacob texts employ a parable about the connection between a king and his cultic statues. This parable is developed within Adamic traditions for the exemplification of Adam’s iconic value.

The Texts

The traditions regarding Jacob’s image in heaven are extant in several exegetic endeavors of targumic and midrashic writings. In these exegeses Jacob’s dream of Gen 28:12 functions as the portal to a heavenly reality. Jacob sees in a dream that his image is engraved on a heavenly throne. The revelation provokes unrest among angels, a to and fro journey between the sleeping patriarch and his enthroned image.

Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 28:12 states that the image of Jacob is “fixed on the throne of the Glory.”² A ladder facilitates the ascent of the present angels to heaven to inform the other angels that the image they contemplate on the heavenly throne has an earthly counterpart or prototype. Similarly, Tg. Neof. on Gen 28:12 describes the angelic ascent as the bearing of the good tiding that the prototype of the image “engraved on the throne of glory” is asleep on earth. The angels descend to look at the prototype of the heavenly image and again ascend to look at the image itself in heaven as in a desire to confirm the similarity.³ Jacob’s image engraved on the throne of God is also mentioned in Gen. Rab. 82:2,⁴ as well as in Num. Rab. 4:1⁵ and Lam. Rab. 2:1.⁶ A passage in Hekhalot Rabbati, a late mystical treatise,⁷ describes “the image of Jacob’s face” as “engraved on the throne of glory (dwbk).”⁸

The tradition of Jacob’s image undergoes significant developments in certain rabbinic circles and constitutes a topic of disagreements. Genesis Rabbah, a classical Palestinian midrash dated to the beginning of the fifth century C.E.,⁹ records an exegetical dissent attributed to R. Hiyya the Elder and his disciple and colleague R. Jannai.¹⁰ R. Hiyya the Elder was a Palestinian Tanna of the early third century. R. Jannai was a first generation Palestinian Amora.

R. Hiyya the Elder and R. Jannai disagreed. One maintained: They were ascending and descending the ladder; while the other said: They were ascending and descending on Jacob. The statement that they were ascending and descending the ladder presents no difficulty. The statement that they were ascending and descending on Jacob we must take to mean that some were exalting him and others degrading him, dancing, leaping, and maligning him. Thus it says, Israel in whom I will be glorified (Isa 49:3); it is thou, whose features are engraved on high; they ascended on high and saw his features and they descended below and found him sleeping. It may be compared to a king who sat and judged in a [basilica]¹¹; people ascend to the basilica and find him [judging],¹² they go out to the chamber and find him [sleeping].¹³ (Gen. Rab. 68:12)¹⁴

R. Hiyya apparently interprets wb of Gen 28:12 as a reference to the ladder. In R. Jannai’s exegesis wb is associated with Jacob. It is difficult to ascertain if the dissent between R. Hiyya and R. Jannai concerns solely the interpretation of the ambiguous biblical wb or it also extends to the motif of angelic derisive attitude toward Jacob. Only the ensuing expansion of the two rabbinic interpretations introduces the motif of angelic derisive attitude toward Jacob. This commentary interprets the movement of the angels “to mean that some [angels] were exalting him (i.e. Jacob) and others degrading him, dancing, leaping, and maligning him.”¹⁵

Peter Schäfer notes that in rabbinic understanding sleep defines human Sterblichkeit and Vergänglichkeit.¹⁶ He further remarks:

Die Engel entdecken, daß das Bild, das sie täglich im Himmel sehen und das von Gott so sehr geehrt wird, in Wirklichkeit das Abbild eines ganz gewöhnlichen und sterblichen Menschen ist. Ihre Reaktion is der Spott: Sie verspotten den in ihren Augen erbärmlichen Menschen und sind sich ihrer Überlegenheit gewiß.¹⁷

The contradictory reaction of the angels reflects the complexity of their vision; they see both the image of Jacob enthroned in heaven and Jacob sleeping on earth. The contrast enthronement-sleep expresses a polarity between glorification and prostration, dominion and vulnerability. This polarity resides in the essence of Jacob and, may be argued, of the human condition. Jacob is both the enthroned image and the vulnerable human asleep. In this context the quotation of Isa 49:3 emphasizes that Jacob’s heavenly dimension is a representation of God and a symbol of divine presence. This ontological polarity of the human condition does not originate in Jacob traditions.

While the attribution of the midrash to R. Hiyya the Elder and R. Jannai is questionable, the tradition about Jacob’s image has known widespread circulation among early rabbinic circles. Additional evidence places the roots of the tradition before R. Hiyya’s time and further associates R. Hiyya’s circles with this tradition.

b. Hul. 91b records, as Schäfer notes, “eine verkürzte Fassung des Midraschs”¹⁸:

A Tanna taught: They ascended to look at the image ()nqwyd) above and descended to look at the image ()nqwyd) below. They wished to hurt him (w(b hynwksl), when Behold, the Lord stood beside him (Gen 28:13). R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Were it not expressly stated in the Scripture, we would not dare to say it. [God is made to appear] like a man who is fanning his son (wnb l( Pynm# Md)k). (b. Hul. 91b)¹⁹

The first half of the text is attributed to an unnamed Tanna. Such attribution is a conventional talmudic method of introducing a view that is extensively accredited to Tannaitic circles.

The second half of the text is most probably juxtaposed to the view attributed to the Tannaim because of its similar focus on and interpretation of Gen 28:13. It further associates the tradition of the angelic opposition to Jacob with R. Hiyya’s circles. It is accredited to R. Simeon b. Lakish (or simply Resh Lakish), a mid third century Palestinian Amora, who was a colleague and brother-in-law of R. Johanan (b. Nappaha),²⁰ a disciple of R. Jannai.

Num. Rab. 4:1,²¹ which is part of the late (possibly medieval) section of Numbers Rabbah, attributes a similar interpretation of Gen 28:13 to the famous third century Caesarean Amora R. Hoshaya.²² R. Hoshaya was a pupil of R. Hiyya the Elder, whose discipleship he shared with R. Jannai. In collaboration with R. Jannai he also contributed to the education of R. Johanan, and together benefited of the erudition of R. Simeon b. Lakish. Given the possible medieval dating of the text, the attribution must be considered with caution. It is necessary to emphasize the similarity between this text and the traditions attributed to R. Hiyya, R. Jannai, and Resh Lakish. The text also provides additional support to the connection between R. Hiyya’s circle and the Jacob traditions.

Modern scholarship has formulated several general conclusions concerning the Jacob texts. First, in all forms of the traditions Jacob is doubled by his image/likeness (NyNwqy)/ )nqwyd). Second, the “throne of glory” or “of God,” on which Jacob’s image is engraved, is reminiscent of the throne of the dwbk of Ezek 1:26-28. Christopher Rowland contends that this connection implies that Jacob is identified with the divine dwbk of Ezek 1:26-28.²³ The identification is further supported by b. Hul. 91b,²⁴ which preserves a supposedly Tannaitic tradition according to which the angels ascending and descending on the ladder of Jacob are the four angels accompanying the throne of the dwbk in Ezekiel 1. David Halperin notes that the identification is also proposed in a targumic Tosefta to Ezekiel in the medieval MS Montefiore, in which the dwbk is identified with the form (trwc) of Jacob.²⁵ An identification of Jacob’s image with the dwbk of Ezekiel 1 is also present in the Slavonic Ladder of Jacob.²⁶

The association of Jacob with the dwbk of Ezekiel 1 introduces the possibility of a connection between the Jacob texts and traditions about Adam, who constitutes a prominent identity of the dwbk in Second Temple literature.²⁷ This possibility has remained heretofore unexplored. Linguistic and thematic analyses of the Jacob texts provide additional support for this connection.

Linguistic Considerations

All the targumic Jacob texts and, with the notable exception of b. Hul. 91b, all the rabbinic texts designate the image of Jacob with Nynwqy), a Palestinian Aramaic transliteration of ei0kw/n/ei)ko/nion.²⁸ A second century C.E. (circa 140) papyrus (BGU #423) contains a phonetic link between the Greek terms and the Aramaic transliteration, namely the peculiar form ei0ko/nin.²⁹ This form could either be an accusative singular form of ei0kw/n³⁰ or a nominative-accusative-vocative form of ei)ko/nion.³¹ According to Marcus Jastrow the Aramaic term, which has two other variants, Nwqy) (an exact transliteration of ei0kw/n) and )nwqy), means ‘picture,’ ‘image,’ or ‘features.’³² Niynwqy) is also commonly used in the classical Palestinian midrashim to denote royal statues.

b. Hul. 91b uses a late Jewish literary Aramaic cognate of Nynwqy), namely )nqwyd (with the variant Nqwyd). Levy translates it as ‘image.’³³ Jastrow notes that the word is “a reverential transformation of Nwqy)” and translates it with ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’³⁴ )nqwyd also occurs in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan³⁵ and scarcely in the Babylonian Talmud.³⁶

Jarl Fossum notes that the use in the Jacob texts of the words Nynwqy) and )nqwyd bears witness to connections with early traditions about Adam, who is defined as the image of God in the same terms. In Tg. Ps.-J. twmd of Gen 1:26 and 5:1 and Mlc of Gen 1:27 and 9:6 are rendered with )nqwyd; Mlc of Gen 5:3 is rendered with hynwqy).³⁷ Moreover, in b. B. Bat. 58a )nqwyd defines Adam’s status as the image of God.

Angelic Veneration and Opposition

In the Priestly Source and the book of Ezekiel Adam’s special relationship with the deity is defined by means of Mlc and twmd (Gen 1:26; Ezek 1:26). The two terms belong to the vocabulary regarding the cultic statues of gods.³⁸ Recent scholarship has further contended that the use of the two terms in the definition of Adam’s special relationship to the deity implies that the protoplast was regarded as the equivalent of a pagan cult statue or idol as early as the exilic period.³⁹ For the Priestly Source and the author of Ezekiel Adam functions as God’s representation. This expands considerably the problem of aniconism versus iconism in Second Temple Judaism. Shamma Friedman locates precisely the new issue:

Of course, the ban on icons is in force… But how about in the other direction? “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine” (Song 6:4). If I manufacture an icon picturing my Beloved and worship it, I deserve the death penalty. Would my Beloved equally refrain from the graven image?⁴⁰

For the Priestly Source and Ezekiel, as well as for subsequent Adam traditions, the godhead creates its sole self-portrait in Adam.

Crispin Fletcher-Louis has subsequently extended the implications of the early Second Temple conception and has proposed a connection to later expressions regarding the worship-worthiness of Adam.⁴¹ He has remarked that, in light of the cultic setting of Genesis 1,⁴² “to speak of an ‘image’ in this context is to allude to a cult object.”⁴³ It could be further added that, as in the ancient Near East the statues of the gods mediate the presence of the gods to humanity in a cultic setting and for a cultic purpose,⁴⁴ in early Second Temple Judaism the iconic Adam is also perceived as YHWH’s Mlc for cultic purposes. Therefore, Fletcher-Louis remarks, “the theology of the worship of Adam story must now be rooted firmly in the beginnings of the Second Temple period.”⁴⁵

Sources from later Second Temple period build on this theology a tradition according to which at Adam’s creation the angels worship the protoplast as the image of God.⁴⁶ An early expression of this tradition is 4Q381 1,10-11, which is paleographically dated to the first half of the first century B.C.E..⁴⁷ The text is most probably a copy of an original from the Persian or early Hellenistic periods⁴⁸: “All His hosts and [His] ange[ls . . . ] to serve man (or Adam: Md)l db(lw) and to minister to him (wtr#lw). . . .”⁴⁹ Although the connection with the theology of the worship of Adam has not been noted in the first editions of the text,⁵⁰ subsequent studies have ascertained that the text reflects this theology.⁵¹

The tradition that Adam was worshiped at his creation is also documented in the Latin, Georgian and Armenian versions⁵² of Life of Adam and Eve. The terminus ante quem of the Jewish writing is the beginning of the fourth century C.E. It is, however, generally dated to the first century C.E.⁵³ Based on conspicuous literary and conceptual affinities between L. A. E. 12-14 and Daniel 3, Fletcher-Louis contends that the pseudepigraphic text “owes its genius to the early Hellenistic period when Daniel 3 was written.”⁵⁴ The Georgian version of L.A.E. 13:1-16:1 reads:

¹³ Le diable lui (i.e. to Adam) répondit et lui dit: “[Tu ne m’as (rien) fait,]⁵⁵ mais c’est à cause de toi que je suis tombé sur la terre. Le jour même où tu fus créé, ce jour là, je tombai de la face de Dieu parce que, comme Dieu t’avait soufflé l’Esprit sur ton visage, tu avais l’image et la ressemblance de la divinité. Puis Michel arriva; [il te présenta et te fait prosterner devant Dieu].⁵⁶ Et Dieu dit à Michel: ‘J’ai créé Adam selon (mon) image et ma divinité.’ ¹⁴ Alors Michel vint; il convoqua toutes les troupes des anges et il leur dit: ‘Prosternez vous devant le semblable et l’image de la divinité.’ Or, quand Michel les convoqua et que tous se prosternèrent devant toi, il me convoqua moi aussi et je lui dis: ‘Éloigne toi de moi, car je ne saurais me prosterner devant celui qui est plus jeune que moi; en effet, avant celui-ci, je suis seigneur, et c’est à lui qu’il convient de se prosterner devant moi.’ ¹⁵ Cela, d’autres anges des six classes l’entendirent et ma parole leur plut et ils ne se prosternèrent pas devant toi. ¹⁶ Alors Dieu s’irrita contre nous et il nous ordonna, à eux et à moi, de descendre de nos demeures vers la terre.” (L. A. E. 13:1-16:1)⁵⁷

The opposition of the fallen angels to the worship of the iconic Adam is also recorded in several Jewish-Christian and Christian sources, such as Gospel of Bartholomew 4:52-56,⁵⁸ a Coptic text attributed to Peter of Alexandria,⁵⁹ a Coptic Encomium on Michael,⁶⁰ a Coptic Enthronement of Michael,⁶¹ the Syriac Cave of Treasures,⁶² Origen’s De Principiis I.V.4-5,⁶³ and Tertullian’s On Patience 5.⁶⁴ The abundance, variety, and complexity of the testimonies to this tradition in third-century Christian sources suggest its widespread circulation in earlier Jewish circles.⁶⁵

The tradition associates the angelic worship of Adam with the protoplast’s identity as the image of God. As John R. Levison emphasizes, “the image consists of physical similarity to God.”⁶⁶ This physical resemblance enables Adam to function as a cultic statue of God. The connection between Adam’s physical resemblance to God and the angelic worship of Adam is evident in Michael’s command to Satan: adorate imaginem domini dei in Latin, and “prosternez vous devant le semblable et l’image de la divinité” in Georgian. ,⁶⁷ which the Armenian version uses to denote Adam’s iconic function,⁶⁸ means both ‘god’ and ‘idol.’⁶⁹ Given the latter connotation, the Armenian version better reflects the early Second Temple conception of Adam as the equivalent of a pagan cult statue or idol.⁷⁰

Adam possesses the image of God through the insufflation of divine breath.⁷¹ The imagery is the result of a juxtaposition of Gen 1:26 with Gen 2:7. This combination is most probably rooted in the Adamic traditions of the early Second Temple period. Herbert Niehr remarks that, given the conception of Adam as the equivalent of a pagan cult statue or idol, the inspiriting of Adam with divine breath in Gen 2:7 was in all probability associated with the ancient Near Eastern ritual of vivification of the cultic statues of gods.⁷²

The angelic opposition to Adam, which in rabbinic literature exceeds the category of fallen angels,⁷³ stands in contrast with the angelic veneration of the protoplast. The contrast emphasizes the twofold nature of the protoplast. Adam is both the living cultic statue of God and, as Satan stresses derisively, a “youth.”⁷⁴ This dichotomy is situated entirely within Adam’s body. His body is a mixture of divine likeness and clay.⁷⁵ The dichotomy reflects the ontology of a cultic statue of a deity, which is a mixture of earthly material and divine likeness.

The ancient concept that Adam was created as a cultic statue of the godhead is also reflected in rabbinic sources. The editorial variants of Gen. Rab. 8:8, which expands on the significant rabbinic argument that God did not take equal council with angels in the creation of Adam,⁷⁶ do not furnish a consensus concerning the source of the following parable:

R. hyl/Laya⁷⁷ said: There is no taking counsel here, but it may be compared to a king who was strolling at the door of his palace when he saw a clod (Nyrlwb)⁷⁸ lying about. Said he, What shall we do with it? Some answered: [Use it in building] public baths; others answered: private baths. I will make a statue (sy+nyyrd)) of it, declared the king. Who then can hinder him? (Gen. Rab. 8:8)⁷⁹

sy+nyyrd) is a corrupt form of )+rdn)/sw+n)yrdn).⁸⁰ The word is an appropriation of a0ndria/v, which denotes a statue of a human. In rabbinic literature the Aramaic transliterations generally indicate royal statues.⁸¹

It is significant that this rabbinic tradition opts for a parable about the building of an imperial statue for the illustration of the creation of Adam without angelic consent. God is compared with a king that wishes to make a statue of himself. Adam is associated to the resulting statue, which is created out of clod without the concurrence of the royal counselors. The parable shows evidence of the same juxtaposition of Gen 1:26 and 2:7 as L.A.E. 13:1-16:1. In the biblical story Adam is created out of earth and the material of the royal statue is clod. In both stories the clod is formed into a statue.

The source of the parable is uncertain. It must be noted that one (probably secondary) variant associates the parable with R. Levi. R. Levi was a late third century Palestinian Amora, a disciple of R. Johanan. He is repeatedly portrayed as a quite accurate source for the teachings of his master.⁸²

The tradition of the angelic veneration of Adam receives another rabbinic formulation in Gen. Rab. 8:10, with the theological parameters that the tradition entails:

R. Hoshaya said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created Adam, the ministering angels mistook him [for a divine being] and wished to exclaim ‘Holy’ before him. What does this resemble? A king and a governor who sat in a chariot, and his subjects wished to say to the king, ‘Domine! (Sovereign)!’ but they did not know which it was. What did the king do? He pushed the governor out of the chariot, and so they knew who was the king. Similarly, when the Lord created Adam, the angels mistook him [for a divine being]. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He caused sleep to fall upon him, and so all knew that he was [but mortal] man (Md)); thus it is written, Cease ye from man, in whose nostrils is a breath, for how little is he to be accounted (Isa 2:22)! (Gen. Rab. 8:10)⁸³

The parable is attributed without editorial variations to the famous third century Caesarean Amora R. Hoshaya, to whom Num. Rab. 4:1 ascribes the teaching concerning the angelic opposition to Jacob.

The tradition interprets the concept of image of God as physical resemblance to God,⁸⁴ as do L.A.E. 13:1-16:1 and Gen. Rab. 8:8. The resemblance between Adam and God confounds the angels. Unable to differentiate between the image and the prototype, the angels unwittingly direct their worship to Adam. The angelic mistake, however, entails no binitarian intent.

It has been argued that the parable expresses a rabbinic polemic against the tradition of the worship of Adam, consequently viewed as a threat to monotheism.⁸⁵ The argument exceeds the intent of the parable. The parable solely opposes the worship of Adam as God. The entitlement of Adam to worship or reverence, as the representation of God, is not negated in any way. The worship of Adam per se is not the intended subject of the text. Moreover, the majestic procession of Adam in the divine chariot alludes to the common Roman practice of the festive ride of a victorious commander of the army (commonly the emperor) for public veneration.⁸⁶ In the rabbinic parable the angels fulfill the function of the revering spectators. Adam’s ride in the divine chariot, alongside God, entails the entitlement of the former to angelic veneration.

The text also does not imply that the angelic adoration of Adam as God resides in the recital of the ‘Domine’ (i.e. Isa 6:3) in front of the protoplast. The recital of ‘Domine’ for humans is regarded as a legitimate practice in some rabbinic circles, including apparently the one of R. Johanan, R. Hoshaya’s disciple (cf. b. B. Bat. 75b). The emphasis of the parable is that the angels direct the ‘Domine’ to Adam as to God.

The text emphasizes both the resemblance and the distinction between the image of God and God. They have the same form, yet they do not share the same nature. A. G. Gottstein emphasizes that the message of the text is that “Adam is distinguished from God not by form, but by the different quality of life attached to the same form; in other words, God and Adam are distinguished not by body, but by bodily function.”⁸⁷ The confusion of the angels originates in their inability to perceive Adam’s non-divine nature and “bodily function” in his divine appearance and form.

The complex relationship of Adam to God, relationship entailing both resemblance and distinctiveness, parallels the rapport between the statue of a Roman emperor and the emperor himself. The latter relation is analyzed in Exod. Rab. 15:17 in terms reminiscent of Gen. Rab. 8:8:

It is as if a beautiful tree was erected in the bath-house, and when the chief of the army with his suite came to bathe, they trampled upon the tree, and all the villagers and everyone else were eager to tread upon it. Some time later, the king sent his bust to that province that they should put up a statue (Nynwqy)) of him, but they could find no wood except that from the tree in that bath-house. The artisans said to the ruler: If you wish to set up the statue (Nynwqy)), you must bring the tree which is in the bath-house, for that is the best there is. They brought it and prepared it thoroughly, and placed it in the hands of a carver, who fashioned the bust on it and placed it within the palace. Then came the ruler and bowed before it; and the general, the prefect, the imperial officers, the legionaries, the people and everybody else did likewise. Then did the artisans say unto them: Yesterday, you were trampling on this tree in the bath-house, and now you are bowing to it. They replied: It is not to the tree that we are bowing, but to the bust of the king engraved thereon. (Exod. Rab. 15:17)⁸⁸

The worship of the imperial statue is not directed to its substance, but to its likeness, which is ultimately the emperor’s. The relationship of Adam to God, which is also an image-prototype connection, entails that the worship of Adam as God’s statue is intrinsically a worship of God. The worship of the image is a veneration of the prototype in its likeness.⁸⁹ This is no more binitarianism than the worship of an ancient Near Eastern god in his living statue.⁹⁰

The image is distinct from its prototype in its substance. The worship of the image as entirely equal to the prototype, likeness and substance, as the angels venerate Adam in Gen. Rab. 68:12 and as the artisans mistakenly view the cult of the imperial statue, is unwarranted iconologically (in the case of the imperial statue) and theologically (in the case of Adam).

Gottstein also briefly remarks that Gen. Rab. 8:10 parallels the Jacob tradition in Gen. Rab. 68:12 (and, one may add, b. Hul. 91b). He emphasizes that in both texts sleep symbolizes the distinctiveness of humanity from the divine.⁹¹ It could be added that both texts construct an anthropology centered in the concept of Mlc. In Gen. Rab. 8:10 Adam is distinguishable from God not in body or form, but in bodily function. In Gen. Rab. 68:12 Jacob’s image is identified with the divine dwbk, while the sleeping patriarch embodies the human Sterblichkeit and Vergänglichkeit.

The parallelism between the Adamic traditions and the Jacob texts also extends to the motifs of angelic veneration and opposition. In Adamic traditions Adam is venerated as a cultic statue of God. This status is contrasted with the nature of his body, which attracts angelic opposition and ridicule. In Jacob traditions the image of Jacob, which functions as the divine dwbk, receives the reverence of angels, while the sleeping patriarch is attacked with mockery.⁹²

The association of both Adam and Jacob traditions with R. Hiyya the Elder’s school provides a possible traditional bridge between the Adamic and Jacob traditions. R. Hiyya had R. Hoshaya and R. Jannai as pupils. Gen. Rab. 68:12 ascribes the controversy concerning the ladder of Jacob (wb of Gen 28:12) to R. Hiyya and R. Jannai. In Gen. Rab. 8:10 and Num. Rab. 4:1 a formulation of the motif of the angelic veneration of Adam and a speculation concerning angelic opposition to Jacob are attributed to R. Hoshaya. b. Hul. 91b ascribes the source of another testimony about the angelic opposition toward Jacob to R. Simeon b. Lakish, the colleague and brother-in-law of R. Johanan (b. Nappaha), the disciple of R. Jannai and R. Hoshaya.

The Adamic/Iconic Value of Jacob and Humanity

A theological bridge between Adamic and Jacob traditions is provided in the Adamic speculation concerning the transmission of the likeness to God from Adam to other humans or the whole humanity. According to this speculation the likeness has not been retained undiminished. One of the consequences of the fall of Adam was the diminishment of the protoplast’s original enormous stature and bodily luminosity (cf. Gen. Rab. 12:6; b. Sanh. 38b etc). Humanity still retains, although partially, the likeness of the deity. b. B. Bat. 58a reads:

R. Bana’ah used to mark out caves. When he came to the cave of Abraham, he found Eliezer the servant of Abraham standing at the entrance. He said to him: What is Abraham doing? He replied: He is sleeping in the arms of Sarah, and she is looking fondly at his head. He said: Go and tell him that Bana’ah is standing at the entrance. Said Abraham to him: Let him enter; it is well known that there is no passion in this world. So he went in, surveyed the cave, and came out again. When he came to the cave of Adam, a voice came forth from heaven saying, Thou hast beholden the likeness of my likeness, my likeness itself thou mayest not behold. . . . R. Bana’ah said: I discerned his [Adam’s] two heels, and they were like two orbs of the sun.⁹³ Compared with Sarah, all other people are like a monkey to a human being, and compared with Eve Sarah was like a monkey to a human being,⁹⁴ and compared with Adam Eve was like a monkey to a human being, and compared with the Shechinah Adam was like a monkey to a human being. The beauty of R. Kahana was a reflection of [the beauty of Rab; the beauty of Rab was a reflection of]⁹⁵ the beauty of R. Abbahu; the beauty of R. Abbahu was a reflection of the beauty of our father Jacob, and the beauty of Jacob was a reflection of the beauty of Adam. (b. B. Bat. 58a)

Friedman notes that the Hamburg Codex completes the chain of beauty with: “The beauty of Adam the first was like the beauty of the Divine Presence.”⁹⁶ So do MS Munich 95 and MS Escorial G-I-3, both here and in the parallel b. B. Met. 84a. The addition is a logical conclusion to the previous comparison of Adam with the Shekinah. The beauty of Adam, who is created in the image of God, is itself a reflection of the beauty of God.

The last phrase concerning the transmission of beauty from Adam to R. Kahana reflects a complicated editorial process. The phrase appears in a different context in b. B. Met. 84a, which omits Rab from the chain of beauty. It is improbable that the tradition has Tannaitic origins in its present form, as it is suggested in the attribution to R. Bana’ah, a Tanna from the early third century. R. Kahana was a late third century Palestinian Amora, disciple of Rab. Rab was a Palestinian Amora from the middle of the third century. R. Abbahu could only be the Caesarean Amora from the late third century. These rabbis flourished after R. Bana’ah. It is, however, highly probable, as Friedman notes,⁹⁷ that the text combines two traditions, an early traditions that only mentioned the Shekinah, Adam, and Jacob, and a later development that added the rabbinic names with the evident intent to extend the transmission of divine resemblance from biblical to rabbinic figures. The present form of the text dates before the sixth century, when the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud was completed. The primary form of the tradition, which mentioned only Adam and Jacob, predates the addition of rabbinic names, which occurred after the activity of R. Abbahu in the late third century.

In the first part of the text, itself of uncertain origin, humans do not retain Adam’s likeness to God in its entirety. The likeness is transmitted partially through history. Abraham, while he is not the perfect icon ()nqwyd) of God, still possesses the likeness of the icon (ynqwyd twmd). It is unclear whether the end of the text, concerning the transmission of beauty from Adam to Jacob, implies an undiminished resemblance between humanity and God, contrary to the previous imagery about the monkey-to-human transmission of the likeness. The language (cf. ‘reflecting’ Ny(m) is ambiguous; it does not attribute any degree to the resemblance. However, Jacob possesses the reflection, complete or partial, of the beauty of Adam.

The reflection of God in the human beauty, likeness, or form, confers the whole humanity the value of representation of the deity. This seems to be a development of the early Second Temple conception of Adam as the equivalent of a pagan cult statue or idol. This development of Adamic traditions is subjected in rabbinic speculations to the ban on icons. . . Zar. 42b-43b attests to a tradition among the last generations of Babylonian Amoraim according to which the making of a portrait of a human is prohibited, since it would be equivalent to making an image of the deity.⁹⁸ The prohibition is supported with an interpretation of t) of yt) in Exod 20:23 as nota objecti (“me”) instead of preposition (“with me”). This leads to the reading “You shall not make idols of me.” Exod 20:23 is therefore read in conjunction with Gen 1:26. To follow Friedman’s thought, while the deity is free to make icons of itself, humanity is still bound not to follow.

The Roman Emperor and His Statues

The speculation that extends Adam’s iconic value to humanity is often illustrated with parables about the Roman emperor and his cultic statues. Lev. Rab. 34:3 attributes such a parable to Hillel:

Another explanation of the text: If thy brother be waxen poor (Lev 25:25). It bears on what is written in Scripture: The merciful man doeth good to his own soul (Prov 11:17). Hillel the Elder once, when he concluded his studies with his disciples, walked along with them. His disciples asked him: Master, whither are you bound? He answered them: To perform a religious duty. What, they asked, is this religious duty? He said to them: To wash in the bath-house. Said they: Is this a religious duty? Yes, he replied; if the statues (Nynwqy)) of kings, which are erected in theatres and circuses, are scoured and washed by the man who is appointed to look after them, and who thereby obtains his maintenance through them-nay more, he is exalted in the company of the great of the kingdom- how much more I, who have been created in the image and likeness; as it is written, For in the image of God made He man (Gen 9:6). (Lev. Rab. 34:3)⁹⁹

Hillel lived at the turn of the two eras.¹⁰⁰ If the attribution of the teaching to Hillel might be questioned, the antiquity of the theology of bloodshed as an offense against the godhead in its image reaches back to Gen 9:6, which Hillel quotes.¹⁰¹ John F. Kutsko remarks that Ezekiel’s connection between the shedding of human blood and God’s withdrawal from the Temple could have the same rationale as Gen 9:6.¹⁰²

Additional sources furnish evidence for the circulation of the tradition regarding the iconic value of humanity and for its association with imperial images in Tannaitic times. In Mek. R. Ish. (Ba-Hodesh 8), a collection of Tannaitic midrashim most probably compiled in the third century,¹⁰³ murderers are viewed as guilty of diminishing the image of God and are compared to those who destroy cultic images of kings:

How were the ten Commandments arranged? Five on the one tablet and fiveon the other. On the one tablet was written: I am the Lord thy God. On opposite it on the other tablet was written: Thou shalt not murder. This tells that if one sheds blood it is accounted to him as though he diminished the divine (likeness)¹⁰⁴ (twmd). To give a parable: A king of flesh and blood entered a province and the people set up portraits (twnwqy)) of him, made images (Mymlc) of him, and struck coins in his honor. Later on they upset his portraits (wytwnwqy)), broke his images (wymlc), and defaced his coins, thus diminishing the likeness (wtwmdb) of the king. So also if one sheds blood it is accounted to him as though he had diminished the divine (likeness)¹⁰⁵ (twmdb). For it is written: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood . . . for in the image of God made He man (Gen 9:6). (Mek. R. Ish. Ba-Hodesh 8)¹⁰⁶

The parable is also attested in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies,¹⁰⁷ a Jewish-Christian writing from the beginning of the third century C.E.¹⁰⁸ The theology of the parable is also evident in a paragraph preserved in both recensions of 2 Enoch with insignificant manuscript variations. The homogeneity of the manuscripts attests to the presence of the paragraph in the earliest form of the pseudepigraphon, form tentatively dated to the first century C.E.¹⁰⁹

The LORD with his own two hands created mankind; and in a facsimile of his own face. Small and great the LORD created. Whoever insults a person’s face insults the face of the LORD; whoever treats a person’s face with repugnance treats the face of the LORD with repugnance. Whoever treats with contempt the face of any person treats the face of the LORD with contempt. (2 En. 44:1-2 shorter recension)¹¹⁰

The text does not exhibit any cognizance of the concept of partial transmission of divine resemblance from Adam to the rest of humankind. The creation of Adam “in the facsimile of God’s own face” has direct and undifferentiated relevance for the treatment of every human face. Humanity retains the likeness of God fully. Any insult addressed to the human face is relationally transmitted to the divine face.

The close connection between Adam and humankind is also attested in the beginning of Sirach 17. The creation of Adam is the creation of the human, a1nqrwpov.¹¹¹ The noun is generic. Subsequent references to humanity are plural: au0toi/. Verse 3 stands to attention: kat 0 ei0ko/na au0tou= e0poi/hsen au0tou/v. Adam’s divine likeness is reflected upon all humanity.

Mark 12:16-17 (and parallels: Matt 22:20-21, Luke 20:24-25) constitutes a further evidence that the association between the connection of humanity with the deity and the relation of the imperial images (ei1kwn) with the emperor circulates in the first half of the first century C.E.

Gen. Rab. 68:12 uses a similar parable about the Roman emperor to illustrate Jacob’s iconic value. As seen above, b. B. Bat. 58a establishes a direct connection of divine resemblance between Jacob and Adam. Jacob has the privileged position of heir of Adam’s divine likeness. The use in the Jacob tradition (Gen. Rab. 68:12) of the parable about the Roman emperor, parable previously employed in Adamic traditions, further attests to the connection between the two traditions. An analysis of Gen. Rab. 68:12 evinces further connections with Adamic traditions.

It is thou [Jacob], whose features are engraved on high. They [i.e. the angels] ascended on high¹¹² and saw his features and they descended below and found¹¹³ him sleeping. It may be compared¹¹⁴ to a king who sat and judged in a [basilica] (emended text: should read yqlysb instead of rwwrp); people ascend to the basilica and find him [judging] (emended text: should read Nd instead of N#y), they go out to the chamber and find him [sleeping] (emended text: should read N#y instead of Nd). (Gen. Rab. 68:12)¹¹⁵

There are no major editorial variants of the text, which implies minimal redaction. All the manuscripts read: “It may be compared to a king who sat and judged in a rwwrp; people ascend to the yqlysb and find him sleeping, they go out to the dwwrp and find him judging.” Following a remark of Albeck,¹¹⁶ Schäfer notes that, in order to preserve the intended parallelism between Jacob and the emperor, the text must be emended.¹¹⁷ First, the descent should reveal in both cases a sleeping individual. Second, for historical accuracy, yqlysb should be the judgment place.¹¹⁸ The above translation incorporates the necessary emendations.

dwwrp¹¹⁹ probably has a Persian origin, evident in the biblical form rbrp.¹²⁰ Jastrow translates it as “open place, court.”¹²¹ In the Roman period the term was associated with the Greek pro/quron (“vestibule”), association evident in the variant rwdzwrp. The association added to the original meaning of the term (i.e. “court”) the connotation of outdoor colonnade or portico.¹²² Porticos were common features of Roman imperial villae, large properties or estates in the country (cf. Ny)cwyw), with houses and subsidiary buildings. The large porticos of the sumptuous villae were the preferred places for relaxation.

The story of the emperor serves only as a parable (cf. l#m or l) or an illustration of the duplication of Jacob with his image. The parallelism between Jacob and the emperor is implicit. The journey of the angels between Jacob’s image and Jacob is compared with the journey of the people between the judging emperor and the sleeping emperor. The angels ascend (Mylw() to Jacob’s features, the people ascend (Mylw() to the judging emperor. The angels descend and find Jacob sleeping (N#y wtw) My)cwmw), the people go out and find the emperor asleep (N#y wtw) My)cwmw). As Jacob sleeps down on earth and his image is on high, the emperor sleeps down in his dwwrp, while the judgment takes place in a higher location (cf. Mylw() in the basilica. The journey of the people between the basilica and the colonnade is fictitious, realistically impossible. The imperial villa was certainly not open to the public. The imagery is most probably the appropriation of a common literary motif of imperial subjects desiring to see the emperor in his entire imperial magnificence. As in the case of Jacob, the sleep of the emperor is a dramatic contrast to his glorious enthronement and the expectations of the people.

The parallelism between Jacob and the emperor entails further connections. The parable does not explicitly mention a portrait or a statue of the emperor. Friedman contends that the imagery refers to “two beings who looked alike, and not one person and his picture,” and that it incorporates an apparently familiar motif of “a double vision of the king.”¹²³ However, the only example that he offers for this motif is from the Hebrew Bible and not from the Roman world.

The parallelism of the parable with the story of Jacob and the fact that the concept of the emperor’s presence in his images (based on the common likeness) is widely attested in rabbinic thought, as evinced above, presence that allows for the naming of imperial images as the emperors themselves,¹²⁴ support the possibility that the sleeping emperor is doubled by an imperial image, as Jacob is doubled by his image. A closer analysis of the parable evinces further support for this possibility. The emperor’s double in the basilica is both judging and sitting (cf. “sat and judged” Ndw b#wy), which implies enthronement. With the increasing role of basilicae in the imperial cult,¹²⁵ role also attested in the Eastern provinces of the empire, statues of the emperors were placed in main apses of basilicae. These imperial statues mainly served as objects of the cult of the emperor and constant reminders of the extension of the emperor’s absolute judicial powers within the whole Roman territory.¹²⁶ An example is the famous statue of Constantine, which is unfortunately preserved only partially. The statue was built between 315 and 330 C.E. and placed in the basilica of Maxentius (henceforth of Constantine), after Constantine defeated him at the battle of Milvian bridge. The statue was thirty-feet-tall and portrayed Constantine on his curile throne, as an absolute leader and judge.¹²⁷ Most probably Constantine’s statue replaced a similar statue of Maxentius, according to the ancient Roman tradition of replacing an opponent’s monuments with the victor’s.¹²⁸

The parallelism of the image of Jacob with the enthroned king also entails that the former is enthroned. Immediately previous to the parable the text mentions Jacob’s “features/image engraved on high” (hl(ml hqwqh Nynwqy)#).¹²⁹ Two manuscripts¹³⁰ do not contain the phrase “on high.” One manuscript version adds (to hl(ml) dwbkh )skb.¹³¹ The enthronement of the image of Jacob is consistent with the other texts of the Jacob tradition.

The story of the patriarch sleeping on earth while his image is enthroned in heaven is therefore illustrated with the parable of a Roman emperor. While the emperor sleeps in the sumptuous portico of his villa, his enthroned statue sits in the apse of his basilica. Jacob’s image corresponds to an imperial statue, similarly to Adam’s iconic value.

Conclusions

The succinctness of the texts about Jacob’s image in heaven does not permit an exhaustive consideration of their sources. However, several conclusions concerning the parallelism of these texts with Adamic traditions can be formulated at the current stage of the research.

First, both traditions demonstrate a similar anthropology and emphasis on humanity as both earthly, dimension identified in both traditions within the functionality of the human body, and heavenly, dimension associated in both traditions with the divine likeness of humanity.

Second, both traditions symbolize the earthly dimension of humanity with sleep.

Third, both traditions express the heavenly dimension of humanity in statuary concepts, through the concept of Mlc in the case of Adam and by means of the equivalent Aramaic terms Nynwqy) and )nqwyd in the case of Jacob.

Fourth, in both traditions the dichotomy likeness-sleep is associated with the motifs of angelic veneration and opposition. In Adamic traditions Adam is venerated as a cultic statue of God, while his mortality or vulnerability encounters angelic opposition and ridicule. In Jacob traditions the image of Jacob enthroned in heaven receives the reverential admiration of angels, while angels also ridicule and even attack the patriarch asleep on earth.

Fifth, both traditions employ parables about royal images to illustrate the divine iconicity inherent in Adam and Jacob.

Sixth, it can be safely concluded, based on the previous observations, that in Jacob traditions the image of the patriarch functions as a representation of the godhead, as does Adam in Adamic traditions. Jacob’s image is defined in terms used in Second Temple literature and early rabbinic literature in regard to Adam’s special status as the image of God. Moreover, certain rabbinic traditions regarded Adam’s divine resemblance as transmitted to the rest of humanity in a chain of likeness. In this transmission of likeness Jacob has the special status of direct reflection of the beauty of Adam.

A final observation is due. It has been proposed that the Jacob tradition functions as an anti-anthropomorphic method of safeguarding God’s transcendence.¹³² It must be noted that the identification of the dwbk with a human is previously claimed for Adam in Adamic traditions. The identification is the consequence of a rapprochement between Ezek 1:26-28 and Gen 1:26, rapprochement facilitated by the conception of the protoplast as the equivalent of an idol. Similarly to Adam, Jacob functions in his identity as the dwbk as the equivalent of a pagan cult statue, or, in the terms of Gen. Rab. 68:12, of the statues of the Roman emperors. The Jacob tradition therefore bears the anthropomorphic connotations of the concept of Myhl) Mlc.