What follows is a short article that we hope (in some edited form) will appear soon in a project that Nicholas and I (for now) are working on. We're moving towards the idea of a periodical/journal/publication on CD-ROM, but are still in the beginning stages. Anyway, we'll say more about that later, on a different thread. For now, I just wanted to post something and ask for comments/criticisms/suggestions 
Is Orthodox Anthropology Built on �Shaky Exegetical Ground�?
Introduction
Those outside the Orthodox Church (henceforth called "outsiders") take issue with a number of premises upon which Orthodox anthropology is founded. One of the more important disputes is whether a sharp dinstinction should be drawn between the words "image" and "likeness" in Gen. 1:26. For example, Protestants follow the Hebrew text, which does not draw a sharp distinction between the meaning of the words, so they see these two words as being essentially synonomous . John Calvin states bluntly: "As for myself, before I define the image of God, I would deny that it differs from his likeness." [1]
Orthodox Christians, on the other hand, have always (generally) followed the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek known as the Septuagint. Unlike the Hebrew rendering, the Greek Septuagint draws a distinction between the terms "image" and "likeness," where the term "image" "signifies a realised state," while the term "likeness" "expresses something dynamic and not yet realised" [2] Fr. Michael Pomazansky sums up the Orthodox position well:
"Is there a distinction between the 'image' and the 'likeness' of God? The majority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church reply that there is. They see the image of God in the very nature of the soul, and the likeness in the moral perfecting of man in virtue and sanctity, in the acquirement of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we receive the image of God from God together with existence, but the likeness we must acquire for ourselves, having received the possibility of doing this from God." [3]
So who is correct?
Going past mere speculation and coming to a concrete answer to this question is harder than some might suppose. The first thing we must do is ask a question of an epistemological nature: what are our authoritative sources for information? Unfortunately, since Orthodox Christians and otusiders will always give different answers to this epistemological question, it is futile to search for some type of "meeting of the minds" on the anthropological problem mentioned. We see this futility, for example, when Protestants such as Calvin admit that the overwhelming majority of the early Christians agree with the Orthodox Church on this issue, but reject them as an authority anyway. Contrarily, the early Christians are exactly who the Orthodox see as one of the supreme authorities who we must follow.
It is therefore extremely difficult to give an answer that Protestants will find satisfactory; it is the same case with outsiders. Certainly we want to answer the charge that can be summed up in Jaroslav Pelikan's comment that the septuagintal image/likeness distinction is based on "shaky exegetical ground," yet we Orthodox recognize that our answers will almost certainly not be found to be persuasive. [4] For the same reason, it is also difficult to squarely refute other charges of some outsiders relating to Orthodox anthropology, such as the notion that the entire "theology of the image" is anti-biblical.
When two groups cannot agree on what informational sources are authoritative, discussion becomes infinitely more complex, and is almost always fruitless. Yet, surely an answer must be given while sincere people still seek the truth, so we cannot leave the charges against Orthodox anthropology unanswered. Such an answer, in its fulness, is well beyond the scope of this article, but keeping the above in mind, we will attempt to further explore some of the arguments and problems that factor into the dispute.
The main work in an Orthodox answer must deal with the choice of textual sources that are used. The Orthodox will always use the Septuagint because the Orthodox recognize God's hand guiding his Church into all knowledge, (Jn. 16:13) and protecting it from grave error and corruption. (Matt. 16:19) It was not a fluke or mistake, then, that from the beginning, even before the New Testament was written, Orthodox Christians have always (generally) used the Greek Septuagint. Considering the deliberate corruption of the Hebrew text (and we see charges of such corruption already in the 2nd century; cf Justin Martyr, Dialogue), usage of the Greek Septuagint was all the more vital for early Christians.
How do outsiders deal with the fact that the early Church generally used the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew? The best theory that they can come up with to downplay this fact is by asserting that the early Church's usage of the Septuagint was a fluke, and that the poor ignorant early Christians just didn't know that they were using a corrupted text. This is a rather strange notion, but it demonstrates the innovative position that must be taken by those outside the Church so that their house of cards won't collapse in on them.
This type of thinking, taken to it's logical conclusion, forces one to believe that even the Apostles were ignorant of the (supposed) superiority of the Hebrew text, since they generally used the Septuagint. How far the outsiders have strayed from authentic Christianity! The best that they can do is come up with wild theories and force them into their theologically constructed boxes.
The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, will always repeat the words of the first century Church Father, Clement of Rome: "Christ therefore was sent by God, the Apostles by Christ; so both were orderly sent, according to the will of God... [the Apostles] appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the spirit " [5] The Orthodox will always trust in Christ Himself, which means trusting in his theanthropic body, the Church. The difference between Orthodoxy and outsiders here is the difference between Christocentricity and humanism.
An Orhtodox answer would, of course, examine the more technical textual elements of the dispute, demonstrating the superiority of the Septuagint in those matters. The main part of the textual discussion, however, would have to center on epistemological and ecclesiological concerns. We Orthodox can never allow 'facts' and arguments to be divorced from the context in which these technical textual elements can be correctly understood (ie. in the Church). To compartmentalize theology by discussing one aspect of an issue (technical textual elements) while ignoring others (epistemology, ecclesiology) is impossible for the Orthodox Christian.
The second major part in an Orthodox answer would have a more positive tone, supplying evidence of the early Church's belief on this matter. The Orthodox distinction between image and likeness is, for example, an unspoken premise in the work of the second century saint Irenaeus: "For his own part God could have given human beings the fullness right from the beginning, but they were incapable of receiving it because they were only little children." [6] What Ireneaus believed is what the Orthodox Church before and after him has said: that Adam, even being "made in the image and after the likeness of God," "was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected... It was necessary that he should grow and so come to his perfection" [7]
Let someone choose any other century and we will find this same principle. For example, we read in Saint John of Damascus a passage explicitly stating the Orthodox view: "For the phrase 'after His image' clearly refers to the side of his nature which consists of mind and free will, whereas 'after His likeness' means likeness in virtue so far as that is possible." [8] We find this same anthropological belief in almost all of the Church Fathers, a fact that outsiders are forced to admit.
Unfortunately, with the epistemological and ecclesiological mistakes made, outsiders knocked down a first dominoe which set into effect the knocking down of countless other dominoes. There are then, unfortunately, numerous other problems that make answering the charge (to the outsider's satisfaction) difficult. In fact, even the concept of salvation itself causes a barrier for some outsiders. For most modern Protestant Evangelicals, for isntance, the emphasis is on a "relationship" with God, and not on actual, awe-filling communion with him ("partaking of the divine nature," as Saint Peter put it in 2 Pet. 1:4). This causes Evangelicals to cringe in horror at the patristic notion of deification/theosis (which is the natural and "logical" end of Orthodox anthropology).
Another aspect of this which complicates giving a persuasive answer is the minimalistic outlook on salvation held by many Protestants. The Protestant insistence on rejecting the biblical and patristic usage of multiple descriptions of salvation, for example, and the insistence on choosing one distinct, simple definition, prevents Protestants from even seeing the necessity--not to mention the beauty and depth--of the Orthodox anthropological position. For many Protestants, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was all that was necessary for salvation since it "set us free from" (or "forgave us of") our sins. [9] The idea of "growing in likeness" towards God, as the Orthodox describe it will more times than not be seen as an attempt to promote a "works based salvation" by a Protestant. And it must be remembered that this is just a beginning of the list of issues that complicate giving a persuasive answer to outsiders.
Conclusion
We have tried to give a summary of the important aspects and complications in providing an answer. Each point mentioned could fill a volume (if not volumes) by itself, and the scope of this article required only mentioning each point briefly. At the very least, hopefully it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that this issue is more than a simple decision as to which version of the OT is more reliable. While the main dispute does indeed lie in the choice between using the Septuagint or Hebrew text, the other beliefs and pre-suppositions that one brings into discussing this main dispute complicates things greatly.
What is, in the end, the reaction and final response of Orthodox Christians to the original charge? The Orthodox must answer that if the Saints constitute "shaky ground," and if the theanthropic body of Christ, the Church, constitutes "shaky ground" when the Church has Christ as its Head, then there is no solid ground anywhere, nor has there ever been. If we as Orthodox cannot have a firm faith when our foundation is Christ and his Apostles (Eph. 2:20), then we can never have any solid foundation, wherever we might search for one.
Footnotes
[1] John Calvin, Volume One of the Commentary On Genesis (1:26)
[2] Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: Saint Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Tradition, (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984), p. 21
[3] Fr. Michael Pomazansky (Trans. by Seraphim Rose), Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997), p. 137-138
[4] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Melody of Theology: A Philosophical Dictionary, (Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 138
[5] cf 1 Clement 19:1-4,16-19 (Wake translation)
[6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 38, 1; cf Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 38, 3
[7] Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostlic Preaching, 12
[8] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition Of the Orthodox Faith, 2, 12
[9] Of course, when speaking of Protestantism (and outsiders), we must of necessity speak in generalities. Surely what is being said is more applicable to some than it is to others. John Wesley and his view on sanctification, for example, was much closer to the Orthodox position than the typical Evangelical pastor today would be. Likewise, a conservative Anglican's position regarding tradition would be closer to the Orthodox position than that of a Fundamentalist. It goes without saying that the beliefs ascribed to Protestants (and outsiders in general) in this article will not be equally applicable or true of all who fall within the Protestant (or outsider) grouping.
