Page 1


IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS


CULTURE AND HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST EDITED BY

B. HALPERN, M. H. E. WEIPPERT TH. P.J. VAN DEN HOUT, I. WINTER VOLUME 15


IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism BY

W. RANDALL GARR

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003


This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Garr, W. Randall. In His own image and likeness ; humanity, divinity, and monotheism / by W. Randall Garr. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East, ISSN 1566-2055 ; v. 15) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12980-4 1. Monotheism—History. 2. Man (Jewish theology) 3. Humanity. 4. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BL221.G37 2003 296.3'11--dc21 2002043738

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 90 04 12980 4 © Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands


For Susan


This page intentionally left blank


TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Note on Translations and Citations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

.     . The Plural Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . äáä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Isolating Nonliteral äáä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Interpretations of Nonliteral äáä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. äáä and Gen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Pragmatic Character of the äáä Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Form-Critical Analysis of the äáä Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gods in the Yahwist and Elohist Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gods Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 23 23 27 28 33 38 45 51 51 65 85

.  -  . The Prepositions ë and á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ë . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ë and á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Nouns úåîã and íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. úåîã . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. úåîã and íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 96 104 111 117 118 132 165




  

.    . The Priestly Cosmogony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Exercising Creative Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Separation and Differentiation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Harmonic Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Imposing Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Victory over the Gods, and the Elevation of the Human Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Gods and Their Demise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. God’s Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Imitatio Dei et deorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179 181 183 186 191 201 202 212 219

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Indices Text Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It should have been clear to me from the beginning how difficult this book would be. In its first incarnation, delivered at the University of Toronto in the spring of , I presented a grammatical argument that God’s first person plural pronouns in Gen : are referentially plural; viz., that P’s God refers to other gods as he is about to create human beings. A member of the audience then exposed the basic problem: From all that is known of P, this tradition is strictly monotheistic and does not recognize any god other than the one God (see §.). It would seem, then, that grammar and interpretation fundamentally conflict in this instance and, I feared, that any new attempt to enter this longstanding debate was doomed. This project was trouble from the outset. As it expanded scope, I called on colleagues, friends, and family to help me navigate the terrain. Wallace Chafe, Carol Genetti, and especially Marianne Mithun coached me on linguistic issues. In Assyriological matters, I benefitted from the advice of Paul-Alain Beaulieu, Peter Machinist, Erica Reiner, Piotr Steinkeller, and especially Benjamin Foster. When I got entangled in taxonomic categories, Newton Kalman and Deborah Kaska patiently sorted out the mess. I thank them all. I am indebted to a long list of Biblicists and non-Biblicists who each showed me something new about a topic I thought I understood: Yohanan Breuer, Marc Brettler, Rabbi Steven Cohen, Alan Cooper, Barry Eichler, Richard Elliott Friedman, Gail Humphreys, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Edward Greenstein, Jon Levenson, Jan Joosten, William Nelson, Simon Parker, William Propp, and Jeffrey Tigay. So too, I thank Mario Biagioli, Phyllis Bird, David Carr, Vincent DeCaen, Steven Fassberg, Michael Fox, Frank Gorman, Allan Grapard, Richard Hecht, Aharon Maman, Elisha Qimron, John Revell, and Mark Smith. This project made me unusually reliant on the generosity of others. James Barr, Judith Hadley, Karel Jongeling, Norbert Lohfink, Jeffrey Tigay, and Eerdmans Publishing Company graciously sent me preprints or offprints of material not otherwise available to me. I am grateful to the libraries and librarians of the Claremont School of Theology, Ecole Biblique, Fuller Theological Seminary, Westmont Col-




lege, Yale Divinity School, and the Hebrew University/Jewish National Library of Jerusalem. I am also a thankful beneficiary of the UCSB Interlibrary Loan Office, which continues to fill my many, many requests with patience and despatch. Finally, I thank the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University and its outstanding staff who, towards the end of this project, considerably lightened my work; I offer special thanks to Annette Orrelle and Ohad Cohen. I thank those who have invested so much time in this study. Baruch Halpern followed it from its inception, read the manuscript carefully, and was a speedy and truly supportive editor. John Huehnergard kindly read the Mesopotamian portion of the manuscript and showed me why Assyriology is not for the uninitiated. Rabbi Judy Shanks read the entire manuscript, in an earlier form, annotated it copiously, and reminded me—again and again—that repetition is not necessarily a good thing. Ronald Hendel and Tremper Longman didn’t need to read the manuscript, however; they each heard about it, in numbing detail, many times, and nonetheless remained enthusiastic, helpful, encouraging, and provocative. Laura Kalman deserves my greatest thanks. Not only did she contribute the title (well, the first half). She was also unwavering: a happy, challenging, smiling, engaged, and supportive spouse who, even now, still wants to hear more.


NOTE ON TRANSLATIONS AND CITATIONS Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine. The biblical text used is that of BHS, whose versification is adopted here, and all translations are built upon those of the NJPS and NRSV. Uncertain translations are indicated in italics. Assyriological citations follow Assyriological convention as represented by the CAD (see CAD R ix–xxvii for a list of abbreviations). When I knew of text editions more recent than those given in the CAD, older references have been updated. Because the secondary literature on Genesis is uncommonly vast, I could not cite every bibliographical reference pertinent to any particular discussion. The references, then, are representative. I have also selected among duplicate or multiple publications of a single work. With books, I have consistently opted for an existing English translation and, when applicable, have provided the original date of publication between square brackets. In the cases of Genesis commentaries by Delitzsch, Dillmann, and Gunkel, however, I have cited both the German and English versions. With unrevised, reprinted articles, I have tried to cross-reference original publications (when reasonably accessible) with the later reprinted version; if multiple reprints exist, I have selected the English language version or, in its absence, the most accessible reprinted version.


This page intentionally left blank


ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS The following is a list of abbreviations and sigla not explained within the text. For Assyriological abbreviations, see p. xi. Scholarly Literature AB ABD ÄAT AEPHE AfO AHw

AJSL AJTP ALASPM AnBib ANET 3 AnOr AOAT ARw AS ASOR AsSt ATANT AuOr

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al.  vols. New York: Doubleday,  Ägypten und Altes Testament Annuaire de l’École pratique des Hautes Études, IVe Section: Sciences historiques et philologiques Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (–). Edited by Wolfram von Soden.  vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, – The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures American Journal of Theology and Philosophy Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. d ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press,  Analecta Orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archiv für Religionswissenschaft Assyriological Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Asiatische Studien Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Aula Orientalis


 AUSS AzTh BA BARev BASOR BASS BBB BDB BEAT BETL BetM BEvTh BI Bib BIS BiSe BJRL BJS BKAT BN BRLAJ BScR BT BTZ BWANT BZ BZAW CAD

Cath CBET CBOT CBQ

   Andrews University Seminary Studies Arbeiten zur Theologie Biblical Arch(a)eologist The Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Bonner Biblische Beiträge Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press,  [] Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beit Mikra Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie Biblical Interpretation Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series The Biblical Seminar Bulletin of the John Rylands (University) Library (of) Manchester Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament Biblische Notizen The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism Bibliothèque de Sciences religieuses The Bible Today Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift (neue Folge) Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago. Edited by Ignace J. Gelb et al. Chicago/Glückstadt: Oriental Institute/J. J. Augustin, – Catholica Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series The Catholic Biblical Quarterly


   CBQMS CBSC CILT CRB CRBS CRRAI CuW DDD2

DJD DNWSI DS-NELL EI ErJ ETL ExAu FAT FRLANT FV GKB

GKC GLECS GvG



The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Compte rendu de la Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Christentum und Wissenschaft Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. d ed. Leiden/Grand Rapids–Cambridge, U.K.: Brill/Eerdmans,  Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Oxford: Oxford University Press, – J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions.  pts. HdO //–. Leiden: E. J. Brill,  Dutch Studies published by the Near Eastern Languages and Literatures Foundation Eretz-Israel Eranos-Jahrbuch Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Ex Auditu Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Foi et Vie G. Bergsträsser. Grammatik mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten . Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräischer Grammatik.  vols. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel/J. C. Hinrichs, – Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Revised by A. E. Cowley. d English ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,  Comptes-rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Etudes ChamitoSémitiques Carl Brockelmann. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.  vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, –


 HALOT

HBS HBT HdO Hen HKAT HR HS HSM HSoed HSS HTR HUCA IBT ICC IDB IEJ Int Interp IOS IRT JANES JAOS JBL JBTh JCS JNES JNSL JQR JRS JSOT JSOTS JSS

   The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Walter Baumgartner et al. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson, G. J. Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. De Regt.  vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, – [–] Herders Biblische Studien Horizons in Biblical Theology Handbuch der Orientalistik Henoch (Göttinger) Handkommentar zum Alten Testament History of Religions Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Horae Soederblomianae Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Interpreting Biblical Texts The International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick.  vols. Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press,  Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation. A Journal of Bible and Theology Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Israel Oriental Studies Issues in Religion and Theology The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages The Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Ritual Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies


   JTS KAT KeHAT KHAT KUSATU LebZeug LeDiv Leˇs LouvSt LT MARI MFOB MUN NCBC NIBC NZST OBO OBT ÖBS OLA Orien OrSu OTL OTS OTWSA PLO POS QD RA RB RHPR RLA RScR RSO



The Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Lebendiges Zeugnis Lectio Divina Leshonenu Louvain Studies Linguistic Typology MARI, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mélanges de la Faculté orientale, Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel The New Century Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Österreichische Biblische Studien Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientierung Orientalia Suecana The Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika Porta Linguarum Orientalium (neue Serie) Pretoria Oriental Series Questiones Disputatae Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue Biblique Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie). Edited by Erich Ebeling et al. Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, – Revue des sciences religieuses Rivista degli studi orientali


 RSP

RST SBAB SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBS SBT ScEs ScrB ScrH SEL SHCANE SHR SJLA SJOT SOTSMS ST STAR SubBi TAPS Tarb TBü TD TDNT

TDOT

ThAr ThSt

   Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Loren R. Fisher and Stan Rummel.  vols. AnOr –. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, – Regensburger Studien zur Theologie Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Science et Esprit Scripture Bulletin Scripta Hierosolymitana Studi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Studies in the History of Religions (Supplements to Numen) Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series Studia Theologica Studies in Theology and Religion Subsidia Biblica Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Tarbiz Theologische Bücherei Theology Digest Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.  vols. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans, – [–] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al. Translated by David E. Green et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, – [– ] Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Studien


   ThTo TICP TLOT TLZ TQ TS TSAJ TWAT TynB TZ UBL UF VT VTS WAW WBC WBTh WC WdF WdM WMANT WPKG WTJ WuD YNER ZA ZAH ZAW ZB ZTK



Theology Today Travaux de l’Institut catholique de Paris Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle.  vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,  [–] Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Quartalschrift Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al.  vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, – Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Writings from the Ancient World Word Biblical Commentary Weiner Beiträge zur Theologie Westminster Commentaries Weg der Forschung Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Edited by Hans Wilhelm Haussig. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, – Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaft und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft Westminster Theological Journal Wort und Dienst Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche




  

Texts, Versions, and Manuscripts b. BHS HaE KAI Kenn. KTU2

LXX Meg. NJPS NRSV

Babylonian Talmud Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. th corrected ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,  Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik.  vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, – H. Donner and W. Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Vol. : Texte. d ed. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,  Biblical manuscript collection of Benjamin Kennicott (cited by MS number, as listed by De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti .lix–xciv) Manfred Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition). ALASPM . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,  Septuagint (Talmud) Tractate Megilla Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,  New Revised Standard Version

Miscellaneous ET lit. n.d. n.p. p.c. s.v. sc. < || = +

English translation literally no date no place (of publication) personal communication sub voce scilicet derived from; based upon (poetically) parallel to identical, corresponds to; repeated, reprinted in in conjunction with (of texts)


PREFACE The book of Genesis begins with two distinct though interrelated narratives. The first is the Priestly cosmogony (Gen :–:).1 In this first section, we are vouchsafed a sublime vision of the totality of creation, portrayed with great synthetic power, which unifies into a clear and comprehensible order all the endlessly changing categories of existence; we perceive there, enthroned on high, the Idea that rises above the accidental, the temporal and the finite, and depicts for us with complete simplicity of expression the vast expanses of the universe to their utmost limits. God reveals Himself … as a transcendental Being dwelling in His supernal abode.2

The second is the Yahwist story of the human race (Gen :b-:), “a more intense reflection upon the implications of creation for the destiny of humanity.”3 An interest conspicuously prominent in the entire narrative is the desire to explain the origin of existing facts of human nature, existing customs and institutions, especially those which were regarded as connected with the loss by man of his primaeval innocence. Thus among the facts explained are, for instance, in ch. ii. the distinction of the sexes, and the institution of marriage, and in ch. iii. … the gait and habits of the serpent, the subject condition (in the ancient world) of woman, the pain of childbearing, and the toilsomeness of agriculture.4

The first narrative focuses on cosmogony; the second, on humanity.5 1 For this delimitation of the cosmogony, see Bernhard W. Anderson, “A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) – (repr. as “The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study,” in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] –). See also §. with n. . 2 U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes,  []) . 3 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interp; Atlanta: John Knox, ) . 4 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, )  (italics original). 5 Samuel E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) .




.. The single most important topic linking these two narratives is the creation of humankind. On the one hand, the two accounts of human creation are distinct: Gen : summarizes this event with punctuated yet parallelistic terseness, whereas Gen :b- dallies over details.6 On the other hand, the two accounts are complementary. To begin with, when man is referred to as one creature among many— be he even the highest of them—and his genesis is mentioned only as a link in the great chain of creative acts, the manner of his creation is described, of course, only in general terms, in the simple phrase, male and female He created them [Gen :]; but we are not told how they were made. … [W]e have only the indefinite statement that they were created. Afterwards, when the Bible comes to elaborate the story of mankind’s origin, it explains in detail how man and woman were formed respectively. This is … a case of … a general statement followed by a detailed account, which is a customary literary device of the Torah.7

As a result, these two accounts of human creation “live in uneasy tension.”8 Each of the two underlying sources has its own linguistic character, compositional style, themes, and theological identity. Yet in the final redacted text, Gen : serves a proleptic function;9 the Priestly text foreshadows the Yahwist focus on human history. Gen : is a quick preview within a Priestly, cosmogonic context of the story that will unfold in the adjacent, Yahwist narrative.10 .. The creation of humankind, however, is far more than a conceptual bridge between two documentary sources. For the Yahwist, the 6 David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) . 7 Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis  (italics original). See also Phyllis A. Bird, “Genesis  in der gegenwärtigen biblischen Forschung,” JBTh  ():  (repr. as “Genesis  in Modern Biblical Scholarship,” in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ] ). 8 Brueggemann, Genesis . See also James Barr, “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –; and Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship –. Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, “The Priority of P,” VT  (): . 9 See Barr, “Adam: Single Man, or All Humanity?” in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs (ed. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin; BJS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) ; and, in this context, Paul Beauchamp, “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn , –, a. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn , s,” in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Lille () (ed. Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux; LeDiv ; Paris: Cerf, ) . 10 For another example of this Priestly redactional character, see §....




unique importance of this event is self-evident; it is the very foundation of the narrative. So too, the Priestly writer (P) assigns this event distinct, supreme, and overriding significance. Right from the start, human creation is for P an event sui generis.11 Then God said, åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the beasts, and over the whole earth, and over everything that moves on the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them. (Gen :–)

“The creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple … Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve (the cohortative [see §..]).”12 Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative does not itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act.13 With justification, then, Wolff notes that “the man and the woman in Gen. I … are … created … by God’s own personal decision (v. )—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.”14 Similarly, von Rad is justified to infer that “God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation.”15 As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts.16

11 See Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM,  []) ; and Edward M. Curtis, “Image of God (OT),” in ABD .a. 12 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) . 13 E.g., Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ); and, differently, Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .. 14 Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. Margaret Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress,  []) . 15 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . 16 Bird, “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts,” in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. Kari Elisabeth Børresen; Oslo: Solum, ) –.




God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features.17 Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.18 V.  corroborates and executes this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. aα). Overlapping with the first,19 the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. aβ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. b). V.  therefore reiterates the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs.20 .. The interpretive details of Gen :– are unclear at best.21 To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”22 But when its two nominal components—‘image’ and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified. For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it?23 Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  n.  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ). 18 Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament –; and Josef Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) .. 19 Paul Humbert, “Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis. (Kritische Untersuchung der These von von Rad),” ZAW  (): . 20 See Cassuto, Genesis .. 21 See Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .–; or Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .–. 22 Sarna, Genesis . In addition to the references cited in n. , see D. J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynB  ():  (repr. as “Humanity as the Image of God,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, – [ vols.; JSOTS –; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] .), quoted in part in §., below. 23 Jürgen Ebach, “Die Erschaffung des Menschen als Bild Gottes. Überlegungen zur Anthropologie im Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift,” WPKG  (): . 17




does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind?24 The responses are often unsatisfying. Preuss finds that “very little distinction can be made between the two words.”25 Sarna’s language is somewhat stronger: “The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately.”26 Horst adds bravado. [O]ne has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions.27 They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded.28

These statements, then, testify to the problem. The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a repreSee Clines, TynB  (): – (= On the Way to the Postmodern .–). H. D. Preuss, “äîc  d¯am¯ah; úeî"c d emûth,” in TDOT .. Many others agree: e.g., P. G. Duncker, “L’immagine di Dio nell’uomo (Gen. , .). Una somiglianza fisica?” Bib  ():  (repr. as “Das Bild Gottes im Menschen [Gen. , .]. Eine physische Ähnlichkeit?” in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ] ); Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker;  vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, –  [–]) .; Oswald Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik; Munich: Kösel, ) –; Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,–,a und ,b-, (d ed.; WMANT ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) ; E. Jenni, “äîã dmh to be like,” in TLOT .; Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) ; Curtis, in ABD .b; and Johnson T. K. Lim, Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis –  (BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) . See also Walter Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen ,. in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts,” BN  ():  (repr. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] ). 26 Sarna, Genesis . See also J. Maxwell Miller, “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” JBL  (): ; and, indirectly, Mayer Gruber, “‘In the Image of God’— What is It?” in Hommage to Shmuel. Studies in the World of the Bible (ed. Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan; Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Bialik Institute, )  (in Hebrew). 27 See also Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): . 28 Friedrich Horst, “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God,” Int  (): . See also Barr, “The Image of God in Genesis—Some Linguistic and Historical Considerations,” OTWSA  (): ; von Rad, Genesis ; John F. A. Sawyer, “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi,” JTS  (): ; and K. Seybold, “"k k e; Çî"k k emô; øÖà # k  ka’ asˇer,” in TDOT .. 24

25




sentation of form, figure, or physical appearance (see § ..). Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid (see also § ..).29 Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’.30 Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex :–; Dt :–; see also Dt :–, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev :, :).31 From a theological perspective, then, the ‘image’ in Gen :– may be dangerous or, at least, “tainted.”32 Grammar compounds the problems. One grammatical difficulty lies in the prepositions that govern ‘image’ and ‘likeness’: ‘in’ and ‘like’, respectively. A minority of interpreters believe this differential marking sufficiently indicates an interpretive difference between the two prepositional phrases.33 The majority disagrees. “There is no particu29 E.g., Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ) –; Ludwig Koehler, “Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis , ,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ); Otto Kaiser, “Der Mensch, Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden,” NZST  ():  (repr. in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit. Gesammelte Aufsätze [BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ] ); and Gruber, in Hommage to Shmuel . See also Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen  und Ap Joh  (d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (repr. and abr. as “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story,” in Creation in the Old Testament [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson; IRT ; Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, ] ); and, differently, Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ) . 30 See Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  (): –. 31 Moshe Greenberg, “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes,  []) – (repr. in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought [JPS Scholar of Distinction Series; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ] – ); Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, )  (on Ex :); and, in less detail, Anderson, “Human Dominion over Nature,” in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought (ed. Miriam Ward; Somerville, Mass.: Greeno, Hadden, )  (repr. in From Creation to New Creation ). Note also the harmonizing interpretation of Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . 32 Mettinger, ZAW  ():  (“belastet”). See also Gruber, in Hommage to Shmuel . Cf. Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) . 33 E.g., Clines, TynB  (): – (= On the Way to the Postmodern .–); and




lar significance in the change of prepositions (‘in’ our image, ‘according to’ our likeness). In [Gen] . they are exchanged without any difference in meaning.”34 “It is in accordance with the sense to render both prepositions in the same way. Both the nouns and the prepositions are interchangeable …; one verb covers both phrases, åðúåîãë and åðîìöá; we have not two but one expression.”35 Whereas the language of Gen : differentiates two types of divine-human relationship, most scholars abandon a grammatical analysis as futile.36 “Early attempts to distinguish between á and ë have been given up.”37 Another grammatical problem engenders an irritating theological issue. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, God usually refers to himself as a singular entity (e.g., ‘I’).38 But in Gen :, when God introduces and speaks of himself, he uses the first person plural pronoun. Moreover, this unconventional pronoun is repeated three times within a span of four Hebrew words. The aggregate is impressive. “If the plural is Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (d ed.; SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, )  n. . See also Friedrich Schwally, “Die biblischen Schöpfungsberichte,” ARw  ():  n. . 34 Von Rad, Genesis . See also Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; Johann Jakob Stamm, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament (ThSt ; Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, ) ; Barr, OTWSA  (): ; Mettinger, ZAW  (): ; Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ); F. J. Stendebach, “íìö  s. elem,” in TDOT .; and Jenni, Die Präposition Beth (Die hebräischen Präpositionen ; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) –. 35 Westermann, Genesis .. See also Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen ; Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis ,–,a (d ed.; FRLANT ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, )  n. ; Andreas Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw(t). Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,” BN  ():  with n. ; and Bird, “‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh,’” ThTo  (): –. Similarly, August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .–); Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ); H. Wildberger, “íìö  s. elem image,” in TLOT .; and Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) . 36 Note M. Vervenne: “[T]he Priestly redactors … do not really care about grammar” (“‘The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Blood’: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death in Biblical Tradition [Gen. ,],” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference …  [ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA ; Louvain: Peeters, ] ). 37 Westermann, Genesis .. 38 Cf. the source-critical judgement of Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, ) .




here, it is here deliberately.”39 On occasion, the response to this grammatical detail is strictly grammatical. “The point at issue … is one of grammar alone, without a direct bearing on the meaning.”40 But the history of interpretation shows this tack to be naive, narrow-minded, and absurd.41 The plural form itself implies, if not virtually guarantees, that the divine referent is not singular. Obviously, “there do seem to be other divine beings in Genesis , to whom God proposes the creation of humanity.”42 But for many, this inference is not obvious. “[I]t is impossible that P should have understood the plural in this way, not only because he was not familiar with the idea of a heavenly court, but also because of his insistence on the uniqueness of Yahweh, besides whom there could be no other heavenly being. Angels or any sort of intermediary beings are found nowhere in P.”43 God’s self-identification therefore presents an interpretive conundrum. Since God’s self-referential expressions are plural, they imply a nonsingular referent and simultaneously subvert P’s theological conviction in strict monotheism.44 .. A conundrum indeed. In the beginning, the story of human creation in Gen :– is a sublime, interlocking, and well-nigh poetic 39 Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). See also, inter alios, Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) ; and, esp., P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 40 E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . Cf. Anderson, “God, Names of,” in IDB .. 41 See the references in ch.  n. . 42 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []) . See also Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos2  (= idem, in Creation in the Old Testament ); Driver, Genesis12 ; and Sarna, Genesis . Cf. Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] ). 43 Westermann, Genesis .–. See also Stamm, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen –; idem, “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament,” in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg (ed. Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger; Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt, ) –; Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 ; Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of ‘Let Us’ in Gn :,” AUSS  (): –; Vawter, On Genesis ; Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift,” TQ  ():  with n.  (= Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern  with n. ); and idem, BN  ():  (= Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern ). For compromise positions, see Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; and Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) . See also §. with n. . 44 See Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken2 – n. .




statement:45 it describes the nature of humanity, the nature of God, and the relationship between them; describes God’s great, personal involvement in human creation; and describes the human race as similar to God. In the end, the descriptions disintegrate into an opaque, contrary, and vexing morass. Interpretive clarity seems beyond reach. Despite “a very great amount of exegetical energy,” the “exegetical operation … in this instance might be termed the blood-out-of-a-stone process.”46 That is, “[t]he only conclusion one can confidently reach about this notoriously difficult statement … is that no absolutely certain interpretation is presently possible.”47 The text’s initial, poetic grandeur has deteriorated into a gaggle of intransigent problems. Rehabilitation is in order. The interpretive stakes are too high, and the characterological issues too important, not to try to re-integrate the different components of the text into a meaningful whole. This reintegration will proceed as did its disintegration; the text’s interpretation will be reconstructed from its several problem-laden details. The investigation will therefore advance incrementally. First, it will analyze the non-Priestly cases in which God deploys the first person plural pronoun (§§–), discuss their implications in biblical contexts narrow (§.) and wide (§.), and apply the results to identify the probable referent of God’s first person plural pronouns in Gen : (§). Second, it will describe the divine-human relationship through a study of the prepositions (§) and the nouns that register the relationship in Gen :– and related Priestly texts (§). Third, it will discuss the character of the Priestly tradition as it is represented in the cosmogony; it will focus on the themes and theological concepts that distinguish this tradition from its source-critical antecedents as well as define its unique agenda (§). Fourth and finally, it will return to P’s story of human creation, the relationship among its several participants, and its significance for an interpretation of the Priestly tradition as a coherent whole (§ ). .. Because this study seeks coherence, it presumes that an underlying coherence to the text exists and, through a variety of critical methSee, e.g., on v. , Cassuto, Genesis .; Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) ; and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism . 46 Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis—A Study of Terminology,” BJRL  (): . See also idem, OTWSA  (): –. 47 Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, )  n. . See also Sawyer, JTS  (): , attributing the exegetical difficulty to P. 45






ods, can be recovered.48 This presumption finds substantial support. On a small scale, P’s creation story is hailed as “comprehensive in its intention and design. … As von Rad has rightly emphasized,49 only what is essential is here; nothing is accidental or included merely because it stood in the received tradition.”50 On a grand scale, the Priestly tradition is the most distinctive and self-conscious tradition among those in the so-called documentary hypothesis. It is the most easily recognizable. … It prefers its own vocubulary [sic] and style and projects its own scheme for understanding world history and the history of Israel.51

The presumed coherence of P seems justified. It is problematic, however, to retroject linguistic or theological coherence to the underlying Priestly source. Whereas earlier scholars celebrated source criticism and its results with enthusiastic confidence, both the exuberance and confidence are now somewhat muted.52 The independence and continuity of the Priestly source have been questioned,53 and, unlike the scholarly mood of two generations ago, it is necessary to re-argue source-critical parameters.54 The integrity and unity of the Priestly source have also been challenged, and its different strands isolated.55 As a result, the older, expansive lists of Priestly material56 48 Cf. Edward L. Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis , Constructively and Deconstructively,” Prooftexts  (): , –. 49 Von Rad, Genesis . See also Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). 50 Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities –). 51 Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” in idem and Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (d ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, )  (repr., with slight changes, from ZAW  []: ). See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM, ) ; and, critically, Rolf Rendtorff, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,” CRBS  (): –. 52 See, e.g., Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, ) –; and Rendtorff, CRBS  (): , . 53 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ) –. 54 So William H. C. Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT  (): –. See also the cautionary remarks of Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture . 55 See, e.g., Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis –. 56 As, e.g., by Anderson, “Analytical Outline of the Pentateuch,” in Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, ) – ; or Norbert Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen,  (ed. J. A. Emerton et al.; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  n.  (repr. as “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly






can become minimal and limited.57 The specific textual identity of the Priestly document is not presently certain.58 This uncertainty, though, does not doom the documentary hypothesis altogether but requires modification of its basic results.59 One modification is hermeneutically restorative. “There is a general tendency to retain the labels of the Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly work only as broad traditions rather than as individual literary sources.”60 Within this context, most scholars agree that the Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E) traditions not only antedate P, but that P probably knew and utilized a combined JE tradition.61 The other modification is separative. There is a growing consensus that the Priestly tradition is a composite of internally distinct layers:62 an earlier Priestly source (P), as in Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ). 57 See Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence –. 58 Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress,  []) . 59 See Lester L. Grabbe, “The Book of Leviticus,” CRBS  (): . Cf. Gary A. Rendsburg, “Biblical Literature As Politics: The Case of Genesis,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East (ed. Adele Berlin; Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture; Bethesda: University of Maryland Press, ) –. 60 Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, )  (despite his own evaluation). 61 E.g., Lohfink, in Congress Volume: Göttingen,   n.  (= Theology of the Pentateuch  n. ); J. A. Emerton, “The Priestly Writer in Genesis,” JTS  (): , ; Richard Elliott Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch),” in ABD .; and, in this context, Johannes C. de Moor, “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting …  (ed. idem; OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  with n. . See also Cross, “Traditional Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions,” in idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, ) –; idem, “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon,” in ibid. ; Rendtorff, CRBS  (): ; and Barr, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . Cf. Blenkinsopp, “P and J in Genesis :–:: An Alternative Hypothesis,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) –, esp. ; Philip R. Davies, “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies; JSOTS ; [Sheffield:] Sheffield Academic Press, ) ; and Wenham, VT  (): –. 62 For a recent review, see Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) –. For an earlier statement, see Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament (New York/London: Columbia University Press, ) –,  n. .






Gen :–;63 and a later Holiness stratum (H), as in Lev –.64 A subsequent, Priestly redactive hand (RP) can also be detected where Priestly and non-Priestly texts meet, as in Gen :a.65 Priestly genealogies (PT) may represent still another developmental level, although their status as source or redaction is not yet resolved.66 The entire Priestly tradition, then, is an accretion of three or four constituent parts.67 An underlying heterogeneity can nonetheless be theologically coherent. In case of Ezekiel, for example, Zimmerli and others have demonstrated that heirs of a particular tradition can be theologically consistent with their antecedent.68 The same may be said of the components of the Priestly pentateuchal tradition. True, it is likely that “H constitutes an independent entity within P.”69 Yet H is also a product of Priestly circles.70 Notwithstanding differences between them,71 H is closer to P than to any other part of the Old Testament. The content, language and theology overlap to a considerable degree … [which] suggests that the editors perceived no basic incompatibility with the Priestly perspective. … There 63 Cf. Howard N. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  (on Gen :). 64 So, prominently, Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence; and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus ( vols.; AB –B; New York: Doubleday, –) .–, .–. Cf. Crüsemann, The Torah  n. ; and Kent Sparks, “A Comparative Study of the Biblical äìáð Laws,” ZAW  ():  n. . 65 E.g., Brian Peckham, “Writing and Editing,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See –; and Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis – with n. , –. See also Blenkinsopp, in Fortunate … See . Cf. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift,” in Wort—Gebot—Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum . Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernst Jenni; ATANT ; Zurich: Zwingli, )  with n. . It has also been alleged that the redactional bridge may even include the second half of v.  (Julian Morgenstern, “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :–:,” AJSL  []: , ; and Levenson, Creation and … Evil  n. . Cf. Wenham, VT  []: –). 66 For a representative sample, see Sean E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib ; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, )  n. ; Propp, VT  ():  n. ; and Carr, “ΒÝβλο̋ γενÛσεω̋ Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah,” ZAW  (): –. 67 See Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology (University of California Publications Near Eastern Studies – ; Berkeley: University of California Press, – ) .. 68 See Childs, “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” ZAW  (): –. Note also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, )  n. . 69 Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CRB ; Paris: J. Gabalda, ) . 70 Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence . See also Crüsemann, The Torah –. 71 For details, see the references in n. .






is sufficient continuity and unity of outlook to continue calling this body of diverse texts the ‘Priestly Writing’, and to make it the subject of a theological treatment.72

Similarly, the texts of PT are essential to P, “providing its most basic structure” in Genesis.73 More than a structural device, however, “Priestly writers were particularly interested in genealogies—in establishing the connection of the generations and in emphasizing the bonds uniting all Israelites.”74 Even Gen :–, whose composite nature has been studied by Hinschberger75 and Wallace,76 is thoroughly harmonic with P.77 The reflections of the P creation account could not be clearer. … Gen. :– links the overall creation of Adam/humanity in God’s likeness to Adam’s more specific passing on of this image to his descendants, and it links God’s blessing humanity with Adam’s more specific manifestation of this blessing in having a long line of children.78

The several layers constitute kindred parts of, as well as feed, a theologically common, Priestly tradition.79

72 Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) –. See also Milgrom, Leviticus .; and Crüsemann, The Torah –. 73 Terence E. Fretheim, The Pentateuch (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, ) . See also Klaus Koch, “Die Toledot-Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum . Geburtstag (ed. Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –. 74 Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) xxvii. See also Speiser, Genesis xxiv; Anderson, in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought  (= From Creation to New Creation ); and, on H, J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus – (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 75 Régine Hinschberger, “Image et ressemblance dans la tradition sacerdotale Gn ,–; ,–; ,b,” RScR  (): –. 76 Wallace, in Studies in the Pentateuch, esp. –. 77 Cf. Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt .; and, tangentially, Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis  n. . 78 Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis  (italics original). See also Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER ; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ) ; Robert B. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis,” CBQ  (): –; and, differently, Westermann, Genesis .–. 79 See, in this context, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy – (AB ; New York: Doubleday, ) ; and Smith and Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus –.


This page intentionally left blank


  GOD AND THE GODS


This page intentionally left blank


  THE PLURAL PRONOUNS With few exceptions, the Israelite deity is a grammatically singular entity. In J, for example, singular pronouns—whether independent or affixed—regularly substitute for nominal designations of God. J’s God, then, is almost invariably represented by first (e.g., Gen :, :), second (e.g., :, :), and third person singular pronouns (e.g., :, :–). But this grammatical feature is not limited to J. Many passages indicate that each pentateuchal tradition does the same: e.g., : (E), Ex :– (P), Dt : (D), or Ex : =Dt :–. Regardless of documentary source or grammatical person, God is a singular pronominal entity in Biblical Hebrew. In four passages, though, God apparently identifies himself as ‘we’. One text falls outside of the Pentateuch and is embedded in Isaiah’s prophetic commission. Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying, “Whom çìùà shall I send? Who will go åðì for us?” And I said, “Me. éðçìù Send me.” (Is :)

The other three are clustered in the primaeval history, Gen –. Then God said, åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the beasts, and over the whole earth, and over everything that moves on the earth.” (Gen : [P]) Then the Lord God said, “Since the man has become like one åðîî of us, knowing good and evil, no way then should he stretch out his hand, take from the tree of life as well, and eat and live forever!” (Gen : [J]) The Lord came down to see the city and tower that the human beings had built. The Lord said, “Since they are one people, and they all have one language, and this is only the beginning, nothing then that they consider doing will be out of their reach. Let’s äìáðå äãøð let us go down and confound their language there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen :– [J])

The divine ‘we’ is attested in three different biblical traditions.




 

.. In Gen :, however, the pronoun has produced a collision between grammar and interpretation,1 for the plural pronoun soils P’s pure orthodox belief in a single Israelite God (see § .). One resolution has historical depth (see b. Meg. a). “Genesis : … has proved an embarrassment to exegetes ever since the time of the Jewish scholars who were said to have produced for King Ptolemy the ‘corrected’ version ‘let me’.”2 Moderns can achieve the same result through interpretive sleight of hand. The plural pronoun may have one of several semantic diagnoses: e.g., the plural of solidarity (fullness),3 self-deliberation,4 or self-exhortation.5 Or in Gen : at least, it may 1 For surveys, see S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, ) ; D. J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynB  (): – (repr. as “Humanity as the Image of God,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, – [ vols.; JSOTS –; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] .– ); and Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .–. 2 Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). 3 August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .); and Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of ‘Let Us’ in Gn :,” AUSS  (): . In this context, see also Wilhelm Caspari, “Imago divina Gen I,” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Wilhelm Koepp;  vols.; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) .–; and Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis ,–,a (d ed.; FRLANT ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 4 Friedrich Horst, “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God,” Int  ():  n.  (repr. as “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes,” in Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [ed. Hans Walter Wolff; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ]  n. ); Westermann, Genesis .; Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) ; Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM,  []) ; Dale Patrick, The Rendering of God in the Old Testament (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, )  with –; and P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . For a correlative interpretation, see Menahem Kister, “‘Let Us Make a Man’—Observations on the Dynamics of Monotheism,” in Issues in Talmudic Research: Conference Commemorating the Fifth Anniversary of the Passing of Ephraim E. Urbach,  December  (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, )  (in Hebrew). 5 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .–; and, perhaps, Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,– ,a und ,b-, (d ed.; WMANT ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, )  with n. . See also William P. Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, )  (on the Greek version); and Manfred Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Zum sog. dominium terrae in Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien


  



allegedly serve a pragmatic function of distancing an otherwise direct comparison between humanity and God.6 In any case, according to this view, the plural form refers to a singular entity, God himself.7 The plural of majesty (pluralis maiestatis) is another variation of the same interpretive theme.8 It also has an advantage over the other readings of the plural pronoun. Whereas those earlier readings are not otherwise found in Biblical Hebrew, the plural of majesty might be.9 It can possibly explain the singular referent of forms like íéäìà ‘God’, íéùã÷ ‘the Holy One’ (Hos :; Prv :, :),10 and especially íéðãà ‘lord, master; Lord’ (e.g., in íéðãàä éðãà ‘the Lord of lords’ [Dt :; Ps :]). Apart from nouns, though, there are no certain attestations zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) . 6 Paul Humbert, “Trois notes sur Genèse I,” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae (Oslo: Land og kirke, )  (repr. in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ] ); Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker;  vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, – [–]) .; and Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  n.  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ). This distancing strategy has been found elsewhere in the verse, too (see Ludwig Koehler, “Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis , ,” TZ  []:  [repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes (ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ) ]; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis [trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ] –; Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism [Boston: Beacon, ] ; Christoph Dohmen, “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes,” LebZeug  []: ; and Walter Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  []:  n. . Cf., esp., Clines, TynB  []:  [= On the Way to the Postmodern .]; and Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2  n. ). 7 Note, however, Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): . 8 See Yair Zoran, “The Language of Greatness—The Majestic Plural,” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). See also Driver, Genesis12 . 9 Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka;  vols.; SubBi /I–II; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, )  §§d-e; Carl Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, ) §c; and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) §... See also GKC §§g-i; and, differently, Aaron Ember, “The Pluralis Intensivus in Hebrew,” AJSL  (): –. 10 H. Louis Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America ; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, ) . Cf. S. David Sperling, The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible’s Writers (New York/London: New York University Press, )  (on Jos :).




 

of the majestic plural in pronouns.11 “[T]he ‘royal we’ was not part of the vocabulary of kings or individual gods in the ancient Near East.”12 It is also likely, in fact, that the plural of majesty is itself not a discrete grammatical category but part of another, larger semantic class (see §..). It is improbable, then, that the plural pronouns in Gen : should be interpreted as a plural of majesty. Yet most commentators reject the idea that the plural pronouns in Gen : refer to a singular entity. Instead, they accept the literal reading of the pronouns and judge the referent to be nonsingular. For some, the referent is dual; the pronouns may recall a divine couple13 or allude to a binary sexual distinction within the godhead.14 For the majority, the referent is a true plural. “[T]here do seem to be other divine beings in Genesis , to whom God proposes the creation of humanity” (see §.). “ ‘Let us create man’ should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man.”15 11 Victor Maag, “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie,” AsSt  (): – (repr. in Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Zum . Geburtstag [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] –); Clines, TynB  (): – (= On the Way to the Postmodern .–); and Hasel, AUSS  (): –. Cf. Norman Walker, “Do Plural Nouns of Majesty Exist in Hebrew?” VT  (): . 12 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  [])  n. . See also GKC  n. ; Josef Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) .; and Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . 13 P. A. H. de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –. 14 Johannes C. de Moor, “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting …  (ed. idem; OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . See also Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus . 15 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .. In the same vein, note, inter alios, Oswald Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik; Munich: Kösel, ) ; Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) –; and Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, ) –. See also Hans Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] ); Wildberger, “íìö  s. elem image,” in TLOT .; Harry M. Orlinsky, ed., Notes on the


  



Despite the theological turmoil that it entails, this latter opinion remains the consensus.16 .. This opinion is also correct. But it has not advanced beyond educated opinion or speculation. Absent decisive evidence, corroboration, and theological rationale, the consensus position has yet to instill confidence. Nonetheless, there is evidence that provides a credible basis for interpreting the divine plurals of Gen : as references to God’s attendant beings. This evidence is linguistic in nature. It is a phenomenon that appears in J, one of the sources of P and the Priestly tradition. Further, this linguistic phenomenon intersects with one instance of God’s plural ‘we’ (Gen :). The phenomenon is J’s expression äáä  .

New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, ) ; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, )  n. ; Otto Kaiser, “Der Mensch, Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden,” NZST  (): – (repr. in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit. Gesammelte Aufsätze [BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ] –); and Johnson T. K. Lim, Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis – (BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) . 16 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) ; and Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson, The Image of God: Genesis :– in a Century of Old Testament Research (rev. Michael S. Cheney; trans. Lorraine Svendsen; CBOT ; Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, ) – . See also Terence E. Fretheim, “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis – ,” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville (ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury; Word & World Supplement Series ; St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, )  with n. . Cf. Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights,” LouvSt  (): .


This page intentionally left blank


  äáä áäé is an uncommon synonym of ïúð ‘give’ in Biblical Hebrew (see, especially, Jdg :) and, apart from the Yahwist tradition, is used only in its literal meaning. In J, however, the verb has literal as well as nonliteral meaning.1 Only J employs äáä as an interjectional, pragmatic particle.

.. Isolating Nonliteral äáä The imperative of áäé is morphologically regular but phonologically irregular. Like all imperatives, it is inflected for gender and number. Like all inflected imperatives, the form participates in a sound change that shifts the accent onto the ultima when that final syllable ends in a monomorphemic, long-vocalic affix.2 He said, é!áäá “Present the wrap that you are wearing.” (Ru :aα) Joseph said, eáä¢ “Give (me) your livestock, and I will give [the food] to you in exchange for your livestock.” (Gen :a [J])

But other verbs lose their penultimate vowel consequent to the accent shift, as in çK ‘take!’ > é!çO ‘take!’ ( Kgs :; Is :, :) and eçO ‘take!’ áäé does not. As Ru : and Gen : indicate, the verb’s penultimate, thematic vowel is retained and lengthened instead.3 More1 See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ). 2 For this change, see A. Ungnad, “Zum hebräischen Verbalsystem,” BASS / (): ; Chr. Sarauw, Über Akzent und Silbenbildung in den älteren semitischen Sprachen (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser /; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, ) –; and J. Blau, “Notes on Changes in Accent in Early Hebrew,” in Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume (ed. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky; Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research, ) – (in Hebrew) (repr. in Studies in Hebrew Linguistics [Jerusalem: Magnes, ] – [in Hebrew]). 3 Sarauw, Über Akzent und Silbenbildung  n.  (continued from ); and E. J. Revell, “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix,” JSS  (): . See also GKC §o; and GKB  §c.




 

over, the long imperative of áäé may be different still. Jacob said to Laban, äáä¢ “Give me my wife.” (Gen :aα [J]) Saul said to the Lord God of Israel, :a [emended after LXX])

äáä

¢ “Present Thummim!” ( Sam

The difference may not yet arise in J, whose literal äáä is phonologically identical to that of its other inflected imperatives.4 But after the time of J, literal äáä does not participate in the contextual accent shift;5 its accent clings to the penult.6 The inflected imperatives of áäé are phonologically exceptional in their vocalism and, on occasion, their accent. J’s äáä has two interpretations. In Gen :, where the form participates in the accent shift, it has a literal interpretation. Elsewhere, it does not.7 They said to one another, äáä “Let’s let us make bricks and burn them well.” They had brick for stone, & and they had bitumen for mortar. (Gen :) Then they said, äáä ¢“Let’s let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in heaven, and let us make ourselves a name, or else we will be scattered over the surface of the whole earth.” (Gen :) When Judah saw her, he considered her a prostitute because she had covered her face. He turned to her at the road and said, äáä ‰ “Let’s, please, I come to you,” because he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She then said, “What will you give me for coming to me?” (Gen :–) 4 Cf. Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes (Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, ) §f; and Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka;  vols.; SubBi /I–II; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, )  §, though the alleged phonological condition is special, circumscribed, and implemented only irregularly. 5 For a typological parallel, see Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –. 6 Heinrich Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes (th ed.; Göttingen: Dieterich, ) §a. See also Justus Olshausen, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, ) §a; and Friedrich Eduard König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache ( pts.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, –)  §.b. 7 Yeshayahu Teshima, “‘Come, Let Us Deal Shrewdly with Them, or They Will Increase’: Rashi’s Linguistic Evaluation of the Functions of äáä and the Hithpael Stem,” BetM  ():  (in Hebrew); and, tangentially, Johannes F. Diehl, “‘Steh auf, setz dich und iß’—Imperative zwischen Begriffswort und Interjektion,” in KUSATU  (): –.


äáä



He said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and robust than us. äáä ˆ Let’s let us deal wisely with them, or else they will increase and, in the event of war, they too will join our foes, fight against us, and go up from the land.” (Ex :–)

Nonliteral äáä is linguistically distinct from its literal counterpart. Whereas literal äáä governs an object, its nonliteral twin does not; the latter always combines asyndetically with a finite verb form (see § .).8 Its syntax also suggests that nonliteral äáä is semantically weak.9 For when it heads another, finite verb form, the two verbs together comprise a single discourse entity: they are coreferential, referring to one and the same situation that, each time, is expressed by the second, appositive active verb.10 Another distinctive feature of nonliteral äáä is its fossilized form. When its addressee is feminine and singular, the form is not marked for these grammatical categories (Gen :); when its addressee is masculine plural, it does not appear in the masculine plural form (e.g., Gen :.; Ex :).11 In contrast to äáä ‘give!’, nonliteral äáä is characterized by a distinct set of phonological, semantic, syntactic, discourse, and morphological features. Yet another distinctive feature surfaces when nonliteral äáä is compared with äëì and äîå÷.12 All three forms share a common morphology (the long imperative form), and they are said to share a common pragmatic function (e.g., interjection).13 But nonliteral äáä is also different from the other two converbs.14 Cf. Diehl, in KUSATU  ():  n. . See GKC §§g-h, in conjunction with Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization –. 10 See Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica ; The Hague: Mouton, ) ; and F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Ingressive qwm in Biblical Hebrew,” ZAH  (): . See also Roni Henkin, “‘Come We’ll Go!’ and ‘Let’s See!’—Imperatives in Indirect Commands,” in Semitic and Cushitic Studies (ed. Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, ) –, . 11 GKC  n. ; Mayer Lambert, Traité de grammaire hébraïque (; repr., Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, ) §; and Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §e. See also Kimhi, íéùøùä øôñ (ed. Biesenthal and Lebrecht) a. 12 For the comparison, see, e.g., Yizhaq Mann, “On the Use of Verbs of Exhortation,” Leˇs  (): – (in Hebrew); and Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) §..a. See also GKC §b; Irene Lande, Formelhafte Wendungen der Umgangssprache im Alten Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –; and Wolfgang Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch. Ein Lehrbuch (th ed.; Munich: Claudius,  []) §... 13 W. J. Martin, “Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages,” in Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Furlani (RSO ; Rome: Giovani Bardi, ) . 14 For the linguistic category, see Balthasar Bickel, “Converbs in Cross-Linguistic 8

9




  Come, let us make our father drink wine, äáëùðå and let us lie with him so that we keep the lineage alive through our father. (Gen : [J]) So äëì come, please, äøà curse this people for me. (Num :aαa [J]; see also v. b) Israel said to Joseph, “Your brothers are pasturing at Shechem, no? äëì êçìùàå Come, I will send you to them.” (Gen :a [J]) ä÷ùð äëì

When the ark went out, Moses would say, äîå÷ “Up, O Lord. åöôéå May your enemies be scattered åñðéå and may your foes flee from before you.” (Num : [J]); see also Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau, your firstborn. I have done as you told me. äìëàå äáù àð­íå÷ Now, please, sit and eat some of my game, so that you may bless me.” (Gen : [J]) Early in the morning, at the break of dawn, Samuel called to Saul on the roof, êçìùàå äîå÷ “Up! I want to send you off.” ( Sam :a)

One difference is syntactic. Whereas nonliteral äáä is restricted to asyndetic combination, äëì and äîå÷ are not. Another difference lies in discourse genre. His mother said to him, “Your curse be on me, my son. Just obey me êìå ç÷ and go get them for me.” ç÷éå êìéå So he got them and brought them to his mother. (Gen :–a [J]) Eli said to Samuel, “áëù êì Go lie down. If he calls to you, you should say, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening.’ ” áëùéå ìàåîù êìéå So Samuel went and lay down in his place. ( Sam :) Then the servant took ten of his lord’s camels and departed. … êìéå í÷éå He up and went to Aram-naharaim, to the city of Nahor. (Gen :; see also : [J]) So they made their father drink wine that night too; í÷úå then the younger up áëùúå and lay with him. (Gen :a-bα [J])

Nonliteral äáä is restricted to direct speech; its execution is not reported in the ensuing narrative.15 Nonliteral äáä functions as a purely interactional, pragmatic particle.16 It is dialect-specific, syntactically circumscribed, morphologically frozen, and nonreferential.

Perspective,” LT  (): –. 15 Cf. Diehl, in KUSATU  ():  n.  (on êìä). 16 Jill Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible from a Grammaticization Perspective” (master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, ) –.


äáä



.. Interpretations of Nonliteral äáä Scholars have suggested a number of interpretations to explain the function of nonliteral äáä. Many, for example, rely on a formal cue. Inasmuch as äáä is derived from, and formally identical to, the long imperative,17 the word is often explained as a directive.18 It may express wish,19 advice,20 or permission.21 It may express invitation22 or encouragement.23 Or it may be a hortative particle.24 The force of nonliteral äáä may therefore be weak, mild, or strong. Another interpretation begins with a formal association. In this case, though, the association is a morphological comparison between äáä and the cohortative. Since these two forms also share the identical ending,25 their common morphology may imply a common semantic component. Like the cohortative,26 äáä is said to express desiderative meaning and register intent.27 Thereafter, though, the specifics of this intentive particle are elusive. äáä may serve an introductory func17 Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache8 §a; and Mann, Leˇ s  (): . See also B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, ) . 18 For the imperative as the unmarked directive, see F. R. Palmer, Mood and Modality (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) . For various interpretations of the directive, see Geoffrey N. Leech, Principles of Pragmatics (Longman Linguistics Library ; London/New York: Longman, ) –. 19 König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache / §g. 20 Sifre Deuteronomy (ed. Finkelstein)  (on Dt :; citing  Sam :). See also Kimhi, íéùøùä øôñ a. 21 See Henkin, in Semitic and Cushitic Studies  (on modern Hebrew ïúð). 22 Rashi, on Gen : and Ex :. See also Teshima, BetM  (): –. 23 Mann, Leˇ s  (): . 24 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..c. 25 Franz Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, )  (= A New Commentary on Genesis [trans. Sophia Taylor;  vols.; ; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, ] .). For the alignment of ä - in the cohortative and long imperative, see Olshausen, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache §c; GKB  §f; Harris Birkeland, Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebräischen (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-filos. Klasse, , no. ; Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, ) ; Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (d ed.; PLO ; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, ) §.; and Steven E. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem: Magnes, )  (in Hebrew). 26 For the desiderative nature of the cohortative, see GKB  §a; Rudolf Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,  [–]) §.; and Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.b. 27 Joseph Derenbourg and Hartwig Derenbourg, Opuscules et traités d’Abou ’l-Walid Merwan ibn Djanah de Cordoue (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, ) ; and Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) .




 

tion, preparing the addressee for the event expressed by the appositive verb (e.g., Gen :).28 Or its function may be less referential, more interactional, and affective (e.g., :).29 And if affective, äáä may reflect polite speech or its opposite—“peremptory and crudely material requests.”30 Regardless of its specific value, though, these interpretations fundamentally agree that nonliteral äáä is willful, manipulative, and goal-oriented. äáä is a suasive particle. A final interpretation concedes this pragmatic point yet focuses on the degree of speaker participation in the desired event.31 According to this understanding, äáä may imply the speaker’s involvement in a future event (e.g., Ex :).32 To this extent, äáä may also serve an affiliative function. It would reflect, promote, or establish solidarity between speaker and addressee in an interactive conversational context.33 .. äáä and Gen : For the most part, nonliteral äáä clauses are structurally consistent (§.). äáä always heads its clause and is followed asyndetically by a verb that expresses the clause’s principal argument. Yet the form of the main verb may vary. In Gen :. and Ex :, it is an explicitly cohortative plural verb form. In Gen : too, äùòðå … äðáð are commonly interpreted as plural cohortatives;34 their final weak root structure virtually precludes a distinct cohortative form.35 Gen :, however, seems to be different. 28 In addition to the classical references in nn.  and , see Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman; Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav,  []) ; and Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .. 29 See John Lyons, Semantics ( vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –  []) ., in conjunction with Thomas Holtgraves, “Language Structure in Social Interaction: Perceptions of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts and Interactants Who Use Them,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  (): –. Mann, however, contests this interpretation of Gen : (Leˇs  []:  n. ). 30 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, ) . Snyder, however, does not find these two interpretations incompatible (“*yhb in the Bible,” , ). 31 Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible,” –. 32 Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax . 33 Derenbourg and Derenbourg, Opuscules et traités d’ibn Djanah . 34 Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis  (= ET .); and Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax  n. . 35 GKB  §f. See also GKC §l; and Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §o.


äáä



He said, àåáà àð­äáä “Let’s, please, I come to you.”

The principal verb of this äáä clause is not plural; it is a first person singular form. Also, the morphological status of this singular verb seems uncertain; as in final weak roots, cohortative and imperfect forms are frequently indistinguishable in final aleph roots.36 Of the five attestations of nonliteral äáä clauses, then, Gen : deviates from the norm. ... It is possible to specify the morphological category of àåáà in Gen :. äáä clauses are structurally bipartite and consist of two related verb forms: äáä, which originated as a long imperative (§.); and, usually, a following cohortative verb. In semantic terms, each verb in a äáä clause is usually volitional (desiderative). Moreover, the two verbs usually exhibit modal congruence; viz., the constituents of combined desiderative clauses tend to contain verb forms that are grammatically identical or semantically related.37 When the imperative is “followed by a verb in the imperfect, the first person (singular and plural) will be cohortative in form, the second and third persons will be jussive” (e.g., Ex :; see also Gen :–, : [J]).38 The combination of desiderative clauses is not only semantically harmonic, but its constituent verbs may be morphologically harmonic as well. The principle of modal congruence confirms the peculiar nature of Gen :. For with the exception of Gen :, every nonliteral äáä clause abides by this combinatory expectation. A comparison between Gen : and : also belies the notion that the morphological interpretation of the final aleph verb is uncertain.39 Jacob said to Laban, äáä “Give me my wife for my time is up, äàåáàå so that I may come to her.” (Gen : [J])

Since the complementary clause has a marked cohortative (äàåáàå), and the principal clause has a long imperative (äáä), the two desiderative clauses overtly participate in modal congruence. In a text whose structure is almost identical to that of Gen :, J uses the cohortative form of the final aleph verb ‘come’. Another J text also deploys the long imperative of this root (äàéáä ‘bring’ [:; see also v. ]). Clearly, J’s 36

n. .

For a discussion, see Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §b

37 Harry M. Orlinsky, “On the Cohortative and Jussive After an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew,” JQR  (): –, . 38 Idem, “On the Commonly Proposed l¯ ek wena‘abo´¯ r of I Kings  ,” JBL  (): –. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §a n. . 39 See above with n. .




 

language includes morphologically explicit cohortatives and morphologically explicit long imperatives of final aleph roots. In contrast, àåáà in Gen : is nothing other than its obvious grammatical form: the imperfect.40 ... In addition to its form, another feature distinguishes Gen : from other nonliteral äáä clauses. Its following constituent is not verbal. It is the clitic àð. The syntax of àð is not problematic. àð is “always placed after the expression to which it belongs”41 and often coincides with postpositive position. In fact, àð regularly displaces the constituent that would otherwise follow its head (compare Gen :a and :a, or Num :a and Gen :, :a, :a [J]). Syntactically, postpositive àð is not unusual in Gen :. But this clitic may have grammatical and/or semantic repercussions. For when àð is inserted between two verb forms that would otherwise participate in modal congruence, the combined verbs do not necessarily appear in their expected forms. The Lord said to Abram …, êìäúä íå÷ “Up! Walk about the land, its length and its breadth, for I shall give it to you.” (Gen :– [J]) äîå÷ Now, O God, (Ps :; cf. :)

äèôù

judge the earth, for you own all the nations.

Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau, your firstborn. I have done as you told me. äìëàå äáù àð­íå÷ Now, please, sit and eat some of my game, so that you may bless me.” (Gen : [J])

In Gen : and Ps :, the collocated imperatives are formally and modally identical: regular (short) and long imperatives, respectively. But in Gen :, modal congruence is upset; when àð is introduced, the initial verb is not replaced by the long imperative but remains short. The principle of modal congruence is also violated in Gen :, albeit in a different direction, where clause-initial äáä is followed by an imperfect rather than a cohortative. In both Gen : and :, then, àð is associated with the violation of combinatory norms. When àð is attached to the initial converb of a modal sequence, the short verb form of either constituent may be selected over its usual, long derivative.

Cf. Orlinsky, JQR  (): –. GKC §b. See also Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §c. Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax  n. . 40

41


äáä



... Despite some structural variation in nonliteral äáä clauses, the interpretation of the lead particle is relatively consistent. äáä expresses speaker desire. This meaning is attributable to its inherently desiderative imperative morphology.42 It is also attributable to its ending, which is shared with the long imperative as well as cohortative. äáä, then, is doubly desiderative. Nonliteral äáä usually, and correctly, combines with an appositive cohortative and participates in the modal congruence associated with combined clauses. By nature and combinatory pattern, äáä expresses speaker desire. A semantic interpretation alone, however, does not fully account for this particle. Though äáä is desiderative, its specific function in context is not obvious. It would seem, in fact, that a simple cohortative sufficiently expresses desiderative meaning without an introductory äáä— not only in non-J texts (e.g., Dt :a;  Sam :b; Is :) but also in the J tradition (e.g., Gen :a; Ex :; Num :). From a semantic perspective, nonliteral äáä is superfluous to the desiderative utterance. A clue to interpreting äáä lies in Gen :, where the one pragmatic term is followed by another, àð. For as the following minimal pairs suggest, àð favors certain conversational contexts.43 But you should place upon them the same quota of bricks that they have been making all along; you mustn’t diminish it. For they are slackers. Therefore they cry, äçáæð äëìð “Let us go sacrifice to our God.” (Ex : [J]) They said, “The God of the Hebrews has befallen us. àð äëìð Let us please go a three days’ journey into the wilderness äçáæðå to sacrifice to the Lord our God, or else he will strike us with pestilence or sword.” (Ex : [J]) Then Judah said to Onan, àá “Come to your brother’s wife, íáéå and perform the duty of her brother-in-law, í÷äå and provide offspring for your brother.” (Gen : [J]) Sarai said to Abram, àð­äðä “Look, please, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. àð­àá Please, come to my maid. Maybe I can build a family through her.” And Abram heeded Sarai. (Gen : [J])

42 See Martin, in Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Furlani ; and J. C. L. Gibson, ed., Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax (th ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ) §. 43 For the following, see Ahouva Shulman, “The Particle àð in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” HS  (): –.




 

Within each pair, the unmodified desiderative is a simple expression of speaker will. When the desiderative takes the form of the imperative, it asserts the speaker’s desire that the addressee perform the proposition expressed by the verb.44 When it takes the form of the plural cohortative, it expresses the speaker’s desire that the speaker-inclusive group perform the proposition expressed by the verb.45 In each case, the unmodified desiderative presents speaker will, and implies its imposition, to manipulate the addressee.46 Pragmatically, these desideratives are relatively bald directives.47 When àð appears, the conversational context changes and becomes more elaborate.48 In the texts above, the desiderative verb—the semantic core of the request—does not head the speech but is embedded and bracketed. It is wedged between a pair of compelling reasons that motivate, and justify, the proposal. Moreover, the second of the two reasons is offered, twice, in negative, uncertain, and even pessimistic terms. In the attempt to coopt their addressee,49 these characters explain themselves as well as speak with tentativeness, uncertainty, and reluctance. àð advances the speakers’ goal, too. Affixed to desiderative verb forms, àð is compatible with the surrounding conversational strategies that hedge and attenuate directives. Inasmuch as àð communicates politeness, widely defined,50 it reinforces the other strategies and mitigates the force of its utterance. The interpersonal situation depicted in Gen : jibes with its pragmatic markers. There are two conversational participants, of whom the “superior speaker requests an action for himself, toward him or as a ser-

44 For a broader discussion, see Garr, “Driver’s Treatise and the Study of Hebrew: Then and Now,” in S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (th ed.; ; repr., The Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) lxiii–lxiv. 45 A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) §. 46 See Hans-Peter Müller, “Das Bedeutungspotential der Afformativkonjugation. Zum sprachgeschichtlichen Hintergrund des Althebräischen,” ZAH  (): . 47 See Lyons, Semantics . (on the mand), in conjunction with Timothy Wilt, “A Sociolinguistic Analysis of n¯a’,” VT  (): –. 48 Wilt, VT  (): . 49 See Shulman, HS  (): . 50 So Stephen A. Kaufman: “àð does mean ‘please’ and related nuances in all of its contexts” (“An Emphatic Plea for Please,” in Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz [ed. Robert J. Ratner et al.;  pts.; Maarav –; Rolling Hills Estates, Calif.: Western Academic Press, – ()] . [italics added]). See also GKC  n. ; and Wilt, VT  (): –. Cf. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax –.


äáä



vice to him.”51 àð functions as a verbal lubricant, injected by the speaker to avoid interpersonal friction and facilitate cooperative yet self-serving behavior. Likewise, äáä softens the coercive force of its principal verb. The two terms, then, are pragmatically harmonic, as Tamar seems to recognize (v. bβ). The request in Gen : is introduced, politely, by a term that is nonliteral, nonreferential, desiderative, directive, and hortative. äáä is suasive and, like àð, mildly manipulative.52 It attempts to impose speaker will over an addressee and move that addressee to act as the speaker desires.53 .. The Pragmatic Character of the äáä Clause This examination has a specific purpose: to determine the referent of God’s plural ‘we’ in Gen : (J) and, thence, in Gen : (P). To accomplish this goal, it will now be necessary to analyze äáä clauses in greater detail. ... As its association with àð already illustrates, nonliteral äáä is not pragmatically isolated but may be accompanied by other suasive devices. They said to one another, äáä “Let’s let us make bricks and burn them well.” They had brick for stone, and they had bitumen for mortar. Then they said, äáä “Let’s let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in heaven, and let us make ourselves a name, or else we will be scattered over the surface of the whole earth.” (Gen :–) The Lord came down to see the city and tower that the human beings had built. The Lord said, “Since they are one people, and they all have one language there, and this is only the beginning, nothing then that they consider doing will be out of their reach. äáä Let’s let us go down and confound their language there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.” (Gen :–) When Judah saw her, he considered her a prostitute because she had covered her face. He turned to her at the road and said, äáä “Let’s, please, I come to you,” because he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She then said, “What will you give me for coming to me?” (Gen :–)

51 52 53

Shulman, HS  ():  n.  with  n. . “Adhortative,” according to Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization . See, indirectly, Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §b.




  He said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and robust than us. äáä Let’s let us deal wisely with them, or else they will increase and, in the event of war, they too will join our foes, fight against us, and go up from the land.” (Ex :–)

For example, äáä always co-occurs with a first person pronoun. One time, this pronoun is singular (Gen :). Elsewhere, it is plural. It often heads the appositive verb (‘let us’ [:aα.aβ.aα.aβ.aα.aβ; Ex :]). The plural pronoun may also appear in the clause preceding äáä (‘than us’ [Ex :b]), the clause following äáä (‘we will be scattered’ [Gen :b]; ‘our foes … against us’ [Ex :b]), or as an indirect, benefactive component of the äáä clause itself (‘[for] ourselves … [for] ourselves’ [Gen :a]).54 All told, there are fifteen tokens of the first person pronoun in (close proximity to) the five nonliteral äáä clauses: one in the singular, and fourteen in the plural. The significance of the plural pronoun is more than statistical. It is strategic as well, for it implies an alliance or partnership between speaker and addressee in the proposed event.55 In particular, the plural form may connote equal involvement and participation by two different parties.56 The Israelites said to him, “We shall stay on the highway. And if éðà äúùð we—I or my livestock—drink any of your water, I will pay for it. It’s but nothing. I’d like to cross by foot.” (Num : [J]); cf. éð÷îå

Jacob said to Simeon and to Levi, “You have brought me trouble by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. øôñî éúî éðàå Since my men are few in number, should they gather against me and attack me, éúéáå éðà éúãîùðå I and my household will be destroyed.” (Gen : [J])

In Gen :, Jacob’s grammar indicates that his sons’ revenge is focused on him. He equates his family with himself; states that the negative fallout of their action will affect him personally; and repeats, eight times, that the loss will befall his grammatically singular self. Though implicated in the aftermath, Jacob’s family (‘my household’) is only an ancillary casualty. As its principal member, and as the singular subject of the predicate implies, the disaster will be Jacob’s above all (‘I [and See also Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible,” – (on  Sam :). The cohortatives are pragmatically inclusive, too (e.g., Wilt, VT  []: ; and Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, )  [on Gen :–]). 56 Cf. Revell, The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (CBET ; Kampen: Kok Pharos, ) –. 54

55


äáä



my household] will be destroyed’).57 But in Num :, involvement is shared. The leader may promise responsibility for the group (‘I will pay’) and try to minimize the imposition (‘It’s but nothing’) by restricting its scope to himself (‘I ’d like to cross by foot’). Nevertheless, the activity is clearly joint and involves multiple participants (‘We shall stay … And if we drink’). Accordingly, the verb forms are plural and agree with the sum of the compound subject (‘I and my livestock’). The plural pronoun therefore implies inclusivity, a common enterprise, and a common goal.58 It serves the same pragmatic function in the äáä clause. The plural pronoun expresses the inclusion and solidarity of all participants in the event under discussion. For like the mildly manipulative particle äáä, the first person plural pronoun rhetorically attempts to prod the addressee to act as the speaker desires. Implying that both speaker and addressee share a common bond59 and, perhaps, a common objective in the future activity, the speaker politely tries to coopt the addressee. Pronoun and particle combine to enlist the addressee’s cooperation, involvement, and participation. ... In some cases, a common bond is preestablished or preordained. It may result from a shared cultural trait and/or a common history. In Gen :– for example, there is “an original universal human language,”60 and the people have just experienced a migration whose “itinerary moves from the distant darkness of primeval time into the clear light where history begins.”61 Another common bond may be part and parcel of a certain business arrangement,62 as in Gen :– where Judah believes Tamar to be a prostitute (v. ).63 Even though 57 For the interrelationship between character salience and grammar, see Robert Ratner, “The ‘Feminine Takes Precedence’ Syntagm and Job ,,” ZAW  (): –; L. J. De Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator (Studia Semitica Neerlandica ; Assen: Van Gorcum, ) –; and Revell, The Designation of the Individual –. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §q. 58 See Wilhelm Caspari, “Imago divina Gen I,” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Wilhelm Koepp;  vols.; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) . n. ; and, perhaps, Revell, The Designation of the Individual –. 59 See, in a different context, Moshe Greenberg, Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, ) . 60 Sarna, Genesis . See also Westermann, Genesis .–, in greater detail. 61 Westermann, Genesis .. 62 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) ., in conjunction with Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  [/]) . 63 Westermann, Genesis ..




 

the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ is absent, the participants share a common circumstance and (prospective) relationship. In each case, a relationship between speaker and addressee is presumed. A relationship can also be forged, and a speaker may create a common bond by a variety of conversational techniques. For instance, a powerful, socially superior, and often male speaker may create a bond by relinquishing the verbal accoutrements of superiority and identifying himself with the addressee. The speaker would hope to erase the inherent social distance between himself and an addressee, and effect the notion of an intimate involvement of each party with one another.64 In this way, Pharaoh invokes an egalitarian yet fictional ‘we’ to identify himself and his people as the interdependent object of the growing Israelite threat (Ex :).65 Another technique for promoting a bond between speaker and addressee is verbal explanation.66 By providing the addressee with the rationale for a directive, a speaker allows the addressee to believe that the directive and its execution are a mutual decision.67 The explanation may be brief, as in the ïô ‘or else’ clause of Gen :b (see also v. b). Conversely, it may be expansive and hyperbolic,68 as when Pharaoh tells the Egyptians that the Israelites’ number presently and adversely affects the commonweal (Ex :b), is threatening to worsen (v. bαa), and thereafter might pose a military and flight risk (v. bαb-β).69 In each case, the manipulative strategy is successful. ... Just as äáä clauses reflect and forge inclusivity, cooperation, and mutual involvement, they also tend to promote a more general and recurrent theme of solidarity, coherence, and unity. It appears in Pharaoh’s speech, where his dense conversational moves achieve the 64 See Robin Lakoff, “What You Can Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics & Performatives,” in Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics (ed. Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, and Robin Lakoff; Berkeley: Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley, ) .XVI- (repr. in Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures [ed. Andy Rogers, Bob Wall, and John P. Murphy; Arlington, Vir.: Center for Applied Linguistics, ] ). 65 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . See also Teshima, BetM  (): . 66 See Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible,”  (on the association between áäé and [addressee-oriented] justification). 67 For the strategy, see Brown and Levinson, Politeness  with . 68 See ibid. –. 69 See Jacob, Exodus ; or William H. C. Propp, Exodus (AB – ; New York: Doubleday, – ) ., in conjunction with Jon D. Levenson, “Exodus and Liberation,” in idem, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) .


äáä



goal of consolidating public opinion under a single Pharaonic banner. More explicitly, this theme is repeated in a narrative about the movement of the human race to a spot where they found a city:70 the entire land had a single language (Gen :a.aα.a; cf. v. b),71 and its people converged to a single place (v. ), conducted group-internal discussions (v. aαa),72 and proposed building a single city and tower (v. aα) to avert their dispersion throughout the land (v. b).73 Yet the theme of unity and solidarity may have a narrow application. It can be sexual, as when coitus is proposed and achieved by two individuals (:–).74 Regardless, each episode includes mention of äáä. For äáä helps to construct their common theme. It is a manipulative particle that fosters social solidarity, camaraderie, and unity. äáä proposes, and therefore encourages, interpersonal cooperation.75 ... äáä clauses are one among several suasive strategies deployed to manipulate an addressee. They are initiated by the speaker, and they feed a sense of inclusivity, common involvement, and even agreement between the two principal, conversational participants. äáä clauses are goal- or result-oriented. They consistently yield a partnership or cooperative relationship. Within this wider context, then, nonliteral äáä facilitates the formation or maintenance of an alliance, between speaker and addressee, to act in concert. 70 Ulrich Berges, “Gen ,–: Babel oder das Ende der Kommunikation,” BN  (): ; and P. J. Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT  (): . See also Lothar Ruppert, “‘Machen wir uns ein Namen … ’ (Gen .). Zur Anthropologie der vorpriesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte,” in Der Weg zum Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie. Für Alfons Deissler (ed. Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert; Freiburg: Herder, )  (repr. in Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] –). 71 Pierre Swiggers, “Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (Genesis :–),” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum . Geburtstag (ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld; BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) . See also Avraham Wolfensohn, “‘Come, Let Us Build Ourselves a City …,’” BetM  ():  (in Hebrew). 72 Stephen Greenhalgh, “Creative Partnership in Genesis,” ScrB  (): a. 73 Walther Zimmerli, .Mose ( vols.; d/st ed.; ZB.AT /–; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –) .–; and Sarna, Genesis . 74 See, in this context, Baruch Halpern, “What They Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them: Genesis –,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, )  n. . 75 For Janet Holmes, the term might reflect a “more participatory decision-making” interactional style (“Politeness Strategies in New Zealand Women’s Speech,” in New Zealand Ways of Speaking English [ed. Allan Bell and Janet Holmes; Clevedon, Avon:




  .. Form-Critical Analysis of the äáä Clause

Complementary to their common linguistic structure, semantic content, and pragmatic character, äáä clauses share a form-critical pattern. This pattern has five invariable components which are distributed over the äáä clause and its narrative execution. One of these components will also help limit the possible readings of God’s plural pronoun in Gen :. ... Of its five components, the first three appear in the äáä clause itself. i) When a biblical character utters a äáä clause, its core argument is always expressed by one of two verb forms. For the most part, the argument takes the form of a plural cohortative and expresses the speaker’s commitment to bring about a desired future situation for the speakerinclusive group (§..). In one case, the argument is a grammatical imperfect which expresses the speaker’s affirmative, or near, certainty about the stated situation (ibid.).76 Each time, then, the core argument of the äáä clause is grammatically modal: deontic (desiderative) or epistemic, respectively. Each verb form also has its own, conventional function: (self-) directive and (slightly qualified) assertion, respectively.77 ii) The second component of the äáä clause pertains to the type of situation expressed by the directive/assertive verb. Uncoincidentally, each verb has the same semantic characteristics. Each verb expresses a situation that is consciously initiated, such as ‘make bricks’ or ‘burn’ (Gen :). Each is inherently dynamic, like ‘come’ (:). And each situation, like ‘build’ or ‘make’ (:), is controlled by an agent. The core argument of the äáä clause expresses an event.78 Ostensibly, the core argument of the äáä clause in Ex : is not an event. Certainly the root of äîëçúð expresses a state-like notion, Multilingual Matters, ()] . See also E. Adelaide Hahn, Subjunctive and Optative: Their Origin as Futures [New York: American Philological Association, ] ). 76 Garr, in Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses 4 liii–liv. 77 For the imperfect functioning as a directive, see Driver, ibid.  with n. . Compare Anson F. Rainey, who overstates the degree of control expressed by the (paragogic) imperfect (“The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite,” HS  []: ). 78 For the definition, see, e.g., Bernard Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  []) –; and Carlota S. Smith, The Parameter of Aspect (d ed.; Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ; Dordrecht: Kluwer, ) –.


äáä



whether as a nominal entity or a property concept (adjective); it is relatively stable over time (i.e., nondynamic), and its root meaning demands neither conscious initiation nor control.79 Its grammatical stem, however, suggests otherwise. For when a hithpael verb is derived from a nominal, the stem often carries a semblative sense—that of acting like its base:80 e.g., àáðúä ‘act like àéáð a prophet’, ìáàúä ‘act like ìáà (someone in) mourning’, and øùòúä ‘act like øéùò (someone) rich’. Denominative hithpaels require semantic agents and express dynamic events,81 albeit to different degrees. äîëçúð expresses an event as well. In fact, since the directive is executed by imposing a supervisory structure and inflicting physical hardship on the Israelites (Ex :a.a), the implicature of Pharaoh’s hithpael is thoroughly agentful. Pharaoh expresses his desire that the people, himself included, act like íéîëç—with reason, intelligence, prudence, and pragmatism.82 The act, whatever it be,83 is willed, willful, and within the agents’ control. iii) The agent of each event can be specified as another form-critical element. Each time, the event expressed in each äáä clause requires the participation of two distinct parties: the speaker and an addressee. The collaborative participation may be instigated conversationally, as when Pharaoh includes himself and his people in his proposal of äîëçúð (see Ex :b). Or the proposed event may itself require two separate participants, as in Judah’s overture to Tamar. It nevertheless requires the cooperative involvement of the speaker as well as the addressee. A similar, cooperative relationship between speaker and addressee is present in Gen :–. Admittedly, speaker and addressee are not absolutely distinct in these verses, since they are all new arrivals on the Shinar plain, and they virtually speak with one voice (vv. –). But their numerical plurality entails an internally composite group, as 79 For a discussion, see Sandra A. Thompson, “A Discourse Approach to the CrossLinguistic Category ‘Adjective,’” in Explaining Language Universals (ed. John A. Hawkins; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ) – (repr. in Linguistic Categorization [ed. Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman, and Michael Noonan; CILT ; Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, ] –). 80 GKB  §c. Cf., e.g., Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.. 81 Cf. Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, ) – (on àáðúä). 82 See August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (ed. Victor Ryssel; d ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ) . For the ironic nature of the speech, see Childs, Exodus . 83 Driver, The Book of Exodus (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –.




 

indicated by the distributive phrase ‘one to another’ (v. aαa). When the people speak to one another, they speak “separately and exhaustively to every single member of [the] group.”84 In which case, the speaker and addressee are, indeed, separate. Each time, a speaker bids to engage a separate addressee jointly in cooperative behavior. ... Whereas three form-critical components of the äáä clause appear in direct speech, two do not. These latter elements appear, directly or indirectly, when the äáä clause is executed in the narrative. iv) Although the äáä clause should theoretically elicit a response of consent or nonconsent, none is recorded. Only once does the addressee verbally respond to the speaker’s prodding. But the response expresses neither consent nor nonconsent; in this one instance, it consists of commercial negotiation (Gen :b-a). It is always possible, however, to infer the addressee’s response to the äáä clause. For the response can, as elsewhere, be implied in the addressee’s responsive behavior. When the troops came to the camp, the elders of Israel said, “Why has the Lord routed us today before the Philistines? äç÷ð Let us fetch from Shiloh the ark of the covenant of the Lord. …” çìùéå So the troops despatched (men) to Shiloh åàùéå and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts seated (on) the Cherubim. ( Sam :–a) Samuel said to the people, äëìðå åëì “Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew kingship.” åëìéå So all the people went to Gilgal åëìîéå and made Saul king there before the Lord in Gilgal. ( Sam :–aα); see also “Then muster yourself an army like the army you lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot. äîçìðå Let us fight them in the plain; surely we will overpower them.” òîùéå He heeded them ïë ùòéå and did accordingly. ( Kgs :)

Although a verbal response is not recorded in the text, it is unnecessary from an interpretive viewpoint. When an addressee complies with the speaker’s utterance, the compliance bespeaks consent. Likewise, the successful execution of äáä clauses implies, in each instance, that the addressee consents to the speaker’s proposal for cooperation. v) Because the proposition expressed in the äáä clause is always executed, at least in part, the speaker is always successful at imposing his own will over that of the addressee. The complying agent, however, varies. In Gen :b, the agent is unidentified. The text merely states R. L. Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics (London/New York: Routledge, ) . 84


äáä



the outcome of the äáä clause as an impersonal narrative fact: ‘They had brick for stone, and they had bitumen for mortar.’ In Ex :a, the agent is ambiguous. The subject of åîéùéå may refer to Pharaoh’s people (see v. a)85 or to a collusion of the king and his subjects (see íéøöî ‘Egypt’ in v. ).86 In Gen :b, the agent is identified as a generic íãàä éðá ‘the human beings’. And in Gen :b, both Tamar and Judah willfully act to fulfill Judah’s proposal, despite the act’s grammatical representation. According to these passages, the identity of the executing agent(s) may differ from text to text and situation to situation. Yet beyond this small sample, another parameter may help identify the party that executes a biblical directive, the party that constitutes the last form-critical component of the äáä clause. In the letter he wrote, åáä “Deliver Uriah to the front of the fiercest battle íúáùå then turn away from him so that he may be struck and die.” … ïúéå So he assigned Uriah to the place where he knew were worthy men. ( Sam :.b) David said to Achish, “Please, if I have found favor in your eyes, åðúé let them give me a place in one of the country towns, so that I may live there. …” ïúéå So Achish gave him Ziklag on that day. ( Sam :– a) (ïúé §§÷) ïúðé “Let there be given to us seven of his sons, and we will impale them before the Lord… .” The king said, ïúà éðà “I will.” ( Sam :)

As these examples indicate, the addressee of a directive and the subject of its execution may be grammatically different. An imperative may be addressed to a group, yet a single individual may be responsible for its execution ( Sam :b). Similarly, when a jussive has an unspecified and impersonal subject, the execution clause may name the person responsible for its accomplishment ( Sam :a;  Sam :b). In each case, the individual acts as the group’s leader. In each case, too, the leader is a topical and principal character in the discourse context. A directive may be executed by a leader who is salient in the narrative and sufficiently empowered to act on the group’s behalf. A principal character can also execute a cohortative addressed to a group.

85 Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 86 Jacob, Exodus .




  All of you approached me and said, äçìùð “Let us send men ahead of us to explore the land for us and bring us back word about the route we should take and the cities we will come to.” The plan seemed good to me, ç÷àå so I selected twelve of you, one for each tribe. (Dt :–) Then Saul said, äãøð “Let us go down after the Philistines by night äæáðå and plunder them until the morning’s light. We mustn’t let a single one of them survive.” They said, “Whatever seems good to you äùò do.” But the priest said, äáø÷ð “Let us approach God here.” ìàùéå So Saul inquired of God, ãøàä “Should I go down after the Philistines?” ( Sam :–aα); see also Then David said to all his courtiers with him in Jerusalem, äçøáðå åîå÷ “Get up! We should flee, for there will be no escape for us from Absalom. åøäî Go quickly, or he may soon overtake us, bring disaster on us, and attack the city with the sword.” … àöéå So the king left, and all his household in his charge. … àöéå The king left, and all the people in his charge. ( Sam :.a.a)

When the people express their desire to investigate the land and report back information (cf. Num : [P]), Moses both approves (Dt :a) and singlehandedly fulfills their wish (v. b; see also Num :. [P]). When the priest proposes to consult God jointly with Saul ( Sam :b), Saul responds by seeking the oracle alone (v. a); at the same time, the directive addressed to the troops and leader alike (v. a; see also v. aβb) is reformulated as a query about Saul’s own, personal mission (v. aβa).87 Or, in the same vein, when David urges his entourage to flee with him from Absalom ( Sam :), the ensuing flight is described not as a communal activity but as that of the leader accompanied by his subordinates (vv. a.a). In each case, the plural directive is executed—completely or principally—by a single, salient, and leading character who assumes responsibility for the group. The plural directive is not executed by the addressee. ... J’s äáä clause conforms to a single form-critical pattern. Aside from its initial and identificatory particle, the äáä clause has five components that are distributed between two discourse genres. I. Beginning with direct speech, a speaker formulates: (i) a directive or assertive utterance (represented by a cohortative or imperfect, respectively) See, in this context, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel (AB ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . 87


äáä



(ii) which proposes an activity (event) (iii) jointly and cooperatively, between the speaker and a referentially distinct addressee. II.Thereafter, the speaker’s proposal: (iv) receives the tacit consent of the addressee and (v) is executed by an agent, whether unidentified or identified and salient (e.g., addressee, leader). The äáä clause is defined by these form-critical traits, in this order, without omission.


This page intentionally left blank


  GEN 11:7 The final example of nonliteral äáä appears in Gen :. This text, though, is different from the others. In the other äáä clauses, the subject of the core argument is referentially clear. But in Gen :, the subject is referentially unclear, at least at first blush. The subject is divine, yet its plural number, or internal composition, is not explained. .. The structure of Gen : is familiar. äìáðå äãøð äáä

Let’s let us go down and confound their language.

The utterance is introduced by nonliteral äáä. The suasive particle is followed asyndetically by a plural cohortative. A second, conjoined cohortative follows the first. .. The pragmatic context of Gen : is familiar as well. Like other äáä clauses, the speaker is encouraging the addressee to act as the speaker desires. The Lord came down to see the city and tower that the human beings had built. The Lord said, “Since they are one people, and they all have one language, and this is only the beginning, nothing then that they consider doing will be out of their reach. Let’s let us go down and confound their language there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them from there over the surface of the whole earth, and they stopped building the city. Accordingly it was called Babel, because there the Lord confounded the language of the whole earth and from there the Lord scattered them over the surface of the whole earth. (Gen :– [J])

The speaker’s encouragement is laced with affiliative and goal-oriented strategies. The speech begins with incremental reasons that are intended to compel action (see §§ .., ..): The first describes a present and factual circumstance (v. aαb); the second hints at an escalating trend in the immediate future (v. aβ); and, judging the current situation to be very dangerous, the third motivating reason states that the outcome of this situation will be inevitable, immense, negative, and beyond control (v. b).1 In aggregate, the reasons that God presents his addressee are 1

See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &




 

overwhelming and, perhaps even, hyperbolic (see also Ex :b).2 God clearly implies that the fate and/or existence of the whole speakerinclusive group is at risk. His observations serve as a rallying cry; J’s God wants the addressee to join a cooperative effort (äáä) and respond before their situation worsens. .. In addition to structure and conversational strategy, the general situation depicted in Gen : and the other äáä clauses may be shared. The situation may be highly charged,3 as when Judah solicits an illegitimate union with a prostitute and, at the same, shirks his legal duty towards Tamar.4 The situation may be exigent, as in Pharaoh’s accounts of the Israelite emergency.5 Or the narrative may present an extraordinary event or milestone, as in the construction of an urban enclave and its tower that reaches heaven.6 The other four attestations of nonliteral äáä appear in situations that are unusual, urgent, and momentous.7 Gen : is an emergency, too. God’s speech initiates a series of events that dissolve and quash the human achievements recorded in vv. –. .. Gen : shares another theme with its congeners. A partnership is formed from constituent parts (see §..). In Gen , the partnership is sexual. In Ex , it is defensive and patriotic. In Gen :–, it is defensive, arrogant, and pretentious (see also §.). It is also the very problem that God himself confronts (v. aβ-b). “The desire to displace God … and to scheme without reference to his declared will, prompts one final judgment that will hobble man’s attempts at cooperation once and Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ). 2 Some commentators, though, justify God’s explanation, proposal, and deed as a response to human arrogance (e.g., Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme [JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ] ; and Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ]  [on v. ]. Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis [trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – (–)] .). 3 Cf. Westermann, Genesis .. 4 Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . See also Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ). 5 John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC ; Waco: Word, ) –. 6 See Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ), in conjunction with Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . 7 Jill Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible from a Grammaticization Perspective” (master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, ) , –. In this context, see also Timothy Wilt, “A Sociolinguistic Analysis of n¯a’,” VT  (): .


 :



for all.”8 The single human race and its unifying achievement prompt an appropriate divine response; God and his addressee should form a cooperative and cohesive entity (v. aα, echoing v. aαa) that, together, fractures human communication (v. aβ-b).9 The plan, of course, succeeds. The one God, acting on behalf of himself and his addressee, scatters the community far and wide (vv. a.b), arrests their cooperative activities (v. b), and achieves the goal of scrambling their language (v. aβ). In Gen :, then, God proposes a divine alliance similar to the human alliances that are formed elsewhere with the encouragement of nonliteral äáä. Yet there is an important difference. The divine alliance is retaliatory. God’s partnership arises in response to human provocation. Whether that provocation be intentional (vv. –) or situational and accidental (vv. –), the result is the same: God forms his alliance in order to undo and punish the human community.10 .. To a certain extent, all five äáä clauses share a common narrative perspective. In Gen , äáä initiates improper and irresponsible behavior that is eventually regretted by Judah himself (v. ). Pharaoh’s äáä begins a series of evil and ill-fated actions against the Israelites. Similarly, the people’s äáä clauses of Gen :– are sinister in almost every turn, from the construction style that they propose11 to the ‘name’ they wish to leave for posterity.12 From a canonical perspective, too, the ultimate reason for the building project—the prevention of spreading throughout the world (v. b)—violates God’s own design for the human race. 8 Wenham, Genesis .. See also von Rad, Genesis –; and Lothar Ruppert, “‘Machen wir uns ein Namen … ’ (Gen .). Zur Anthropologie der vorpriesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte,” in Der Weg zum Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie. Für Alfons Deissler (ed. Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert; Freiburg: Herder, ) – (repr. in Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] –). 9 See U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .. 10 Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, ) . 11 See August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .); and Franz Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, ) – (= A New Commentary on Genesis [trans. Sophia Taylor;  vols.; ; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, ] .). 12 See Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) . For a detailed discussion, see Ruppert, in Der Weg zum Menschen – (= Studien … Alten Testaments –).




  “[S]preading abroad” … is part of God’s plan for creation and the fulfillment of the mandate of [Gen] :. … Seen from this perspective, the fear of scattering expressed in : is resistance to God’s purpose for creation. The peoples do not wish to spread abroad. … Thus the tower and city are attempts at self-serving unity which resists God’s scattering activity.13

In the same vein, God’s own äáä in Gen : is retributive, announcing the end of the project and this form of human disobedience. The contexts in which nonliteral äáä appears are hardly neutral. Whether by design or coincidence, äáä does not instigate benign behavior. Nonliteral äáä consistently foreshadows malevolent behavior, whether objectionable, nefarious, disobedient, or simply wrong. In each attestation, äáä spells trouble. .. Yet another feature may place Gen : within the orbit of the other äáä clauses. This feature recurs in all texts where äáä retains its literal meaning. “All seven cases where the elongated imperative h¯abâ is used as a concrete verb meaning ‘give’ exhibit a first person beneficiary or recipient. In five of these, an explicit first person indirect object (dative) pronoun, either llî ‘to me’ [: (E); Jdg :] or ll¯anû ‘to us’ [Gen : (J); Pss :, :] immediately follows the verb.”14 In the other two cases, the indirect object is implied.15 Jacob said to Laban, äáä “Give me my wife for my time is up, äàåáàå so that I may come to her.” (Gen : [J]) Saul said to the Lord God of Israel, :a [emended after LXX])

äáä

“Present Thummim!” ( Sam

Jacob tells Laban that Rachel is now his (‘my wife’), and Saul requests that he receive a divine oracle (cf.  Sam :). Literal äáä therefore governs or implies a first person beneficiary or recipient.16 In nonliteral äáä clauses, the speaker is likewise the semantic beneficiary. In Gen :, the beneficiary is an explicit first person indirect pronoun (‘Let’s let us build åðì ourselves a city’). Elsewhere, it is implied. In 13 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interp; Atlanta: John Knox, ) –. See also B. Gemser, “God in Genesis,” in idem et al., Studies on the Book of Genesis (OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and P. J. Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT  (): –, . 14 Snyder, “*yhb in the Bible,”  (with the examples extending to ). 15 Ibid. . 16 See, more generally, Steven E. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem: Magnes, )  (in Hebrew); and idem, “The Lengthened Imperative äìè " J in Biblical Hebrew,” HS  (): .


 :



Gen :–, the proposals are justified by speaker desire (v. a), speaker aversion (v. b), and other latent benefits that the speakers would reap. In Ex :, Pharaoh’s proposal is conversationally justified by the foreseeable harm that he and his people will suffer by inaction; by implication, they should expect to benefit by an effective response. In Gen , Judah enters into the relationship with Tamar in the hope of gratification (v. aα), though he soon learns that she wants the relationship to be mutually beneficial (v. b). Finally, the beneficiary of God’s utterance in Gen : can be inferred from the crisis that God intends to avert. For if the people’s äáä clauses have the effect of violating God’s “mandate” for fruitfulness, number, and worldwide expansion (:; see also :. [P]) (§.), the beneficiary of God’s punitive and restorative proposal is implicit: the speaker, God himself, and, as its plural formulation indicates, his addressee. .. In light of the features shared between Gen : and J’s four other nonliteral äáä clauses, it is hardly surprising that all five clauses display the same form-critical components. Like the others, God’s verbal bid in Gen : is initiated by the suasive particle äáä. Thereafter, the clause’s core argument is semantically desiderative, expressed by marked cohortative verb forms (äìáðå äãøð [v. a]) (i). The cohortatives propose a joint activity or event (ii) which, in the ensuing narrative, is successfully executed. By inference, the addressee agrees to the proposal (iv). And, finally, the proposal is executed by a single, salient agent, Yahweh (‘the Lord confounded’ [v. aβ]; see also vv. aα.bα) (v). Form-critical considerations limit the options for determining the third component of this äáä clause, the referent(s) of God’s divine first person plural. This third component requires that the subject of äãøð äìáðå be jointly and cooperatively involved in the proposed activity. More importantly, though, the activity requires two different parties involved in the cooperative endeavor (iii). The referent of the plural pronoun, then, can not be singular or God himself (cf. §.). Nor can the referent be coreferential with the single divine speaker of the äáä clause. The form-critical model prescribes that God’s plural pronoun include himself and at least one referentially distinct addressee. The grammatical number of God’s ‘we’ is nonsingular. It signals a (tactical) partnership between God, the group leader, and at least one other addressee, under (troubling) circumstances that are far from ordinary.


This page intentionally left blank


  GODS Thus far, the discussion has provided contextualizing and background information. In order to determine the referent of God’s ‘we’ in Gen : (P), it was necessary to explore one of P’s antecedents where God also utters this self-inclusive plural pronoun (: [J]). Then, several linguistic tacks converged to indicate that God’s ‘we’ in Gen : refers to a nonsingular entity. A complementary analysis further described some pragmatic constituents of Gen :, including its goal of forming a cooperative relationship, under unusual circumstances and with ominous implications, between Yahweh and one or more gods. Finally, this background discussion determined that God, in his role as group leader, enacts the proposal that spurred the union of the divine team. .. Gods in the Yahwist and Elohist Traditions The discussion may now be expanded and extended. It will have a wider methodological scope, including linguistic as well as nonlinguistic evidence. It will concentrate on two pentateuchal traditions that underlie and antecede P: the Elohist and the Yahwist (see § .). It will also investigate the J tradition in greater detail, especially Gen : where God again utters the self-inclusive first person plural pronoun and, again, forms a cooperative relationship with his addressee. The following discussion, then, will establish a broader interpretive and historical rubric within which the divine ‘we’ of Gen : can be evaluated. ... The two early pentateuchal traditions acknowledge the existence of Israelite angels.1 J and E often refer to them in the singular: e.g., êàìî ‘angel’ (e.g., Ex : [J]; Num : [E?]), êàìîä ‘the angel’ (Gen : [E?]), äåäé êàìî ‘angel of the Lord’ (e.g., : [J], : [E]), íéäìà êàìî ‘angel of God; divine angel’ (: [E]), and íéäìàä êàìî

Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; ; repr., Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, )  n. . 1




 

‘God’s angel’ (:; Ex :a [E]). They occasionally appear in the plural: íéëàìîä ‘the angels’ (Gen :; see also v.  [J]) and éëàìî íéäìà ‘angels of God; divine angels’ (: [E], : [J?]). And they have gender; their members are grammatically masculine (e.g., Ex :a [J]; Gen : [E]). The angels form a group whose individual members are male, bear a uniform generic label, and, thus, are somewhat indistinct from one another.2 Hebrew terminology may also betray the general character or nature of these beings. In all likelihood, êàìî is a nominal derivative of the verbal root ‘send’.3 Its deverbal nominal pattern, *maqtal, connotes one of several nonagentive relations to the situation expressed by the underlying verb. *maqtal may represent a semantic patient, as in ìëàî ‘food’, àùî ‘burden; oracle’, or ïúî ‘gift’. It may express a (process-and-) effect, as in êìäî ‘journey’, àøåî ‘fear’, and òñî ‘breaking camp; journey’.4 Or it may represent an instrument, as in ãöòî ‘axe’, ìâî ‘sickle’, and perhaps äëî ‘strike, plague’.5 From a semantic viewpoint, then, a êàìî ‘angel’ is not an independent agent but falls under another’s control. Etymologically, it is an envoy.6 Angels have a close relationship with God in the J and E traditions. The relationship is already implied by the grammatical form of êàìî äåäé and related construct phrases, in which the angelic nomen regens is dependent upon the divine nomen rectum. An angel is grammatically controlled by God. God’s control has another grammatical expression, too. The suffixes on éëàìî ‘my angel’ (Ex : [J], : [E?]) and åëàìî ‘his angel’ (Gen :. [J]) can indicate a possessive relationship between an angel and God. Angels belong to God. Angels respond to God. He commissions and despatches them (e.g., Gen : [J]). They do God’s bidding, in speech (e.g., :– [E?]; see also Ex :a [J] as interpreted by v. b [E]) or in deed (e.g., Gen : [J]; :– [E?]).7 An angel acts on the authority it receives from God

Carol A. Newsom, “Angels,” in ABD .a. BDB . 4 Cf. Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka;  vols.; SubBi /I–II; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, )  §Ld. 5 So S. A. Meier, “Angel I êàìî,” in DDD 2 b. 6 T. H. Gaster, “Angel,” in IDB .a. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §Le n. ; and, with hesitation, Gerhard von Rad, “_àì " î  in the OT,” in TDNT .. 7 David Noel Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, “_àì " î  mal’¯ak,” in TDOT .. 2

3






(see : [J]).8 In the Yahwist and Elohist traditions, then, the angels are God’s allies and colleagues: directed by God, controlled by God, and subordinate to God.9 These subordinate colleagues perform a variety of functions. According to J and E, the angels serve: “(a) to convey the mandates of God to men [e.g., Gen : (E)]; (b) to harbinger special events [e.g., : (J)]; (c) to protect the faithful [e.g., : (J); Ex : (E?)] … and execute condign punishment on their adversaries [e.g., : (J), : (E?)]; and (d) to serve as instruments of the divine displeasure against sinners and recalcitrants within Israel itself [see Num : (J)].”10 In each case, angels represent God.11 Angels are also situationally specific. When they communicate and/ or enact God’s will, their addressee is uniformly human. In fact, their presence in J and E is restricted to situations where the divine world meets and interacts with the human. “[W]hen God enters the apperception of man, the [äåä]é [êàì]î is introduced.”12 Angels can therefore appear as contact between divinity and humanity grows direct. They act as intermediaries between God, whom they represent, and humankind, whom they address (see, in this context, Gen : [E]). Corresponding to their mediating role, angels have characteristics of both God and humankind (see Gen : [J]).13 On the one hand, they resemble God. They speak from heaven (:, :. [E]) and in dreams (e.g., : [E]). God empowers them to act in his stead (e.g., Ex : [J]). God and his angel may even be depicted as equivalent (e.g., Gen :– [E?]).14 On the other hand, angels resemble men. They have the appearance of human males (e.g., :– [J]).15 They 8 See Saul M. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) . 9 August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .). 10 Gaster, in IDB .a. See also Newsom, in ABD .–. 11 Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .. 12 Von Rad, in TDNT .. 13 E.g., Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) . 14 E.g., Freedman and Willoughby, in TDOT .; and Newsom, in ABD .a. See also Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (trans. Israel Abrahams;  vols.; d enl. ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes, ) .; and, vigorously, von Rad, in TDNT .. 15 E.g., Ludwig Koehler, Old Testament Theology (trans. A. S. Todd; London: Lutterworth,  []) .




 

have human mobility (Ex : [J], : [E?]), although they cover superhuman distances (see Gen : [E]). They also eat (e.g., : [J]) and accept other offers of hospitality (:– [J]). Combined, the attributes of angels reflect and participate in both worlds they traffic. In a certain sense, they are hybrid: theomorphic as well as anthropomorphic. The J and E traditions depict the angels as a male, humanoid theophany in certain divine-human settings. ... J also mentions íéäìàä­éðá ‘divinities’ who belong to God’s world16 and, like the angels, interact with the human. For the most part, they have angel-like traits. They bridge the divine and human realms, are grammatically masculine, and constitute a generic and internally undifferentiated group. But, in the J tradition at least, they behave quite differently from God’s cooperative, angelic delegates.17 The most detailed account is Gen :– (J),18 which reports an intermarriage of divines and mortals. When humankind began to multiply on the surface of the earth, and daughters were born to them, íéäìàä­éðá the divinities saw the daughters of humankind—that they were beautiful (lit., good). So they took themselves wives from all they chose. The Lord said, “My spirit shall not persist 19 in humankind forever; after all, they are flesh. Their time should be one hundred and twenty years.” At that time, and later too, the Nephilim were on the earth, when íéäìàä éðá the divinities would come to the daughters of humankind, and they would bear them children. They were the warriors of old, men of fame. (Gen :–)

As the story explains, the two marital parties are distinct in ancestry and sex. Their ancestors are expressed lexically by their different nomina recta: íéäìàä ‘God, the gods’ (vv. .) and íãàä ‘humankind’ (vv. .). Their sexual distinction is expressed grammatically: éðá ‘sons’ and úåðá 16 Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm ,” HUCA – (–):  n. ; and J. Kühlewein, “ïa b¯en son, úa bat daughter,” in TLOT .. 17 See Lowell K. Handy, “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. Diana Vikander Edelman; Grand Rapids/ Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []) –. 18 For a source-critical discussion, see Marc Vervenne, “All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis .–,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer (ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. E. Watson; JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) – (despite his conclusion on ). 19 See Ronald S. Hendel, “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis :–,” JBL  ():  with n. , perhaps in conjunction with Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) .






‘daughters’, respectively. But the gods and their future brides also have much in common. They have explicit sexuality.20 They each represent an entire species that is derived from (the name of) the male heading the lineage.21 Moreover, each group is presumably known and identifiable; “[t]he definite article points to a familiar and well-understood term.”22 The marriage, then, takes place between two generic yet antithetical species:23 male members of íéäìàä, and female members of íãàä.24 J’s view of this intermarriage is decidedly negative (see §.).25 The story unfolds quickly. The divinities notice the women (Gen :aα), eye them approvingly26 yet with lewd intentions (v. aβ),27 and take an unspecified number of them as wives (v. bα). Clearly, the divinities instigate the liaison.28 “No sin is imputed to mankind or to their daughters in these relations. The guilt is wholly on the side of the angels.”29 20 Cf. David P. Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Bib  (): . 21 See James Barr, “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, )  (= “One Man, or All Humanity? A Question in the Anthropology of Genesis,” in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium …  [ed. Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten; STAR ; Leiden: Deo, ] ), in conjunction with Edward L. Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis , Constructively and Deconstructively,” Prooftexts  (): . 22 Sarna, Genesis  (on íéäìàä­éðá). 23 Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (d ed.; SBT /; London: SCM, ) , in conjunction with Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) –. 24 Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis – (BIS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 25 Cf. P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 26 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, )  (on Gen :), in conjunction with James L. Kugel, “The Adverbial Use of kî .tôb,” JBL  (): –. 27 Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and Sarna, Genesis . Cf. von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . 28 Von Rad, Genesis . See also Marvin H. Pope, “Mixed Marriage Metaphor in Ezekiel ,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) . 29 Skinner, Genesis2 –. See also Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, ) ; and, esp., Greenstein, Prooftexts  (): –. Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .; and Pope, in Fortunate the Eyes That See .




 

The intermarriage and its result are catastrophic. When they marry, the grooms and the brides (con-) fuse “categories which the Creator had intended to be separate.”30 They cross the border between heaven and earth, and they violate the prototypical distinction between divine and human.31 They produce offspring that are a colossal, powerful, unnatural mongrel (v. ) and that, consequently, forebode the end of the earth (vv. – [J]).32 The “union of the divine spirit and human flesh”33 doubly disrupts the natural order of the world. Nevertheless the instigators, those divine colleagues belonging to íéäìàä, are not punished.34 Instead, punishment is deflected. On one side, it is deflected to the children (v. ). “[T]he potential for offspring reflecting the likeness of the gods in a new way emerges as a threat to creation, order and blessing.”35 The present threat, however, is also self-destructive. As their name indicates, “the Nephilim, ‘the fallen ones,’ are those who are doomed to die.”36 The form of death is not specified. They may die by demotion to mortal rank (see Ps : [ïåúåîú ‘you will die … åìôú you will fall’]). They may die by dint of battle (see Num : [J] in conjunction with Dt :–; see also Jdg :, :),37 or by inherent defect (see ìôð ‘stillborn’).38 Yet die they must. Notwithstanding their achievement of fame (Gen :bβ; see also :aβ), the Nephilim come to a speedy and permanent end (similarly, :– [J]).39 Punishment is also deflected to humanity. When he withdraws his çåø ‘spirit’ from them, Yahweh limits the íééç úîùð ‘breath of life’ that 30 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” ExAu  (): . 31 Cf. Harland, The Value of Human Life –. 32 Hendel, JBL  (): ; and Richard S. Hess, “Nephilim,” in ABD .a. 33 H. F. Beck, “Nephilim,” in IDB .a. 34 Fishbane, Text and Texture ; and, differently, Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm  as Myth and Liturgy,” RB  (): . See also Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) –. Cf. Sarna, Genesis . 35 Howard N. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 36 Hess, in ABD .b. 37 See Hendel, JBL  (): . 38 Skinner, Genesis2 . See also Anne Draffkorn Kilmer, “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical N˘ep¯ılîm,” in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, June ,  (ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, )  n. . 39 See Frank Anthony Spina, “Babel,” in ABD .b.






he had shared of himself with all human beings (see Gen : [J]).40 Human life is now truncated;41 human life expectancy (:b) is limited (v. aα) to a fixed, quantified terminus.42 By implication, a shortened life span also limits the potential for human reproduction and, canonically, for realizing God’s mandate of Gen : (P). Yahweh preemptively curbs the expansion of human population.43 Finally, the punishment of humanity serves to separate the human and divine spheres a degree more than they already were. When he withdraws his çåø ‘(divine) spirit’ (see  Kgs :a = Chr :a), Yahweh makes humans that much more mortal (e.g.,  Sam :a; see also ‘flesh’ in P) and that much less godlike (see, e.g., Jer :a and Ps :b; see also the title íìåò ìà in Gen : [E]).44 Yahweh makes humanity more finite and impermanent, iteratively, for complicity in the divine indiscretion. Whether inflicted on the children or the species from which the brides were chosen, the punishment for the cosmic transgression is appropriate to the crime. The semidivine offspring are eliminated, and human beings become more mortal and more distant from God. They also become less capable of fulfilling God’s goal of overflowing human fertility and abundance (Gen :). The crime violated fundamental boundaries and distinctions, and the punishment reinforces these boundaries and distinctions. The punishment is a form of death— a form that restores and fortifies a boundary previously violated. In Gen :–, the merger of divine and human realms produces deadly results. There is a purpose in telling this story. The divine provocateurs are spared retaliation, yet the human accomplices are not. Humanity accrues ever more blame for violating the natural order. It is judged to be evil in its entirety (Gen :a) and in its every scheming thought (v. bα; see also :aβb [J]).45 The purpose of J’s story, then, is transpar-

See Childs, Myth and Reality2 . Hendel, JBL  (): . 42 Sarna, Genesis . See also Ulrich Berges, “Gen ,–: Babel oder das Ende der Kommunikation,” BN  (): . 43 Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ) –. Cf. Vervenne, in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed . 44 See Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) , in conjunction with von Rad, Genesis . 45 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, ) ; and von Rad, Genesis . 40

41




 

ent. “This is recorded as an example of human depravity.”46 Its undoing requires a global solution: the extermination of human and faunal life (:a; see also : [J]).47 “The natural conclusion of Gen :–, according to the logic of the myth, is the deluge—the destruction of humanity and the concomitant annihilation of the disorder. The cosmic imbalance is resolved by a great destruction, out of which a new order arises.”48 All of humanity pays an insuperable price for participating in the divinities’ scheme. ... In addition to ‘angels’ and ‘divinities’, J may obliquely refer to gods in Gen :. Then the Lord God said, “Since the man has become like one åðîî of us, knowing good and evil, no way then should he stretch out his hand, take from the tree of life as well, and eat and live forever!” So the Lord God drove him out of the garden of Eden, to work the soil from which he was taken. He expelled the man. (Gen :–a)

As elsewhere, J’s God employs a self-inclusive, first person plural pronoun in an appeal to an addressee which, together with himself, constitutes a nonsingular entity (§.). The addressee is invoked in a setting where divine and human realms meet. The setting is consistent with the manifestation of angels (§..). The addressee seems to be (part of) God’s allied confederate.49 Conversational strategy supports this assessment. Gen : presumes, or forges, a relationship between God and his addressee, in which the whole group is said to be affected by the immediate situation (see also §.). Gen : also describes a palpable breach in a boundary that God established between heaven and earth50—a breach which is viewed, at least by J’s God, as evidence of cosmic disharmony between 46 Westermann, Handbook to the Old Testament (ed. and trans. Robert H. Boyd; Minneapolis: Augsburg,  []) . 47 See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –,” BA  (): b. 48 Hendel, JBL  (): . Cf. Harland, The Value of Human Life . 49 Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .; and E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . See also, with marked confidence, I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  n. . 50 E.g., Miller, “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT / ():  (repr. in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays [JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] ); and Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT  (): .






the human and divine precincts (see § ..).51 To this extent, then, Gen : shares interpretive indicia with Gen :– and :–. Gen :–a may be compared directly with :–. Both episodes blame humans for the incursion into divine space. Both stories result in a type of human exile, whether eviction and expulsion from Eden (:a.a) or obliteration from earth (: [J]; see also the prospective statements in :aα and :b [J]).52 And both episodes place a new limit on human longevity (:b, :).53 In this comparative context, these texts also share two more important features. First, the confusion within the cosmic order explicitly involves gods. Whether they oppose or collaborate with God, gods are present in the melee. Second, Yahweh responds to the confusion by initiating and imposing corrective measures, which in turn restore balance as well as control (see below). In both narratives, then, Yahweh alone implements punishment (see also :–). “[T]here is only one God who passes judgment and makes decisions. … The one God is recognized as holding sole title to the breath of life, which He controls as He wills.”54 Gen :–a may also be compared with :–.55 God’s speech in both passages begins with the affirmative clitic ïä (:a, :a).56 The ïä clauses jointly introduce a present situation that can, and will, endanger the divine speaker as well as his addressee. Each situation is thoroughly unusual and exigent (see §.); the language describing each situation is correspondingly panicked (see §.). Each time too, the speaker attributes the threat to a human achievement that crosses the boundary between divine and human jurisdictions (see § .).57 Even the achievement is similar; (a representative of) the human race forms or will form a union in defiance of God’s will.58 Then, each episode

Driver, Genesis12 ; and Hendel, JBL  (): . The source-critical status of Gen : is uncertain. See Walther Zimmerli, .Mose ( vols.; d/st ed.; ZB.AT /–; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –) .; and Wallace, in Studies in the Pentateuch , arguing for its assignment to RP. 53 Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) , in conjunction with Sarna, Genesis . 54 Sarna, Genesis  (on Gen :–). 55 See Vawter, On Genesis –; and Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild , . 56 For the function ïä, see Cassuto, Genesis .. 57 See Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). 58 For Gen :, see, inter alios, Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .–); and Skinner, Genesis2 . 51

52




 

continues with a consequential clause introduced by äúòå,59 in which Yahweh predicts even more ominous problems in humans; in the case of :bβ, humans may achieve potential immortality. Again, the situation is dire and unacceptable. And each time, God invokes ‘us’. “Yahweh consulted with other members of the divine council” when there was “a very serious human act of rebellion” against Yahweh and his addressee.60 There is also the topos of divine intervention that connects Gen :–a, :–, :–, as well as many other passages mentioning God’s angels. In Gen , God deliberately (see §§., ..) intervenes to punish the human alliance, stop their building project, and effect repairs. In Gen , God intervenes to expunge all sentient life, including the semi- and nondivine traces of the heretical union. In Gen , God thwarts the human affront to his balanced cosmic plan. ‘Angels’ register God’s presence in a similar way; they specifically serve as God’s representatives in different circumstances where the divine and human realms meet. “They are nothing save the perceptible intervention of the God in events.”61 Each time, God intercedes and takes control. The beneficiary of such intervention is regularly divine. In Gen :, where Yahweh launches a counteroffensive on behalf of a self-inclusive plural party, Yahweh and his addressee categorically benefit from the divine raid. The beneficiaries are the same in Gen :. As J’s God characterizes it, the human affront targets God as well as his addressee (‘us’); any counteraction would therefore benefit the two allied parties, perhaps in equal measure. So, in both these cases, Yahweh seeks the addressee’s consent to act in the corporate interest: in Gen :, by bidding for cooperation in a joint venture that God wants to conduct; and in :, by conversational implicature. Both times too, it is he who executes the plan—presumably after receiving their solicited consent. Stated militarily, in Gen :–a and :– Yahweh rallies his troops, gains their cooperation, and leads the battle on their common behalf. BDB a; and Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) §... 60 T. L. J. Mafico, “The Divine Compound Name íé!äÀ$à äåäé and Israel’s Monotheistic Polytheism,” JNSL  (): . See also Moshe Weinfeld, “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarb  (): – (in Hebrew); and idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) . 61 Martin Buber, Moses (Oxford/London: Phaidon, ) . See also Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (trans. Leo G. Perdue;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, – [–]) .. 59






But not in Gen :–. The emergency depicted in this text is incompatible with divine consultation. Yahweh can not consult those who are violating the cosmic order that he established. He can not productively take counsel from those who defy him. Nor can he ally himself with the human collaborators of ungodly corruption. Humankind will be an object of God’s reductive and lethal force, as will the Nephilim. Absent a cooperative partner in this instance, Yahweh acts unilaterally. He acts on his own behalf. The gods themselves are not destroyed (see :), though they desist from any further transgression of the divine-human divide. ... The gods that appear in the J and E traditions are exclusively masculine and, on one occasion, sexually male. They are also unnamed,62 having only generic descriptors like ‘angels’ and ‘divinities’ (J). Nevertheless, for some interpreters, a goddess Asherah may appear in the J tradition.63 Reed, for example, finds Asherah in Gen :. It is said that Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob two sons, Gad and Asher. This apparently pleased Leah who expressed her thanks to the two deities, Gad and Asher, and named the sons for them. Verse  may be translated: “Leah cried, ‘With Asherah’s help! for maidens must call me happy!’ so she called his name Asher.”64

But the Masoretic text (MT) does not support this claim. Leah said, éøùàá “As my happiness,65 for éðåøùà the young women will call me happy.”66 So she named him øùà Asher.

Reed’s rejoinder: “As the text now stands the word for ’ asˇ¯er¯a is written ’ˇsry.”67 Even so, this interpretation of éøùà appeals to an unattested For named angelic classes, see Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him . For recent discussions of this goddess, see N. Wyatt, “Asherah äøÖà,” in DDD2 –; and Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). 64 William L. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, ) –. See also the more reserved discussion in ibid. –. 65 For the grammar of this prepositional phrase, see Hans-Peter Müller, “Das Beth existentiae im Althebräischen,” in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum . Geburtstag am . Juni  (ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ) . 66 For the reading of the perfect, see Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .). 67 Reed, The Asherah . See also C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (; repr., New York: Ktav, ) –. 62

63




 

form of Asherah’s name.68 And the support that Reed finds in :, where a divine name Gad in ãâá (ãâ àá §§÷) allegedly underlies the name of the child there,69 is tenuous at best. “In the mouth of Leah it [sc. Gad] is simply an abstract noun, ‘luck.’ ”70 Textually and exegetically, then, Gen : is hardly a compelling attestation of a goddess Asherah in the Israelite realm.71 Nor is Ex : (J?).72 He [sc. the Lord] said, “I hereby make a covenant. … Observe what I command you today. Look, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Beware that you not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land against which you come. … Their altars you should tear down, their pillars smash, åéøùà­úàå and their asherim cut down. For you shall not worship another god, because the Lord—having the name Jealous—is a jealous God.” (Ex :aα.–a.–)

Despite the mention of ‘another god’ in their discourse vicinity (v. a), these asherim are concrete objects.73 Syntactically, they are aligned with cultic objects, viz., altars and pillars in v. .74 Grammatically, they are affected patients of a prototypically transitive verb úøë.75 The plural

68 Cf. Alan Cooper and Marvin Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” in RSP .. For ’atrty in Ugaritic, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, )  n. . 69 Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and Skinner, Genesis2 . See also Westermann, Genesis .. 70 Sarna, Genesis . 71 See Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion ( vols.; BBB /–; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, ) .; and, esp., Hadley, The Cult of Asherah . 72 The traditional assignment of this passage to J is now disputed. See Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed.; The Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) ; and, esp., John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC ; Waco: Word, ) –. 73 E.g., Richard J. Pettey, Asherah: Goddess of Israel (American University Studies VII/; New York: Peter Lang, ) . 74 See Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman; Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav,  []) . 75 Pettey, Asherah . See also the lists in Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine, )  n. ; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah –.






morphology,76 plural suffix,77 and possessive suffix78 of åéøùà also suggest that the basic noun represents a generic entity rather than a divine name. Nor can åéøùà refer here to an indigenous cultic item linked, in any affiliate way, to Yahweh.79 The covenant formulary prohibits different kinds of foreign allegiances, especially foreign worship (see v. ). Ex : does not refer to a goddess Asherah, Israelite or otherwise, in consort with God. ... A relatively consistent picture of the gods has emerged from the J and E traditions. In the first place, J and E acknowledge gods alongside God. They may be called ‘angels’, according to the role they serve. Or they may be called íéäìàä éðá, according to their generic species or, perhaps, after their leader íéäìàä. In either case, these gods exist as nonindividuated, masculine, and nameless beings. They are, however, potentially countable, as Gen : plainly states.80 For when J’s God affirms that ‘the man has become åðîî ãçàë like one of us’, the partitive grammar and phraseology imply that the nonsingular ‘us’ includes multiple members that, at least en ensemble, have a common divine identity. Second, gods appear only at times when the divine and human worlds meet. Sometimes, the human side benefits from the meeting. Frequently, it does not. In which case, the human race is perceived as an untame, malevolent, and destructive opponent. It must be subdued like any rival of God’s, and the resultant wound must be healed. Third, when the gods respond to human malevolence, the wickedness takes the form of transgression. In these instances, God judges human behavior to have overstepped its intrinsic boundaries and to have violated God’s created order. So God himself intervenes and, alone, executes punishment. Fourth and finally, God can form a cooperative relationship with gods, as when he deputizes angels to communicate and/or act in his stead. God instigates and directs their Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, )  with . 77 See Haiim B. Rosén, “On Some Nominal Morphological Categories in Biblical Hebrew,” in On the Dignity of Man: Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren (ed. Tryggve Kronholm et al.; OrSu –; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, ) . 78 Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods –, esp.  n.  (on äúøùà in epigraphic sources). 79 Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, ) . Cf. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) . 80 Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW  (): . 76




 

behavior, and he can involve them in an affiliative and confederate relationship. They are his colleagues who serve him, represent him, and execute his will. If they are not complicitous in the human transgression that prompts their appearance, J’s God forms an alliance with gods to repair the breach. Through a number of conversational strategies, God reinforces or establishes a sense of solidarity between himself and his addressee, in order to convince the addressee to execute his will. One of these strategies is the use of the first person plural pronoun, in which God rhetorically conveys the notion that the (human) problem at hand affects himself and his divine addressee jointly and equally. In both of J’s accounts, Gen :–a and :–, Yahweh solicits and tacitly receives the consent of the divine addressee. In both accounts, the human problem is also dispelled. To a certain extent, the referent of God’s self-inclusive plural pronoun can now be specified. The earlier analysis suggested that the plural pronoun is nonsingular, and that the pronoun refers either to a divine pair or to a divine plurality (see §.). At this juncture, the evidence disfavors the dual referent. It is unlikely, for example, that God’s plural refers to an angelic addressee—singular or plural in number. For when an angel enters into partnership with God, the angel performs God’s work. Not so in Gen :–a and :–, where God executes his own proposal. It is also unlikely that God’s plural refers to a female addressee, since no goddesses—named or unnamed—are associated with Yahweh in the J and E traditions. The likelihood falls to a masculine plural addressee whom God persuades to join his cause. God’s inclusive and affiliative tactics further indicate that the plural addressee is divine and, conversationally at least, involves the divine community. In J, that divine community appears once as an unfettered and lawless group that creates havoc in Gen :–. Otherwise, it appears to collaborate with God. In Gen : and :, then, J depicts alliances between Yahweh and a referentially distinct collective of subordinate divinities. God’s circle includes gods. But gods also entail, or implicate, two other parties that are intimately involved with them. One party is God himself. Whether they act as consultants, envoys, or obstacles, gods do not appear without God present or imminent. The other party is human. Whether ‘angels’, ‘divinities’, or God’s consultative posse, gods materialize only when human beings are salient or topical discourse entities. In J and E, gods always implicate humans as well as God.






Far more striking, however, is the narrative or situational correlation between nonangelic gods and humankind. For when gods appear as ‘divinities’ or under the guise of the first person plural pronoun, the repercussion for humanity is devastating. When they appear, human beings—or their prototypical representative—always represent a clear and present danger to God’s order, God’s community, and God himself (see §..). It is irrelevant whether human beings initiate (Gen :– a, :–) or join the transgressive behavior (:–). In either case, they act in concert, violate God’s stipulations, and infringe on God’s domain. From this perspective, human beings each time (help) create the ominous, exigent, or invidious predicament that provokes God’s punitive response. From another perspective, though, the very appearance of nonangelic gods entails a present or imminent human disaster in the form of irreversible and abundant punishment. Gods spell horror for human beings (see §.).81 .. Gods Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible Nonforeign gods appear in many other biblical texts as well. Unsurprisingly, these latter texts tend to confirm the precedent set by J and E. Unsurprisingly too, they complement J and E, and they provide much additional information about the gods: their designations, their organization, their relationship to God and to humans, as well as their several functions. They therefore present a detailed and holistic characterization of the gods. They also establish a wider context within which P’s lone divine ‘we’ can be evaluated (Gen :). ... Gods exist throughout much of the Hebrew Bible. “There is … a considerable body of evidence to indicate that early Israel believed in the existence and even the puissance of deities other than YHWH.”82 As in J and E, they can be angelic: e.g., êàìî ‘angel’ (e.g., Hos :), äåäé êàìî ‘angel of the Lord’ (e.g., Zec :), íéäìàä êàìî ‘God’s angel’

Cf. Bernard F. Batto, who labels J’s gods “functionless figures” (“Creation Theology in Genesis,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions [ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins; CBQMS ; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, ] ); or, differently, Parker, “Sons of (the) God(s) íéäìà(ä)/íéìà/ïåéìò éðá,” in DDD2 b. 82 Baruch Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) . See also ibid. . 81




 

(e.g., Jdg :), and åéëàìî ‘his angels’ (e.g., Ps :). They may be expressly divine: íéäìà éðá ‘divinities’ (e.g., Job :), íéìà éðá ‘divinities’ (e.g., Pss :, :), íìà ‘gods’ (Ex :), and íéäìà ‘gods’ (e.g., Ps :). Or they can be identified by an intrinsic property: e.g., çåøä ‘(divine) spirit’ ( Kgs :a = Chr :a).83 In these texts, the gods terminologically resemble their J and E counterparts; they are a plural entity whose members are relatively generic and indistinct. Terminology also shows that gods can organize into groups.84 They may form a ìä÷ ‘gathering’ (Ps :) or äãò ‘assembly’ (:). They may constitute a ãåñ ‘council’ (e.g., Jer :),85 or they may muster into a àáö ‘army’ (e.g., Is :).86 Gods can form a variety of collectives.87 All of their designations, though, are referentially compatible. On the one hand, like the grammatical structure of íìà and íéìà éðá, gods are plural. They have internal composition, and they may even number in the thousands (Dan :; see also Ps :).88 Further, if these gods follow the pattern of those in Gen :, they are also a countable plurality (§..). On the other hand, these divine beings may aggregate into an undifferentiated or homogeneous group and, altogether, comprise a mass ‘totality’ (e.g., Zec :; Ps :). The many gods can coalesce into unions, assemblies, companies, congregations, or squadrons.89

83 See, e.g., Rudolf Kittel, Die Bücher der Könige (HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . Cf., e.g., James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. Henry Snyder Gehman; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) . 84 Oswald Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik; Munich: Kösel, ) ; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ) –; and Newsom, in ABD .. 85 Heinz-Dieter Neef, Gottes himmlischer Thronrat. Hintergrund und Bedeutung von sôd YHWH im Alten Testament (AzTh ; Stuttgart: Calwer, ), esp. –. 86 BDB a (ad .b); and, tentatively, H. Ringgren, “àáö  s. ¯ab¯a’,” in TDOT .. 87 See Brettler, God is King . 88 Although ÖCS ú&áá " X in Dt : has also been understood to register the gods’ number (e.g., Newsom, in ABD .b), this interpretation is weak (see the discussions by Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  ()] –; and A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy [NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Morgan & Scott,  ()] –). Cf. Tigay: “Ribeboth-kodesh … must be the name of a place …, like all the terms parallel to it” (Deuteronomy [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ] ). 89 For ramifications, see Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him –.






... Biblical writers ascribe many attributes to nonforeign gods. Of paramount, and predictable, importance is their divine and God-like nature (e.g., Ps :). They are at least as old as creation (Job :–)90 (see §..), and they are presumed to live forever (Ps :).91 Divinity renders them immortal (see §..). Moreover, they are holy (e.g., :.),92 sovereign (e.g., :), and masculine (see, esp.,  Kgs :a =  Chr :a).93 Israel’s gods have other God-like qualities, too. For example, they are awesome (Jdg :), ‘good’ ( Sam :),94 and wise (e.g., Job :).95 They are especially “considered to be paragons of knowledge and discernment,”96 as the wise woman of Tekoa well knows.97 Your servant thought, “Please, the word of my lord the king will act as comfort. For íéäìàä êàìîë like an angel of God, so is my lord the king—understanding good and evil. … My lord is as wise as the wisdom of íéäìàä êàìî an angel of God—knowing everything on earth.” ( Sam :a-bα.b) 90 See, e.g., Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ); and, by implication, Parker, in DDD2 b. Whether Is : and : demonstrate that Yahweh created gods (Miller, HBT / []:  n.  [= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology  n. ]; and J. J. M. Roberts, “Isaiah,” in The HarperCollins Study Bible [ed. Wayne A. Meeks; (New York:) HarperCollins, ] ad Is :) is uncertain (see Westermann, Isaiah – [trans. David M. G. Stalker; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  ()] –; or, nodding to Miller and Roberts, R. N. Whybray, Isaiah – [NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott,  ()] ). 91 See Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (th ed.; HKAT II/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 92 Werner H. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel. Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes (d ed.; BZAW ; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, ) ; Mullen, The Divine Council –; and, albeit on Hos :, Weinfeld, “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree,” VT  (): . See also C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (POS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –. 93 Cf. Kittel, Könige . 94 For this passage, note Karl Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (KHAT ; Tübingen/Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) ; and Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  [])  with n. a. Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel (AB ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . 95 See von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker;  vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row, – [–]) .. 96 Newsom, in ABD .b (though only the first citation seems correct). 97 See Hans Joachim Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (KAT /; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, ) ; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel –. Cf. McCarter, II Samuel (AB ; New York: Doubleday, ) ; and A. A. Anderson,  Samuel (WBC ; Dallas: Word, ) .




 

David’s wisdom and knowledge are shared only with the gods (see Gen :.). But the gods are not all equal. In one setting, a military setting, there is evidence of differentiation.98 When Joshua was in Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, “Do you belong to us or to our enemies?” He said, “Negative. Rather, I am äåäé­àáö­øù commander of the Lord’s army; I have now arrived.” Then Joshua fell face down to the ground, bowed, and said to him, “What is my lord saying to his servant?” (Jos :–)

There is a hierarchical distinction among the divine troops: God’s army is led by a divine captain.99 Though he may look like a man (see below), he is an angel,100 and he commands God’s forces.101 But, as the title äåäé úåàáö may also suggest, the army ultimately falls under the leadership of God, the commander-in-chief.102 In like fashion, the íéøåáâ ‘(divine) warriors’103 are grammatically possessed by God (e.g., Is :; Jl :),104 who himself is the divine warrior par excellence (e.g., Ex :a).105 For the Lord your God is the God of Gods and the Lord of lords, àøåðäå øáâä ìãâä ìàä the great, the warrior, and the awesome God. (Dt :a-bα; see also Jer : and Neh :)

There is a tripartite division, then, in the military arm of the divine world: Yahweh, his army’s commander, and his soldiers, in rank order. A final attribute of the gods can be gathered from another, deuteronomistic passage. There appeared äåäé­êàìî an angel of the Lord to the woman. … The woman came and told her husband, íéäìàä ùéà “A man of God came to

E.g., Smith, The Early History of God 2 . Brettler, God is King . Cf. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him . 100 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). 101 See, in this context, Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, )  n. . 102 See Cooper, “Ps :–: Mythology and Exegesis,” JBL  ():  n. ; and, esp., Hans Walter Wolff, The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings (trans. Keith R. Crim; Philadelphia: Fortress,  []) . Cf. A. S. van der Woude, “àáö  s. ¯ab¯a’ army,” in TLOT .–. 103 See Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM ; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ) , . 104 See Mullen, The Divine Council –. 105 Brettler, God is King –. See also Miller, The Divine Warrior –; and Mullen, The Divine Council – (on Dt :–). Cf. Cooke, ZAW  (): . 98

99






me. His appearance was like that of íéäìàä êàìî an angel of God, very awesome.” … Then íéäìàä êàìî the angel of God again came to the woman, while she was sitting in the field without Manoah her husband with her. … She said to him [sc. her husband], “Look! ùéàä The man who came to me the (other) day has just appeared to me.” Manoah up and followed his wife. He came to ùéàä the man and said to him, “Are you ùéàä the man who spoke to my wife?” He said, “Yes.” … Not again did äåäé êàìî the angel of the Lord appear to Manoah and his wife. At that time, Manoah understood that äåäé êàìî he had been an angel of the Lord. So Manoah said to his wife, “We shall certainly die, for íéäìà a divine being have we seen.” (Jdg :a.a.b.b-.–)

On the one hand, the visitor is a deity. As an angel, he can be characterized as a god and project an awesome appearance. On the other hand, the visitor is also a man106 and speaks with a human voice (see also Dan :).107 Angels can be recognized as divine and/or human. Like their predecessors in J and E (§..), they are morphologically (am-) bivalent, manifesting properties of the two worlds they straddle. ... Gods are subordinate to God. Their angelic title connotes dependency (§..). Their grammatical relation in construct phrases and suffixed nouns suggest dependency or, more widely, taxonomic assignment: e.g., íéäìàä êàìî and, perhaps, íéäìàä éðá ‘the sons of God’ (Job :, :); åéëàìî and åéðá ‘his sons’ (Dt : [emended after QDeutq]);108 as well as äåäé ãåñ ‘council of the Lord’ (Jer :) and äåìà ãåñ ‘council of God’ (Job :).109 Sometimes, gods are even characterized as subservient or servile personnel: e.g., åéúøùî ‘his ministers’ (Pss :, :) and åéãáò ‘his servants’ (Job :). Israel’s gods are subordinate to God, belong to God, and are part of his divine species. God’s gods perform many other functions as well, most of which reflect their status vis-à-vis God himself.110 For example, they show obedience to Yahweh. Bless the Lord, åéëàìî O his angels, powerful warriors åøáã éùò who enact his utterance, obeying his utterance. Bless the Lord, all his hosts, åðåöø éùò åéúøùî his ministers who perform his will. (Ps :–)

See von Rad, Old Testament Theology .; and, in greater detail, Tsevat, HUCA – (–):  n. . 107 See John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –. 108 DJD .. 109 See Mullen, The Divine Council . 110 Brettler, God is King . 106




 

They bow down to him (e.g., :)111 and praise him (e.g., :–; see also QDeutq :).112 They tend to him (e.g.,  Kgs :; see also  Chr :) and applaud him with words (e.g., Job :). The particular setting may vary, whether royal attendance (e.g., Ps :–),113 warfare (e.g., Zec :), or a courtroom (e.g., Dan :–). Still, gods serve the same basic role; they minister unto Yahweh, their God.114 ... They serve another role too, vis-à-vis the human race.115 When the Supreme One allotted the nations, when he separated humankind, he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of éðá íéäìà divinities. For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment. (Dt :– [emended after QDeutj])116

God worked the gods into his cosmic design, and he shared with them jurisdiction over the world’s population.117 At that time, that is, at the beginning of all history … he subordinated one nation to each of the heavenly beings who had to take care of it, like a guardian angel. He departed from this general arrangement in one case alone: Israel was chosen by Yahweh for himself and subordinated directly to himself. Thus it was in this way … that God at the beginning carried out the division of the world according to its nations. … The peculiarity of this passage is not the fact that it mentions yet other heavenly beings beside Yahweh (this conception is not rare in the Old Testament) but that it confers on them such an important place in the government of the world.118

In fact, God tailored the parameters of human communities after the gods, and he installed them in the administration of the world.119 The 111 See Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, )  (on Job :). 112 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology –). 113 See Heinrich Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,” in Lex Tua Veritas. Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. idem and Franz Mußner; Trier: Paulinus, ) – (on ãåáë and øãä). 114 Mullen, The Divine Council  (despite his evaluation). 115 Miller, HBT / (): – (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). 116 DJD ., with supportive evidence. For discussions, see Urbach, The Sages 2 .; and Tigay, Deuteronomy –. 117 Tigay, Deuteronomy xiii. See also Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. 118 Von Rad, Deuteronomy (trans. Dorothea Barton; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  []) –. 119 Rudolf Meyer, “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium , f.  (Q) für die Auslegung des Moseliedes,” in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im . und . Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum . Geburtstage (ed. Arnulf Kuschke; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) – (repr. in Beiträge zur Geschichte von Text und Sprache des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Aufsätze [ed. Waltraut






gods are permanent fixtures subordinate to Yahweh. Stated differently, Yahweh validated the gods when he assigned them their task. A task which, again, pertains to the human population. When God made his divine assignments, he determined that the nations each have a protector and patron.120 It is their duty to execute God’s will (see Ps :–) and, in this case, care for non-Israelites. In another case, in their capacity as angels, they are also responsible for God’s faithful. For åéëàìî his angels will he order for you, to protect you in all your ways. On their hands they will carry you, so that you won’t hit your foot on a stone. (Ps :–)

Yahweh intends that gods responsibly participate in the human world and enact his plans equally for Israelites and non-Israelites. Yahweh also intends that gods imitate him. Since he is “the author and guarantor of the norms of justice,”121 Yahweh is the prototypical agent of justice. The Lord is king!122 Let the earth rejoice; let the numerous islands be glad! … èôùîå ÷ãö Righteous and justice are the seat of his throne. … Heaven proclaims his righteousness, and all peoples see his glory. (Ps :.b.) Mighty king,

justice you love. You have established íéøùéî equity, justice and righteousness have you performed in Jacob. (Ps :); see also ä÷ãöå èôùî

èôùî

For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords … who performs èôùî justice for the fatherless and the widow, and who loves the stranger by providing him food and clothing. (Dt :a.)

God expects his divine representatives to follow suit.123 God takes his position ìà­úãòá in the assembly of God, íéäìà áø÷á among the gods he executes justice. … åèôù Judge the weak and fatherless, vindicate the lowly and poor, provide escape for the weak and needy, save (them) from the hand of the wicked! (Ps :.–) èôùé

Bernhardt; BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ] –); Tsevat, HUCA – (–): ; and, more generally, Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). 120 Mayes, Deuteronomy . See also Meyer, in Verbannung und Heimkehr  (= Beiträge … Alten Testaments ). 121 Tsevat, HUCA – (–): . 122 See ch.  n. , below. 123 See Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology –).




 

God entrusts his gods with effecting justice, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring righteousness and equity in the world.124 Since gods serve an intermediary role, relative to both God and humankind, they are intrinsically angelic—in name (§..), nature (§..), and function (§..). They do God’s bidding in a divinehuman setting (see §..). The gods “harbinger special events” (e.g., Jdg :–). They “protect the faithful, either individually or collectively” (e.g.,  Kgs :– and Ps :, respectively). They “execute condign punishment on their adversaries” (e.g., Ps :–), and they “serve as instruments of the divine displeasure against sinners and recalcitrants within Israel itself ” (e.g.,  Sam :–; see also  Chr :–). God’s angelic envoys therefore represent the benevolence and malevolence of their dispatcher to their human addressee.125 Gods can serve a more general function, too. They convey God’s message to humankind (e.g., Zec :). Occasionally, a god may interpret a divine communication (e.g., v. ).126 More often, gods merely relay God’s message (e.g.,  Kgs :), simply and faithfully (cf. Job :, :).127 Gods act as divine spokesmen.128 ... Just as the text of Dt :–+QDeutj : supports the notion of angelic gods, it also supports the notion that gods can be more than God’s subordinates. God and the gods constitute an internally differentiated administrative agency. When God organized the government of the world, He established two tiers: at the top, He Himself, “God of gods (’elohei ha-’elohim) and Lord of lords” (:), who reserved Israel for Himself, to govern personally; below Him, … angelic “divine beings” (benei ’elohim), to whom He allotted the other peoples. The conception is like that of a king or emperor governing the capital or heartland of his realm personally and assigning the provinces to subordinates.129 124 E.g., von Rad, Deuteronomy ; and Anderson, The Book of Psalms ( vols.; NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) .. 125 See Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. 126 Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah – (AB B; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) . 127 See, however, Meier, in DDD 2 b. 128 Note, too, the formula discussed by Frank M. Cross, Jr., “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” JNES  (): –; and supplemented by Christopher R. Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL  (): –. 129 Tigay, Deuteronomy . See also Meyer, in Verbannung und Heimkehr  (= Beiträge … Alten Testaments ); Halpern, “The Baal (and the Asherah) in Seventh-Century Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Klaus






God and the gods constitute a divine council. As the Bible describes it, it is “fundamentally a sociopolitical [symbol], expressing the activity of divine government in political terms, that is, as having to do with the affairs of the human world and the divine world.”130 The organization of the human race reflects that of all the divine beings. The divine council is also a deliberative body. The gods can function as an assembly which God can consult and where divine discussion takes place (see, e.g., Job :).131 Then he [sc. Micaiah ben Imlah] said, “Alright, hear the word of the Lord! I saw the Lord seated on his throne, íéîùä àáö­ìëå while all the host of heaven were attending him to his right and to his left. The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ One said this, another saying that, when a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord. He [sc. the spirit] said, ‘Me, let me entice him.’ The Lord said to him, ‘How?’ He said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ He [sc. the Lord] said, ‘You will entice (him) and prevail, too. Go out and do it.’ So the Lord did put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours; the Lord expressed disaster upon you.” ( Kgs :–; see also  Chr :–)

In this episode, Yahweh sits on his royal perch and confers with his divine entourage. He formulates a plan and solicits a volunteer. The divinities consult one another, after which one of their rank comes forward. Yahweh questions whether the volunteer is prepared. But after the divinity makes his case, Yahweh agrees and orders the plan’s execution; it is executed as if from Yahweh himself.132 The relationship between Yahweh and the council, though, is not always harmonic. God may accept their advice, as in  Kgs :b= Chr :b. Conversely, the gods may simply obey him (see Ps :– ) or defer to him (see Gen :–a, :–). At other times, though, the gods may defy him (e.g., Ps ) or challenge his seat at the head of the council (see Is :–). In which case, their disobedient offense is Baltzer zum . Geburtstag (ed. Rüdiger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger, and Helmut Utzschneider; OBO ; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) ; and John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) . Cf. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl –: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –. 130 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). See also Halpern, in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel . 131 Newsom, in ABD .b. 132 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ).




 

quickly quashed (e.g., vv. .), even in the gods’ native courtroom setting (Ps :.–) (see §..). As God’s advisory yet subordinate body, gods should submit to, and accept, God’s will over them (see :–).133 ... Membership in the council is not restricted to divine beings.134  Kgs :– shows, for example, that a prophet may view the proceedings of God’s court. Is  shows that a prophet may also assume a participatory role. In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw my Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. … Seraphim were attending him from above. … One would call to the other and say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, filling the whole earth with his glory.” … Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? Who will go åðì for us?” I said, “Me. Send me.” So he [sc. the Lord] said, “Go and say to this people …” (Is :a.aα..–a)

The deuteronomistic and Isaian texts begin alike.135 They are presented as eyewitness reports by a prophet of Yahweh. They describe a royal scene where Yahweh, sitting on his throne, is attended by an angelic retinue.136 They also depict Yahweh calling for divine consultation, asking for a volunteer, and directing the volunteer to execute his plan of deception or admonition against (a segment of) his people. Yet unlike Micaiah, Isaiah includes himself among the addressees.137 Isaiah answers Yahweh’s call, volunteers himself, receives God’s approval, serves as God’s envoy, and communicates his message. Isaiah is Yahweh’s representative angel.138

See Cooke, ZAW  (): . Miller, The Divine Warrior –. 135 For the relationship between  Kgs  and Is , see H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) . 136 See Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ba‘al’s Throne and Isa. :,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, )  (repr. in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology [ed. Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick;  vols.; Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/The Hebrew University Magnes Press, ] .), in conjunction with Cooke, ZAW  (): –. 137 H. L. Ginsberg, The Supernatural in the Prophets with Special Reference to Isaiah (n.p.: Hebrew Union College Press, ) ; and, similarly, Miller, Genesis – . 138 Cf. James F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; London: SCM, ) –. 133

134






In this angelic capacity, Isaiah can respond to Yahweh in a way that was otherwise restricted to gods.139 Previously, when Yahweh appealed to a self-inclusive plural, he was seeking the consent of a divine addressee to act on the corporate behalf (Gen :, :). In Is , Yahweh still appeals to ‘us’ (v. aβ); Yahweh still implies that he and his divine company share a bond of common involvement, solidarity, or interest. Yet Isaiah’s response is not illegitimate or hubristic; in fact, God himself endorses and directs a prophetic go-between (see Hag :– ). Isaiah is a credible respondent because he is a male intermediary who represents and communicates God’s directives to Judah (see also Mal :). Isaiah represents and reveals God’s will in the world, as a (human and male) theophany of God’s presence and participation on earth (§..). ... Just as the goddess Asherah is thought to appear in the Yahwist tradition (§..), she is also spotted elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. By and large, the characteristics of Asherah derive from those of her Ugaritic ancestor.140 There, Athirat is paired with the godhead El. El is the divine father, and Athirat is the divine mother. They “are clearly represented as the parents of the gods.”141 Both deities also have watery, albeit separate, homes.142 In the Ugaritic texts, then, El and Athirat make fitting consorts. In biblical texts, though, El’s own salience has diminished. Just as “[t]here are cases where ’¯el refers to Yahweh” (e.g., Ex : [J]),143 Yahweh has become a principal “successor to Canaanite El.”144 And for some, this Israelite successor also inherits

139 Cooke, ZAW  (): ; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ) ; and Hans Wildberger, Isaiah (trans. Thomas H. Trapp;  vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, – [–]) .. See also Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah . 140 See Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,” JBL  (): –. For discussions of the Ugaritic goddess, see Pope, “Atirat,” in WdM /.–; J. C. de Moor, “äTÖà # ’ ash¯er¯ah,” in TDOT .–; Wilfred G. E. Watson, “The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey,” SEL  (): –; and Wyatt, in DDD2 –. 141 Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 142 For Athirat’s marine title, see Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic Myths,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.;  vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, –) . n. ; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah . 143 W. Herrmann, “El ìà,” in DDD 2 b. See also, inter alios, Cross, “ìà ’¯el,” in TDOT .; and, differently, idem, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic –. 144 William G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd,” BASOR  (): b. See also Day, Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses –.




 

El’s Canaanite consort.145 “It is likely that Asherah and Yahweh were considered consorts.”146 The existence of an Israelite goddess Asherah might be anchored in early biblical poetry. His bow stayed steadily taut, the arms of his hands were invigorated by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, there, the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, the God of your father who helps you, and Shaddai who blesses you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep stretched out below, blessings of íçøå íéãù breasts and womb. (Gen :–)

The phrase ‘breasts and womb’ in v. b “might be a title attributed to a goddess. … The strongest evidence … supports Asherah as the goddess evoked by the[se] female epithets.”147 The evidence, though, is not strong. Fertility does not belong exclusively to the domain of goddesses. Yahweh’s own domain includes fertility (e.g., Dt :).148 So too, v.  “specifically states that God provides these blessings, an indication that God has already coopted the powers of the mothergoddess by the time of this poem.”149 Gen : reflects Yahweh’s own character.150 Later biblical texts do not prove her existence within the Israelite pantheon, either. So gather all Israel with despatch to me [sc. Elijah] at Mount Carmel, as well as ìòáä éàéáð the prophets of Baal (numbering) four hundred and fifty äøùàä éàéáðå and the prophets of Asherah (numbering) four hundred—feeding at the table of Jezebel. ( Kgs :) 145

.

See Smith, The Early History of God 2 ; and Day, Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses ,

146 Pettey, Asherah , as well as the conclusion drawn on . See also Handy, in The Triumph of Elohim . 147 Smith, The Early History of God 2 . See also, tentatively, Harriet Lutzky, “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” VT  (): –. 148 See Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses . 149 Ibid.  n. . See also Magne Sæbø, “Divine Names and Epithets in Genesis :b-a: Some Methodological and Traditio-Historical Remarks,” in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May th  (ed. André Lemaire and Benedikt Otzen; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ]) – with n.  (repr. in On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament [JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] – with n. ); and, on the associations of the divine name El Shaddai, David Biale, “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” HR  (): –, as tempered by Wenham, Genesis .. 150 See, similarly, Richard C. Steiner, “úc and ïéò: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy :, ),” JBL  (): – (on Dt :), as opposed to Nyberg’s attempt to recover Asherah amidst the difficult úãùà (recently resurrected by Weinfeld, VT  []: –).






This text shows that prophets of Baal and Asherah received royal support and, to this extent at least, were sanctioned religious figures in ninth-century Israel.151 The rest of the chapter, though, challenges these gods’ power. Baal is proven impotent.152 Asherah’s representatives do not even respond to the challenge.153 “The contest … demonstrates conclusively that there is only one true God in Israel” (v. )154 and, by implication, that the other gods are ineffectual.155 In no way can this story suggest that Asherah is paired with Yahweh.156 Further, the referential interpretation of ìòá and äøùà in  Kgs : can be questioned.157 The definite article on these nouns either renders a referentially unique entity generic or abstract;158 or the article signifies that an underlying, common term is specific, identifiable, or known.159 Since äøùà can be inflected for number and possessive suffixes, grammar supports the former reading. Similarly, the definite feminine plural form expresses a mass ‘(foreign) goddesses’ (Jdg :).160 It is uncertain, then, whether Asherah per se appears in  Kgs :.161 But if she does, her role is adversarial to and incompatible with Yahweh. The same issues surround äøùà in  Kgs : and  Kgs :. Moreover, he removed Maacah his mother from the rank of queen mother, because she had made an abominable image äøùàì for Asherah. Asa cut down her abominable image and burned (it) in the Wadi Kidron. ( Kgs :) 151 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, ) ; and idem, “ Kings,” in The HarperCollins Study Bible ad loc. 152 See, in this context, Halpern, in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel . 153 For interpretations of this latter point, see Kittel, Könige ; Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses –; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah . 154 Wilson, in The HarperCollins Study Bible ad vv. –. 155 Cf. Iain W. Provan,  and  Kings (NIBC ; Peabody, Mass./Carlisle, U.K.: Hendrickson/Paternoster, ) . 156 Cf. Pettey, Asherah . 157 Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ ; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah –. 158 GKC  n. , in conjunction with Smith, The Early History of God 2 . See also Hadley, The Cult of Asherah ; and, sympathetically, Halpern, in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte , . Cf. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’  (on  Kgs :). 159 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) §.a, in conjunction with Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ –. Cf. Day, Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses . 160 Cooper and Pope, in RSP .; McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) ; and Smith, The Early History of God 2 . 161 See also Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses –; and Smith, The Early History of God 2 –, for complementary conclusions.




  The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests of second rank, and the guards of the threshold to bring out of the Lord’s temple all the paraphernalia made äøùàìå ìòáì for Baal, Asherah, and all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron. ( Kgs :a-bα; see also vv. .)

According to the Leningrad and Aleppo codices, äøùà is determined in each instance162 and is, hence, referentially akin to äøùàä in  Kgs :. Also like  Kgs :, äøùà in these deuteronomistic passages is anti-Yahwistic; her objects provoke apostasy and require destruction. Thus if  Kgs : and  Kgs : refer to the goddess,163 which is itself uncertain,164 they do not prove that Asherah is an affiliate of Yahweh’s.165 They do demonstrate, however, one-time royal patronage of Asherah’s cult (see  Kgs :bβ). They demonstrate as well that the official cult of Yahweh literally housed objects relating to Asherah.166 The association between Asherah and Yahweh recurs in epigraphic Hebrew texts. For example, a late eighth-century inscription from Khirbet el-Qom seems to align Yahweh and his a/Asherah: … äåäéì äúøùàì ‘by Yahweh … by his a/Asherah’ (:.; see also l. ).167 But, without greater clarification of the text’s reading and interpretation,168 only minimal comment can be offered. The text “supports the point that the asherah was an Israelite phenomenon”169 that did not necessarily conflict with the cult of Yahweh.170 The texts from the ninth-century site of Kuntillet Ajrud are more clear.171 I bless you äúøùàìå ïøîù a/Asherah. (Pithos :–)

äåäéì

by Yahweh of Samaria172 and by his

162 Likewise in  Chr : (cf. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ ). The vocalization in BHS is incorrect. 163 E.g., Pettey, Asherah  (on  Kgs :), – (on  Kgs :); and Diana V. Edelman, introduction to The Triumph of Elohim . 164 See Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ . 165 Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses . 166 See Pettey, Asherah –. 167 For the text, see HaE .– (Kom []:). 168 For discussions, see Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods –; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh –; Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ –; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah –. 169 Smith, The Early History of God 2 . 170 Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses , ; and Hadley, The Cult of Asherah . 171 For these texts, see HaE .– (Pithoi – [KAgr ():–]). 172 For this translation, see Anson F. Rainey, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Deities and Demons,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (ed. Shlomo Izre’el, Itamar Singer, and Ran Zadok; IOS ; Winona






I bless you äúøùàìå […]åäéì by Yahw[eh … ] and by his a/Asherah; may he bless you, protect you, and be with my lord. (Pithos :–)

For some, “it is difficult to avoid the impression that a female being is named here alongside Yahweh.”173 For others, it is not so difficult. The evidence of grammar, discourse, and ancient Near Eastern comparisons174 overwhelmingly favors the interpretation of äøùà as an object.175 Likewise, in most of its attestations, the biblical äøùà is a physical, cultic object—one that is planted (Dt :), made (e.g.,  Kgs :), or erected (v. ).176 The epigraphic texts, then, do not prove an association between Yahweh and a goddess Asherah.177 But they justify the conclusion that the asherah was once an acceptable and legitimate symbol of Yahweh’s cult in Judah and Israel.178 ... Popular veneration of a goddess does not necessarily include her in the Israelite pantheon, either. The Deuteronomist mentions that the Israelites worshipped Astarte goddesses. The Israelites continued doing what was evil to the Lord. They served úåøúùòä­úàå íéìòáä­úà the Baalim and the Ashtarot, the gods of Aram, Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) , with indirect support from Pardee, “[Review of Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al],” JNES  (): a. 173 Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Yahweh the Patriarch: Ancient Images of God and Feminist Theology (trans. Frederick J. Gaiser; Minneapolis: Fortress,  []) . See also, inter alios, Biale, HR  (): ; Weinfeld, VT  (): –; and Rainey, in Past Links –. 174 Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods –; and idem, “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” IEJ  (): . See also J. A. Emerton, “‘Yahweh and His Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol?” VT  (): –. 175 See André Lemaire, “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah? Startling New Inscriptions from Two Different Sites Reopen the Debate about the Meaning of Asherah,” BARev / (): –; Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,  []) , ; Hadley, The Cult of Asherah ; and Day, Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses . 176 E.g., Cooper and Pope, in RSP .; and McCarter, in Ancient Israelite Religion –. See also Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses , –. 177 Cf. Lutzky, VT  (): ; and Day, “The Religion of Israel,” in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, ) . 178 Lemaire, BARev / (): b; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh ; and Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses –. See also G. H. Jones,  and  Kings ( vols.; NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) .. The acceptability of the asherah ended with the Deuteronomist (e.g., Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism [Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America ; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, ] , –; and Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh , ).




  the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab. … They abandoned the Lord and did not serve him. (Jdg :; see also  Sam :)

Jeremiah quotes Judean refugees in Egypt who worship the Queen of Heaven. We shall do absolutely everything that we uttered—burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring libations to her, just as we—we, our ancestors, our kings, and our officials—had done in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. We had enough food, were well, and did not experience calamity. (Jer :; see also vv. .)

But these goddesses hardly resemble the beings that constitute the divine court or characterize God’s attendants. ‘Ashtarot’, for example, is a deindividuated and generalized term for ‘(foreign) goddesses’.179 In its nonreferential capacity, ‘the Ashtarot’ is also replaced by another generic term of similar origin: ‘the Asherot’ (see, e.g., Jdg : vs. :).180 Though they may have been “an Israelite phenomenon,”181 their worship is ‘evil’ and anti-Yahwistic. The Queen of Heaven182 also angers God (see Jer :bβ). True, “worship of the Queen of Heaven … persisted in Israel (Judah) right to the end of the kingdom.”183 Yet from a biblical perspective, she is also a menacing competitor.184 “[O]ne cannot combine the service of YHWH with that of the other gods; the two are mutually exclusive.”185 Under such a circumstance, God works to remove the other divine being(s) from the Israelite sphere (see  Sam :). He does not form an alliance with them.

179 Delbert R. Hillers, “Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Bible,” ZAH  (): –. See also Halpern, in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte . 180 See Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh – with n. ; and Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ . 181 Smith, The Early History of God 2 . 182 For her identity, see Hadley, “The Queen of Heaven—Who Is She?” in Prophets and Daniel (ed. Athalya Brenner; Feminist Companion to the Bible /; London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, ) –. 183 Freedman, “‘Who is like Thee among the Gods?’ The Religion of Early Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion  (repr. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman [ed. John R. Huddlestun;  vols.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ] .). 184 Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) –. 185 Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; Minneapolis: Winston, ) . See also, in this context, Hadley, in Prophets and Daniel , .






... There can be little doubt that gods exist throughout much of the Hebrew Bible, and that the evidence from the wider biblical context corroborates and complements that of the J and E traditions.186 These divine beings have familiar, generic names such as ‘angels’ and ‘divinities’. They may be called ‘gods’. But, as in J, they also have a familiar pronominal representation: the speaker-inclusive, first person plural possessive suffix (Is :). These deities form a group that has many anonymous members and, in conglomeration, form a masculine plural entity. The gods also form a collective. For J and E, the cohesive quality of this company is somewhat vague. These traditions describe gods as divine beings who (should) act as God’s emissaries in divine-human settings, particularly ones prompted by human transgression. But in Gen : and : at least, another defining constituent of the gods appears: they act as a panel which God may convene, or whose counsel he may solicit, when dealing with the affairs of his people. Since gods share God’s jurisdiction of the human world, serve as his obedient servants and envoys, as well as apply themselves with wisdom and knowledge, they are the proper consultative agency for airing God’s plans for his human creation. When Yahweh addresses them in Gen : and :, he is appropriately seeking their advice. The gods are Yahweh’s partners in ruling the world. God’s divine affiliates have God-like characteristics. They are immortal, holy, masculine, and good. Led by an angelic captain (Jos :), they are soldiers of Yahweh’s army. Led by the divine king (Is :),187 they are his royal deputies. They are the members of the judicial ‘assembly of God’ under the direction of the divine judge (Ps ). They are, correctly enough, íéäìà(ä) éðá—in rank, stature, and authority—to Yahweh’s íéäìà(ä).188 Accordingly, they symbolize God. As angels, the gods represent, communicate, and enact God’s will to the human community. As divinities, they implement God’s model of joint custody, oversight, and governance of the world’s nations. As gods, they are charged with practicing and maintaining social justice. The gods register God’s active presSee Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him , in conjunction with Miller, HBT / (): – (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology –). 187 See Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. 188 In addition to the survey in Westermann, Genesis ., see Cooke, ZAW  (): , in conjunction with Hendel, JBL  ():  n. . See also Tigay, Deuteronomy . 186




 

ence on earth and among human beings. Gods, then, are more than Yahweh’s loyal, subordinate allies in the world. They are a theophany. They represent and imitate God in several respects. The different texts and traditions within the Hebrew Bible confirm that “the idea of the existence of divine beings other than Yahweh was acceptable during much of the history of Yahwism.”189 There seems to be no inherent, or necessary, conflict between God and gods in Israelite theology.190 “The strongest testimony remains that which suggests Israel’s gods were understood to lie within YHWH’s ‘suite.’”191 Whether the proof text be Gen :, Dt :–+QDeutj :, Is :, or Ps :–, the gods are real and important.192 But they are not independent agents.193 They are, or should be, “totally subject and subservient to the will of the one God worthy of the name.”194 Although gods exist and are acknowledged in much of the Hebrew Bible, “Israel cannot worship them.”195 When you look up to heaven and see the sun, the moon, as well as the stars—all the host of heaven—you must not feel driven to bow down to them and serve them—things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples everywhere under heaven. Rather, the Lord took you … to become his allotted people, as is the case today. (Dt :–)

God was responsible for assigning gods to the non-Israelite nations and kept Israel for himself (see already Dt :–+QDeutj :).196 These Cooke, ZAW  (): , in a somewhat different context. Cf. Walter Brueggemann, “Old Testament Theology as a Particular Conversation: Adjudication of Israel’s Socio-theological Alternatives,” TD  ():  (repr. in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text [ed. Patrick D. Miller; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] –). 191 Halpern, in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel . See also Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images . 192 H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” JTS  (): ; and Tsevat, HUCA – (–): –. 193 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []) ; and Mullen, The Divine Council . 194 Freedman, in Ancient Israelite Religion  (= Divine Commitment and Human Obligation .). See also Miller, The Divine Warrior . 195 Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh . See also ibid. . 196 For the historical implications of Dt :, see Tigay, Deuteronomy . For wider implications, see Schmidt, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens,” in Congress Volume: Paris,  (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and Peter Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay,” in Ah, Assyria … Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel 189

190






gods were not to be worshipped in Israel (see also Ex : =Dt :). In fact, Israel’s very election precludes non-Yahwistic service, and God’s own jealousy (see Ex :) virtually defines these other gods as potential rivals.197 Gods exist, but Israel must worship only Yahweh.198

Eph‘al; ScrH ; Jerusalem: Magnes, ) – (repr. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East [ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn; New York/London: New York University Press, ] ). 197 Brueggemann, TD  (): a (= Old Testament Theology ). 198 Levenson, Sinai and Zion –. See also Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh –.


This page intentionally left blank


  GEN 1:26 Although Gen : may be an isolate within the Priestly tradition, it shares much in common with non-Priestly texts. It shares linguistic features that include the semantic, discourse, and pragmatic. It shares a basic form-critical structure. And it may share an awareness that gods exist in God’s realm. To this extent, P’s story of human creation is not an isolate within a larger biblical context. .. Form-critical analysis indicates that Gen :– conforms to an older, pre-Priestly model. Then God said, åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the beasts, and over the whole earth, and over everything that moves on the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them. (Gen :–)

Such an analysis shows, in fact, that Gen :– exhibits every formcritical component of J’s nonliteral äáä clause (see §..). ... To begin with, when P’s God proposes the creation of humankind, he opens his speech with äùòð (v. aβ). Technically, this form is ambiguous; the imperfect and cohortative of final weak roots are usually not distinguished in the morphology but are expressed by the selfsame ending ä -.1 The interpretation of äùòð, however, is clear enough. Not only does the clause-initial position of the verb suggest the cohortative reading,2 but a comparison with the jussives that engaged other acts of creation reinforces its desiderative sense. This speech therefore begins like that of Gen :, :., and Ex :, with a desiderative proposition. In form-critical terms, Gen : “begin[s] with direct speech,” in which “a speaker formulates … (i) a directive or assertive utterance (represented by a cohortative or imperfect, respectively).”

See § ., intro. with n. . Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W. G. E. Watson; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press,  []) , , by implication. 1

2




 

God’s speech replicates other elements of its form-critical model. The first word of God’s speech, äùòð, is a highly transitive, dynamic, and agentive verb. As a cohortative, then, it “(ii) … proposes an activity (event).”3 Further, on a simple reading at least, the subject of äùòð is a nonsingular entity that includes the speaker. In this inclusive formulation, God suggests that he and his addressee are equally involved in the situation expressed by äùòð. The activity or event is to be achieved “(iii) jointly and cooperatively, between the speaker and a referentially distinct addressee.”4 When the proposal is executed (v. ), two more features complete the form-critical array. God’s desiderative proposal in v.  effects its execution. Though the addressee’s response is not recorded in the text, the successful enactment of v.  presumes that the speaker and addressee are in agreement (see §, intro.). The speaker therefore “(iv) receives the tacit consent of the addressee,” and the proposal is then executed. But the addressee does not join the speaker to achieve God’s stated goal.5 Rather, the proposal is executed “(v) … by an agent, whether unidentified or identified and salient (e.g., addressee, leader).” Indeed, in v.  the agent is identified as well as salient. The agent is God himself, who acts on their collective behalf—on behalf of himself; and on behalf of his addressee in v. a, whoever that may be. ... Gen :– fulfills the form-critical requirements of a äáä clause. The passage has the five diagnostic components, and these components unfold in their standard order. From a form-critical perspective, then, Gen :– is a Priestly version of J’s nonliteral äáä clause. The suasive particle, however, is absent. It is absent, of course, because nonliteral äáä is a dialect-specific term that does not appear outside of the Yahwist tradition (§ , intro.). Its absence, though, may be exegetically significant as well. For in J, äáä is consistently associated with situations that, from a narrative perspective, are insidious. Whether by conversational intent or conversational context, äáä 3 See Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . 4 See, in this context, William P. Brown, “Divine Act and the Art of Persuasion in Genesis ,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) , on the exhortative jussives in Gen . 5 See Heinrich Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,” in Lex Tua Veritas. Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. idem and Franz Mußner; Trier: Paulinus, ) .


 :



announces trouble (§ .). Yet in Gen :, there is no sign of trouble. Nor is there any emergency or peril. The elimination of äáä is accompanied by a veritable purging of its situational ominousness. In the hands of the Priestly writer, the negative tenor of the äáä clause is undone and neutralized. ... The form-critical comparison between Gen :– and J’s äáä clause has discourse implications. First, it suggests that God’s plural pronouns refer to a nonsingular entity that is composed of God and a separate, distinct addressee (§ ..). Second, the comparison suggests that God’s first person grammar is intended to be conversationally inclusive as well as affiliative (see §..). Third, it suggests that God’s allied addressee is the same as in other such conversational and deliberative contexts in the Hebrew Bible. “God expresses his intention in the context of a heavenly court.”6 When he proposes to create the human race, P’s God consults his team of divine advisors.7 But the form-critical comparison with the äáä clause also suggests that God needs more than consultation. He needs divine approval. So, to achieve this goal, P’s God replicates the proven suasive strategies of the Yahwist. In the first half of v. , God’s plural pronouns convey camaraderie, solidarity, and the notion that all participants are included and equally involved in the plan (§..). The repetition of the pronoun conveys the sense that God’s appeal to inclusion is both deliberate (§.) and crucial. God even presents the addressee with a single, common objective (§..). In the second half of v. , he goes a step further. He appends a complement clause to his directive in which he presents the goal8 and limitations9 of human creation, explains its rationale (see §..), and gives his addressee sufficient information to make a consensual decision. P’s God desires to enlist the approval, 6 Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM, ) . See also §. with n. . 7 See Terence E. Fretheim, “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis –,” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville (ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury; Word & World Supplement Series ; St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, ) ; and idem, The Pentateuch (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, ) . 8 Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .. 9 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) –; and Walter Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  ():  n. .




 

involvement, cooperation, and participation of gods in his proposal to make humankind.10 Its execution in v.  implies that his efforts are successful (§..). .. The presence of gods in Gen : is consistent with non-P evidence. It is consistent with the early Israelite belief “in the existence and even the puissance of deities other than YHWH” (see §..). As elsewhere, God explicitly acknowledges them (e.g., § ..). They are a plurality of undifferentiated beings who, in aggregate, form a collective body (§§ .., ..). In P, the gods are invoked in a manner appropriate to their anonymous, generic, and homogenous nature. Gen : also recalls a morphological characteristic of gods. They are hybrid. Angelic gods, for example, look like God, and they look like men; the gods’ shape is intermediate between the two worlds they connect (§..). So too, the human creature of Gen : is expected to share in the ‘image’ and the ‘likeness’ of the divine crew. As God himself states, human beings are intended to represent divinity (v. a) in the world which God has just created (v. b). At the very least, the concrete, corporeal reality of human beings in a concrete, physical world suggests that the representation implied in v.  include a physical one (see §§., ..). Human beings reflect and embody divinity. P’s God not only intends that humankind imitate God (the divine speaker) but also gods (the divine addressee). Imitatio Dei et deorum, human beings will represent divine presence and participation on earth (see §§ .., ..). .. The context in which P introduces the gods is telling. They arise only during the prospect of human creation (Gen :a [ter]). Then they disappear; after v. , P’s God speaks of himself with uniform singularity (:, :.., etc.). P’s gods coincide only with human creation. In a comparative context, though, there is no coincidence at all. In J and other biblical traditions, ‘angels’ appear only in situations where the divine and human worlds meet and interact (§§ .., ..). ‘Divinities’ appear in similar settings (§§.., ..). And Gen : follows suit.11 Not only do the divine and human realms intersect at this moment. God’s proposal to create humanity is the very first moment when these two realms can intersect. Moreover, human characterology See, in this context, John van Seters, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King,” ZAW  (): . 11 See Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) . 10


 :



is specifically defined by its unique relationship to God and his gods (§.). According to the Priestly tradition, humanity is a self-evident conjunction of the divine in the human world. .. An objection, however, might be raised to the preceding analysis. Rather than conform to a pattern reflected in its Yahwist and Isaian analogues, the referent of God’s pronouns in P could be located in the unique context of Gen :–. The creation of the human person involves male and female. … The imagery of the human in terms of the Divine in Genesis  seems to assume a divine couple, male and female, since the human person is created in the image of the Divine, partaking of both maleness and femaleness.12 … [H]uman sexuality and love mirrors divine love.13

This reasoning would suggest, then, that “maleness and femaleness” be ascribed to “the Divine,” whether in the form of a heterosexual divine duo (i.e., God and Goddess) or a hermaphroditic deity (see §.). But, Trible rejoins, “sexual differentiation of humankind is not thereby a description of God.”14 Brueggemann elaborates: “Sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual function do not belong to God’s person but 12 See N. Wyatt, “The Theogony Motif in Ugarit and the Bible,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey; UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) ; and Stephen D. Moore, “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body,” JSOT  (): . See also G. W. Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (trans. Eric J. Sharpe; HSoed ; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, ) ; and Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (trans. Leo G. Perdue;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, –  [–]) . n. . Cf. Mark S. Smith, “Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations on Old Problems and Recent Trends,” in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte (OBO ; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 13 Smith, “God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and His ‘Asherah’,” TS  (): , esp. as specified in idem, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion,” ZAW  (): . Cf. idem, TS  ():  n. . 14 Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM,  []) . See also P. G. Duncker, “L’immagine di Dio nell’uomo (Gen. , .). Una somiglianza fisica?” Bib  ():  (repr. as “Das Bild Gottes im Menschen [Gen. , .]. Eine physische Ähnlichkeit?” in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ] ); Phyllis A. Bird, “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts,” in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. Kari Elisabeth Børresen; Oslo: Solum, ) ; F. J. Stendebach, “íìö  s. elem,” in TDOT .; and, esp., Martin Buber, Moses (Oxford/London: Phaidon, ) ; and Lothar Ruppert, “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte, vornehmlich von Gen –,” Cath  (): .




 

to God’s will for creation.”15 There also is no compelling evidence that the Israelite God had a consort, or that God worked in consort with a particular goddess (see §§.., ..). God does not require a female complement to create men and women (see §..). On the contrary, God is a metaphorical and complete parent: father as well as mother (e.g., Is :–).16 It is unlikely, then, that human sexuality replicates divine sexuality.17 .. The preferred referent of God’s self-inclusive plural pronouns in Gen : remains the gods. These pronouns resemble the way that Yahweh asks his divine forum for an intermediary to speak to the people on his behalf (Is :) (see §..). They are akin to Yahweh’s manipulative gestures that invite gods to cooperate with his response to a human threat (Gen :, :) (§..). As in Gen :, :, and Is :, God turns to his attendant deities when the divine and human worlds (are about to) meet (§.). They are invoked by collaborative convention; they traditionally participate in formulating and/or executing God’s will in the human realm (§§ .., ..). In Gen : too, they are invoked because they can counsel God on his plan to effect a human race and, perhaps, because they can help him execute that plan. Since God proposes to make humanity as a representation of the divine collective, it is only appropriate, and polite, to seek their compliant input. .. Nevertheless, this interpretive scenario has difficulties. It may satisfy and be congruent with the immediate context of Gen :. It may also be supported by grammatical, discourse, and pragmatic characteristics of Gen :, :, and Is :. Yet it seems to violate Priestly doctrine. For if Gen : refers to a plurality of gods, elsewhere 15 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interp; Atlanta: John Knox, )  (italics original). In this context, see also Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker;  vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row, – [– ]) .; and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine, ) –. 16 Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. See also Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality ; Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Yahweh the Patriarch: Ancient Images of God and Feminist Theology (trans. Frederick J. Gaiser; Minneapolis: Fortress,  []) , ; Walter Vogels, “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn ,),” ScEs  (): ; and Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah –,” JSOT  (): –. 17 See, e.g., Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  n.  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ); and eadem, “Genesis I–III as a Source for a Contemporary Theology of Sexuality,” ExAu  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ).


 :



“P knows nothing of heavenly beings”18 (see §.). Unlike J’s Yahweh, P’s God does not confer with members of his court.19 Gen :, then, “would be the first and only instance [in P] in which God consults.”20 This impasse has produced a variety of scholarly responses which differ according to the psychological motivations attributed to P. For example, some maintain that P’s faint allusion to the council is unconscious.21 In this case, it is a remnant of a common, ancient Near Eastern mythological motif that P has unknowingly preserved in a relatively unassimilated form.22 Others deem the reference to the council deliberate. Its purpose in context, though, is disputed. It may be a “royal reminiscence” of the divine court.23 Alternatively, it may char18 P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis – ) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . See also S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) ; Victor Maag, “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie,” AsSt  ():  (repr. in Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Zum . Geburtstag [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] ); Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker;  vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, – [–]) .; Baruch Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) ; Stendebach, in TDOT .; Richard Elliott Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch),” in ABD .a, b; and Werner H. Schmidt, “‘Monotheismus’ und Erstes Gebot,” TLZ  (): . 19 See Schmidt, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens,” in Congress Volume: Paris,  (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  n. ; and, in this context, Ruppert, Cath  (): . 20 Stephen Greenhalgh, “Creative Partnership in Genesis,” ScrB  (): a. See also, sympathetically, U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .; and Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of ‘Let Us’ in Gn :,” AUSS  (): –. 21 See, in this context, Jon D. Levenson, “Exodus and Liberation,” in idem, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) –. 22 E.g., Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) ; and, esp., Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, )  n. . Cf. Miller, Genesis – . 23 Brettler, God is King . See also Hans Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] ); and Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, )  with .




 

acterize humanity as partaking, in some functional way, in the divine (e.g., §§., .).24 Yet a third contingent claims that God’s chosen words in Gen :a are deliberately obscure; in this latter case, the plural pronouns ambiguate any intended comparison between humanity and God (see §.).25 The theological impasse of Gen : has therefore resulted in two competing and irreconcilable hypotheses. Either the allusion to the divine council in Gen : is a historical and theological accident.26 Or it is an intentional component of P’s creation story that specifies the relationship between humanity and God, defines the nature of the human race, and perhaps even inaugurates Israelite monotheism.

For an example, see Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): . 25 In addition to the references in ch.  n. , see von Rad, Old Testament Theology .; and Oswald Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik; Munich: Kösel, ) . 26 Yet see Hans Walter Wolff, The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings (trans. Keith R. Crim; Philadelphia: Fortress,  []) –, in conjunction with Burke O. Long, “Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Postmodern Age,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun et al.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) –. 24


  THE DIVINE-HUMAN RELATIONSHIP


This page intentionally left blank


  THE PREPOSITIONS ë AND á The grammar of Gen :a is unusual (see §.). At first, v. a conforms to grammatical expectation. The proposal to create humanity is introduced by a desiderative predicate (äùòð) and is then followed by an undetermined direct object (íãà). Thereafter, though, two different prepositional phrases appear in immediate succession. Neither phrase is semantically or grammatically required. They each contain a similative nominal yet are governed by a grammatically distinct prepositional head. They each present information rhetorically peripheral to the sentential core. Hence, the differential marking of each nonobligatory phrase suggests that each phrase has distinct meaning, at least in relation to one other. Gen : is often adduced to prove the contrary (§.).1 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he fathered (a son) åîìö-ë åúåîã-á. (Gen :a [PT]) Then God said, “Let us make humankind [P])

åðúåîã-ë åðîìö-á.”

(Gen :a

Like :aβ, :aβ is headed by a highly transitive verb of creation (ãìåéå). The direct object—omitted as an obvious, generic, and contextually less salient entity than the fathering agent2—is viable, newborn, and human. So too, the final constituents in :aβ are a pair of nonobligatory prepositional phrases that recycle the same prepositions, similative nouns, and syntax as in :aβ. These two passages are clearly similar, then, even though the prepositional phrases themselves

1 E.g., Josef Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) .. 2 See J. C. L. Gibson, ed., Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax (th ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, ) §, Rem. , in conjunction with GKC §f. Cf. Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –; and, differently, Howard N. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) .




 

are different. In fact, their similarity seems to outweigh their difference. “Note that, compared with :, the prepositions á ‘in’ and ë ‘according to’ are reversed, suggesting their semantic interchangeability when used with the nouns ‘image’ and ‘likeness’.”3 The two phrases are even said to be wholly synonymous. Both the nouns and the prepositions are interchangeable …; one verb covers both phrases, åðúåîãë and åðîìöá; we have not two but one expression. … [W]e have here one expression which further determines the creation of humans. There is widespread agreement about this today.4

The comparison between Gen : and : thus tends to blur their unique grammatical character. Any difference between the two prepositions seems irretrievable. As Curtis describes it, it is “clear that the interpretation” of Gen :– “cannot be built on the meaning of the prepositions.”5 .. ë Of the two prepositions in Gen :a, ë is the less controversial. All agree that it expresses correspondence6 or, more accurately, similarity.7 In verbless clauses, for example, it may liken a nominal to a quantity, measure, or standard.8 Samuel took Saul and his attendant, brought them into the hall, and gave them a place at the head of the guests—comprising ùéà íéùìùë about thirty. ( Sam :) Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height äáâë was like the height of cedars, íéðåìàë àåä ïñçå (as) strong as oaks. (Am :a) 3 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .. See also Walter Vogels, “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn ,),” ScEs  (): ; Lothar Ruppert, “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte, vornehmlich von Gen –,” Cath  (): ; and, by implication, Edward M. Curtis, “Image of God (OT),” in ABD .b. 4 Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .–. See also the other references in Preface n. . 5 Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, )  n. . 6 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) §..a. 7 Ernst Jenni, Die Präposition Beth (Die hebräischen Präpositionen ; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) . Cf. ïî (e.g., GKC  n. ). 8 For examples and discussion, see Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph (Die hebräischen Präpositionen ; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) –.


  ë  á The construction of the wheels chariot wheel. ( Kgs :a)

äùòîë



was like the construction of a

The similative structure may be expanded by an adjectival or stative predicate (see Am :aβb). Judah and Israel Kgs :a)

ìåçë íéáø

were as numerous as the sand on the sea. (

When the layer of dew lifted, there, on the surface of the wilderness, was a fine flaky substance, øôëë ÷ã (as) fine as frost on the ground. (Ex : [P]) Even darkness does not become too dark for you; night øéàé íåéë becomes light as day. äøåàë äëéùçë Darkness and light are alike. (Ps :); see also But he did not recognize him, because his hands úøòù åéçà åùò éãéë were hairy like those of Esau, his brother. (Gen :a [J])

Or the similative clause may include a prototypically stative verb. For God knows that, when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, íúééäå and you will be like gods, having knowledge of good and evil. (Gen :; see also v.  [J])

íéäìàë

It was there we saw the Nephilim … . éäðå We seemed to ourselves íéáâçë like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them. (Num : [P]) By the fury of the Lord of Hosts, the earth was scorched. éäéå The people were ùà úìëàîë like fire fuel: no one spared another. (Is :) äéäå The number of the people of Israel shall be ìåçë like the sand of the sea, without measure and without number. (Hos :a)

serves the same function throughout. It “[e]xpresses likeness,”9 “similitude, resemblance,”10 or “approximation.”11 ... This preposition also appears in transitive clauses, such as those expressing transformation, replication, or (re-) production (see Gen :aβ). ë

éúîùå I will make your offspring :a [J])

øôòë

like the dust of the earth. (Gen

9 Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (d ed.; Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, ) § (in part). 10 Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka;  vols.; SubBi /I–II; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, )  §g. See also BDB b. 11 Williams, Hebrew Syntax 2 §.




  ùòéå He made the breastpiece of skilled work ãôà äùòîë like the work of the ephod. (Ex :a [P])

I will break your mighty pride, éúúðå and I will make your heaven ìæøáë like iron and your earth äùçðë like copper. (Lev : [H])

In each passage, the verb governs a direct object which, in turn, is likened to another nominal. Each time too, it is the direct object which serves as the base of the comparison; the other nominal, marked with ë, represents the comparative standard.12 Moreover, and more importantly, the two parts of the comparison are semantically and referentially distinct. In the comparison between ‘your heaven’ and ‘iron’ (Lev :bα), the likened items have different meanings; they are also referentially discrete. Likewise, ‘your earth’ and ‘copper’ (v. bβ), ‘your offspring (lit., seed)’ and ‘the dust of the earth’ (Gen :a), or ‘the breastpiece’ and ‘the work of the ephod’ (Ex :a)—the nominals that constitute the comparison are semantically different and referentially unrelated.13 They are not synonymous or identical. It is incorrect, then, to assert that the preposition ë can express “identity”14 or “exact … equality.”15 It expresses a similarity or approximation between otherwise dissimilar and nonidentical entities.16 This interpretation is supported by another comparative structure, in which ë heads both halves of the comparison (see Ps :bβ).17 By no means should you do the likes of this—putting the innocent to death together with the guilty! òùøë ÷éãöë The innocent and the guilty would then be alike. By no means! Does the Judge of the whole earth not perform justice? (Gen : [J]) Cf. ibid. § (on Nah :). See Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph –. 14 So HALOT .b; Williams, Hebrew Syntax 2 §; and, on Gen :, P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 15 BDB a (ad .a). See also G. del Olmo Lete, “The Monoconsonantal Lexical Series in Semitic,” AuOr  (): . 16 See Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph ; and idem, Die Präposition Beth . See also idem, “Pleonastische Ausdrücke für Vergleichbarkeit (Ps ,; ,),” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin (d ed.; HBS ; Freiburg: Herder,  []) – (repr. in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments [ed. Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ] –); Christoph Dohmen, “Die Statue von Tell Fecher¯ıye und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie,” BN  (): ; and Hendel, “Tangled Plots in Genesis,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) . 17 For lists, see BDB  (ad ); and Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph –. 12

13


  ë  á



You must not be partial in justice: ìãâë ïè÷ë small and great alike should you give a hearing. (Dt :aα) It will befall ïäëë íòë laity and priest alike, åéðãàë ãáòë slave and master alike, äúøáâë äçôùë maid and mistress alike, øëåîë äðå÷ë buyer and seller alike, äåìë äåìîë lender and borrower alike, åá àùð øùàë äùðë creditor and debtor alike. (Is :); see also Judah approached him and said, “Please, my lord, may your servant speak a word into my lord’s ears, and may you not be angry with your servant; for äòøôë êåîë you and Pharaoh are alike.” (Gen : [J])

Whereas X kÃ-Y forms a unilateral comparison, kÃ-X kÃ-Y signifies a reciprocal comparison: X is comparable to Y to the same extent as Y is comparable to X, for X and Y are comparable to one another.18 The extent is also complete: X and Y are thoroughly similar.19 But X and Y are not identical.20 The formula kÃ-X kÃ-Y is used “[f]or connecting different things, as being, in a certain manner, exactly similar … in order to express our as … so.”21 The likened entities are “different,” whether as conceptually polar opposites (e.g., Dt :), physically unique entities (Gen :), or both (e.g., Is :). In each case, the two nominal halves of the reciprocal comparison are distinct yet interconnected with a preposition that registers “likeness,” “similitude,” or “approximation” (see §., intro.). Like its nonreduplicated counterpart, then, the reduplicated preposition expresses an approximation, similarity, or analogy between semantically different and referentially distinct entities.22 ... A related function of (the morpheme underlying) ë can be discerned from cognate evidence in other Semitic languages. Biblical Aramaic is one.23 18 See Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph . Cf., e.g., Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, )  n. . 19 BDB a (ad ). 20 Cf. Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..b. 21 Heinrich Ewald, Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament (trans. James Kennedy; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  [])  (italics original) (= Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes [th ed.; Göttingen: Dieterich, ] §a.). 22 See n. . 23 For comparative evidence, see Jacob Barth, Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ) §§, k-r; del Olmo Lete, AuOr  (): –; Edward Lipinski, ´ Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA ; Louvain: Peeters, ) §§.–; and K. Jongeling, “The Hebrew Particle êà,” DS-NELL  (): –.




  ms. sg.

äðã

‘this’

êã

‘that’

fm. sg.

àã

‘this’

êã

‘that’

pl.

äìà ïéìà

‘these’ o ‘these’

êìà

‘those’

This dialect builds two sets of demonstratives from a single suppletive base.24 The basic forms, preserved in àã and äìà, constitute the near demonstrative. As the paradigm shows, these basic forms also combine with another near deictic (*n),25 yielding the semantically harmonic demonstratives äðã and perhaps26 ïéìà. The other set of demonstratives is derived from the first. The basic near demonstrative is transformed into a far demonstrative with the addition of *k.27 The result is compound forms such as êã (ms. and fm.), êìà, and the complex ïëã ‘that’ as well. This derivational process applies consistently: Biblical Aramaic distal deictics are composed of proximate forms and a postpositive element *k.28 *k marks distance.29 Amharic may furnish another example of nonsimilative *k. For as Hetzron explains, this cognate of ë expresses more than comparison.30 This preposition indicates origin, departure (‘from’), the element which is surpassed by, or surpasses, another (‘more/less than’). It is used with verbs of ‘disrupting continuity’ such as ‘cut’, ‘fold’ etc., prefixed to the place-object where discontinuity is created by the action of the verb. It can also be a static locative in the sense of ‘within the confines of ’, when being in a given place hides, delimits, distinguishes the subject. It is also used for ‘leaning against something’. Finally, in an apparent contradic24 For the singular, see del Olmo Lete, AuOr  (): –. For the plural, see Barth, Die Pronominalbildung §. 25 GvG  §d. 26 For an alternative, see Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, – B.C.E. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ) . 27 GvG  §vβ; and Lipinski, ´ Semitic Languages §.. See also Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (HdO /; Leiden: Brill, ) §§c–d. 28 See Barth, Die Pronominalbildung §k. 29 See del Olmo Lete, AuOr  (): ; and, on -(k)ku in Ge‘ez, Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge‘ez-English/English-Ge‘ez (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, ) a. 30 For its comparative function, see, e.g., Marcel Cohen, Traité de langue amharique (Abyssinie) (Travaux et mémoires de l’Institut d’ethnologie de l’Université de Paris ; Paris: Institut d’ethnologie, ) ; Robert Hetzron, “Toward an Amharic CaseGrammar,” Studies in African Linguistics  (): ; and Leslau, Reference Grammar of Amharic (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, ) §.


  ë  á



tion with the ablative meaning, it may designate a place reached.31 … It is also used in the inherent negative senses of ‘be missing from’, ‘stay away from’, ‘stop doing something’.32

This description leads to a conclusion that may apply, albeit indirectly, to Hebrew ë.33 The common denominator of all these uses is that the complement marked by kä- constitutes a boundary of some kind. Crossing a boundary in either direction, leaving the confines of a place or entering them, or even staying within them, all require kä-. In the comparative, the element compared to is supposed to contain a definite amount or degree of the attribute compared, and passing that amount or degree in either direction is the essence of the comparative (but not of ‘as…as…’!). Disrupting continuity means creating a boundary. ‘Absence from’ indicates the confines of the area within which something is not found. ‘Stop doing’ is setting a boundary, a limit to an action.34

Accordingly, Amharic kä/kà signals conceptual and/or physical boundedness. It further entails the notions of separation and (relative) distinction. Semantically and pragmatically, then, Amharic kä/kà is related to the (Hebrew) similative preposition ë and the (Aramaic) distal element *k. In each language, *k can serve a separative function. ... There are occasional reflexes of this separative *k in Biblical Hebrew. It appears, for example, in êà (< *k).35 He wiped out all existence on the surface of the ground—from human beings to beasts, creeping things, and birds of heaven; they were wiped out from the earth. çð­êà øàùéå Only Noah remained, and those with him in the ark. (Gen : [J]) Every creeping thing that lives shall be yours for food. … must not eat flesh with its own blood in it. (Gen :a. [P])

êà

But you

31 See, e.g., Mandaic ka ‘here’ and related Aramaic forms. In this context, see also Leslau, Hebrew Cognates in Amharic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, )  (s.v. kä) (= idem, Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon [University of California Publications in Semitic Philology ; Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, ]  [s.v. äë]). 32 Hetzron, Studies in African Linguistics  (): . See also Cohen, Traité de langue amharique ; and Leslau, Reference Grammar of Amharic §. 33 Cf. Hetzron, Studies in African Linguistics  ():  n. . 34 Ibid. . Cf. Leslau, Reference Grammar of Amharic §§.–. 35 For the derivation, Friedrich Böttcher, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (ed. Ferdinand Mühlau;  vols.; Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, –) . n. . Cf. Frank R. Blake, “The Interrogative Particle à in Hebrew,” AJSL  (): –.




  ‘(Ephron answered Abraham,) “No, my lord, listen to me. I give you the field, and I give you the cave that’s in it—in the presence of my people, I give it to you. Bury your dead.” … Abraham … spoke to Ephron in earshot of the people of the land, êà “But, if you, would that, listen to me! I give the price of the field. Accept (it) from me, since I want to bury my dead there.” (Gen :. [P]) When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, “She is my sister.” … Abimelek summoned Isaac and said, êà “On the contrary, she is actually your wife! So why did you say, ‘She is my sister?’ ” (Gen :a.a [J]) After Isaac had finished blessing Jacob, êà Jacob had just left the presence of Isaac his father, when Esau his brother came from his hunt. (Gen : [J]) You will be groping at noon just as a blind man gropes in darkness. You shall not have your ways succeed. You shall êà rather be extorted and robbed all the time, without any one to provide relief. (Dt :) He said, “Good. I shall make a covenant with you. êà Just one thing I ask of you: you shall not see me (again) unless you bring Michal, daughter of Saul, when you come to see me.” ( Sam :)

As these texts indicate, êà is pragmatically pliant.36 It can mark an exception (Gen :),37 exclusion (:),38 contrast (:), or antithesis (Dt :).39 It can introduce a counterproposal (Gen :).40 êà also implies that its utterance will run counter to expectation,41 whether it be a correction (:a) or a reengagement of demands after an agreement has been reached ( Sam :). Yet these many readings

36 For discussions, see C. H. J. van der Merwe, “Old Hebrew Particles and the Interpretation of Old Testament Texts,” JSOT  (): –, summarizing idem, “The Old Hebrew ‘particles’ ’ak and raq (in Genesis to  Kings),” in Text, Methode und Grammatik. Wolfgang Richter zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidl; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) –, esp. –; and Jongeling, DS-NELL  (): –. 37 David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, – ) .–. 38 Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica ; The Hague: Mouton, ) . Cf. Harland, The Value of Human Life . 39 N. H. Snaith, “The Meaning of the Hebrew _à,” VT  (): –. Cf. van der Merwe, in Text, Methode und Grammatik  n. . 40 See van der Merwe, in Text, Methode und Grammatik  (§..). 41 E. J. Revell, “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose,” HUCA  (): ; and, somewhat differently, Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..d.


  ë  á



can be subsumed under a single functional category. êà marks an adversative relationship;42 it signifies that the following discourse is, in some way, related or responsive to the preceding context yet, at the same time, unexpected, contrary, or divergent. Like its underlying separative morpheme, êà marks disjunction.43 Another reflex of the separative *k appears in subordinate clauses. “Many temporal statements are formed with a prep[osition] and infin[itive construct]. … When is expressed by "a, "k with infin.”44 You shall not see me (again) unless you bring Michal, daughter of Saul, êàáá when you come to see me. ( Sam :bαb-β) You shall order the priests who carry the ark of the covenant, íëàáë “When you come to the edge of the Jordan waters, you should stand in the Jordan.” (Jos :) Rehoboam, son of Solomon, reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old åëìîá when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem. ( Kgs :a-bαa) åëìîë éäéå When he became king, he struck down the whole house of Jeroboam; he left not a single soul belonging to Jeroboam until he destroyed it. ( Kgs :a); see also So Micaiah told them all the words that he had heard àø÷á when Baruch read the scroll in earshot of the people. (Jer :) àåø÷ë éäéå So when Jehudi read three or four columns, he would tear it [sc. the scroll] up with a scribe’s knife and throw (it) in the fire in the brazier. (Jer :a)

Although each pair of temporal clauses may be translated alike (‘when’), these minimal pairs are nonetheless different. When the infinitive is governed by á, its clause depicts a situation that is contemporaneous ( Sam :b),45 coeval ( Kgs :a),46 or otherwise temporally proximate to the main event (Jer :a).47 When it is governed by ë, however, there is greater temporal separation between

Cf. BDB b (ad ). For the restrictive reading of this term, see BDB b (ad ); and Jongeling, DSNELL  (): , . 44 Davidson and Gibson, Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax §§, a (italics original). For lists, see Jenni, Die Präposition Beth –; and idem, Die Präposition Kaph –, respectively. 45 See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §l. 46 BDB a (ad V.). 47 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..b. See also ibid. §..c. 42

43




 

clauses;48 in these examples, the situation expressed by the dependent clause is either initiated ( Kgs :a) or completed (Jer :a; see also Jos :) prior to that of the independent clause.49 The differential marking therefore expresses a differential relationship:50 prefixed á expresses greater connection, whereas prefixed ë expresses greater division, between temporal and principal clauses (see also  Kgs : and Ez :).51 From this perspective, Hebrew ë is functionally similar to Amharic kä/kà as well as the Aramaic distal deictic *k; it registers a temporal disjunction or separation between related situations. In Hebrew, the similative preposition ë can have a separative force.52 .. á Just as ë has its own semantic and pragmatic character, so does the other preposition in Gen :a. This preposition, á, is a locative. It “marks the location in or at a point ([Jdg :]), on a surface ([Gen :]), within an area ([Dt :]), and amid a domain ([Ps :]).”53 It conveys “the idea of being or moving within some definite region.”54 The locative preposition also has a temporal application,55 for it can “mark an actual time in, at, or when ([Prv :; Pss :, :])”;56 in other words, it expresses relative proximity between the situations represented in the subordinate and main clauses (§ ..). Finally, á has nonlocative interpretations.57 But, as the following section will argue, these latter readings are secondary. They echo the fundamental locative sense of the preposition. ... One nonlocative interpretation appears in verb-object constructions whose object is potentially construed in one of several gram48 Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . See also, in part, Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §m. 49 See Douglas M. Gropp, “Progress and Cohesion in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: The Function of k˘e-/b˘e- + the Infinitive Construct,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) –, on the successive relationship. 50 Cf. William L. Holladay, Jeremiah ( vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia/Minneapolis: Fortress, –) . n. a (on Jer :). 51 See Jenni, Die Präposition Beth , . 52 See above with n. . 53 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..b (italics original). 54 GKC §h. 55 Williams, Hebrew Syntax 2 §. 56 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..c (italics original). 57 See Jenni, Die Präposition Beth .


  ë  á



matical relations. The object may be either unmarked or marked; its relation to the verb may be direct, indirect, or oblique. But he said, “It is not the sound of a mighty response, nor the sound of a weak response. òîù éëðà úåðò ìå÷ — (It is) the sound of intense singing58 I hear.” (Ex : [J]) íòä ìå÷­úà òùåäé òîùéå When Joshua heard the shouting sound of the people, he said to Moses, “A sound of war is in the camp.” (Ex : [J])

To the man he said, “Because êúùà ìå÷-ì úòîù you listened to the voice of your wife and ate of the tree (about) which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you. In pain, you will eat of it all the days of your life.” (Gen : [J]) øòðä ìå÷­úà íéäìà òîùéå God heard the boy’s cry, and an angel of God (or: divine angel) called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What’s wrong, Hagar? Don’t be afraid, for øòðä ìå÷­ìà íéäìà òîù God has noted the boy’s cry where he is. … For I shall make him into a great nation.” (Gen :.b [E])

Afterwards, Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Let my people go so that they may make a festival for me in the wilderness.’ ” Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that òîùà åì÷-á I should heed him by letting Israel go? I do not know the Lord. Moreover, I will not let Israel go.” (Ex :– [J])

These passages illustrate typical semantic and pragmatic characteristics of differential object marking. The direct object, for instance, has a predictable interpretation. Whether it is marked or unmarked, the simplest reading of the direct object takes the nominal to be the object of involuntary perception (Ex :).59 As a perceived object, it also has sufficient salience or referentiality to be (re-) deployed in the discourse as an entity with literal content (Gen :–; Ex :–, respectively). The nondirect object is more nuanced and pragmatically explicit. It can affect the grammatical subject.60 For example, when the object is indirect (ì òîù), the effect on the subject is variable: though the content of the indirect object often influences the subject’s behavCf. Robert M. Good, “Exodus :,” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, ) –. 59 H. Cazelles, “ˇ sm‘ qôl et sˇm‘ b qôl,” GLECS  (–): ; Augustinus Kurt Fenz, Auf Jahwehs Stimme hören. Eine biblische Begriffsuntersuchung (WBTh ; Vienna: Herder, ) –; Jenni, Die Präposition Beth ; and U. Rüterswörden, “òîÖ  sˇema‘,  sˇ¯ama‘, òîÖ äòeî"Ö sˇemû‘¯ah,” in TWAT .. 60 See Rüterswörden, in TWAT .–. 58




 

ior (Gen :; see also, inter alia,  Kgs :), a positive response is not inevitable (e.g., Ex :, : [J]). When the object is oblique, the object’s effect is stronger. An allative object (ìà òîù) suggests compliance (e.g., Gen : [J]) or another well-meaning response by the subject (:– ). A locative object (á òîù), though, affects the subject intimately.61 When this object refers to divine speech, the verb-object combination regularly communicates obedience (e.g., : [J]) or responsible, dutiful conduct (e.g.,  Sam :).62 From a negative viewpoint, the idiom can also imply submission or capitulation (e.g., Ex :).63 The connection between subject and object, then, is greatest when the object is grammatically oblique and governed by the locative preposition. The themes of intimacy, proximity, as well as participation recur in other combinations of verb and locative object. The Lord smelled the pleasing smell, and the Lord said to himself, “I shall not curse the ground ever again because of humankind.” (Gen :aα–βa [J]) I will make your cities a ruin and decimate your sanctuaries. çéøà àìå íëççéð çéø-á I will not smell your pleasing smell. (Lev : [H]) ççéðä çéø­úà äåäé çøéå

Lot looked up ïãøéä øëë­ìë­úà àøéå and saw the whole plain of the Jordan—that all of it was well-watered. (Gen :a [J]) At that time, Moses grew up. He went out to his brethren íúìáñ-á àøéå and looked at their burdens. He saw an Egyptian striking one of his Hebrew brethren. (Ex : [J]); see also Joshua, and all the battle troops (with him), initiated the march to Ai. ùéà óìà íéùìù — òùåäé øçáéå Joshua chose thirty thousand men, worthy warriors, and despatched them at night. (Jos :) A man of God came to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Did I reveal myself to the house of your father … åúà øçáå choosing it out of all the tribes of Israel as my priest, to go up on my altar, to burn incense, to carry an ephod before me?’ ” ( Sam :–a) For øçá åá it is him the Lord your God has chosen out of all your tribes, to attend (and) minister in the name of the Lord—him and his children, for all time. (Dt :) 61 Peter Weimar, Die Berufung des Mose. Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus ,– , (OBO ; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) –. See also Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . 62 Cazelles, GLECS  (–): ; and Baruch A. Levine, “An Essay on Prophetic Attitudes toward Temple and Cult in Biblical Israel,” in Minh. ah le-Nah. um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His th Birthday (ed. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) –. 63 See Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman; Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav,  []) .


  ë  á



The first two pairs of verb-object combinations resemble those built around òîù. The grammatical objects are dependent upon verbs of perception, and the grammatical relation of these objects alternates between direct and oblique. The interpretation of their respective verb phrases follows suit. The direct object specifies an entity perceived as a matter of sensual fact (Gen :).64 This object is also emotionally neutral; it may (:) or may not (:) provoke a visceral response in the verb’s subject. The oblique object in these two pairs, however, is neither neutral nor matter-of-fact.65 This object may affect the subject strongly (Lev :),66 even provoking a violent reaction (Ex :–).67 The third set of passages, though, suggests a slightly different yet complementary analysis of the differential grammatical relation. As in the previous sample, the verb’s basic semantic content is preserved when it governs a direct object, whether marked or unmarked; øçá means ‘choose, select’ (Jos :;  Sam :a, respectively).68 Yet when the object is marked as oblique and locative, the construction maintains the literal meaning of the verb and implies commitment to, or preference for, the chosen entity (Dt :).69 In contrast to a direct object, then, a marked locative object can signify the subject’s heightened, personal investment (see :). In these texts, objective á implies subject-object connectedness or interaction, especially a greater involvement and participation by the subject in the object.70 ... The locative preposition can have a more physical reading, too. For example, á can “introduce the object after transitive verbs, which denote touching, striking, reaching to … something.”71

Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . See ibid. . 66 See, e.g., Philip J. Budd, Leviticus (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, ) , in conjunction with Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) ; or Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus ( vols.; AB –B; New York: Doubleday, –) .–. 67 See Jenni, Die Präposition Beth , in conjunction with Menahem Z. Kaddari, . “-á äàø as an Expression of Empathy in Biblical Hebrew,” in Israel Yeivin Festschrift (Language Studies –; Jerusalem: Magnes, ) –. 68 H. Wildberger, “øçá bhr to choose,” in TLOT .. . 69 Cf. Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . 70 GKC §§k, m. See also Joüon, “Notes de lexicographie hébraïque,” MFOB  (): – (summarized in idem and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §c); and Naomi G. Cohen, “‘éá … øáã’: An ‘Enthusiastic’ Prophetic Formula,” ZAW  (): –. 71 GKC §k (italics original). See also BDB a (ad II..a). 64

65




  The angel of the Lord extended the tip of the staff in his hand øùáá òâéå and touched the meat and unleavened bread. (Jdg :a)

úåöîáå

Then Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up, cuted him. ( Kgs :a)

åá­òâôéå

struck him, and exe-

For the man who told me, “Look! Saul is dead,” believed he was a herald of good news. åá äæçàå But I grabbed him and killed him in Ziklag—for giving me the “good news.” ( Sam :); see also No evil will happen to you, nor stroke (Ps :)

êìäàá áø÷é

touch your tent.

Even though these locative objects may be interpreted as were their predecessors, implying the subject’s participation and involvement in the object, the literal meaning of these verbs suggests otherwise. These verbs are each tactile expressions of various kinds and degrees; they each express contact.72 Hence the locative object need not be interpreted metaphorically, as involvement or participation. Instead, the marking signals nonmetaphorical, physical closeness and contiguity,73 according to which the proximity between subject and object is tangible and real. These verbs and their locative object therefore form a harmonic combination; semantically, grammatically, and pragmatically, they register palpable proximity. ... Other interpretations of the preposition á include, but are not confined to, categorical proximity. For instance, á can introduce a standard, whether concrete or abstract, according to which an action is performed, or an item measured or manufactured (beth normae).74 Take a census of the whole Israelite assembly, according to their clans (and) their ancestral houses, øôñî-á by the number of names, every male, per head. (Num :; cf. : [P]) The length of each curtain shall be thirty äîà-á cubits, and the width shall be four äîà-á cubits per curtain—one measurement for eleven curtains. (Ex : [P])

72 Jenni, Die Präposition Beth –; and idem, “‘Schlagen’ in .Sam , und in den historischen Büchern,” in Avraham Malamat Volume (ed. S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine; . EI ; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, ) * (repr. in Studien … Alten Testaments ). 73 BDB a (ad II). 74 August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .); and BDB b (ad III.). For a diagnostic presentation, see also Jenni, Die Präposition Beth  (with examples on –).


  ë  á



It cannot be poured on anyone’s body, åúðëúî-áå nor according to the same proportions should you make the likes of it. It is holy (and) it shall be holy to you. (Ex :; see also v.  [P]) I shall present the punishment to them, and they shall punish you -á íäéèôùî by their punishments. (Ez :b) See that you make them íúéðáú-á according to the model75 that you are shown on the mountain. (Ex : [P])

It can characterize a nominal head and specify its form, function, or other attribute76 (beth essentiae).77 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex :a [P])

éãù ìà-á

as El Shaddai.

You will speak to the Levites and say to them, “When you receive from the Israelites the tithe that I have given you from them íëúìçð-á as your allotment, …” (Num :a [P])

75 For the translation, see Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTS ; JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . See also Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO ; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) , –. 76 For this description, see Garr, “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus :,” JBL  (): ; and Jenni, Die Präposition Beth –. Despite the renewed efforts of J. H. Charlesworth (“The Beth Essentiae and the Permissive Meaning of the Hiphil [Aphel],” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday [ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin; College Theology Society Resources in Religion ; Lanham: University Press of America, ] –) and Hans-Peter Müller (“Das Beth existentiae im Althebräischen,” in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum . Geburtstag am . Juni  [ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ] –, esp. –), the predicative reading of the beth still does not exist (see C. F. Whitley, “Some Functions of the Hebrew Particles beth and lamedh,” JQR  []: ; and Jenni, Die Präposition Beth ). 77 Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] ); Manfred Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Zum sog. dominium terrae in Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) ; and Groß and Jenni, cited in ch.  n. , below.




  I have filled him with the spirit of God—úòã-áå äðåáú-áå äîëç-á expertise, ability, and knowledge in every kind of workmanship. (Ex :; see also : [P])78

Likewise, this preposition can “specify … the parts of which a whole consists (esp. in P)” (partitive beth).79 Then all flesh that moved on the earth perished—äéç-áå äîäá-áå óåò-á birds, beasts, animals, and everything that swarmed on the earth, and all humankind. (Gen :; see also :, : [P]) õøùä­ìë-áå

For whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the assembly of Israel—çøæà-áå øâ-á whether stranger or citizen of the land. (Ex :b [P]) They took all the spoil and all the booty—äîäá-áå beast. (Num : [H])

íãà-á

human and

These apparently heterogeneous interpretations are interrelated. Each time, the locative preposition places a restriction on its coreferential head;80 it narrows the scope of the head to a limited sphere.81 It may limit an activity to a preestablished criterion, or an object to an accepted measure (beth normae).82 It may limit an entity to one or more particular characteristics (beth essentiae).83 Or it may limit the scope of a noun to particular inherent parts (partitive beth). Each time, the nominal governed by á and its discourse antecedent are coreferential; both the head and dependent nominal refer to a single entity. In terms of referential proximity, then, the locative prepositional phrase and its head are practically inseparable. 78 Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . See also Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (ed. Victor Ryssel; d ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ) . Cf. Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 79 BDB b (ad I..c). See also Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and GKC §i. Cf. the partitive ïî (on which see GKC  n. ). 80 This limitative function is related to the primary, locative meaning of the preposition. Since the preposition implies “the idea of being or moving within some definite region” (see §., intro.), á implies limitation. It can designate a specific spacial location (‘in’). It can also restrict the locus of a particular area (‘within’) or entity (e.g., ‘consisting of ’). The locative preposition, then, indicates (restricted) localization (see Jenni, Die Präposition Beth –; and C. H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar [Biblical Languages: Hebrew ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] §..). 81 See, e.g., Williams, Hebrew Syntax 2 §; and Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §..e, on the beth of specification. 82 See Friedrich Eduard König, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache ( pts.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, –) / §r. 83 See Charlesworth, in Of Scribes and Scrolls –.


  ë  á .. ë and



á

ë and á are clearly different. On the one hand, ë is a similativeseparative preposition. It expresses approximation, likeness, or similarity (§..). It also indicates relative separation, distance, and distinction between likened entities (§..). ë marks similarity as well as separation. By implication, the likened nominals in this construction are not coreferential (see §..). On the other hand, á is a locative-proximate preposition. It expresses location (with-) in a realm, whether spacial or nonspacial (§., intro.). It also entails proximity of different kinds: viz., physical or emotional (§§..–), coextensive, parallel, and even coincident or coterminous (§ ..). Accordingly, in certain constructions, the locative preposition signals coreferentiality. The prepositions ë and á each have their own semantic content, interpretive reading, discourse effect, and function. ... Nevertheless, on occasion these two prepositions seem to be interchangeable (see §..).

He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to a certain death. The whole assembly shall be sure to stone him; çøæà-ë øâ-ë stranger and citizen alike, when he blasphemes the name, he will be put to death. (Lev : [H]; see also v. ; Jos :) Any person who consumes what has died or what was torn by animals— øâ-áå çøæà-á citizen as well as stranger—shall clean his clothes, wash in water, and be unclean until evening. Then, he shall be clean. (Lev : [H]) I will surely gather Jacob, all of you. I will surely collect the remnant of Israel. I will place them together ïàö-ë like sheep of Bozrah. (Mic :a) Present according to (each of) your tribes wise, discerning, and knowing men, and I shall place them íëéùàø-á as your heads. (Dt :); see also May your word please be øáã-ë like one of theirs; speak favorably. ( Kgs :b; see also  Chr :b) For the word (came) to me øáã-á as the word of the Lord, “You shall not eat bread or drink water there. You shall not go back by the route that you took.” ( Kgs :)

These textual pairs, however, do not prove synonymity. Lev :, for example, focuses on the difference between potential offenders. Whether the offender belongs to one or the other of two exclusive categories, the difference is irrelevant to the punitive consequence.84 84

See Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §i.




 

Lev :, though, specifies the internal composition of ‘any (offending) person’ (see Ex : [P]).85 It does not contrast one constituent group with another; rather, it identifies the parts that together comprise the whole. Similar distinctions are registered in the other minimal pairs. Mic : compares truly separate entities, “Jacob” and sheep; Dt : presumes that the ‘men’, in their particular functional capacity, are leaders.86 Or in  Kgs :, the messenger hopes that Micaiah’s own speech will conform to that already spoken by the prophets, whereas the man of God in  Kgs : claims that ‘the word’ represents a divine communication (see also v. a). These pairs, then, do not demonstrate that the prepositions ë and á are interchangeable, substitutable, or synonymous. Instead, they demonstrate that ë marks a comparison between two distinct entities, and that á specifies the members, function, or content of a coreferential head. ... But in Gen :a, there are two prepositional phrases that qualify a single antecedent. The first is governed by á, and its successor is governed by ë. Other texts reveal the same syntactic and grammatical pattern, too. Their cereal offerings and libations for the bulls, rams, and lambs -á by number as prescribed. (Num : [H?], etc.)

íèôùî-ë íøôñî

Benjamin had begun to strike them dead, ùéà íéùìù-ë ìàøùé­ùéà-á Israelite men (numbering) about thirty. (Jdg :bα); see also You will be left èòî éúî-á a few—though you had been numerous -ë íéîùä éáëåë like the stars of heaven—because you did not obey the Lord your God. (Dt :) For my days waste away ïùò-á as smoke, and my bones hearth are scorched. (Ps :; see also :)

ã÷­åîë87

like a

In Num :, the complex nominal phrase is initially limited to a quantitative measure (beth normae; see also vv. –)88 and then judged to conform to the imposed regulatory ruling. In Jdg :, the casualties are identified as members of a particular group (partitive beth)89

85 See Alfred Bertholet, Leviticus (KHAT ; Tübingen/Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) ; and Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri . 86 See Harland, The Value of Human Life . 87 Cf. Aleppo codex (ã÷åîë); and W. M. L. de Wette, Commentar über die Psalmen (ed. Gustav Baur; th ed.; Breslau: Herrmann Kelsch, ) . 88 So, e.g., Jenni, Die Präposition Beth . 89 See BDB b (on  Sam :), in conjunction with Jenni, Die Präposition Beth .


  ë  á



and then assigned an approximate number. In Dt :, the prepositional phrases appear in separate yet parallel clauses; the Israelite addressee (‘you’) is characterized as a future pittance (beth essentiae) which, in the past, was as innumerable as the heavenly bodies. In each case, the two prepositional phrases express a double characterization of their head. The one marked with á presents a measure, constituent, attribute, or form (see Ps :); its nominal core is coreferential with its antecedent. In contrast, when a nominal is governed by ë, the nominal core of the phrase is not coreferential with its head; the similative phrase only approximates or resembles the head in a certain way. The two prepositions, then, each effectively serve a deictic function: á marks a proximate, and ë a distal, qualification of a shared antecedent. ... Gen :a adopts this pattern as well. Once God’s quoted speech begins with a transitive predicate and an unmarked direct object, two prepositional phrases immediately follow. The former is marked with the locative-proximate á, while the latter is marked with the similative-separative ë. So too, like all the preceding examples, the proximate phrase leads the distal qualifier: åðúåîã-ë åðîìö-á. The same is true for Gen :: åîìö-ë åúåîã-á.90 The coreferential phrase comes first; the noncoreferential comparison comes afterwards (cf. §.). The two prepositional phrases present different yet aligned characterizations of their head. The syntactic relationship between åðîìö-á and åðúåîã-ë in Gen :a offers confirmation that these two phrases jointly qualify their antecedent. They “stand side by side”91 in asyndetic combination. In the Septuagint and Samaritan versions, they do not; they each supply a conjunction between the two phrases92 and thus suggest that the phrases are potentially unrelated constituents.93 In the MT, though, the

Vogels, ScEs  (): . See also Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): ; and Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights,” LouvSt  (): . 91 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.a (on Ex :). 92 See William P. Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, )  n. . 93 Cf. Walter Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  (): . 90




 

two phrases are not formally connected; they are simply juxtaposed.94 Further, they have a common referent.95 Their two similative nouns represent “some measure of semantic overlap.”96 Also, these phrases are arguably, albeitly grossly, almost “in the same case.”97 In combination, then, the prepositional phrases resemble an appositive structure. They reflect a bipartite qualification of a single head.98 A preliminary reading of the prepositional phrases in Gen :a is now possible (cf. §...). When P’s God addresses his councillors, among other things he seeks their support to create a human race that will represent the divine community; God wishes that humanity correlate with both divine branches, God and his gods. God also specifies two similative characteristics or attributes of the human creature: one proximate (‘image’),99 and the other distal (‘likeness’).100 In one respect, then, humanity will intimately participate in divinity; to a limited degree, the two parties will be close and almost inseparable. In another respect, humanity and divinity will be separate and distinct; human beings will be similar and dissimilar to the divine crew.101 In

94 See Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .–); and Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  n.  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ). 95 Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.c. 96 Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew ; and, on Gen :, Ruppert, Cath  (): . 97 Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §a. See also GKC §a; and, on Gen :, Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . 98 See Jenni, in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung – (= Studien … Alten Testaments ). 99 See Wilhelm Caspari, “Imago divina Gen I,” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Wilhelm Koepp;  vols.; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) .–. See also Clines: “to be human and to be the image of God are not separable” (“The Image of God in Man,” TynB  []:  [repr. as “Humanity as the Image of God,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, – ( vols.; JSOTS –; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) .]). 100 See, perhaps, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament,” ErJ  ():  (repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ] ). 101 See, e.g., Julian Morgenstern, “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :– :,” AJSL  (): ; Pierre Bordreuil, “‘À l’ombre d’Élohim.’ Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec ‘L’Imago Dei,’” RHPR  ():  (in part); and, somewhat differently, Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) .


  ë  á



sum, Gen :a is tantamount to a double comparison (see §..) or double-barreled relationship between humanity and the gods: in two similar ways, the human creature will be very much like, yet somewhat unlike, God and the gods.


This page intentionally left blank


  THE NOUNS úåîã AND íìö íìö ‘image’ and úåîã ‘likeness’ are strangely suitable characterizations of the divine-human relationship in Gen . They are semantically alike; the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content (see §.). They imply, or seem to imply, two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. Ostensibly, humanity is envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world (§§., .). The nouns suggest that, in two respects at least, humanity will resemble, replicate, or mimic God and his divine community. Humanity, then, is (like) a theophany. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. According to some scholars, the theophany is not physical.

The parallel terms “image” (s. elem) and “likeness” (d˘emût) … suggest … noncorporeal resemblance and representation.1

Others argue that the theophany is concrete. [M]indful of the huge volume of writing about the phrase translated as ‘in our image, according to our likeness’ … I can see only overinterpretation, inspired by the presence of a theological agenda, which in many cases appears reluctant to allow that the god has a shape that is the same as a human one and wishes to allegorize the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ in some way. But whenever in the books of the Hebrew Bible there is a reference to the body of the deity, the deity is described as having a human form, as do the great majority of heavenly beings. … And so: the reason that humans are shaped the way they are is because the creating god happened to be that shape too.2

1 Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh,’” ThTo  (): –. 2 Philip R. Davies, “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis,” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies; JSOTS ; [Sheffield:] Sheffield Academic Press, ) . See also Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynB  ():  (repr. as “Humanity as the Image of God,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, – [ vols.; JSOTS –; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] .).




 

The dispute is not easily adjudicated. Each interpretation finds textual support (see §..). Nor must these interpretations be mutually exclusive.3 The crux therefore persists. What is there in man that is somehow analogous with God? Is it the immortal soul or the physical fact that men can stand upright? Is it that man rules over nature, or that he exists in two sexes destined for communion? For such questions there is no answer to be found.4

.. úåîã ‘likeness’ appears twenty-five times in the Hebrew Bible. Most attestations are found in Priestly writings, whether they be attributed to P (Gen :), PT (Gen :.), or Ezekiel (:a.b.....a.bα. bβ., :, :..., :). The remaining few are scattered throughout a variety of sources: the deuteronomistic history ( Kgs :), first Isaiah (:), second Isaiah (:), Psalms (:), Daniel (:), and Chronicles ( Chr :). ... The interpretation of ‘likeness’ varies considerably in nonPriestly writings. It may, for example, refer to a physical entity.5 úåîã

King Ahaz sent Uriah the priest çáæîä úåîã­úà a likeness of the altar and a model6 of its whole construction. ( Kgs :b);7 see also She saw men etched on the wall, (íéãùë §§÷) íééãùë éîìö images of Chaldeans etched in vermillion, having belts girded to their waists, flowing turbans on their heads, all of them with the appearance of officers— ìáá­éðá úåîã a likeness of Babylonians whose homeland was Chaldea. (Ez :b-)8 3 See Jeffrey H. Tigay, “The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments,” in ãîììå ãîìì. Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman (ed. Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen; New York: Ktav, ) ; and, differently, U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .. See also Morton Smith, “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. Jacob Neusner; SHR ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  (repr. in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh [ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen;  vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ] .), quoted by Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì  n. . 4 James Barr, “The Image of God in Genesis—Some Linguistic and Historical Considerations,” OTWSA  (): . 5 Note Paul Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ) . 6 See ch.  n. , above. 7 Note H. D. Preuss, “äîc  d¯am¯ah; úeî"c d emûth,” in TDOT .. 8 See, in this context, Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel (AB – ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, – ) ..


  úåîã  íìö



Since the likeness of the Babylonians can be seen (v. aβ), and altar’s likeness cum facsimile guide Uriah’s building project ( Kgs :), these representational likenesses must be two-9 or three-dimensional.10 Similarly, the likeness can be real yet referentially unspecific or inexact.11 To whom can you liken God? What him? (Is :)12

úåîã

likeness can you compare to

íéø÷á úåîãå Something like oxen was beneath it, set all around it, each measuring ten cubits, encircling the sea around. ( Chr :a);13 see also

Then, íãà éðá úåîãë someone human touched my lips. I opened my mouth to speak and said to the one standing opposite me, “My Lord. Because of the vision …” (Dan :; cf. v. )14

It can even be nonreferential and express relative similarity or resemblance. Listen! A tumult on the mountains áø­íò úåîã like a great troop. Listen! An uproar of kingdoms, nations assembling. (Is :a-bα)15

In which case, úåîã can combine with ë and form a semantically empty extension of the comparative preposition.16

9 E.g., James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. Henry Snyder Gehman; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  [])  (ad  Kgs :b); and E. Jenni, “äîã dmh to be like,” in TLOT .. 10 See Preuss, in TDOT .. 11 See Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; Minneapolis: Winston, ) –. 12 Note, esp., Jenni, in TLOT .. Cf. Wilhelm Caspari, “Imago divina Gen I,” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Wilhelm Koepp;  vols.; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) .. 13 Preuss, in TDOT .–, in conjunction with H. G. M. Williamson,  and  Chronicles (NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) . 14 See the discussion by John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –. 15 In addition to the references in n. , see the competing opinions of Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .; Edward M. Curtis, “Image of God (OT),” in ABD .b; and Otto Kaiser, Isaiah – (trans. R. A. Wilson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  [])  n. d (on which, cf. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ]  n. a). 16 Jenni, “Pleonastische Ausdrücke für Vergleichbarkeit (Ps ,; ,),” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin (d ed.; HBS ; Freiburg: Herder,  [])  (repr. in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments [ed. Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ] ). See also BDB a (ad ). For ballast variants, see Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (d corrected




  Their venom ùçð­úîç úåîãë is like a snake’s, that stops its ear. (Ps :)17

ïúô­åîë

like a deaf viper

All told, úåîã is semantically and referentially elastic in non-Priestly texts; its interpretation runs the gamut from physical replica to metaphorical comparison. P’s use of úåîã in Gen : can be set within this context. In fact, these non-Priestly readings have each been applied to the Priestly text already. It is claimed, for instance, that úåîã is semantically and functionally void in the creation story; as in Ps :, úåîã may be a pleonastic component of the similative prepositional phrase (i.e., ‘like [like] us’).18 The majority of interpreters, though, do not follow this lead. They either find that úåîã expresses nonreferential, abstract similitude (i.e., ‘likeness’).19 Or, more often, they impute a degree of objective physicality to úåîã (i.e., ‘copy’20 or ‘statue’21). P’s own úåîã might therefore entail corporeality22 or another kind of physical resemblance.23 ed.; JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) –, esp.  on “ballast prepositions.” 17 Jenni, in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung – (= Studien … Alten Testaments – ); and, with exegetical explanation, Mitchell Dahood, Psalms ( vols.; AB –A; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, –) .. 18 E.g., Jenni, Die Präposition Kaph (Die hebräischen Präpositionen ; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) . 19 See Walter Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen ,. in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts,” BN  ():  (repr. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] ); P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and Preuss, in TDOT ., in light of Jenni’s discussion of Is : in TLOT .. See also Sigmund Mowinckel, “Urmensch und ‘Königsideologie’,” ST  (): . 20 See Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .. 21 E.g., Andreas Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw(t). Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,” BN  (): ; Jean-Georges Heintz, “‘L’homme créé à l’image de Dieu’ (Genèse ,–): pierre de touche de l’interprétation biblique,” FV / (): ; and Norbert Lohfink, “Die Gottesstatue. Kreatur und Kunst nach Genesis ,” in idem, Im Schatten deiner Flügel. Große Bibeltexte neu erschlossen (d ed.; Freiburg: Herder,  []) –. Cf. Harland, The Value of Human Life . 22 See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ), in conjunction with Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; or Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik (OBO ; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) –. Cf. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker;  vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, – [–]) .. 23 Tigay, “‘He Begot a Son in His Likeness after His Image’ (Genesis :),” in


  úåîã  íìö



The debate over Gen : remains unsolved. The different non-Priestly readings of úåîã yield thoroughly equivocal results for its Priestly counterpart. ... The discovery of an Old Aramaic inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh rekindled the inquiry into úåîã.24 This text mentions ‘likeness’ twice, using terminology that is cognate to the Hebrew: àúåîã ‘the likeness’ (l. ) and (úàæ) àúåîã ‘this likeness’ (l. ). This ‘likeness’ refers to the statue on which the inscription is written. But àúåîã also alternates with another term whose biblical cognate likewise appears in Gen : and :: (éòñéãä) íìö ‘the image of Had-yit‘i’ (l. ) and äîìö ‘his image’ (l. ). And it too refers to the inscribed statue. To a great extent, then, ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are similar at Fakhariyeh (see also àúåîã : s. almu ‘image’ [Aram. l. , Akk. l. ] and íìö : s. almu [ll.  and , respectively]). They are concrete nouns; they are coreferential; and they ultimately refer to the governor, Had-yit‘i, named in the text (see ll. .). The ‘likeness’ of Had-yit‘i is physical and representational. It is a portrait-like object that is ‘placed’ in the temple in front of the (representation of the) god Hadad (l. ; see also l. ). It is a donation (áäé [l. ]) that the governor erected (ïðë [l. ]) on behalf of himself, his family, and his people (ll. –). It is a work (ãáò [l. ]) which can be inscribed (l. ), erased (l. ), and reinscribed (l. ). It is also subject to deterioration and restoration (l. ). The ‘likeness’ of Had-yit‘i clearly refers to the statue. ‘Likeness’ also refers to a functional quality of the statue. The two sections that mention ‘likeness’ share a common purpose. In one, Hadyit‘i appeals to Hadad’s established and laudatory reputation (ll. –); he lobbies the god to grant him the contents of his ‘prayer’ (ll. –). In the other section, Had-yit‘i briefly repeats his requests of Hadad (ll. –). In both sections, Hadad is asked to accept (l. ) or favor (ll. –) the petitioner’s supplication. They are explicitly suasive in nature, and they each close with the grounds on which the supplication is made (ll. .). The ‘likeness’ of the Fakhariyeh inscription, then,

Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, )  (on Gen :). 24 For the following, see Garr, “‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh,” IEJ  (): –.




 

is associated with baldly petitionary language. It is a physical token of piety offered in tribute to Hadad.25 ... Of its several first-millennium attestations, úåîã appears most often in the book of Ezekiel. Its appearance there is hardly a surprise. Ezekiel is a priest (Ez :). He has “deep roots in the priestly traditions of the Jerusalemite establishment. The prophet’s priestly background is clearly reflected in his language, which has close ties with the Holiness Code … and with other Jerusalemite literature.”26 Ezekiel and the Priestly tradition on which he draws27 “are closely related to each other, both in the topics discussed and in the phraseology used.”28 úåîã, with its historical foundation in P(T), is a case in point. úåîã is a constituent feature of the prophet’s vision of God.29 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth (month), on the fifth day of the month … heaven opened, and I saw an awesome vision30 of God. … I looked, when a stormy wind came from the north: a large cloud, flashing fire, brightness around it; out of it, something like amber, out of the fire. And out of it, úåéç òáøà úåîã a likeness of four creatures, and this was their appearance: they had íãà úåîã a human likeness, though each one had four faces and each of them had four wings. (Ez :.–)

Once he introduces the celestial, supernatural vision that will consume his attention, Ezekiel describes what he sees—“the self-revelation of the God who invested Ezekiel with his prophetic commission.”31 God 25 See, in this context, James L. Kugel, “Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed. Arthur Green; World Spirituality ; New York: Crossroad, ) –. 26 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, ) . See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. and enl. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) –. 27 For discussion, see Avi Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CRB ; Paris: J. Gabalda, ), esp. the conclusion on ; and, briefly, William H. C. Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT  (): –. Cf., inter alios, Georg Fohrer, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW ; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, ) –. 28 Johan Lust, “Exodus ,– and Ezekiel,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction— Reception—Interpretation (ed. Marc Vervenne; BETL ; Louvain: University Press/Peeters, ) . 29 See Preuss, in TDOT .; and John F. Kutsko, “Will the Real selem ’˘el¯ohîm Please . Stand Up? The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Society of Biblical Literature  Seminar Papers ( pts.; SBLSP ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) .–. 30 See Greenberg, Ezekiel ., in conjunction with the analysis in §.., below (on íéäìà). 31 Leslie C. Allen, “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel I,” VT  ():  (his own evaluation, notwithstanding).


  úåîã  íìö



reveals himself to Ezekiel as an other-worldly mixture of humanoid yet animal-like features, each part of which is qualified as a úåîã.32 From the beginning, Ezekiel’s úåîã signals a theophany.33 The distribution of úåîã in Ezekiel confirms this theophanic interpretation. For with a single exception (Ez :), the referent of úåîã is always a representation or representative of God. First comes a group of ten attestations, culminating in the prophet’s realization of all he had witnessed. It was the appearance of äåäé­ãåáë úåîã the likeness of the Lord’s glory. When I saw (it), I fell on my face, and I heard a voice speaking. (Ez :aβ-b) úåîã next appears at the head of Ezekiel’s temple vision, where it is supported by other language reminiscent of chapter .

I looked, when there was ùà­äàøîë úåîã a likeness, something like the appearance of fire: from the appearance of its loins down was fire, and from its loins up was something like a gleaming appearance, something like amber. (Ez :)

Finally, úåîã reappears four more times in the same vision, when the prophet describes God’s throne and cherubic attendants. I looked when, on the dome above the heads of the Cherubim, there was something like a sapphire stone. Something like the appearance of àñë úåîã a throne’s likeness appeared above them. … Their appearance: ãçà úåîã the likeness of one applied to the four of them. … (They were) each the creature that I saw beneath the God of Israel at the river Chebar. I knew that they were Cherubim. Each had four faces, and each had four wings íãà éãé úåîãå and the likeness of human hands beneath their wings. íäéðô úåîãå And the likeness of their faces: they were the faces that I saw on the river Chebar—their appearance and themselves. (Ez :.a.–a) úåîã is therefore a feature of God’s self-disclosure in its different manifestations, all of which rely on the depiction of chapter . Ezekiel’s úåîã implicates God, his divine presence, his royal seat, and his thronebearers.34 32 Cf. Pierre Bordreuil, “‘À l’ombre d’Élohim.’ Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec ‘L’Imago Dei,’” RHPR  ():  (on the Cherubim). 33 Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis—A Study of Terminology,” BJRL  (): . See also Johann Jakob Stamm, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament (ThSt ; Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, ) –. 34 Cf. íìö in P (§...). For Ezekiel’s rejection of the older, Priestly term, see




 

But Ezekiel’s úåîã is not simply a divine symbol. It is formal as well. The quoted passages already show that úåîã is the object of visual perception (e.g., Ez :). It has an ‘appearance’ (:), can qualify an ‘appearance’ (e.g., :), or can resemble an entity that has an ‘appearance’ (e.g., :). In a related manner, úåîã can be grammatically possessed by terms which themselves express physical objects or visually real matter: ‘throne’ (e.g., :), ‘creatures’ (e.g., :), ‘a human’ (e.g., :), ‘face’ (e.g., :), or God’s own presence (:). In one instance, úåîã seems to be identified with a daunting sparkling firmament (:; see also :). The theophany represented by Ezekiel’s úåîã has form, whether two- or three-dimensional. It occupies space. In chapter , for example, the theophany has two parts (see v. ). One is its lower section which contains the strange multiform creatures (vv. –.–). The other is its upper section wherein God and his throne are located (vv. –). Thus “YHWH dwells in heaven, his majesty covers the heavens and fills the earth.”35 Ezekiel represents God in heaven and on earth. The representation is strikingly heterogeneous, too.36 The theophany, and its úåîã, are anthropomorphic as well as zoomorphic (e.g., Ez :). It is alive, and it is mechanical (see v. ). It is even assigned masculine as well as feminine gender (e.g., v. ; see Gen :b, :a).37 Formally and grammatically, then, Ezekiel’s representation of God is a hybrid composition.38 Nevertheless, the theophany is a functional unity. Its different lower components each symbolize a type of preeminence, superiority, and even majesty (Ez :).39 “The lion is proverbially the fiercest of beasts …; the eagle the most imposing … of birds. … The bull is the most valued of domestic animals. … Men, of course, ruled them all (Gen :;

J. Maxwell Miller, “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God,” JBL  (): ; and Kutsko, in SBL  Seminar Papers .–. For Ezekiel’s preference for úåîã, see Kutsko, ibid. . 35 Greenberg, Ezekiel .. 36 See ibid.  (on the phrase äàøîë). 37 See Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel (trans. Ronald E. Clements, James D. Martin, et al.;  vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, – []) ., –; and Greenberg, Ezekiel .–. 38 Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament .. See also, in sympathetic fashion, Christoph Dohmen, “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes,” LebZeug  (): . 39 Greenberg, Ezekiel .. The following quotations are Greenberg’s as well.


  úåîã  íìö



Ps :).” Above them is the dividing ‘firmament’ (Ez :; see Gen :– ), and above it is the heavenly, enthroned God (vv. –). “That is to say, the most lordly of creatures are merely the bearers of the Lord of lords” who,40 himself, dominates in royal majesty. Ezekiel’s vision, then, ultimately represents God’s supreme rule—a world under the unitary control and aegis of God. ... úåîã is a logical focus for comparing Ezekiel and the earlier phases of the Priestly tradition. “At this point,” Blenkinsopp remarks, “we might recall the creation of humanity in Gen :–. … There humanity (’adam) is created in the likeness (demut) of God. Here God appears in the likeness of humanity (demut kemar’eh ’adam) [Ez :]. Humanity is in God’s image, God is in humanity’s image—a mysterious connaturality.”41 Smith might agree. The word d emût, ‘image,’ in Ez ,  is most pertinent to the interpretation of human creation in P. … Gen  achieves exactly the opposite effect as Ez ,. Whereas Ez ,  conveys the prophet’s vision of God in the likeness of the human person, the P writer’s vision of the human person is in the likeness of God. Rather than reducing God to human terms (as in Ez , ), Gen , – magnifies the human person in divine terms. … Some manner of anthropomorphism is nonetheless implicit in Gen ,–, although how the human person is in the divine image and likeness is left unexpressed.42

Either way, God and humanity are morphologically similar. Although the attestations of úåîã in the early Priestly tradition are few, they are restricted to one recurrent context. Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, åðúåîãë according to our likeness.” (Gen :a [P])

40 Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel (trans. Cosslett Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  [–])  (on Ez :). 41 Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interp; Louisville: John Knox, ) . 42 Mark S. Smith, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion,” ZAW  (): –. See also idem, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed.; The Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) ; “Mythology and Myth-making in Ugaritic and Israelite Literatures,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey; UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) , ; The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) , ; and, with Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) –.




  This is the genealogical record of Adam: When God created humankind, íéäìà úåîãá in the likeness of God he made it, male and female he created them. He blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created.—When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he fathered (a son) åúåîãá in his likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. (Gen :– [PT])

is uniformly associated with human genealogy.43 It first appears when God proposes the creation of the human race; P’s God wants human beings to have úåîã like that of the gods (Gen :a). It next appears when this creative act is recapitulated (:), in a summary that also serves to bridge the creation of the human species (íãà) and the creation of Adam’s individual lineage.44 Then, úåîã appears for a third time on the occasion of Seth’s birth (v. ). The genealogical nuance of úåîã is more than contextual. In PT, it is explicit.45 úåîã is included under the heading of úåãìåú or, more specifically, íãà úIìåú (Gen :a). At first, God takes the initiative (see also :a [RP]): he makes the human race, its first male (Adam), and its first female (:, :b-a).46 Next, Adam continues the process and produces a son.47 And, by implication, úåîã is involved in íãà úIìåú thereúåîã

43 Henri Cazelles, “Selem et demût en Gn ,–,” in La vie de la Parole. De l’Ancien . au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot (Paris: Desclée, ) . See also Dohmen, “Die Statue von Tell Fecher¯ıye und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie,” BN  (): ; and Walter Vogels, “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn ,),” ScEs  (): . 44 Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,–,a und ,b-, (d ed.; WMANT ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, )  n. ; Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) ; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” ExAu  (): ; and Richard S. Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ’¯ad¯am in Genesis I–V,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –. See also Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) ; and Bird, “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts,” in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. Kari Elisabeth Børresen; Oslo: Solum, ) . Cf. Julius Boehmer, “Wieviel Menschen sind am letzten Tage des Hexaëmerons geschaffen worden,” ZAW  (): . 45 See Clines, TynB  ():  n.  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . n. ). 46 See Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ) . 47 See, in this context, Jeremy Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, ) –.


  úåîã  íìö



after, in perpetuum;48 úåîã is automatically involved in matters regarding the origination, derivation, and development of human beings.49 Just as God’s úåîã is intimately involved in the birth of Adam/humanity, Adam’s is intimately involved in the birth of Seth (see § .), ad infinitum. According to P(T), human offspring participate in (á) the úåîã of their (pro-) creator. “[D]emut points to the likeness children have to their parents through birth.”50 Yet it also points to “the likeness humans have to God through creation.”51 God and Adam each create úIìåú íãà in a manner that is appropriate to their nature. God ‘creates’ the human race (Gen :bα.a); Adam ‘fathers’ a son (v. aβ);52 and, afterwards, ‘likeness’ is a mechanical, genealogical, and self-perpetuating inheritance. “The word suggests a likeness between the role of God as creator and the human role as pro-creator”;53 and once God creates humankind, úåîã is “transmitted not through repeated acts of God but through … procreation (Gen :).”54 Hence, the likeness shared by 48 See Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; P. G. Duncker, “L’immagine di Dio nell’uomo (Gen. , .). Una somiglianza fisica?” Bib  ():  (repr. as “Das Bild Gottes im Menschen [Gen. , .]. Eine physische Ähnlichkeit?” in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ] ); and, on the larger point, Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] –). 49 For this dynamic characterization of úåãìåú, see Frans Breukelman, “Das Buch Genesis als das Buch der úåãìåú Adams, des Menschens—eine Analyse der Komposition des Buches,” in Störenfriedels Zeddelkasten. Geschenkpapier zum . Geburtstag von FriedrichWilhelm Marquardt (Berlin: Alektor, ) –. 50 Vogels, ScEs  (): . See also Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .; Duncker, Bib  ():  (= idem, in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ); Lothar Ruppert, “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte, vornehmlich von Gen –,” Cath  (): ; and Tigay, in Tehillah le-Moshe –. 51 Vogels, ScEs  (): . See also Jürgen Ebach, “Die Erschaffung des Menschen als Bild Gottes. Überlegungen zur Anthropologie im Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift,” WPKG  (): ; and Cazelles, in La vie de la Parole . 52 Angerstorfer, BN  (): . For the application of birthing terminology to God, see Humbert, “Yahvé Dieu Géniteur? (Les verbes y¯alad et h.¯ıl avec Yahvé comme sujet. Image ou réalité?),” AsSt / (): –, in conjunction with Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine, ) ,  n. . 53 Vogels, ScEs  (): . See also Régine Hinschberger, “Image et ressemblance dans la tradition sacerdotale Gn ,–; ,–; ,b,” RScR  (): ; and, indirectly, Stamm, “Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,” in Antwort. Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am . Mai  (Zollikon/Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, )  (repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ). 54 Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ),




 

divine creator and human procreator is homological.55 Adam successfully replicates God’s first act of human creation56 and, in this respect, imitates God.57 Although ‘likeness’ belongs to gods (Gen :a), God (:b), and human beings (v. a), the early Priestly tradition elaborates only on its human nature. When God created humankind, íéäìà úåîãá in the likeness of God he made it, äá÷ðå øëæ male and female he created them. (Gen :b-a [PT])

The sense as well as syntax suggest that human úåîã is expressed sexually. As Childs explains, “’¯ad¯am is the generic Hebrew term for human being which consists of both male and female species.58 … No differentiation is made between male and female in terms of temporal priority or function. Their creation occurs simultaneously.”59 Andersen offers a more grammatical reading: “The third clause is a nice instance repeated in eadem, in Image of God and Gender Models  n. . See also Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; Johannes C. de Moor, “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting …  (ed. idem; OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and, perhaps, Cassuto, Genesis .. 55 See Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ) –; and, differently, Hinschberger, RScR  ():  with n. . Cf. Zimmerli, .Mose ( vols.; d/st ed.; ZB.AT /–; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –) .. 56 See Bird, HTR  ():  with n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  with n. ). 57 Cf. Tigay, in Tehillah le-Moshe . 58 See also, inter alios, Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM,  []) –; Bird, HTR  ():  with n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities – with n. ), repeated in eadem, in Image of God and Gender Models ,  n. ; Hess, in Studies in the Pentateuch ; and, esp., Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .. 59 Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM, )  (on Gen :). See also Ludwig Koehler, Old Testament Theology (trans. A. S. Todd; London: Lutterworth,  []) ; Humbert, “Trois notes sur Genèse I,” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae (Oslo: Land og kirke, )  (repr. in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ] ); and Victor Maag, “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie,” AsSt  ():  (repr. in Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Zum . Geburtstag [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] ). Cf., inter alios, Barr, “Adam: Single Man, or All Humanity?” in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs (ed. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin; BJS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) –; and idem, “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) – with n. .


  úåîã  íìö



of specifying apposition, in apposition with the preceding sentence.”60 In particular, the phrase ‘male and female’ specifies the two sexually differentiated categories61 included within the scope of the antecedent, collective pronoun ‘it’.62 úåîã is part of the mix, too. For among human beings at least, úåîã and its genealogical transmission require the joint involvement and joint participation of both gendered segments of the population, male and female. Human úåîã presumes heterosexuality. In the Priestly tradition, heterosexuality has a definite purpose. “P declares that sex, as differentiation and union, is intended for procreation.”63 God blessed íúà them and God said íäì to them, åàìîå fruitful, be numerous, and fill the earth.” (Gen :aα–βa)

åáøå åøô

“Be

In the beginning, after God creates humankind, the population is small. According to the Priestly tradition, it is not a single person. Gen :b and :a already state that, at this early stage, humankind consists of a heterosexual pair.64 The addressee of God’s speech in :a is 60 Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica ; The Hague: Mouton, )  (on Gen : and, secondarily, :–), followed by Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, – ) . n. .a-a. 61 See Mayer I. Gruber, “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs; Philadelphia: Fortress, )  n.  (repr. in The Motherhood of God and Other Studies [South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ]  n. ). See also Bird, “Genesis I–III as a Source for a Contemporary Theology of Sexuality,” ExAu  (): – (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); and Lohfink, “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’?” Orien  ():  n.  (repr. as “‘Subdue the Earth?’ [Genesis :],” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ). 62 August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ) – (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .–); and Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2  n. . See also Hinschberger, RScR  (): ; Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  (): ; and, very differently, Friedrich Schwally, “Die biblischen Schöpfungsberichte,” ARw  (): –. 63 Bird, in Image of God and Gender Models . See also eadem, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); eadem, ExAu  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); and Josef Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) .. 64 Barr, “One Man, or All Humanity? A Question in the Anthropology of Genesis,” in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium …  (ed. Athalya Brenner




 

grammatically nonsingular. A minimal biological pair is also necessary to realize the content of his speech.65 After úåîã is established as a human characteristic, it endures through the collaborative effort of the sexes. Despite this biological prerequisite, the Priestly tradition does not credit each parent with an equal role in producing descendants. Only half of the reproductive pair is conspicuous and salient. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he fathered (a son) in his likeness. (Gen :aα–βa [PT])

Like other ancient Near Eastern writers,66 the Priestly school downplays the female role in human reproduction (see, esp., :. [P]).67 Women may not be completely absent from the process,68 yet the principal and active parent is male.69 Adam, then, is the first Priestly parent: it is he who heads the first human genealogy (:a); and he alone controls the reproductive verb (‘father’). Throughout P(T) too, males generally head the genealogical lineage as well as control the verbs of reproduction. Human fertility and propagation are largely carried along male lines. Androcentricity does not, however, compel the Priestly tradition to record every male descendant of the human race. Beginning in the second generation, P and PT are selective. Whereas the Yahwist assigns Adam three sons, of whom two receive extensive attention (e.g., Gen :–), the Priestly tradition recognizes only one. Moreover, the omissions are deliberate. When P faced the problem of tracing the transmission of the divine image and the blessing from Adam to Noah, the Yahwist’s narrative presented him with three possibilities. First, he could have traced the blessing through Adam’s son Abel. This possibility was ruled out, however, by the narrative in :– that recounts Abel’s early death. A secand Jan Willem van Henten; STAR ; Leiden: Deo, ) , . Cf. Boehmer, ZAW  (): –; and Lohfink, Im Schatten deiner Flügel . 65 Bird, ThTo  (): , in conjunction with de Moor, in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel . See also Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ); and Cassuto, Genesis .. 66 Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses –. 67 Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ; and eadem, in Image of God and Gender Models  n. ); and Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism (Boston: Beacon, ) –. See also Stefan Schreiner, “Partner in Gottes Schöpfungswerk—Zur rabbinischen Auslegung von Gen ,–,” Judaica  (): . 68 Andreas Kunz, “Die Vorstellung von Zeugung und Schwangerschaft im antiken Israel,” ZAW  (): –. 69 Ibid. .


  úåîã  íìö



ond option was to trace the blessing through Adam’s firstborn son, Cain. This option was rejected for theological reasons, for J clearly connects the Cainite line with the growth of evil. According to J, Cain is cursed (:–). … Only Seth remained as the genealogical link through whom the blessing could have been transmitted.70

Of Adam’s three male children, then, only Seth is not blemished by J. Born after the time of Abel’s murder and Cain’s punishment,71 Seth is an innocent. For J, his birth marks a new, God-given opportunity to reinstate the line of Adam (v. b).72 For P, the opportunity is greater still. It allows P to eliminate the elder two brothers altogether. Seth becomes the only viable candidate through whom humanity can develop and thrive. Seth now replaces his brothers wholesale. “P, in other words, tried to supplant the Cainite with a Sethite genealogy.”73 As P depicts it, the lineage of Adam is linear (see § ...).74 ... The sparse attestation of úåîã in the early exemplars of the Priestly tradition is outweighed by the drift and focus of the evidence. This evidence first confirms that úåîã ‘likeness’ is a similative noun. Outside of P(T), it refers to representations of several types. It may be physical, formal, and portrait-like. It may be nonliteral and abstract. Or it may have a performative and functional component. Whatever its degree of similitude, though, ‘likeness’ in P(T) is a property of divinity as well as humanity. Within these parameters, though, the grammar of Gen : and :. disfavors a concrete reading of ‘likeness’. True, ‘likeness’ may refer to a (quasi-) anthropomorphic entity. It is also true that, among human beings, ‘likeness’ is expressed physiologically, in sexual differentiation or sexual complementation.75 So too, there is no doubt that God as well as the gods have anthropomorphic features in the Hebrew Bible (§§..–, .., intro.). But a formal interpretation of ‘likeness’ cannot be reconciled with the grammar of the Priestly texts. One text, Gen :, 70 Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER ; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ) –. See also, inter alios, S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, ) ; and, briefly, Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .). 71 See Cassuto, Genesis .. 72 For the connotation of ‘seed’ in v. b, see Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); Driver, Genesis12 ; and Wenham, Genesis .. 73 Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son . 74 See, in this context, Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World  with n. , . 75 See above with n. .




 

states that humankind intimately participates in ‘the likeness of God’. Another text, Gen :, states that humankind will not participate intimately in the gods’ ‘likeness’ but, instead, will have a somewhat separate relationship. If ‘likeness’ is a physical feature, humanity would share in God’s corporeality but not in the gods’ corporeality, even though God and the gods have the same (degree of) corporeality. This inferential paradox renders a strictly physical interpretation of úåîã unlikely in P(T). Inasmuch as ‘likeness’ is a genealogical trait that connects humankind and divinity, especially the procreative role of (hu)mankind and the creative role of God, these two parties betray a homological function. Stated generally, human beings imitate God in this respect, representing God in the world. To the extent that they imitiate God in perpetuity, they register his everlasting presence in the world. They are, then, a theophany. Specifically, Adam, Seth, and his descendants share the God-given ability/capability to generate úåãìåú and populate the world with human beings.76 More God-like than godlike (§..), they engender, produce, and sustain human life. .. íìö In addition to úåîã, the early Priestly tradition records a second point of contact between divine and human realms. It too is a similative trait. And like úåîã, it also belongs to gods (Gen :), God (e.g., :aα), and human beings (e.g., :a). This trait is called íìö ‘image’. Appearing in Biblical Hebrew as well as Biblical Aramaic, íìö has a wider distribution than úåîã. In Biblical Hebrew, its attestations number seventeen. The majority, nine, lie in Priestly writings: P (Gen :.aα.aβ, :77), PT (:a), H (Num :),78 and Ezekiel (:, Cazelles, in La vie de la Parole , in conjunction with Dohmen, BN  (): –. 77 For the source-critical assignment of :, see Odil Hannes Steck, “Der Mensch und die Todesstrafe. Exegetisches zur Übersetzung der Präposition Beth in Gen ,a,” in Veritas Hebraica. Alttestamentliche Studien Ernst Jenni gewidmet zum . Geburtstag (TZ /– ; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, ) –. Cf. Howard N. Wallace, “The Toledot of Adam,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 78 For this source-critical assignment, see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, ) . See also Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, )  (on íúîá). Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land: The 76


  úåîã  íìö



:, :). The rest are randomly scattered in the deuteronomistic history ( Sam :aα [bis].;  Kgs :; see also  Chr :), Psalms (:, :),79 and Amos (:). In Biblical Aramaic, ‘image’ accrews another seventeen attestations, whether in the form íìö " (Dan :, :.), íìö  (:.....), or àîìö (:..., :.a.b.). ... Apart from P(T), íìö has multiple interpretations in the Bible. It can, for example, refer to an object that exists in the real world.80 You will dispossess all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their figured objects, íúëñî éîìö­ìë úàå destroying all their molten images and demolishing all their high places. (Num : [H]) They said, “What is the reparation that we should make to him?” They said, “The number of the Philistine lords—five golden tumors and five golden mice. … íëéøáëò éîìöå (íëéøçè §§÷) íëéìôò éîìö íúéùòå You should make images of your tumors and your mice that are destroying the land, and give glory to the God of Israel.” … They put the ark of the Lord on the cart, with the chest, the golden mice, íäéøçè éîìö úàå and the images of their tumors. ( Sam :a.a.);81 see also You, O king, were looking, when there appeared àéâù ãç íìö one great image. àîìö That image was huge and its brilliance excessive. (It) was standing in front of you, and its appearance was frightening. àîìö àåä The image: its head was of fine gold, its breast and arms of silver, and its middle and thighs of bronze. (Dan :–)

An ‘image’ can have characteristics like any concrete entity. It can have size, shape, color, material composition, and value. It can have number, whether singular or plural. It can be fabricated (see  Sam :) or destroyed, too (see Num :). You took your beautiful things, (made) of my gold and silver that I had given you, øëæ éîìö êì­éùòúå and you made yourself male images and whored around with them. (Ez :)82 Then all the people of the land came to the temple of Baal. They tore it down, his altars åøáù åéîìö­úàå and his images smashed up, and killed Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press, ) . 79 See the discussion by Westermann, Genesis .. Cf. HALOT .–. 80 E.g., Vogels, ScEs  (): . 81 íùà, too, may have a concrete meaning in v.  (e.g., Baruch A. Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel [SJLA ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ] ; and Adrian Schenker, “Once Again, The Expiatory Sacrifices,” JBL  []: . Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus [ vols.; AB –B; New York: Doubleday, –] .). 82 For discussion, see Greenberg, Ezekiel ..




  Mattan, the priest of Baal, in front of the altars. ( Kgs :a; see also  Chr :); see also King Nebuchadnezzar made íìö an image of gold, sixty cubits high (and) six cubits wide. He erected it in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. (Dan :) You were looking when a stone was cut out, not with hands, hit àîìöì the image on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. (Dan :)

Yet íìö can be nonconcrete83 or abstract.84 Look, you have made my days handbreadths; my longevity is as nothing before you. … Only íìöá as an “image” does a man go about. Only (as) a breath one buzzes about, amassing yet not knowing who collects them. (Ps :a.)85 How they become ruined in an instant, completely swept away by terrors. Like a dream after waking, O Lord, when rousing íîìö you despise their “image.” (Ps :–); see also Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with rage at Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, éäåôðà íìöå and the image of his face changed. (Dan :a)86

Or, like úåîã (see §..), ‘image’ need not conform to one or the other of these referential extremes. It can simply be an imprint. She saw men etched on the wall, (íéãùë §§÷) íééãùë éîìö images of Chaldeans etched in vermillion, … ìáá­éðá úåîã a likeness of Babylonians whose homeland was Chaldea. (Ez :b.b)

The interpretations of íìö are therefore varied. It may refer to a threedimensional object in the round (‘image’, ‘idol/statue’, ‘model’), something two-dimensional yet physical (‘sketch’, ‘drawing’), or a nonphysical, nondimensional, and metaphorical nonentity (‘impermanence’, ‘mortality’). Regardless of formal degree, íìö signifies a representation, copy, or facsimile. Th. Nöldeke, “úåî"ìö und íìö  ,” ZAW  (): . Cf. Harland, The Value of Human Life –. 84 See John F. A. Sawyer, “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden (ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . 85 See A. F. Kirkpatrick, ed., The Book of Psalms (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) ; and, esp., W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms (London: S.P.C.K.,  []) . See also Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, )  (on ìáä). 86 Following NJPS and NRSV, the syntax of the original has been altered for greater clarity. 83


  úåîã  íìö



The referents of a biblical ‘image’ are limited. The referent may be human (e.g., Ez :–; Pss :, :) and, on occasion, sovereign ( Sam :.; see also Dan :– as interpreted by vv. –a). Alternatively, the referent is divine or cultic (e.g., Num :; Am :; see also, perhaps, Dan :.–87). In one instance, however, the cultic ‘image’ has at least one human, biological feature (Ez :). The biblical ‘image’ tends to represent a man, a god, or a cultic object. Within this context, the ‘image’ also tends to be associated with cultic expression (e.g.,  Sam :–; Ez :; Am :; Dan ). In  Sam , for example, the ‘image’ is an object by which plagues, symbolized by their animal carriers, are magically banished from the community.88 In Dan , it is an object which constitutes idolatry.89 Let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god íìöìå nor bow to the golden image that you erected. (Dan :aβ-b)

àáäã

Whether it represents Nebuchadnezzar himself or his god,90 the three speakers refuse to treat the statue as an object of religious piety and worship. The texts agree, then, that the ‘image’ is a manufactured representational surrogate in a cultic domain.91 It acts as an instrument which conveys power.92 In this setting, “s. elem is thus more than ‘image’ …: in it, that which is depicted is itself present.”93 The Hebrew Bible does not offer a single evaluation of the ‘image’. It offers several. Most are negative (see Dan :–); the ‘image’ is often mocked, vilified, denounced, or rejected. Out of their beautiful adornments, in which they took pride, éîìöå they made their abominable images, their despicable things. Therefore, I will transform them into an unclean thing of theirs. (Ez :); see also íäéöå÷ù íúáòåú

87 On the latter text, see André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (trans. David Pellauer; rev. English ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, ) –; or John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) a. Cf., inter alios, R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –. 88 For this interpretation of  Sam :–, see Levine, In the Presence of the Lord –; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel (AB ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) ; and Ralph W. Klein,  Samuel (WBC ; Waco: Word, ) . 89 Paul L. Redditt, Daniel (NCBC; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) . 90 See the references in n. , above. 91 Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder –. 92 E.g., Bordreuil, RHPR  (): ; and Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder  n. . 93 H. Wildberger, “íìö  s. elem image,” in TLOT ..




  You will carry off Sikkuth your king, and Kiyyun,94 íëéîìö your images, your astral deity, (which) you have made for yourselves.95 I shall take you into exile beyond Damascus, said the Lord, whose name is God of Hosts. (Am :–)

It is embedded among negative terms, negative themes and characterizations, and life-threatening situations (Pss :–, :–). Moreover, it may incite a strong physical-emotional reaction, provoking comparisons with sexual desire and its gratification with an unsanctioned partner (Ez :, :–).96 But the ‘image’ does not elicit universal condemnation. The replicas (‘images’) that the Philistines fabricate seem to be an appropriate and acceptable offering in their context ( Sam :– .).97 More importantly, by all accounts the Priestly ‘image of God’ is a distinctly positive characteristic.98 Rather than voicing a unified opinion about the ‘image’, then, biblical writers seem to voice several, whether negative, neutral, or positive. ... Images are not restricted to the biblical text. As Wildberger convincingly demonstrates,99 the ‘image’ has a deep ancient Near Eastern background. Therein, the Mesopotamian sector has proven the 94 For the vocalization of these divine names, see, inter alios, R. Borger, “Amos ,, ˇ Apostelgeschichte , und Surpu II, ,” ZAW  (): ; and Shalom M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) b. Cf. Stanley Gevirtz, “A New Look at an Old Crux: Amos  ,” JBL  (): . 95 On this latter phrase, see Schmidt, “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches. Zu den theologischen Unterschieden zwischen den Prophetwort und seiner Sammler,” ZAW  (): . Cf. Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background,” UF  (): –. 96 For this definition of äðæ, see Greenberg, “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes,  [])  n.  (repr. in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought [JPS Scholar of Distinction Series; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ]  n. ); and David Carr, “Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and Its Interpretation,” JBL  ():  n. . 97 Barr, BJRL  (): –. 98 For a review of the classical literature, see Menahem Kister, “‘Let Us Make a Man’—Observations on the Dynamics of Monotheism,” in Issues in Talmudic Research: Conference Commemorating the Fifth Anniversary of the Passing of Ephraim E. Urbach,  December  (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, ) – (in Hebrew). For modern statements, see Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .); Bird, ExAu  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); or Vogels, ScEs  (): . 99 Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  (): –, –  (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] –).


  úåîã  íìö



most fruitful.100 Not only is the Akkadian expression, s. almu ‘image’, perfectly cognate to its later, Hebrew relative. S. εlεm and s. almu also share a number of “functional equivalences”101 which have been comprehensively studied from many different perspectives, including the formal, social, political, and cultic.102 Further, the discovery of an Assyrian-like ‘image’ at Fakhariyeh suggests a route along which the eastern ‘image’ may have traveled west.103 The s. almu provides an unusually compelling and detailed correlate to the biblical ‘image’.104 .... The Mesopotamian ‘image’ can be generally defined by the verbs that control it. Highly transitive verbs like banû ‘make, manufacture’ or ep¯esˇu ‘make’ identify the ‘image’ as a three-dimensional ˇ ‘set up’, and zaq¯apu object. Verbs such as kunnu (D) ‘erect’, sˇuzuzzu (S) ‘erect, plant’ also show that the ‘image’ can be free-standing. Other verbs, however, suggest that the ‘image’ is not always three-dimensional: es¯equ ‘draw’, es.¯eru ‘draw’, and sˇa.t¯aru ‘inscribe’. In these latter cases, the ‘image’ is two-dimensional. Its degree of objecthood notwithstanding, in the vast majority of its attestations s. almu can “refer to any representation, whether in relief, in the round, or painted.”105 Textual and glyptic evidence indicate that the ‘image’ can represent its referent in a number of ways. The ‘image’ can depict the refer-

100 Some, however, favor an Egyptian prototype (e.g., Boyo Ockinga, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament [ÄAT ; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, ], esp. –; Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte [d ed.; SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] –; Kaiser, “Der Mensch, Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden,” NZST  []: – [repr. in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit. Gesammelte Aufsätze (BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) –]; and Dohmen, LebZeug  (): . See also Weinfeld, “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarb  []: – [in Hebrew]). 101 Kutsko, in SBL  Seminar Papers .. 102 See, among others, J. Renger, “Kultbild. A. Philologisch,” in RLA .–; Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) –; William W. Hallo, “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem,  (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –; and Irene J. Winter, “‘Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JRS / (): –. 103 See, obliquely, Hinschberger, RScR  (): . Cf. F. J. Stendebach, “íìö  s. elem,” in TDOT .. 104 See Angerstorfer, “Ebenbild eines Gottes in babylonischen und assyrischen Keilschrifttexten,” BN  (): –. 105 Winter, JRS / ():  with  n. . See also Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); and Renger, in RLA .b.




 

ent’s ‘likeness’ (tamˇs¯ılu)106 and/or ‘appearance; self ’ (bunnannû);107 it can be generally representational or more detailed and portrait-like.108 It can portray the referent in the performance of an act that reflects the referent’s role as well as the object’s function in situ.109 The ‘image’ may bear ‘insignia’ (sim¯atu) that identify the referent,110 or it can bear a (divine) symbol (kakku ‘weapon’)111 that effectively specifies the referent.112 Finally, s. almu may be followed by a descriptive, defining, and ˇ s b¯eli rabî ‘the image of the great identifying genitive (e.g., s. alam dSamaˇ 113 ˇ Lord Samaˇs’ [BBSt  iv ]). The ‘image’, then, need not copy its referent exactly.114 It uses signature elements—that is, “selected significant characteristics”—to “signal salient aspects” of its intended referent.115 Whether symbolic, pictorial, or literal, these elements are sufficient to identify the referent.116 .... The referents themselves vary. For instance, s. almu can have an astral referent,117 when its appositive head118 or genitive nominal119 carries the determinative . It can have a priestly referent, either

See, e.g., OIP   vi  (cited in CAD S. b). See, e.g., AKA  i ,  ii  (cited in CAD S. b). 108 Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder –. For examples, see YOS   i  (cited in CAD S –); and Weidner, AfO  – obv. –. Note too the translation of AKA  ii  in CAD E a. 109 For examples, see TCL   (cited in CAD S a), Streck, Asb.  iv  and ; . and OIP  : (cited in ibid. b). See also § ..., below. 110 For examples, see BBSt :,  iii  (cited in CAD S a) as well as the expression . k¯ıma sim¯at¯ısˇu ‘representing … in the appropriate way’ (KAV  rev.  [cited in CAD E a]). See also Renger, in RLA .a. 111 For the lexical equivalence of salmu and kakku, see CAD K b. . 112 Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) –; and Curtis, “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study,” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly; Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies ; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, ) –. 113 For similar examples, see Layard :, :; AKA  i –; and Streck, Asb. :ff.,  L ff. (cited in CAD S. ). 114 Curtis, in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature , –; and, differently, Winter, JRS / (): –. See also Renger, in RLA .a. 115 Winter, “[Review of Spycket, La statuaire du proche-orient ancien],” JCS  (): , in conjunction with eadem, JRS / ():  n. . 116 Renger, in RLA .. 117 E.g., CAD S b; and AHw  (ad a). . 118 See Weidner, AfO  – obv. .., rev. . (cited in CAD S b). . 119 SAA   rev.  (partially broken). 106

107


  úåîã  íìö



male (¯asˇipu ‘exorcist’)120 or female (¯entu ‘high priestess’).121 The referent can even be a private individual122 or (mythological) creature.123 Far more frequently, however, the referent of the ‘image’ is royal or divine. The royal s. almu may be followed by an overt expression of royalty, such as sˇarru ‘king’,124 sˇarr¯utu ‘majesty’,125 m¯ar r¯edûti ‘heir apparent’,126 or a king’s own name.127 The divine referent is expressed by similar dependent expressions, such as the descriptive il¯anu (rabûtu) ‘(great) gods’,128 a divine name,129 or a combination of the two (see above). Of the several possible entities represented in an ‘image’130—inanimate, animate, human, or divine—the greatest number are royal or divine. These several categories are not entirely distinct. In its astral sense, for example, the ‘image’ is associated with a recurrent theme. One text compares the astral image (s. alamka ‘your constellation’) to the rank of the supreme god, Anu (ana paras. dAn¯u[ti] ‘is in the highest divine order’) (KAR :–). The same text states that control of a ‘constellation’ lies with the gods (itti il¯ı) (ll. –). Another text characterizes a ‘constellation’ as the lordly god of heaven (dAnum sˇarru ‘Anu the king’) (RAcc :). These astral images, then, are described in heavenly131 and, to a lesser extent, royal terms.132 Though fewer in number, nonroyal human referents of ‘image’ can follow the same pattern. On one ‘image’ of a temple official, the decedent situates himself vis-à-vis two superior, powerful entities: the gods, among whom he worships Nabu and Marduk (p¯alih dNabû u d Marduk); and his lord the king, to whom he pays homage (k¯˘arib sˇarr¯ısˇu b¯el¯ısˇu) (BBSt :–). Another inscription resembles the first, despite its B¯ıt M¯esiri ii , discussed and translated in § ..., below. YOS   i  (cited in CAD S. b). 122 E.g., KAR  i – (cited in CAD S a). See also BBSt , , quoted below. . 123 Borger, Esarh. : and En El v  (cited in CAD S –); as well as Lambert, . BWL :, esp. according to the interpretation of AHw a (ad d). 124 E.g., SAA   rev. ,  rev.  (cited in CAD S b). . 125 For examples, see above, n. . 126 Borger, Esarh.  rev. – (cited in CAD S a). . 127 E.g., SAA   rev.  and TCL   (cited in CAD S –). . 128 E.g., Unger, Bel-Harran-beli-usser ; Streck, Asb.  iv –; and OIP  : (cited in CAD S. b). 129 See the passages cited in CAD S  (ad a.′.a′). . 130 Curtis, in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature –. 131 As Baruch Halpern characterizes it, “the astral image is precisely the picture of a god or gods engraved in the sky” (p.c.). 132 Cf. Ernst F. Weidner, “Eine Beschreibung des Sternenhimmels aus Assur,” AfO  (): , followed by E. A. Speiser, “Note on Amos :,” BASOR  (): . 120

121




 

broken condition. For accompanying a depiction of a woman and her brother standing before the king,133 the text identifies the portrait of (s. alam) each participant (ibid.  Face A ., Face B ); the brother, in particular, is characterized as a landowner (b¯elu) whose domain is godgiven (nadin d[ ]) (Face A –). A third exemplar is the “monument” of (s. alam) an Assyrian field marshall (turt¯anu) and the general’s several titles that it lists (RIMA  A...). Like the others, this ‘image’ also has clear royal associations. Grayson explains: “The elaborate titulary ˇ si-ilu.”134 which [the field marshall] bears here is also attested for Samˇ These nonroyal human images, then, index royal leitmotifs, sometimes in conjunction with divine ones as well. .... The similative ‘image’ may be more than a plastic representation. Already in the late third millennium, in fact, the image has a functional component which is described in the inscriptions that adorn the icons of Gudea and Ur-Ningirsu. These texts tell us that each statue was dedicated to a particular deity in the Mesopotamian pantheon. They also state that the statue was intended to be placed in a temple or shrine, provided with messages to be communicated to the god through direct discourse. Each was to be the recipient of regular offerings.135

The royal image can appear in explicitly cultic settings. And in these settings, its physical presence serves a ceremonial role. It represents a votive as well as commemorative object in the temple. Thus in its functional capacity, the ‘image’ substitutes for the king himself. To this extent, the representational ‘image’ is replacive; it can function as the referent’s surrogate. The replacive ‘image’ can serve a homeopathic purpose in magical rituals.136 In exorcisms especially, “[v]ery often figurines (s. almu) in clay, in dough, in wax, in tallow, or in wood were used. … This had the advantage of being able to represent, more or less accurately, either an enemy to whom one wanted to pass on the evil one suffered, or another carrier who could even be the bearer of the evil himself, if needed.”137 A bond would be formed between ‘image’ and referent, 133 134 135

.

L. W. King, BBSt  with n. . A. Kirk Grayson, RIMA .. Winter, JRS / (): . See also Hallo, in Congress Volume: Jerusalem,  –

136 Curtis, in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature ; and Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder –. 137 Jean Bottéro, “The Substitute King and His Fate,” in idem, Mesopotamia: Writing,


  úåîã  íìö



“either by contact, or by resemblance, with a frequent combination of the two,”138 by which a malady is transferred to the image and, thereafter, eliminated. Thus the image, which can occasionally be a human being (p¯uhu),139 is ritually identified with, and substitutes for, the actual patient.140 ˘ When an ‘image’ represents a deity, the distinction between representation and referent may disappear.141 A divine image may be completely transformed into its referent through the performance of ritual.142 Before the ritual, the ‘image’ is an inanimate object. s. alam!143 annû This image without its mouth opened cannot smell incense, cannot eat food, nor drink water. (STT :–)144

Consequent to the ritual, it is fundamentally altered. [A]t the time ilu ibbanû the god was created, s. almu ellu the pure image was fully formed. (STT :; cf.  R  iii –)

In the course of the ritual, the ‘image’ becomes a god. Like magical figurines, the divine image assumes the identity of its referent. It too is a surrogate, representing the god incarnate.145 .... The divine referent of divine images poses a formidable theological problem. On the one hand, the image is a representational artifact that is fabricated from (in-) organic materials146 and manufacReasoning, and the Gods (trans. Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop; Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press,  []) . 138 Ibid. 139 For the possible identification of the ‘image’ and p¯uhu ‘substitute’, see TuL :. ˘ 140 For examples, see CAD S a (ad d.′). . 141 See Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder –. 142 E.g., A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (compl. Erica Reiner; rev. ed.; Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, ) ; Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion –; and Winter, JRS / (): –. See also Hallo, in Scripture in Context II . For detailed discussion and relevant texts, see Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder – ; and Christopher Walker and Michael B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian m¯ıs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. Michael B. Dick; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) –. Unless otherwise noted, translations relating to the mouth-opening ritual are derived from the latter study. 143 For the reading, see Walker and Dick, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth  n. . 144 See also Erica Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (TAPS /; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, )  n. . 145 W. G. Lambert, “[Review of Gössmann, Das Era-Epos],” AfO  (–): a; and Renger, in RLA .a. 146 E.g., Winter, JRS / ():  n. ; and Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia .




 

tured by workmen.147 On the other hand, it represents ‘a living thing’148 which can, inter alia, see149 and eat.150 The image constitutes an intrinsic dilemma.151 It is a material object and a transcendent god, inert as well as alive, lifeless as well as potent and vital.152 The transformation is effected by ritual (see above). “Without this ritual, the statue was only a dead product of human artisans.”153 But with this ritual, the once-lifeless ‘image’ becomes an animate entity. Through a collaboration of divine and human creative forces,154 the ritual transubstantiates the material image and brings it to life.155 The ‘image’ is thereby ‘born’.156 The incantation, “Statue born in a pure place,” the incantation, “Statue is born in heaven.” (BM :; see also l. ); see also B¯el , B¯eltiyya, … Mand¯anu—the great gods—k¯eniˇs immald¯uma ceremoniously (lit., truly) born in the Eˇsarra, the temple of their father (Aˇsˇsur). (Borger, Esarh.  rev. ), in comparison with B¯el and B¯eltiyya—the loving gods—were, according to their command, [ib banûma “created” in Aˇsˇsur; in E. k¯eniˇs immald¯u they were truly born. (Borger, Esarh.  rev. –)157

And once ‘born’ as a ‘living thing’, the ‘image’ requires the necessary “care and feeding” to sustain it.158 When the image attains life, it be-

147 E.g., BBSt  iv –, as translated by Jacobsen (in Ancient Israelite Religion ) and Walker and Dick (in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth –). 148 RIME  E... v. ′–′ (cited by Winter, JRS / []: ). See also Curtis, in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature . 149 BM : (see Walker and Dick, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth ). 150 Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference …  (ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA ; Louvain: Peeters, ) –. 151 Cf. David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Image (BRLAJ ; Leiden: Brill, ) –. 152 See Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion . 153 Walker and Dick, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth . 154 See, e.g., STT :. (ibid. –,  n. ). 155 Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion –. Cf. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities , . 156 See, e.g., Agnès Spycket, Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la re I dynastie de Babylone (CRB ; Paris: J. Gabalda, ) –; Renger, in RLA .b, b; Winter, JRS / (): ; and, in greater detail, Walker and Dick, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth –. 157 Translated after Borger, ad loc. 158 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia2 .


  úåîã  íìö



comes the vehicle through which the referent is manifest. More than a representation, then, the similative image becomes its referent.159 The idiom expressing this transformation, a birth, has suggestive implications. One is genealogical.160 Because it is ‘born’, the ‘image’ is not a strictly manufactured product.161 Instead, it is a ritually induced descendant of its referent. In a certain sense, the ‘image’ is the referent’s child.162 The other implication is performative. Just as ‘image’ embodies the power of its referent,163 it also exercises this power, albeit symbolically.164 Through ritual, “[t]he image was … empowered to speak, or to see, or to act, through various culturally-subscribed channels” on behalf of its referent.165 The ‘image born’ inherits as well as expresses the authority, efficacy, and sanctity of its source, much like Anu’s son Nudimmud in the Enuma Elish.166 Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth … Anshar and Kishar were formed, greater than they … Anu was their heir, of his fathers the rival. Anshar made Anu, his offspring, his equal (umaˇssˇilma). Anu begot his likeness Nudimmud (tamˇs¯ılaˇsu ¯ulid dNudimmud), Nudimmud was the dominator of his ancestors; Profound in wisdom, acute of sense, mighty in strength, Mightier by far than his grandfather, Anshar, He has no rival among the gods his brothers. (i –) Curtis, in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature ; and Winter, JRS / (): . See Barbara Nevling Porter, “God’s Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy: Esarhaddon’s Return of Marduk to Babylon,” in Religious Transformations and SocioPolitical Change: Eastern Europe and Latin America (ed. Luther Martin; Religion and Society ; Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, ) . 161 For different possible readings of banû relevant to this context, see CAD B  (N). 162 See Johannes Hehn, “Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’,” in Festschrift Eduard Sachau zum siebzigsten Geburtstage (ed. Gotthold Weil; Berlin: Georg Reimer, ) . See also Lambert, “The Seed of Kingship,” in Le palais et la royauté (Archéologie et Civilisation) (ed. Paul Garelli; CRRAI ; Paris: Paul Geuthner, ) –, in conjunction with Hallo, “The Birth of Kings,” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, ) a, on the Mesopotamian royal epithets ‘the (lasting) seed of kingship’ and ‘the seed of the gods’. 163 For examples, see RA   i  (cited in CAD D a), STT : (cited in CAD K a), and KAH   rev.  (cited in CAD S. a). 164 See, in this context, Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). 165 Winter, JRS / (): . 166 The translation combines those of Benjamin R. Foster (Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature [ vols.; d ed.; Bethesda: CDL, ] .–) and E. A. Speiser (“Akkadian Myths and Epics,” in ANET 3 a). 159

160




 

Like an image himself,167 Nudimmud is the genealogical heir and expression of Anu’s unrivaled prowess; he represents the strength of his divine birth-father.168 .... The representational ‘image’ serves social functions, too. It is not only the vessel that embodies the referent. It embodies the referent in a world populated by human beings. The ‘image’ is a residence for the referent within a community.169 Stated differently, the Mesopotamian ‘image’ exists, resides, and functions in the real world. The divine image is a case in point. It serves an expressive purpose: to communicate divine presence in its real-world setting. The statue represents an active and hospitable divine presence in the community.170 For example, it may symbolize divine protection and guardianship for the community.171 In a ritual context, the statue can express and, to a lesser extent, provide public access to divine power.172 The statue, then, is the vehicle through which a god resides in the community, maintains a presence, receives worship and prayer, and can actively participate in society.173 In other words, the divine image represents a theophany.174 Although the expressive divine ‘image’ can take the form of an object that is manufactured, animated, and ‘born’, it can also take the form of a human being. The human ‘image’ may be a priest (see § ...). 167 Jacobsen claims, in fact, that Nudimmud’s own name signifies ‘image-maker’ (The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion [New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ] ; see also Walker and Dick, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth  n. ). But the reading of  as s. almu is a late phenomenon and, thus, etymologically unlikely. The standard interpretation avoids this problem altogether. For as D. O. Edzard proposes, Nudimmud is composed of three Sumerian elements: nominalizing nu-, dím ‘create’, and mud ‘beget’ (i.e., ‘the one who creates [and] begets’) (“Sumerische Komposita mit dem ‘Nominalpräfix’ nu-,” ZA  []: – ; see also Bottéro, “L’Epopée de la création ou les hauts-faits de Marduk et son sacre,” AEPHE  [–]:  [repr. in Mythes et rites de Babylone (Paris: Honoré Champion, ) ]). Alternatively, Piotr Steinkeller suggests that the name derives from nu ‘man; the one who’, dím ‘make’, and mud ‘blood, tissue’ (i.e., ‘the one who makes blood or tissue’ and who therefore creates life) (p.c.). 168 For an analogous biblical interpretation of Gen :, see Tigay, in Tehillah le-Moshe . 169 Lambert, AfO  (–): a. 170 Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion . 171 For the political symbolism of the ‘image’, see, e.g., Lambert, AfO  (–): b; and Porter, in Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change –. 172 Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ), in conjunction with Porter, in Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change –. 173 Renger, in RLA .b. 174 Jacobsen, in Ancient Israelite Religion –.


  úåîã  íìö



The incantation is the incantation of Marduk; ¯asˇipu s. alam dMarduk the exorcist is the image of Marduk. (B¯ıt M¯esiri ii )175

More often, it is a royal figure. O king of the world, s. alam dMarduk att¯a you are the image of Marduk: when you are angry with your servants, we suffer the anger of the king our lord, but we also experience the mercy of the king. (SAA   rev. – )176 ˇ Who (now) stays in the dark much longer than Samaˇ s, the king of the gods; stays in the dark a whole day and night, and again two days? The ˇ ˇ s sˇ¯u is the very image of Samaˇ s. king, the lord of the world, s. almu sˇa dSamaˇ He (should) keep in the dark for only half a day! (SAA   obv. – rev. )

The interpretation, though, is the same nonetheless. The first text identifies the exorcist’s spell as Marduk’s own. Likewise, the exorcist represents Marduk, “the preeminent exorcist among the gods.”177 The priest is thus the instrument and expression of Marduk and his efficacy. In the second text, the royal addressee is also compared to Marduk and, particularly, to divine anger and mercy.178 Consequently, the writer and those like him are as dependent on the king as they are on a deity.179 The third text reminds the king of his solar status and encourages him to emulate his divine prototype. He “should not remain indoors for days on end, but like the Sun, whose image he is, come out of the dark.”180 In each text, then, the ‘image’ is a human being, of significant status, who acts as the conduit through which the authority and power of a divine patron is realized.181 But in the third text, the ‘image’ also imposes a divine charge. It requires the king to behave in a manner

Cited and adapted from CAD S. b. See also Oppenheim, “Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire,” Centaurus  (): . 177 Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì . See also Hehn, in Festschrift Eduard Sachau –. 178 William L. Moran, apud Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ). 179 See Oppenheim, Centaurus  (): ; and, more positively, Tigay, in ãîìì ãîììå . 180 Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ). 181 See, in this context, F. W. Geers and T. Jacobsen, apud Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press,  [])  n.  (on s. illu ‘shadow’ and muˇssˇulu ‘likeness’ in SAA   rev. –); as well as Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ). 175

176




 

befitting a god. The human ‘image’ expresses as well as abides by its divine referent. The Tukulti-Ninurta epic illustrates yet another dimension of the ‘image’.182 By the fate of Nudimmud,183 his [sc. Tukulti-Ninurta’s] form is that of the gods’ flesh, By fiat of the lord of lands, he was successfully cast from the womb of the gods. sˇ¯uma s. alam dEnlil d¯arû It is he who is the eternal image of Enlil, attentive to the people’s voice, the counsel of the land. Because the lord of lands appointed him to lead the troops, he praised him with his very lips, Enlil raised him like a birth-father, after his firstborn son. (i/A obv. ′– ′)184

In this text, the king has divine attributes: e.g., divine form (l. ′), favor (ll. ′.′), and parents (l. ′).185 His role is god-given (l. ′), yet it is directed at the people (ll. ′–′). He is a leader (l. ′) unrivaled (ll. ′–′), although, like other features, his greatness is not intrinsic but conferred (l. ′). The king also reciprocates the favor by paying allegiance to the one who empowered him to administer his flock (ll. ′–′). Tukulti-Ninurta, then, does not merely embody divine attributes of power, authority, and jurisdiction (the ‘image’).186 By virtue of divine investment, he represents and executes these attributes. He effectively holds a position intermediate between the divine and human spheres. In this position, a king performs two distinct yet interconnected roles. One is related to divinity.187 Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur is king, Silulu is the vice-regent of Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur. (RIMA  . A...:–)

Cf. Angerstorfer, BN  (): –, . For suggested etymologies, see n. . 184 The translation is adapted from Foster, Before the Muses2 .–, in conjunction with Lambert, “Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic,” AfO  (–): ; and Peter Machinist, “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible,” CBQ  (): –. 185 On the latter, genealogical feature, see Angerstorfer, BN  (): ; and §..., above. 186 See Machinist, CBQ  ():  n. . 187 All translations of RIMA texts follow those of the editor. 182

183


  úåîã  íìö



Eriˇsum, vice-regent of Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur, son of Ilu-ˇsumma, vice-regent of dAˇsur Aˇssˇur, built for Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur, his lord, … the temple area of Aˇsˇsur. (RIMA  A...:–); see also ˇ Salim-ahum, vice-regent of Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur, son of Puzur-Aˇsˇsur, vice-regent ki of Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur: dAˇsur Aˇsˇsur requested of him a temple and he built forever a temple … (RIMA  A...:–)

As Old Assyrian inscriptions indicate (ca. – B.C.E.), “Assur alone was ‘king’” (ˇsarru). Whether Aˇssˇur refers to the god (dAˇsur) or the city (Aˇsur ki), “Assur was one divine entity.” And inasmuch as Ashur is king, “a man ruled the city as Assur’s representative or vicar” (iˇssˇakku = ).188 The ruler’s other role is related to his own community. When Nebuchadnezzar, the pious and noble prince, offspring of Babylon, a man belonging to kings,  qardu valiant vicar (and) governor of “Babylon,” the sun god of his land, who makes his people prosper, protects boundaries … sˇar k¯ın¯ati a true king who renders a just verdict, a valiant hero whose strength prepares for warfare. (BBSt  i –)189

As this text states, the Babylonian king can bear two titles. One characterizes him in relation to his city and his gods: affiliative, subsidiary, and dependent. The other characterizes him in relation to his people: supreme, effective, defensive, commanding, and sovereign. As a divine descendant, Nebuchadnezzar is ‘vicar’ or ‘vice-regent’ (); as a deity (l. ) of enormous power, he is ‘king’ (ˇsarru). This double royal office also has a judicial application, as in the case of Hammurabi (ca. – B.C.E.).190 At that time, Anu and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people—me, Hammurabi, the pious prince, who worships the gods— to make justice prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, ˇ to prevent the strong from wronging the weak, to rise like Samaˇ s over humankind, to illuminate the land. (CH i –)

When he is introduced, the king is portrayed as a devout subordinate of the gods: He offers them deference (worship), his title is secondary to 188 Mogens Trolle Larsen, “The City and Its King: On the Old Assyrian Notion of Kingship,” in Le palais et la royauté  (italics original). See also ibid. ; and, in greater detail, idem, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Mesopotamia ; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, ) –. 189 Translation adapted from Foster, Before the Muses2 .. 190 The following translations of the Code of Hammurabi are adapted from those of Theophile J. Meek, “The Code of Hammurapi,” in ANET 3 –; and Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (d ed.; WAW ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) –. The lineation follows Roth.




 

theirs (‘prince’), and they grant him legal jurisdiction over the people. At the same time, he solely exercises this sovereign and protective authority over the people like a god. Like an ‘image’, Hammurabi embodies and enacts divine attributes. I wrote my precious words on my stela and erected it before s. alm¯ıya the statue of me, sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice, … to administer the law of the land, to render verdicts of the land, to provide justice for the wronged. (CH xlvii –) Let any wronged man who has a case come before s. alm¯ıya the statue of me, sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice, let him read my inscribed stela, and let him hear my precious words, and may my stela show him the case. (CH xlviii –); see also ˇ I am Hammurabi, sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice, whom Samaˇ s has granted the truth. (CH xlviii –)

Not only is Hammurabi characterized as ‘the king of justice’,191 his concrete and public display of legal authority is too (s. alm¯ıya sˇar m¯ısˇarim). The person and ‘image’ of Hammurabi are equivalent.192 They each represent justice: Hammurabi proper represents (personifies) divine justice on earth; and his ‘image’ represents (communicates), through the power of words, royal justice in the public domain. The ‘image’ of Hammurabi expresses his god-given authority (to act) as ‘king of justice’. In addition to the judicial arena, the king’s dual role extends to the cult. Eriˇsum, vice-regent of the god Aˇsˇsur, son of Ilu-ˇsumma, vice-regent of Aˇsˇsur, built for Aˇsˇsur, his lord, for his life and the life of his city, the temple (and) all the temple area for Aˇsˇsur. (RIMA  A...:–; see also :–, :–, , etc.)

As this early text shows, the king’s cultic duties are directed at two audiences: the gods and the people. “In accordance with the ideology of the royal inscriptions from all periods it is the ruler who is personally responsible for the building of the temples of the city’s gods, and by doing this properly he ensures the welfare and wellbeing of his city.”193 When the king makes an offering to the gods, the beneficiary includes his people. Roth, Law Collections2  n. . Cf. G. R. Driver and John C. Miles, eds. and trans., The Babylonian Laws ( vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, –) .. 192 See, in this context, Hehn, in Festschrift Eduard Sachau –. 193 Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies . 191


  úåîã  íìö



ˇ To Nergal, his lord, Salmaneser, appointee of Enlil, vice-regent of Aˇsˇsur, … has dedicated (this mace head) for his life, the well-being of his seed, (and) the well-being of his land. (RIMA  A...:–); see also ˇ si-Adad, Adad-narari, appointee of Enlil, vice-regent of Aˇsˇsur, son of Samˇ … (re-) built from top to bottom the temple of Nabu, his lord, which is within Nineveh, for his life (and) the well-being of his seed and his land. (RIMA  A...:–)

The king represents and negotiates for his own interests as well as those of ‘his land’. As human king and divine stepchild, he can interact with, and mediate, the two worlds he straddles. The king’s dual role in the Mesopotamian cult, and society generally, has left its mark on iconography.194 Each has its own representation. One is iconographically subservient. The king is portrayed standing (izuzzu) or, in like fashion, his royal statue is installed upright (ˇsuzuzzu ˇ 195 As a pious scion of the gods (‘vicar, vice-regent’), the king dis[S]). plays respect. The icon may serve a performative role and represent the supplicant in search of divine favor, or it may function as a votive donation to a god. In either case, the statue’s deferential pose indicates the king’s religious devotion.196 The other royal pose is lordly and sovereign (‘king’). The king sits (enthroned) (aˇs¯abu). The king (’s statue) commands respect as a manifestation of divinity and as a holy entity.197 To the extent that the king participates in divine status, the seated royal figure functions as an object of religious devotion. The two iconographic positions of the royal statue, then, again reflect its dual cultic role. It is both votive and commemorative. It gives as well as receives tribute and worship.198 Stated differently, the king (’s image) represents stewardship: a ruler of the people who represents them to the gods, and a deputy of the gods who represents them to their people. ... In addition to a Mesopotamian reflex, the ‘image’ is attested in early Aramaic-speaking communities. It is mentioned in the Nerab inscriptions of the early seventh century, and it appears in the older, ninth-century bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh.199 It is therefore attested in Syria-Palestine, during the biblical period, in extra-biblical sources. For the following, see Winter, JRS / (): –. For Akkadian examples of ‘standing before (a god)’, see AHw a (ad I..a). 196 See, in this context, Koehler, Old Testament Theology . 197 See Hallo, in Congress Volume: Jerusalem,  . 198 Winter, JRS / (): –. 199 For another attestation in a broken, eighth-century text, see Javier Teixidor, “Un object à légende araméenne provenant de Meskéné-Emar,” RA  ():  (= Joseph 194

195




 

.... àîìö appears in both funerary inscriptions discovered at Nerab in northern Syria.200 äîìö äðæ

This is his image. (KAI :)

äúöøàå äîìö äðæå

see also ll. –)

This is his image and his sarcophagus.201 (KAI :–;

The inscriptions and their stelae commemorate a deceased priest (øîë). One text establishes the decedent’s piety (KAI :) and the benefits he reaped (ll. .). Its accompanying relief accords with the text. It depicts the “priest … sitting, in the act of offering a libation before an altar” while “[f]acing him from behind the altar stands an attendant, holding a fan.”202 The other text differentiates between the decedent’s bas-relief ‘image’ and his burial place. But like the companion Nerab inscription, this text is contextualized by a relief which “represents the priest … with hands raised and joined in prayer.”203 The two monuments, then, suggest a single interpretation of àîìö. At Nerab at least, the ‘image’ is a pictorial representation of a ranking priest ministering to his deity.204 It commemorates, in bas-relief form, the piety as well as status of a priest. .... àîìö refers to a similar sculpted object from Tell Fakhariyeh (see §..). éòñéãä íìö The image of Had-yit‘i, king of Guzana and of Sikanu and of Azaranu. (ll. –)

Before Hadad, resident of Sikanu, lord of the Habur, íù äîìö he placed his image. (ll. –) A. Fitzmyer and Stephen A. Kaufman, An Aramaic Bibliography [Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, – ] . [B..]). 200 For bibliography, see Fitzmyer and Kaufman, An Aramaic Bibliography . (B..). 201 For a discussion of the latter term, see DNWSI . (s.v. ’rsh) and the references . therein (esp. Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic [AS ; Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, ] – with n. ). 202 G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) , followed almost verbatim by John C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions ( vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, –) .–. 203 Cooke, A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions , followed by Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions .. 204 See Franz Rosenthal, “Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions,” in ANET 3 b. Cf. àáöð ‘stela’, which refers to the object itself. Nonetheless, àáöð and àîìö may be governed by the same transitive verb in Old Aramaic (see Bukan  as compared with KAI :) (Michael Sokoloff, “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Buk¯an: A Revised Interpretation,” IEJ  []: ).


  úåîã  íìö



It is a representational term that, like its complement àúåîã ‘likeness’, signifies the portrait-like statue bearing the ruler’s inscription. As the inscription itself indicates, ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ are nevertheless distinct. ïæøà éæå ïëñ éæå ïæåâ êìî éòñéãä íìö éòñéãä éæ àúåîã

(ll. –) (l. )

The two representational nouns each introduce a different section of the text. The first section, the Weihinschrift (ll. –), is headed by ‘likeness’. Since the section functions as a ‘prayer’ (l. ), this representational noun is an appropriate choice; ‘likeness’ describes the statue as a votive offering to Hadad. Also appropriate to the supplicative purpose is the simple, unassuming manner by which the petitioner is identified; he has a name like anyone else. The second section, the Kommemorativinschrift (ll. –), begins differently. Headed by ‘image’, it continues with an elaborate characterization of the dedicant: first, his name; then, his executive title; and third, the several separate districts over which he alone rules. Had-yit‘i is a ‘king’ seated on a throne (see l. ; see also l. ), and his ‘image’ is explicitly royal and sovereign. Another attribute is repeatedly ascribed to the king in the Kommemorativinschrift. In a word, it is power. Had-yit‘i claims sufficient power to control the food supply (ll. .). He commands the power to arrest the life cycle (ll. –) and facilitate an epidemic (l. ). He can even direct the gods to enact his will (ll. –; see also ll.  and ). According to his inscription, ‘king’ Had-yit‘i has authority and power tantamount to a god’s. The representational term ‘image’ suits its context. It is an artistic representation of the dedicant, dressed in traditional garb, and placed in a temple.205 It defines the dedicant as a royal figure, and it describes the awesome ways that he can use his terrific power. Thus the ‘image’ of Had-Yit‘i, with its trappings of sovereignty, power, and preeminent status, fulfills its self-promoting goal. It depicts the ruler in a cultic setting in godlike terms, commemorating his capacity to exercise virtual omnipotence.

205 See Gruber, “‘In the Image of God’—What is It?” in Hommage to Shmuel. Studies in the World of the Bible (ed. Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan; Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Bialik Institute, )  (in Hebrew).




 

... There are two features that immediately distinguish the ‘image’ of P(T) from its congeners in biblical and nonbiblical traditions. One is historical. Then God said, åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image. …” So God created humankind åîìöá in his image, íéäìà íìöá in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them. (Gen :– [P]) Whoever sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall his blood be shed; for íéäìà íìöá in the image of God did he make humankind. (Gen : [P]); see also When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he fathered (a son) in his likeness, åîìöë according to his image, and he named him Seth. (Gen : [PT])

In the early Priestly tradition, the ‘image’ is restricted to the earliest period of human history. It crops up in the first generation of human beings (:–), recurs in the second (:), and surfaces one last time in the tenth generation (:). Its third attestation, though, is not altogether new; it cross-references Gen : and, at the same time, brings that earlier event to bear upon the current situation. The first, historical feature that distinguishes the early Priestly ‘image’, then, is its primaeval setting or, specifically, its roots in the first two generations of humankind. The second is its referential scope. The idea of presenting a human person as the image of God is not unique to the Bible. … The statement that every human person is created in the image of God … remains therefore a real exception.206 206 Vogels, ScEs  ():  (italics added). See also, inter alios, Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “Man as Image and Son of God,” Tarb  ():  (in Hebrew) (repr. as “Beloved is Man in that He Was Created in the Image,” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Literatures [AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/ Neukirchener Verlag, ] ); Bernhard W. Anderson, “Human Dominion over Nature,” in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought (ed. Miriam Ward; Somerville, Mass.: Greeno, Hadden, ) – (repr. in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT: Minneapolis: Fortress, ] –); Stamm, “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament,” in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg (ed. Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger; Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt, ) ; Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []) –; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) ; John van Seters, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King,” ZAW  (): ; Bird, in Image of God and Gender Models  n. ; Preuss, Old Testament Theology (trans. Leo G. Perdue;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, – [–]) .; Angerstorfer, BN  (): ; and Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Human Person


  úåîã  íìö



Every person descended from Seth (:) is created in the image of God (see §..). Inherent in the human race from its very inception, the early history of the ‘image’ demonstrates that it is perdurable as well. In fact, the very sequence of Gen :–, :, and : suggests that the character of the divine image in man holds equally in all generations; even after the Fall and the Flood it continues to endure. In spite of all that may be said concerning the “sin” … of man, … it nevertheless by no means infringes directly upon the divine image which is in him.207

The ‘image of God’ is primordial, innate, as well as an inalienable legacy. .... Alongside its distinctive features, the Priestly ‘image’ shares features with its extra-biblical cognates. For example, it is associated with verbs of creation, procreation, or production. In the early Priestly tradition, the ‘image’ is an oblique dependent of ‘create’ (Gen :a), ‘father’ (:aβ), and ‘make’ (:a, :b) (see §). In Mesopotamian texts, s. almu can express a highly affected patient of banû ‘make, manufacture’, ep¯esˇu ‘make’, and especially al¯adu ‘be born’ (N) (§...). In each textual group, then, ‘image’ is (compatible with) a product of creation, generation, or progeneration. It is (compatible with) an inert creation or human creature. The ‘image’ of the early Priestly tradition shares other formal traits with its ancient Near Eastern cognates. Like the s. almu and àîìö, the biblical ‘image’ is, intuitively at least, a “representation … in the round” (§...; see also §...). Inasmuch as it qualifies human creation, it qualifies an entity that exists in the world; it is corporeal, free-standing, visible, and similative (§..). To this extent, the ‘image’ resembles the statuesque, having sculptural as well as representational properties (see also §...).208 It has other identifying characteristics, in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights,” LouvSt  (): . Cf. Weinfeld, Tarb  (): –; and, on the Mesopotamian model, Hallo, in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East . 207 Friedrich Horst, “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God,” Int  (): . See also, inter alios, Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt .; Wallace, in Studies in the Pentateuch ; Sawyer, in A Walk in the Garden ; and Harland, The Value of Human Life , –. 208 For different yet referentially compatible interpretations of this ‘image’, see Stamm, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen –; Manfred Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Zum sog. dominium terrae in Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,




 

too. This ‘image’ is anthropomorphic, both as a species (e.g., Gen :b) and as individuals (:). It has sexuality, encoded as male and female (:b, :a).209 It is born, viable, vital, and living (e.g., :).210 It is also quintessentially identifiable by its generic designation (e.g., :a) or proper name (e.g., :b). In the early Priestly tradition, then, the ‘image’ accords with a formal entity that has a cluster of identifying signature elements. The referents and representatives of the ‘image’ recall ancient Near Eastern precedents. The grammatical possessor of the ‘image’ in P(T) varies among three parties: the gods, as registered in plural suffix of ‘our image’ (Gen :a); God, as in ‘his image’ (v. aα; see also íéäìà in v. aβ and :b); and Adam (:a). As elsewhere in the ancient Near East, then, the referential source of the ‘image’ is divine or human (see §...). The representation itself, however, is always the same. In most texts, it is humanity (:–, :b). In one, it is Adam’s son Seth (:). Therefore, the ‘image’ of P(T) is represented consistently and only in human form (see §...). Unlike the comparative evidence, though, the semantic relationship between referent and representation is also consistent in the early Priestly tradition. The gods will make the human race (Gen :a); God creates the human race (:, :); and Adam fathers Seth (:). Whenever ‘image’ is mentioned in P(T), its referent is the originator of the human representation. Each time, the referent is the (pro-) creative agent, and the representation—the ‘image’ of the referent—is the created, human creature.211 In effect, then, the referent of P(T)’s ‘image’ is a parent of the child (see §..).212 .... In the ancient Near East, however, the ‘image’ not only has a formal referential interpretation. It can also have one or more nonformal interpretations. Formal similitude aside, the ‘image’ can imitate, embody, and symbolize its referent. The ‘image’ can have a

) ; and Gruber, in Hommage to Shmuel . 209 See Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. Margaret Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress,  []) ; and Angerstorfer, BN  (): . 210 See Smith, ZAW  (): . 211 See Hehn, in Festschrift Eduard Sachau . 212 See Oswald Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik; Munich: Kösel, ) ; and, indirectly, Anderson, in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought  (= From Creation to New Creation –). See also Stamm, in Antwort. Karl Barth …   (= idem, in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ).


  úåîã  íìö



functional component, serving to express its divine or human referent in its particular setting.213 A nonformal interpretation of the ‘image’ is suggested, at least in part, by the context of its first attestation. Then God said, “Let us make humankind åðîìöá in our image …; åãøéå and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the beasts, and over the whole earth, and over everything that moves on the earth.” (Gen :)

Absent the genealogical and (pro-) creative ‘likeness’, the verse speaks of a particular role that the human race will play.214 God envisions and/or intends that humankind exercise mighty control over the earth and the many creatures that inhabit it.215 In the idiom of v. b (-á äãø), humankind will both rule and dominate with an enormous power.216 God therefore characterizes the ‘image’ in terms which are harmonic

See Harland, The Value of Human Life . See Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) –; Bordreuil, RHPR  (): ; and Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). Cf. Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .); and Vogels, ScEs  (): . 215 Driver, Genesis12 ; H.-J. Zobell, “ä@T r¯ad¯ah, ä@T II r¯ad¯ah II, ãAT r¯adad,” in TWAT .; and Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . See also Harland, The Value of Human Life –. Cf. the grammatical objections of Takamitsu Muraoka, “The Alleged Final Function of the Biblical Hebrew Syntagm <waw + a Volitive Verb Form>,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference  (ed. Ellen van Wolde; BIS ; Leiden: Brill, ) –; the exegetical objections of Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis , ; and Barr, “Man and Nature—The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament,” BJRL  (): ; or, combining the two, perhaps Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis ,–,a (d ed.; FRLANT ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, )  n. . 216 Bird, HTR  ():  with n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  with n. ); Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht 2  n. ; and Groß, JBTh  (): . See also Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt –. Cf. Barr, BJRL  (): – ; Manfred Görg, “Alles hast Du gelegt unter seine Füße. Beobachtungen zu Ps ,b im Vergleich mit Gen ,,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum . Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld; SBB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, )  (repr. in Studien zur biblisch-ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] ); or, in the extreme, Ian Hart, “Genesis :–: as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis,” TynB  (): . For the reading of the prepositional complement, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) §.. (iii). 213

214




 

with its non-biblical correlates; as ‘image’, the human race will embody and assert the power of its referent over the natural world.217 äãø itself is an evocative verb.218 One nuance bears upon mastery, especially as an expression of victory or punishment. But if you do not listen to (and obey) me and not perform all these commandments, … I will set my face against you: you will be struck down before your enemies, åãøå your foes will have dominion over you, and you will flee though no one pursues you. (Lev :. [H]) Oracle of the Lord to my lord, “Sit at my right hand while I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord sends your mighty scepter from Zion; äãø have dominion over your enemies! (Ps :–)

implies a relationship between victor and vanquished.219 Another nuance bears upon the identity of the victorious party. äãø

For he [sc. Solomon] äãø held dominion over the whole region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza—over all the kings of the region west of the Euphrates. He had peace around all his borders. ( Kgs :) O God, give the king your judgements, the king’s son your righteousness. … ãøéå May he have dominion from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the earth. May the desert-dwellers kneel before him, and his enemies lick the dust. (Ps :.–)

That party is often royal;220 äãø can express the power that a king wields over his subjects (see also Is :).221 In this sense, it is a royal prerogative (see also  Kgs :, :;  Chr :). For the reading of 217 Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebraïschen Bibel ( vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, –) .; Cazelles, in La vie de la Parole ; Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 – ; and Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht 2 –. 218 For recent discussions, see Udo Rüterswörden, Dominium terrae. Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung (BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) –; and Heike Baranzke and Hedwig Lamberty-Zielinski, “Lynn White und das dominium terrae (Gen ,b). Ein Beitrag zu einer doppelten Wirkungsgeschichte,” BN  (): –. 219 See David T. Williams, “‘Fill the Earth and Subdue It’ (Gn :): Dominion to Exploit and Pollute?” Scriptura  (): . 220 E.g., Wildberger, TZ  ():  (= Jahwe und sein Volk ); Janowski, “Herrschaft über die Tiere. Gen ,– und die Semantik von äãø,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ (ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEvenue; Freiburg: Herder, )  (repr. in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments  [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ] ); and Rüterswörden, Dominium terrae . 221 Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) –. Cf. Janowski, in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel  n.  (= Die rettende Gerechtigkeit  n. ); and, differently, James Limburg, “Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment,” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy


  úåîã  íìö



in Gen :, then, these two nuances suggest that humankind is empowered to hold dominion over the world and rule its inhabitants as a king.222 Through its ‘image’, the human race will master the world as a majestic, executive, and triumphant power.223 These passages suggest yet another nuance of ‘dominate’ and, by implication, the ‘image’. In Ps , for instance, äãø

[t]he psalmist asks from God a world-wide kingdom for the Davidic king … [and] links the rule of the earthly King with the universal rule of God. It is only as Yahweh’s representative that the King has a claim to dominion over the world.224

Likewise in Ps , God calls upon the king to occupy the place of honour at his right hand. By this his kingship is authorized by God; the earthly ruler is shown to be the viceregent of God, and his office is proved to function in virtue of the divine will. … The king is therefore backed up by the effective power of God.225

The same is true of Solomon as well (see  Kgs :–). The source, authority, and legitimation of a king’s rule lie with God.226 Conversely, failure to obey Yahweh may turn rulership over to one’s enemies (Lev :). Regardless, ‘dominion’ is an expression of God (see also :– [H] and Ez :). In Gen , it is too. God expressly gives dominion to the human race (Gen :b). Through its ‘image’, the human race will A. Harrisville (ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury; Word & World Supplement Series ; St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, )  with n. ; or Terence E. Fretheim, The Pentateuch (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, ) . 222 Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament ; Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); Sarna, Genesis ; and, esp., Groß, JBTh  (): . Cf. Zobell, in TWAT .–. 223 E.g., von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker;  vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row, – [–]) .; Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .–); and Wildberger, in TLOT .. See also Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken2  n. . 224 A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms ( vols.; NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) .. 225 Artur Weiser, The Psalms (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  []) . 226 See, in this context, J. J. M. Roberts, “The Divine King and the Human Community in Isaiah’s Vision of the Future,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (ed. H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, )  (repr. in The Bible and the Ancient Near East [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ] ).




 

ultimately represent divine rule.227 The human race will be the vessel, or personification, of divine lordship on earth.228 For P, “[e]ach human person is, as it were, a king or a queen.”229 Dominating rulership also has its attendant duties, as Ps  illustrates. O God, give the king your judgements, the king’s son your righteousness. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your lowly with justice. … For he saves the needy who cry out, and the lowly who have no helper. He takes pity on the weak and the needy, and he saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence, he redeems them; their life (lit., blood) is precious to him. (Ps :–.–)

On the one hand, ‘dominion’ by the king entitles him to receive obedience and tribute (vv. –). On the other, the king is clearly responsible for upholding justice. “It was his commission to judge the people in righteousness. … As the one who defended the divine will for justice against men of violence, the king was to carry out the office of judge.”230 And as such, the Israelite king is not unlike his Mesopotamian counterpart (§...);231 they each (should) represent divine justice on earth (see §..).232 .... The royal duty to champion divine justice, as it applies to the ‘image’, is clearest in Gen . There, in the description of the “new world-order,”233 the Priestly writer elaborates on the topic of human power (vv. –). Its first section discusses “[m]an’s power over the 227 Zimmerli, .Mose3 .–; and Kaiser, NZST  ():  (= Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit ). 228 Hinschberger, RScR  (): ; Levenson, Creation and … Evil ; and, by implication, Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). In this context, see also Hallo, in Congress Volume: Jerusalem,   with n. . 229 Vogels, ScEs  (): . See also Klein, “The Message of P,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum . Geburtstag (ed. Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) ; and Thomas Podella, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs. Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) – , followed by Janowski, Stellvertretung  n. . Cf. Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ), repeated in eadem, in Image of God and Gender Models ; or, differently, Barr, “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt  (moderating Boehmer, ZAW  []: ). 230 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. Keith Crim; Minneapolis: Augsburg,  []) . 231 See Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem/ Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress, ) . 232 Levenson, Sinai and Zion –. 233 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) .


  úåîã  íìö



animal kingdom” (vv. –).234 The second includes a statement about “the brotherly relation existing between all men,”235 with considerable attention to the breach of that relation through the use of deadly power (vv. –). The Priestly writer therefore addresses two issues of human mastery (‘image’). In comparison with Gen , P’s God expands and restricts the power that humankind can exercise in the world. All animal life will fall under human control (Gen :a; cf. :) (see §.),236 and all green plant life will too (:b; cf. :).237 But this increased power is also tempered.238 Every creeping thing that lives shall be yours for food. … But you must not eat flesh with its own blood in it. (:a.)

God asserts that animals cannot be eaten alive, nor can their blood be consumed.239 All the more,240 human bloodshed is prohibited. But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood. From every animal I shall require a reckoning for it; and from a human being, from each one’s fellow (human being), I shall require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall his blood be shed; for íéäìà íìöá in the image of God did he make humankind. (Gen :–)

Whensoever an act of bloodshed is committed against a human being, the perpetrator is to be punished in kind.241 The expanded power of human beings to take life is now checked; God legislates a death Sarna, Genesis . Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis (trans. Sophia Taylor;  vols.; ; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, ) .–. 236 Wenham, Genesis .; and, in greater detail, Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt .. 237 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press,  []) . 238 In addition to the references in ch.  n. , see Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, )  (= ET .); Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; and Horst Seebass, Genesis ( vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, – ) .. See also Janowski, in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel  (= Die rettende Gerechtigkeit ). 239 E.g., Skinner, Genesis2 ; and Sarna, Genesis –. For discussion, see Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .–); and Westermann, Genesis .–. 240 For the connection, see Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì  n. ; and, differently, M. Vervenne, “‘The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Blood’: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death in Biblical Tradition (Gen. ,),” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference …  (ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA ; Louvain: Peeters, ) . In this context, see also B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “íc d¯am,” in TDOT .–. 241 See Harland, The Value of Human Life . 234

235




 

penalty for homicide.242 At this point in time, then, God permits humanity to rule over nature but within legal limits;243 humanity can not violate blood laws or, especially, take human life.244 As all commentators agree, the talionic punishment of human bloodshed (Gen :a) is motivated, justified, legitimated, and/or explained in the subordinate éë clause (v. b).245 The specific interpretation of that clause, however, is disputed. For some, v. b empowers and authorizes a human agent of punishment (íãà-á [v. aβ]) who will share punitive responsibility with God himself (‘I’ [v.  (ter)]). The additional phrase “by man,” appearing in the emphatic position at the beginning of the second clause, stresses that the punishment is to be executed by man.246 … Because man is made in the divine image, he is to punish murder. In other words, the divine image implies a functional similarity of man to God as governor and executor of justice in the world.247

This shared role would also be appropriate to the crime; “the idea that humans are created in the image of God … confers supreme value on human life and makes taking it an offense not only against the victim and his family, but also against God Himself.”248 Others opt for a different interpretation, focusing on the punishment rather than its executor. In this latter case, v. b explains the death penalty itself.249 Murder is the supreme and capital crime because the dignity, sanctity, and inviolability of human life all derive from the fact that every human being bears the stamp of the divine Maker. The murderer may be put 242 Bordreuil, RHPR  (): , in conjunction with Harland, The Value of Human Life –. 243 See Jenni, “Philologische und linguistische Probleme bei den hebräischen Präpositionen,” in idem, Studien … Alten Testaments , in conjunction with Harland, The Value of Human Life –. 244 Humbert, in Interpretationes … Mowinckel – (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ). 245 Cf. Ulrich Wöller, “Zur Übersetzung von kî in Gen   and  ,” ZAW  (): –. 246 See also Sarna, Genesis ; Harland, The Value of Human Life ; and, esp., Steck, in Veritas Hebraica –. 247 Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì  (italics original). See also von Rad, Genesis ; Miles, God: A Biography ; and, in nuce, Edwin Firmage, “Genesis  and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT  (): . Cf. Westermann, Genesis .. 248 Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ) –. See also Clines, TynB  ():  n.  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . n. ), following Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; and, by inference, Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –,” BA  (): b. 249 Driver, Genesis12 ; and Cassuto, Genesis ..


  úåîã  íìö



to death because his unspeakable act effaces the divine image in his victim and within himself as well, so that his own life forfeits its claim to inviolability.250

Either way,251 any attempt to obliterate humanity constitutes, for P, an attempt to obliterate God.252 Whereas these interpretations emphasize the punitive aspect of Gen :, there is a restorative and regulatory aspect as well which, Gunkel argues, develops organically from earlier episodes in P’s story of human history.253 The first episode occurs in Gen : God creates the human race in his own image (v. ), and he blesses it with the ability to multiply and control the natural world (vv. –). At that time, everything was ‘very good’ (v. a) (cf. §...). The second episode veritably repeals the first.254 The earth became corrupt (úçù) before God, and the earth was filled with violence (ñîç). God saw how very corrupt (úçù) the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted (úçù) its255 way on earth. God said to Noah, “I have resolved to end all flesh, because the earth is filled with violence (ñîç) because of them. I (will) hereby destroy (úçù) them with the earth.” (Gen :– [P])

As the Priestly writer describes it, the prediluvian world is antithetical to that of Gen :256 instead of being filled with a bountiful population (:a), it is filled with violence (:b.aβ); and instead of judging it ‘very good’ (:a), God judges it (self-)257 destructive.258 God’s destruc250 Sarna, Genesis . See also Milgrom, Leviticus .; or Jenni, in Studien … Alten Testaments , for similar exegetical reasoning. 251 See Steck, in Veritas Hebraica –. 252 Westermann, Genesis .. 253 Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ). 254 For the pivotal nature of Gen : in this respect, see, Cassuto, Genesis .–; Sarna, Genesis ; and Carr, “ΒÝβλο̋ γενÛσεω̋ Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah,” ZAW  ():  n. . 255 For this interpretation of the suffix, see Donald B. Sharp, “A Biblical Foundation for an Environmental Theology: A New Perspective on Genesis :– and :–,” ScEs  (): ; and Seebass, Genesis .–. 256 Harland, The Value of Human Life . See also Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) –. 257 For this reading of the verb, see GKB  §d; and Mayer Lambert, Traité de grammaire hébraïque (; repr., Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, ) §, illustrated by Gen :– [J]. 258 See Martin A. Klopfenstein, “‘Und siehe, es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis ,). Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt , in conjunction with Westermann, Genesis .–.




 

tive response, then, is appropriately talionic (:b).259 Yet in the third and final episode of Gen , divine retaliation is rejected and is replaced with regenerative promise. P’s God repeats his original blessing (:a) of multiplicity and global expanse (:b); later, he even augments it (v. ). So too, human control over the natural world is reestablished, broadened, and, coincidentally, tempered (vv. –.). There are several reasons to restrain human dominion. Each draws an analogy between divine and human behavior. One draws on the correlation between vv. b and , where God and humankind are to execute their own punishments for the crime of homicide; though the responsibility for countering violence is shared, it is nevertheless commensurate to the agent. Another reason lies in the new restrictions placed on the execution of lethal power, human (vv. .) as well as divine (v. ); God promises not to exterminate sentient life and destroy the world, and humans are likewise forbidden from taking another’s life or, in the case of animals, extending slaughter beyond the need for food. A third reason for restraining the human exercise of power lies in P’s restorative vision of the world. In it, P’s God restores and reinvigorates the world, renewing his old blessing of infinite and boundless fertility (Gen :. < :a).260 He collaterally rescinds his earlier promise of destruction (:b) by offering a covenant and promise not to destroy the world again. I hereby establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you. … I shall maintain my covenant with you. Never again shall all flesh be cut off by flood waters; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth. (Gen :. [P])

Accordingly, God offers Noah and his descendants a much-expanded version of the preservative, life-ensuring measure that he offered before the flood (:a [P]). And herein lies the third reason for God’s postdiluvian restraint of human power: just as that antediluvian offer required Noah’s collaboration (: [P]; see also : [J]), so does its postdiluvian counterpart. From this perspective, Gen :b implies that because (éë) Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) –; and, differently, Zimmerli, .Mose3 .–. 260 Cf. the text-critical remarks of Halpern, “What They Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them: Genesis –,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids/ Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, )  with n. ; and Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) , on which cf. Vervenne, in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East . 259


  úåîã  íìö



God made the human race in the ‘image of God’, humanity shares in God’s own authority to punish lawlessness and, thus, curb and counteract violence.261 From this perspective, the divine image is the vehicle through which humanity is legally empowered to police itself.262 But the postdiluvian context also demonstrates that, absent protective safeguards, power simply destroys.263 Therefore Gen :b also implies that, because (éë) God made the human race in his image, the human community shares God’s own sovereign responsibility not to extinguish the very vehicle that expresses his presence on earth.264 The ‘image’, then, includes the divine authority to punish, correct, and protect the self and community alike.265 Because God made it in his image, the human race is a sovereign power, legal guardian, and executor of justice. .... These interpretations of the biblical ‘image (of God)’ are compatible with its parallels elsewhere in the ancient Near East. “The realistic, concrete meaning which first offers itself in our biblical expression … certainly is not to be denied.”266 To a limited degree (§..), the anthropomorphic human race shares in the anthropomorphism of God and the gods (cf. §...).267 In addition,268 the human race intimately represents performative aspects of God and the gods in the world: viz., divine power, dominion, and justice. The human race, then, is comparable to a statue which a “king puts … in a conquered land to signify his real, though not his physical, presence there.”269 For in the Bible, “the image of God reflected in human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statues of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present.”270 Like a statue, the

See Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì –. E.g., Hinschberger, RScR  (): ; and Sarna, Genesis  (on v. aβb). 263 Frymer-Kensky, BA  (): –. 264 Von Rad, Genesis , in conjunction with Harland, The Value of Human Life . 265 See Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis . 266 Horst, Int  (): . 267 See de Moor, in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel ; and, less robustly, Dohmen, LebZeug  (): –. 268 See Anderson, in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought – (= From Creation to New Creation –). 269 Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). See also Cazelles, in La vie de la Parole . Cf. Sawyer, “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi,” JTS  (): . 270 Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interp; Atlanta: John Knox, ) . For the classical formulation of this analogy, see von Rad, Genesis , based upon idem, “Vom Menschenbild des Alten Testaments,” in idem et al., Der alte und der neue Mensch. Aufsätze 261

262




 

human race—i.e., the Sethite lineage of the human race—symbolizes and represents an active, palpable divine presence on earth.271 It represents a theophany (see §, intro.). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the ‘image (of God)’ is either cultic or idolatrous in nature (cf. §.).272 It is not included among the many terms that express an unqualified and prohibited icon.273 äðåîú­ìëå ìñô êì­äùòú àì You shall not make yourself an idol or any form that is in heaven above, or on earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. (Ex :–a; see also Dt :–a and, with expansions, :–a); see also åîé÷ú­àì äáöîå ìñôå íìéìà íëì åùòú­àì You shall not make yourselves nongods or erect yourselves idols or stelae … to bow down upon. (Lev :a [H])

Do not turn to íëì åùòú àì äëñî éäìàå yourselves molten gods. (Lev :a [H])

íéìéìàä

nongods or make

Neither the second commandment nor Priestly texts specifically label ‘image’ taboo (see also Lev : [H]).274 In fact, when imagery is condemned in a Priestly text, the judgement is contingent on something else. In Num : (H) and Ez :, for example, the ‘image’ is explicitly classified as forbidden paraphernalia: íúëñî éîìö­ìë ‘all their molten images’ and íäéöå÷ù íúáòåú éîìöå ‘their abominable images, their despicable things’, respectively.275 Idolatry is not an intrinsic feature of the ‘image’. Just as the ‘image (of God)’ is not forbidden per se,276 it does not violate the stipulations of the second commandment. “The central issue” zur theologischen Anthropologie (BEvTh ; Munich: Evangelischer Verlag Albert Lempp, ) , which, in turn, is traceable to Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .. 271 Sarna, Genesis . See also Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). 272 See Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder . 273 Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt .. For a list of terms, see Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, ) –; or, in brief, Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land . 274 Schmidt, ZAW  ():  n. ; Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt . n. ; and Dohmen, LebZeug  (): . 275 See Dohmen, “äëq  î  mass¯ekâ,” in TDOT .; and Harland, The Value of Human Life . 276 Anders Hultgård, “Man as Symbol of God,” in Religious Symbols and Their Functions Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Religious Symbols and Their Functions …  (ed. Haralds Biezais; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, ) .


  úåîã  íìö



of this commandment “is the nature of legitimate worship.”277 It bars gestural deference (äåçúùä) as well as performative submission (ãáò) to a divine facsimile.278 It clearly bars the idolatrous behavior described in Dan , and it condemns the description in Ez :. The commandment also precludes Israelites from manufacturing (äùò) an item that provokes such behavior. But the commandment does not apply to Gen :–, :, or :. P(T) mentions no obeisance or veneration to be offered to this ‘image’. Nor is the issue of manufacturing an ‘image’ relevant to P(T): this ‘image’ per se is not manmade. Rather, (a member of) the Sethite human race is created with an attribute that intimately participates in divinity yet only approximates that of one’s own father (see §..). Thus, the second commandment is inapplicable to the ‘image (of God)’. The ‘image’ of P(T) is neither an object of worship nor a potential replacement of God.279 .. úåîã and íìö Among the many interpretations ascribed to ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ in the early Priestly tradition, several can be dismissed offhand. For instance, it is hardly true that “[t]he two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately,” as Sarna claims (§.). It is incorrect to conclude that “[t]hey do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one”: in Gen :, neither does “the second member of the word-pair … seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it” (ibid.); nor does that second member (‘likeness’) mitigate, weaken, attenuate, or limit the force of the first (‘image’).280 It is certainly erroneous to assert that

Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . Tigay, Deuteronomy ; and, in related manner, Greenberg, in The Ten Commandments – (= Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought –). 279 Brian B. Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. Diana Vikander Edelman; Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []) . See also Preuss, Old Testament Theology .; Kutsko, in SBL  Seminar Papers .; and, from different perspectives, Barr, BJRL  (): ; and Brueggemann, “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel,” HBT  ():  (repr. in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text [ed. Patrick D. Miller; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] ). Cf. Wallace, in Studies in the Pentateuch –. 280 Beuken, LouvSt  (): ; and, differently, I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 277

278




 

either term “by itself … lacks specific content.”281 Finally, it is mistaken to agree with Westermann who “recognizes the essentially synonymous meaning of the two phrases” in Gen :.282 As the preceding analyses argue, the two terms are different. In combination or separately, each nominal phrase expresses and implies a very different characterization of the human race. ... ‘Likeness’ and ‘image’, however, do share a basic semantic content and imply a basic comparison between humanity and divinity. They are both similative nouns; they both express multiple degrees of referential similitude, including the physical. In the early Priestly tradition, both nouns never appear as grammatically independent entities; rather, they are uniformly possessed, in canonical and historical order, by gods (Gen :), God (:, :; see also :), and a human being (:). Both nouns are dependent in another way, too. To the degree that these nouns exist in the world of P(T), they are always embodied in human form. From this perspective, humanity ultimately represents and/or resembles divinity. Inasmuch as ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ entail physicality in context, they also register a generic morphological similarity between humanity and divinity (§§ .., ...). P and PT imply that humankind is theomorphic.283 ... The relationship between humanity and divinity is mediated by the prepositions governing the two similative nouns. In one respect, the relationship is stable whenever ‘likeness’ and/or ‘image’ are involved. Each time, the owner of ‘likeness’ and/or ‘image’ is said to be capable of producing human fruit (see §§.., ...). In Gen :a, the gods (‘our image, our likeness’) are invited to make human beings; in :, God (e.g., ‘his image’) creates humanity (see also :b and :); and similarly in : (‘his likeness’, ‘his image), Adam sires Seth. Each ) . Cf., inter alios, Julian Morgenstern, “The Sources of the Creation Story— Genesis :–:,” AJSL  (): ; Heinrich Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,” in Lex Tua Veritas. Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. idem and Franz Mußner; Trier: Paulinus, ) ; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament,” ErJ  ():  (repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ); and Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. 281 Cf. Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ), on ‘image’. Likewise eadem, ThTo  (): ; and in Image of God and Gender Models . 282 Cf. eadem, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ); and in Image of God and Gender Models  n. . 283 See von Rad, Old Testament Theology .; Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline ; and Groß, JBTh  (): –.


  úåîã  íìö



time, the grammatical possessor is the agent that brings a human patient into existence. In another respect, though, the relationship between humanity and divinity clearly varies in these texts. As the relational preposition that governs ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ changes from passage to passage, the grammatical variation suggests, if not expresses, a variable relationship between these two parties (see § ). .... One relationship—the one characterized by ‘likeness’—is initially governed by ë. åðúåîã-ë åúà äùò íéäìà úåîã-á … åúåîã-á

… íãà íãà

äùòð íéäìà àøá ãìåéå

íåéá

(Gen :a) (Gen :b) (Gen :a)

When God proposes the collaborative project of making humankind, he notes that the relationship between humanity and divinity will be approximate and distal (ë). But this relationship quickly changes; it becomes closer, proximate, and intimate (á). And once the change occurs, it is replicated in the lineal relationship between the first Priestly father and son (á). But the change in the divine-human relationship need not indicate that the relationship itself has changed over time. Another factor is at work. In the beginning, God proposes that humankind resemble the likeness of the divine agents that control the creative verb (-ë … äùòð åðúåîã). Yet when the proposal is enacted, it is accomplished by the group leader; he controls the creative verb, and it is his likeness that humankind comes to share (äùò íéäìà úåîã-á) (see also §.., below). The relationship between humanity and divinity, then, varies with the identity of the agent whose likeness is compared to the human creature (see §...). As the divine agent changes, so does the ownership of ‘likeness’ as well as the specific relationship between humanity and divinity. Insofar as humanity and divinity share the (cap-) ability to generate úåãìåú and populate the world with human beings (§ ..), they do so differently. Relative to one another, the ‘likeness’ of gods and human beings is comparable, alike yet unlike, and somewhat separate. The ‘likeness’ of God and human beings, however, is very much alike, shared, and practically inseparable. In the same measure, too, Seth shares this intimate relationship with Adam and, by inference, God. To the extent or degree that Adam, Seth, and his (male) descendants create human life, human beings are more God-like than godlike, reflecting God but not the gods. In other words, human ‘likeness’ is homological




 

with God’s (úåîã-á) but distinct from the gods’ (úåîã-ë): imitatio Dei, not imitatio deorum. .... Inverse to ‘likeness’, the other component of the divinehuman relationship—‘image’—is first qualified by the locative-proximate preposition á in P(T) and, only in its last attestation, is encoded with its similative-separative counterpart ë. åðîìö-á åîìö-á åúà àøá íéäìà íìö-á åîìö-ë

(Gen :a) (Gen :aα) (Gen :aβ; see also :b) ãìåéå (Gen :a)

íãà äùòð íãàä­úà íéäìà àøáéå

But like ‘likeness’, this distribution of á and ë is also sensitive to the agent of (pro-) creation in each context. When the agent is divine, whether God or the gods, the divine-human relationship does not vary; according to the grammar, the human creation intimately partakes in divine lordliness, sovereign power over the world, and the responsibility to police itself vigilantly (see §..). From this perspective, then, human ‘image’ is homological with God’s (e.g., åîìö-á) and the gods’ (e.g., åðîìö-á): imitatio Dei et imitatio deorum. Nevertheless, this intimate or homological relationship does not hold between one human generation and the next. As Gen :a states, the relationship between father and son is a bit separate, distinct, and different in this respect. Whereas humankind imitates, represents, and embodies the divine feature of ‘image’, human offspring do not. The ‘image’ of procreator and progeny are comparable but only comparable; they are neither identical, shared, nor transmitted perfectly in the genealogical chain. .... If the similative-separative preposition marks a comparative relationship between referentially separate entities, the locativeproximate preposition in Gen :–, :., and :b has greater interpretive leeway: e.g., the partitive beth, the beth normae, and the beth essentiae (§..). In the latter case, though, the reading of the preposition is correlative with the reading of its dependent noun. Specifically, the strong functional dimension of both ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ disfavors any reading that requires these nouns to be exclusively concrete. It thus disfavors an interpretation of the preposition as the partitive beth; the preposition does not specify a part or parts of which the whole consists. The functional dimension of both similative nouns also disfavors the characterization beth normae.284 “Instead of being made according to the 284

Cf. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament . with n. ; Barr, OTWSA  ():


  úåîã  íìö



image of God (i.e. the image being a standard of measurement … i.e. beth as the origin of the mould), [man] is created to be the image of God.”285 The most apt interpretation remains the consensus opinion— that the preposition represents the beth essentiae.286 It accommodates concrete readings of ‘likeness’ and ‘image’,287 and it agrees with the several functional readings of these nouns as well.288 It also agrees with the interpretive force of Gen :–, :., :b, which register the character (-istics) that humankind will manifest throughout time. The beth essentiae makes good sense whether ‘likeness’ and/or ‘image’ specifies the form, function, property, or other attribute of its head: e.g., human anthropomorphism, self-perpetuation, dominion, or law as a limited representation and embodiment of divinity. This proximate beth essentiae signals that the human race will imitate God and the gods in the ways expressed by ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. ... The early Priestly tradition ascribes two special characteristics to the human race. One is genealogical. [I]f humans are made in the … likeness of God, it seems reasonable to say that they are understood as ‘creators’. This is, in part, made clear by the ‘blessing’ that they be fruitful and multiply. It would seem … that … they are being called upon to be participants in the process of creation.289

Participants in the process begun by God, these Sethite “creators” are genealogy-producing co-creators. The other characteristic has associations with royal power. “As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God’s representative, or viceroy, upon earth.”290 For God ; and the reference to Dillmann in ch.  n. . See also Bird, HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. ); Heintz, FV / (): ; de Moor, “The First Human Being a Male? A Response to Professor Barr,” in Recycling Biblical Figures ; and, with greater nuance, Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .. 285 Harland, The Value of Human Life –. See also Beuken, LouvSt  (): . 286 Cf. Scharbert, in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt .; and, in greater detail, Barr, BJRL  (): ; and, esp., idem, OTWSA  (): . For responses, see Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift,” TQ  (): – (repr. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern –); Jenni, Die Präposition Beth (Die hebräischen Präpositionen ; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) , ; and idem, Studien … Alten Testaments –. 287 Preuss, Old Testament Theology ., albeit with hesitations. 288 Hehn, in Festschrift Eduard Sachau  n. . 289 Frank H. Gorman, Jr., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . 290 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (; repr.,  vols., Marshallton, Del.: National Foundation for Christian Education, n.d.) .b (ad III.).




  has appointed humanity to be his viceroy, the highest ranking commoner, as it were, ruling with the authority of the king. The human race is YHWH’s plenipotentiary, his stand-in.291

Together, these characteristics confirm the notion that the lineage of Sethite men is a theophany, attesting to an active and twofold divine presence on earth. But they also conspire to suggest a third, synthetic characteristic ascribed by P(T) to the Sethite division of humankind. They suggest that, just as ‘image’ is transmitted through procreation,292 Sethites perpetuate and retain the royal power through reproductive means. Together, ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ suggest that Sethite humanity represents a type of God-like, dynastic rule.293 As such, it may be heir to the divine throne (see §..), claiming a divine right to assume and exercise authority. .... Once they are attributed to humankind, the early Priestly tradition tracks the descent of ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ through time. Each feature has its own diagnostic signposts. ‘Likeness’, for example, has several (§..). It has the lexical expression úåîã. It is subsumed under and entailed by the genealogical rubric úåãìåú.294 It is also explicated by God’s promissory blessing that human beings ‘be fruitful, be numerous, and fill the earth’ (e.g., Gen :a).295 These signposts, which cross the source-critical boundary between P and PT, chart the delineation of ‘likeness’ from inception to realization. ‘Image’ has a complementary set of tokens that mark its descent through time. It too has lexical expression, íìö. Like úåîã, it is also explicated in context by P’s God; humanity will ‘have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over the beasts, and over the whole earth, and over everything that moves on the earth’ (Gen :b) (§...). There is another explication in v.  as

Levenson, Creation and … Evil –, on Ps . See also Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 –. 292 E.g., von Rad, Old Testament Theology .. See also Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; and, by inference, Groß, TQ  ():  (= Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern ). 293 See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, )  (= idem, The Promise of the Land ); and, obliquely, Talmon, ExAu  (): –. See also Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ  (): ; and the Mesopotamian epithet mentioned in n. , above. Cf. Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  []) . with  n. . 294 In addition to the references in n. , see Klein, in Die Botschaft und die Boten . 295 See Westermann, Genesis . and, with a view to Mesopotamian king lists, . 291


  úåîã  íìö



well.296 For after the material concerning ‘likeness’ has been excised, the remainder is consistent with the thematic contours of ‘image’. God blessed them and God said to them, “… åãøå äùáëå and conquer it [sc. the earth] and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over every thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen :)

V. b recalls v. b and the issue of imposed mastery;297 it baldly directs298 all of humanity to rule over marine, aviary, and terrestrial life.299 V. aβb is similar. ùáë is a “harsh”300 term that empowers, in this case, human beings to control, occupy, and subjugate a vast area301 by an exercise of mighty force.302 The ‘image’ entitles humankind to achieve decisive victory over the entire natural world. Stated differently, humankind will act like a victorious king over a conquered land (see §...).303

296 Ruppert, Cath  (): . See also Hans-Winfried Jüngling, “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen ,). Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung,” in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise (ed. Philipp Schmitz; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, ) . 297 See Morgenstern, AJSL  (): . 298 For this reading of the imperative, see §§ . with n.  and .. with n. . For other readings, see Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .; Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW  ():  (repr. in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions [d ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, ] ); or Christopher Wright Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) –; or Westermann, “Bedeutung und Funktion des Imperativs in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments,” in Der Weg zum Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie. Für Alfons Deissler (ed. Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert; Freiburg: Herder, ) . 299 Cf. Lohfink, Orien  (): b (= Theology of the Pentateuch ); and Bird, ExAu  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). 300 Gunkel, Genesis  (ET) (German “stark” [idem, Genesis4 ]). See also Jüngling, in Macht euch die Erde untertan?  n. ; and Sawyer, in A Walk in the Garden . 301 Bird, HTR  ():  with n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  with n. ), in conjunction with Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament . 302 S. Wagner, “Öák  k¯abaˇs; Öák  kebeˇs; ïÖ"á!k kibˇs¯an,” in TDOT .; Paul Beauchamp, “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn , –, a. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn , s,” in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Lille () (ed. Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux; LeDiv ; Paris: Cerf, ) ; Sharp, ScEs  (): ; and Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . See also HansPeter Müller, “Der Welt- und Kulturentstehungsmythos des Philon Byblios und die biblische Urgeschichte,” ZAW  ():  n. . Cf. Barr, BJRL  (): ; and Zobell, in TWAT .. 303 See Lohfink, Orien  (): – (= Theology of the Pentateuch –).




 

.... On the one hand, ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are intertwined in the early Priestly tradition. They are juxtaposed when God proposes the last creative act (Gen :a). In explicated form, they are juxtaposed and integrated in God’s primordial speech to the first humans (v. ).304 And, in a syntactic order that replicates Gen :, they are juxtaposed again when Adam’s son Seth is born (:a). It would appear, then, that ‘image’ is transmitted along with ‘likeness’;305 ‘image’ is an inherent feature of the human race, given by God at creation and perpetuated as a genealogical legacy.306 On the other hand, the early Priestly tradition does not explicitly note that these two features pass in tandem down through every generation. For example, when God creates humankind in Gen :, ‘image’ is mentioned (bis) but ‘likeness’ is not.307 Conversely, when the same event is recounted in :, ‘likeness’ is mentioned but ‘image’ is not.308 Both features are nonetheless inherited by humanity/Adam, as Gen :a states. Whereas ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ descend along genealogical lines, the early Priestly tradition furnishes only sporadic confirmation of their trajectory. Though sporadic, the Priestly indices of ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are sufficient.309 They yield a skeletal map of these two features, especially at critical points in (human, genealogical) history. Gen :– is the prototype. As its heading úåãìåú alone implies, “a new and significant development is at hand.”310 Gen :– marks an entirely new episode in biblical historiography; the early Priestly tradition constructs a strictly linear genealogy for Adam and substitutes it for the older, segmented one of J (§..). Absent any Priestly siblings, Seth is the only heir of Adam. Seth is therefore the only heir to God’s original blessing of

304 Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild . See also Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities –); and Hinschberger, RScR  (): . 305 See Loretz, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen –; Lohfink, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen,  (ed. J. A. Emerton et al.; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) – (= Theology of the Pentateuch ); Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World ; and Sarna, Genesis . 306 See Humbert, in Interpretationes … Mowinckel – (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ). Cf. Horst, Int  ():  (repr. as “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes,” in Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [ed. Hans Walter Wolff; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] ); and Harland, The Value of Human Life , . 307 Vogels, ScEs  (): . 308 Note Zimmerli, .Mose3 .–. 309 See Sarna, Genesis  (on Priestly genealogies). 310 Ibid.  (on Gen :). See also Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift,” in Wort—Gebot—Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther


  úåîã  íìö



abundant offspring (:aβaβ) and royal domination over the natural world (vv. b.aβb-b). By Priestly fiat, these human legacies are funneled through Adam’s youngest child, Seth. Thereafter, ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ develop along a predictable and unremarkable path, until the next critical genealogical (Gen :aα. [PT]) and historical juncture.311 At this postdiluvian point, God reasserts that ‘image’ belongs to the human community (esp., : [P]). Moreover, God re-issues his primordial blessing of úåîã (vv. .; see also : [P]) and, in a harmonic move, indirectly guarantees that Noah and his sons will have ‘offspring (lit., seed) thereafter (lit., after you)’ (:).312 God’s speech literally indicates that, unlike much else in the world, ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ survive the flood (§.., intro.). Of Noah’s three sons, the early Priestly tradition favors Shem.313 His lineage alone is genealogically productive (Gen :– [PT]). His lineage is also the only one in which P recognizes ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. For eight generations after Shem, Terah’s genealogy splits into three branches, of which only Abram’s is effectively designated as rightful heir.314 The designation is partly familiar and partly new. Like the survivors of the flood, God promises that Abram will be ‘very very numerous’ (Gen :b [P]), Abraham will be ‘very very fruitful’ (v. aα), and that the patriarch will have ‘offspring thereafter’ (vv. a.b....b; see also v. a) and, perhaps, offspring everlasting (v. a; see also v. b). Yet unlike his ancestors, Abraham is told that he will be transformed into nations, íéëìîå and kings will come forth from you (Gen :aβ-b; see also vv. b.b [P]).

In plain yet complementary political terms, P’s God assures Abraham that his line will attain nationhood and be self-governed (or: -governing) under the aegis of royal and sovereign leaders.315 ‘Image’ entails kingship of a domain.

Eichrodt zum . Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernst Jenni; ATANT ; Zurich: Zwingli, ) –, . 311 For the unusual nature of Gen :– within the Priestly genealogical tradition, see Carr, ZAW  (): . 312 Note Bird, in Image of God and Gender Models  n. . 313 Scharbert, in Wort—Gebot—Glaube . 314 See Ruppert, Cath  (): . Cf. Groß, JBTh  (): . 315 See Ronald E. Clements, “éÇb gôy,” in TDOT .; and A. R. Hulst, “íò/éÇb ‘am/gôy people,” in TLOT ..




 

With the advent of Abra(ha)m, another new factor comes to the fore. At this time, P’s God becomes more involved in implementing his promises of Gen :. For a father to a multitude of nations êéúúð I make you. éúøôäå I shall make you very very fruitful, êéúúðå and I shall make you into nations. (Gen :bβ–a [P]); cf. åàìîå åáøå åøô Be fruitful, be numerous, and fill the earth. (Gen :aβaβ; see also :. [P])

God assumes personal responsibility for fulfilling his promises of ‘likeness’ and ‘image’; his role is active, deliberate, agentive, and causal (‘I’).316 But his involvement may be greater still. Despite Sarai’s infertility and the seemingly insuperable obstacle that it poses against realizing God’s promises (: [J]; see also :a [P]), God remedies the situation himself.317 éúëøáå I shall bless her [sc. Sarah]. In fact, éúúð I will give you [sc. Abraham] a son from her. äéúëøáå I shall bless her, and she will become nations; íéîò éëìî kings of peoples will come from her. (Gen : [P])

God intervenes. He reverses biological nature and singlehandedly transforms Sarah into Abraham’s procreative partner (see also :b [P]).318 The promise of ‘image’ can now be achieved. Through his deliberate intervention, then, P’s God effectively chooses that Abraham and Sarah (‘Princess’)319 will head a dynastic line of royal rulers.320 God ensures that both blessings of Gen : will be maintained, and ultimately fulfilled, through the son of Abraham and his legal wife. .... The early Priestly tradition presents a consistent picture of human ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. An ever-narrowing branch of male descendants from Seth share the (cap-) ability to reproduce, proliferate, See Zimmerli, .Mose .. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son –, –. See also Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses ; S. McEvenue, “Word and Fulfillment: A Stylistic Feature of the Priestly Writer,” Semitics  (): ; and David Biale, “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible,” HR  (): –. 318 See Miles, God: A Biography ; and Klopfenstein, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . 319 Note Sarna, Genesis . 320 Gary A. Rendsburg, “Biblical Literature As Politics: The Case of Genesis,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East (ed. Adele Berlin; Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture; Bethesda: University of Maryland Press, ) ; and Brueggemann, Genesis . 316

317


  úåîã  íìö



and maintain an ever-lasting human genealogy.321 They are depicted as co-creators of the world. The same branch also holds royal power to rule the world’s creatures, control the land, and regulate human behavior by administering justice. These same descendants of Seth are depicted as co-regents of the earth’s domain, co-participants in its maintenance, and co-executors of justice.322 In the former respect, as co-creators, Sethite men are God-like. In the latter respect, as executive co-regents, they are God-like and godlike, enacting the rule (of law) that God and his sovereign community hold over the world. ‘Likeness’ and ‘image’, then, are perpetual and complementary characteristics of Sethite humanity. They characterize the human race as a (Priestly) theophany.323 “There is only one legitimate representative of God: man.”324 Although humankind may be presented as God’s representative on earth, the degree of representation is qualified and limited. The degree to which human beings imitate God’s capacity to generate úåãìåú is restricted. As Levenson argues, God’s creative activity takes precedence. The priority of God and the lateness of the creation of human beings make the term ‘cocreator’ or ‘partner in creation’ inaccurate. In fact, the verb translated in Genesis : as ‘create’ (b¯ar¯a’) occurs nowhere in the Hebrew Bible with a subject other than God. It is, however, still appropriate to speak of a certain subordinate role that humanity is to play in the cosmogonic process.325

The beth essentiae in Gen :. warrants the same conclusion. God is creator maior; humankind is creator minor. Likewise, the degree to which human beings imitate divine dominion is limited. God is Dominus; the gods are domini; and humankind is dominus, “just a bit less than a god … in their sovereignty over the rest of creation.”326 But unlike 321 See Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . 322 Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual ; and idem, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . 323 See S. Dean McBride Jr., “Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) . 324 Harland, The Value of Human Life , citing Wildberger: “Es gibt nur ein legitimes Bild, durch das Gott sich in der Welt manifestiert, and das ist der Mensch” (TZ  []:  [= Jahwe und sein Volk ]) (italics original). 325 Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 326 Ibid.  (on Ps ). See also Harland, The Value of Human Life .




 

its (re-) productive counterpart, the royal ‘image’ is not shared equally by all; among its heirs, a father embodies and represents this divine trait with greater fidelity, authenticity, and genuineness than does a son (see §...). An inalienable feature of humanity, ‘image’ is nonetheless represented differentially between generations. The manner in which ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are tracked in the early Priestly tradition suggests one last conclusion, too. The Priestly authors carefully plot these features as they descend through human history. A feature may be communicated in the narrative (e.g., Gen :, :). It may be expressed or implied at the editorial level (e.g., :). ‘Likeness’ and/or ‘image’ may appear in God’s speech, in several different ways— explicitly (e.g., :a), descriptively (e.g., :), or inferentially (e.g., :, :b). These characterological features may even be indexed by God’s willful and active role in bringing them to fulfillment (e.g., :bβ– a). Though the signs are minimal, they are adequate to delineate the specific route along which ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ travel. The signs serve to identify, or designate, the heirs to divine ‘likeness’ and divine ‘image’, according to the early Priestly tradition. They are Priestly markers that single out one lineage to be the legitimate representative of God in the world. In other words, these markers indicate and isolate the one community chosen to imitate God and the gods in the natural world.


  CREATING THE WORLD


This page intentionally left blank


  THE PRIESTLY COSMOGONY The Priestly cosmogony not only establishes a physical environment. It establishes a paradigm.1 The Bible begins with the account of the Priestly Code of the creation of the world. In the beginning is chaos; darkness, water, brooding spirit. … The primal stuff contains in itself all beings, as yet undistinguished: from it proceeds step by step the ordered world; by a process of unmixing. … [C]haos being given, all the rest is spun out of it: all that follows is reflection, systematic construction.2

For Wellhausen, the paradigm is complex. It acknowledges a “ ‘world,’ if we may call it that, just before the cosmogony began”3 (“primal stuff”; “chaos”). It presents an emblematic creative method (“unmixing” which “proceeds step by step”). It also recognizes a creative result that is antithetical to its original state (“the ordered world” originating from “primal stuff … as yet undistinguished”). The primordial state of the world is graphically described in Gen :.4 äúéä õøàäå The earth was unformed and void; êùçå darkness was upon the surface of íåäú the deep; íéäìà çåøå and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of íéîä the water. (Gen :)

1 E.g., Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) –; and Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  []) .–. See also Smith, quoted in §.., below. 2 Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; ; repr., Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, ) – . 3 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []) . 4 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ); and Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) .




 

Backgrounded by syntax5 and located prior to creation by verbal morphology,6 this verse depicts the original stuff of the world.7 Before creation, there was the earth, “not as we know it now”8 but “the unformed material from which the earth was to be fashioned … a chaotic mass, without order or life.”9 Absent of light (v. ), there was darkness.10 There was a primaeval ocean with abyssal and seamless water.11 There was also God, or “some manifestation of God,”12 expressed as ‘God’s wind’. In the very beginning, there were representatives of chaos as well as a representative of God.13 5 Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of Genesis :–,” BA  (): b; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .; and Hans Rechenmacher, “Gott und das Chaos. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Gen ,–,” ZAW  (): –. 6 Franz Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, )  (= A New Commentary on Genesis [trans. Sophia Taylor;  vols.; ; repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, ] .), also quoted in Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .; and Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica ; The Hague: Mouton, ) –. See also Ziony Zevit, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew (SBLMS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) . Cf. Odil Hannes Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis ,–,a (d ed.; FRLANT ; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 7 Christian Streibert, Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Funktion schöpfungstheologischer Aussagen in exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit (BEAT ; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, ) –; Horst Seebass, Genesis ( vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, –) .–; Peter Weimar, “Chaos und Kosmos. Gen , als Schlüssel einer alteren Fassung der priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung,” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für HansPeter Müller zum . Geburtstag (ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld; BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) ; and, differently, Walter Groß, “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut,” JBTh  (): . 8 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, ) . 9 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .. 10 Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen  und Ap Joh  (d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (repr. and abr. as “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story,” in Creation in the Old Testament [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson; IRT ; Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, ] ). 11 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) . 12 Wenham, Genesis .. 13 See Rechenmacher, ZAW  (): –; Eduard König, Die Genesis (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, ) ; and Nic. H. Ridderbos, “Genesis i  und ,” in B. Gemser et al., Studies on the Book of Genesis (OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) .


  



God and chaos are different in Gen :. The tokens of chaos constitute the preexisting stuff and state of the world; the description is relatively static. God’s wind, however, is dynamic. It moves; it is somewhat separate from its opposing ‘deep’; and it engages the deep as if in a face-to-face confrontation.14 It even serves an anticipatory function in context. God’s wind foreshadows the agent and onset of the first creative act (v. )15 and all creative acts thereafter.16 It announces God and his active role in establishing a paradigmatic world from a primal environment of chaotic indistinction. .. Exercising Creative Control The commencement of the first creative act marks a transformation of God’s activity in the world. Inasmuch as God creates by a word, … He works consciously and deliberately. Things do not emanate from Him unconsciously, nor are they produced by a mere act of thought … but by an act of will, of which the concrete word is the outward expression. Each stage in His creative work is the realization of a deliberately formed purpose.17

Unlike Gen :, God’s role in the world is now transparently willful, agentive, and interventionist. God’s control of the world is registered often in the Priestly cosmogony. He exclusively governs the verb àøá ‘create’ (Gen :. [ter]; see also v. , :). He governs other highly transitive verbs too, such as äùò ‘make’ (vv. ..; see also v. ), ìéãáä ‘divide, separate’ (v. ),18 and ïúð ‘give’ (vv. .–). From a semantic perspective, God is the controlling agent throughout the cosmogony. Not only does he produce 14 Robert Luyster, “Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament,” ZAW  (): –. 15 William P. Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) ; and Weimar, in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt . 16 See Albertz and Westermann, “çeø rûah spirit,” in TLOT .. Cf. von Rad, . Genesis ; and, more broadly, Walther Zimmerli, .Mose ( vols.; d/st ed.; ZB.AT /– ; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –) .. 17 Driver, Genesis12  (italics original), citing August Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .. 18 For the subject of ìãáéå in Gen :, see Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) ; and, esp., the discussion by Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology – (on co-agents of creation).




 

(äùò), assign, and provide (ïúð), when he creates by “divine fiat” (see §.) “the divine word is itself sufficient to effect what it states” (e.g., v. ).19 God’s speech effects creation. Likewise, God’s act of naming created entities (vv. a.a.a), including humankind (:b [PT]), “expresses the authority which the one who gives the name … exerts over the one who is named.”20 A demonstration of “the power to direct the … creation toward its proper function” (vv. –.b; see also v. ), naming “exerts control.”21 After the cosmos has been created, Priestly references to creation per se are limited to two. õøàäå íéîùä úåãìåú äìà This is the “genealogy” íàøáäá when they were created. (Gen :a [RP])

of heaven and earth

íãà úIìåú øôñ äæ This is the genealogical record of Adam: àøá íåéá íéäìà When God created humankind, in the likeness of God he made it, male and female íàøá he created them. (Gen :–a [PT]; see also :a)22

In one, God ‘creates’ the world. In the other, he ‘creates’ the human race. The common verb suggests that the two events are related. They are also assigned a common Priestly denomination; úåãìåú refers to the creation of cosmic domain and the (pro-) creation of human life.23 God 19 Christopher Wright Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) . See also von Rad, Genesis –; Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; and Sarna, Genesis . Cf. Westermann, Genesis .–. 20 Otto Eissfeldt, “Renaming in the Old Testament,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas (ed. Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) . See also Bernard W. Anderson, “The Earth is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation,” in Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-Science (ed. Roland Mushat Frye; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, ) – (repr. as “The Earth is the Lord’s,” in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] ); and Alexander A. Di Lella, “Genesis :–: A Formal Introduction to P’s Creation Account,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ) . Cf. Terence E. Fretheim, “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis –,” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville (ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury; Word & World Supplement Series ; St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, )  with n. . 21 Baruch Halpern, “The New Names of Isaiah :: Jeremiah’s Reception in the Restoration and the Politics of ‘Third Isaiah,’” JBL  (): . In this context, see also Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” ExAu  (): –. 22 See ch.  n. . 23 E.g., Josef Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift,” in


  



controls creation, and God effects úåãìåú in its two capacities. According to these texts, then, the construction of the world and the construction of human lineage are analogous, if not kindred or correlative, creative Priestly events.24 .. Separation and Differentiation Originating as an undistinguished mass, the world progressively develops into an ordered cosmos by the systematic application of God’s creative power. In Wellhausen’s terms, the world is constituted “by a process of unmixing.”25 God said, “Let the waters under heaven be collected to one place,26 and the dry land will appear.”27 And it was so. (Gen :)

In this particular case, two entities emerge out of one.28 This creative principle finds explicit expression in the Priestly cosmogony. It characterizes a divine activity. íéäìà ìãáéå

God divided between the light and the darkness. (Gen :b)

It also asserts the purpose of a created entity. God said, “Let there be luminaries in the dome of heaven ìéãáäì to divide between day and night.” … God set them in the dome of heaven to shine over the earth … ìéãáäìå and to divide between the light and the darkness. (Gen :a.–a; see also vv. –)

Wort—Gebot—Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum . Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernst Jenni; ATANT ; Zurich: Zwingli, ) ; and, differently, Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ  ():  n. . 24 B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, ) . The placement of the genealogical formula draws a closer relationship between creation and human/Israelite history: when the former closes (Gen :a), it inaugurates the latter which, itself, does not end (ibid. –). 25 See also Luyster, ZAW  (): . 26 For text-critical analyses of íå÷î in v. a, see Hendel, The Text of Genesis – – ; and David Noel Freedman, “Notes on Genesis,” ZAW  (): – (repr. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman [ed. John R. Huddlestun;  vols.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ] .). 27 For äàøúå, see Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology  n. . 28 Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; James Barr, “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible,” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) ; and, in this context, Seebass, Genesis ..




 

Within the six days of creation, in fact, this expression recurs more often than ‘create’ and as often as ‘make’. “Separation, or rather differentiation, is the second modality of creation” in the Priestly text.29 In a related move, P’s God places limitations on his creation. God said, “Let the earth make vegetation: seed-producing plants; fruit trees making fruit åðéîì according to their kind, with their seed in it, over the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: seedproducing plants åäðéîì according to their kind, and trees making fruit with their seed in it åäðéîì according to their kind. (Gen :–a) God created the great sea monsters, and every living thing that moves with which the waters swarm íäðéîì according to their kind, and every winged bird åäðéîì according to its kind. (Gen :a-bα) God made the earth’s wild animals äðéîì according to their kind, and the beasts äðéîì according to their kind, and everything that moves on the ground åäðéîì according to its kind. (Gen :a; see also v. a)

The limitation is registered by ‘kind’. It is a classificatory term which, like any taxon, is a category that subsumes an observable set of characteristics shared among certain entities (see Lev : [H]).30 By nature, it also distinguishes one taxonomic aggregate from another.31 So too, the distributive preposition governing each token of ‘kind’ suggests categorical separateness and, by implication, limitation. God creates floral and faunal life according to internally coherent categories that are, at the same time, externally distinctive and discrete. Thus does God make new life (e.g., Gen :a), and thus does he ensure that life will be reproduced and sustained in perpetuum (vv. –a).32 God provides that all 29 Sarna, Genesis . See also Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM,  []) ; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, ) ; Yizhaq (Iziq) Peleg, “‘In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth,’” BetM  ():  (in Hebrew); Barr, in God in the Fray –; and, in greater detail, Levenson, Creation and … Evil –. 30 Paul Beauchamp, Création et séparation. Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse (BScR; Aubier Montaigne/Delachaux & Niestlé: Cerf/Desclée De Brouwer, ) ; and Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology . 31 See Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis  (= ET .); and Talmon, ExAu  (): . 32 See Henri Cazelles, “Myn= espèce, race ou ressemblance?” in Mémorial du cinquantenaire – [de l’École des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris] (TICP ; Paris: Bloud & Gay, ) –. See also Beauchamp, Création et séparation ; and Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] –).


  



nonhuman life,33 with one exception (see §..), replicate ‘according to its kind’ and only according to its own kind. ‘Kind’ ensures delimitation.34 There are further examples of cosmogonic delimitation, separation, and division. Historical time,35 which is officially inaugurated with the creation of light, is articulated into equal measured units. The first six units are each delimited by Priestly formula: an initial, divine announcement; and a final, synoptic, daily tally.36 Therein, each unit is divided into two parts: ‘evening and morning’.37 The hexadic conglomerate also is divided into two equal parts that each comprise four acts of creation.38 Therein too, the third day of each triadic half is subdivided, containing a pair of creative acts.39 But perhaps the most conspicuous example of chronometric separation is the seventh day. It symbolizes a terminus (Gen :.aα [ìëéå … åìëéå]); it indexes God’s prior accomplishments (vv. aβ.bβ.bβ [àøá­øùà … äùò øùà … äùò øùà úåùòì íéäìà]); and it represents a summary cessation from all activity 33 Because human beings are themselves a unique class of population, they are neither created nor classified according to ‘kind’. Unlike birds, for example, they do not include varieties of different though taxonomically related breeding populations which can be individually identified and labeled (see Lev :– [P]) (cf. Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,–,a und ,b-, [d ed.; WMANT ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ]  n. ; and Andreas Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw[t]. Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,” BN  []: ). Rather, human beings constitute a single population and therefore a single reproductive class (see the references in n. , above; and differently, Sarna, Genesis ). 34 See Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ). 35 Westermann, Genesis .; and Frank H. Gorman, Jr., “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, )  n. . See also Walter Vogels, “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen ,b),” SJOT  ():  n. , for a longer view. 36 See also Priestly monthly designations (Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament [th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  ()]  n.† []). 37 For the order of these temporal units, see Driver, Genesis12 ; and Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 38 For discussions, see Anderson, “A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, ) –, esp. the chart on  (repr. as “The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study,” in From Creation to New Creation –, , respectively); Bernard F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) –; and, in brief, Sarna, Genesis . 39 In addition to the references in the preceding note, see Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and Levenson, Creation and … Evil .




 

(vv. bα.bα [åúëàìî­ìë-î dence, then, is consistent.

úáù

åúëàìî­ìë-î

úáùéå]).

The evi-

[A] state of separation and so of order are basic to [the world’s] existence. The world is … conceived of … as something divided and ordered and comprehensible only in this framework. … Separation … is itself creation.40

.. Harmonic Order God’s creative power produces order, and it comprises order, too. As Wellhausen states so evenhandedly, “the ordered world … proceeds step by step”; order effects order. Sarna, however, emphasizes the process. “The systematic progression from chaos to cosmos unfolds in an orderly and harmonious manner.”41 In either case, Delitzsch provides the classic exposition. The Hexaëmeron of the account of creation as now extant falls into two groups of three days, so arranged that the days’ works of the second group accord with the corresponding ones of the first. On the first day light was created, on the fourth the heavenly light-giving bodies; on the second day the vault of heaven dividing the waters from the waters, on the fifth the birds of heaven and the animals of the waters; on the third day, after the appearance of the dry land, the vegetable world; on the sixth land animals, to fill the dry land now provided with herbage for their nourishment, and man, in whom the whole animal creation reaches its climax.42

The world of internal dependency is therefore founded on order, although this “orderly and harmonious manner” is not named. Instead, “[t]he marvelous order of creation, in which every creature, celestial and terrestrial, plays a role in a harmonious whole, receives the Cosmic Artist’s imprimatur: ‘very good’ ([Gen] :).”43

Westermann, Genesis .. See also Jeremy Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, )  (on covenantal epochs). 41 Sarna, Genesis . See also Paul Humbert, “Trois notes sur Genèse I,” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae (Oslo: Land og kirke, )  (repr. in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ] ). 42 Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis .. See also, in brief, Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and, later, Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ); and Cassuto, Genesis .. 43 Anderson, “Relation between the Human and Nonhuman Creation in the Bibli40


  



Under the rubric of this ‘very good’, orderly, and harmonious world is the provision that God makes for terrestrial life. God said, “I hereby give you [sc. human beings] every seed-bearing plant that is upon the surface of the whole earth, and every tree that has seedbearing fruit. It shall be yours for food. (I give) all the earth’s animals, and all birds of heaven, as well as every thing that moves on the earth— in which there is living breath—all green plants for food.” And it was so. (Gen :–)

For each life-form created on the sixth day, whether animal or human, God assigns vegetarian foodstuffs. He determines that animals will consume one category of flora: green vegetation. At the same time, he determines that human beings will consume another: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees. By divine decree, then, animal and human consumers will share the earth’s floral resources in relatively distinct ways,44 neither of which completely exhausts the food supply. By implication, animals and human beings will not directly compete for survival; God safeguards the turf, and sanctity, of each.45 As the Priestly writer depicts it, God institutes “paradisiacal peace” and ecological balance among the world’s living creatures.46 The Creator did not desire war and the thirst for blood, but peace among His creatures. … By the use of the phrase ïë­é!äéå in ver. , [P] gives it distinctly to be understood that he actually assumed the maintenance of this peace of God as existing during the earliest age. Accordingly, ver. f. were intended in especial to give to mankind the divine and fundamental law with respect to the life of the creatures, and therewith, at the same time, a characterisation of their original condition.47

cal Primeval History,” in idem, From Creation to New Creation  (repr., with corrections, from AJTP  []: ). 44 Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .); and John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) . 45 See Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht 2 , in conjunction with Hans-Winfried Jüngling, “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen ,). Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung,” in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise (ed. Philipp Schmitz; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, ) ; and Beauchamp, “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn , –, a. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn , s,” in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Lille () (ed. Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux; LeDiv ; Paris: Cerf, ) . 46 Von Rad, Genesis . But note the qualification argued by Groß, JBTh  (): . 47 Dillmann, Genesis ..




 

But God’s plan is eventually corrupted.48 “The breaking of this peace of God in creation makes its first appearance with the degeneration of the creatures” at the end of the antediluvian period.49 When this degeneration occurs, the Priestly writer records a stark counterexample of God’s original plan (§...). P explains that, in the wake of Gen :– (J), the entire world is damaged: ‘God saw how very corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its way on earth’ (v. ). Corruption is widespread. The ecosystem of Gen  has broken down,50 including the environment (‘earth’) and all living creatures created on the sixth day (‘all flesh’).51 The cause of the corruption is clear; the highly transitive clause in v. b implies that all living things willfully and intentionally produced the current degraded mess.52 The target of their behavior is also clear enough. “It was corrupt íéäìàä éðô " ì ! [v. a], i.e. so as to become an abomination to God, and to call forth His judicial interposition.”53 It is this same God, of course, who had created ‘all flesh’ and thereby designated the ‘way’

48 See also Norbert Lohfink, “Der Schöpfergott und der Bestand von Himmel und Erde. Das Alte Testament zum Zusammenhang von Schöpfung und Heil,” in Günter Altner et al., Sind wir noch zu retten? Schöpfungsglaube und Verantwortung für unsere Erde (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, )  (repr. as “God the Creator and the Stability of Heaven and Earth: The Old Testament on the Connection between Creation and Salvation,” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] ). 49 Dillmann, Genesis .. 50 Eric E. Elnes, “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism,’” HBT  (): –; and Martin A. Klopfenstein, “‘Und siehe, es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis ,). Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblische-Theologische Studien ; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –. 51 For the inclusive reading of ‘all flesh’, see Jacob, Genesis ; Lohfink, “Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg,” in Ernst Haag et al., Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (ed. Norbert Lohfink; QD ; Freiburg: Herder, )  with n.  (repr. as “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War,” in Theology of the Pentateuch  with n. ); and P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . See also Gen : (P), translated in §.., above. 52 See Harland, The Value of Human Life . See also Ernst Würthwein, “Chaos und Schöpfung im mythischen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte,” in Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum . Geburtstag (ed. Erich Dinkler and Hartwig Thyen; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], )  (repr. in Wort und Existenz. Studien zum Alten Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] ). 53 Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis .. See also Jacob, Genesis .


  



that each creature should act on earth. The world of Gen  represents a perversion of its harmonic beginnings54 as well as an assault on God.55 Whereas P’s God deems the cosmos ‘very good’, this new world is not. Gen :– clearly demonstrates that it is filled with ñîç ‘violence’ (vv. . [P]). When the gods took women as wives, they violated an absolute boundary56 and committed a crime against God.57 When the gods ‘took themselves wives from all they chose’ (v. b), they implicitly chose not to limit their matrimonial pool; they exercised no self-control over a growing female population (see v. a).58 That is to say, the gods successfully exercised their superior power over the women;59 “h. amas … refers predominantly to the arrogant disregard for the sanctity and inviolability of human life.”60 Criminal, destructive, injurious, unjust, and abusive, the ‘violence’ mentioned in Gen  is an evil act harming the world that God created.61 54 See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, )  n. ; Harland, The Value of Human Life –; and the references in ch.  n. , above. 55 Lohfink, “Die Ursünden in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung,” in Die Zeit Jesu. Festschrift für Heinrich Schlier (ed. Günther Bornkamm and Karl Rahner; Freiburg: Herder, )  (repr. as “Original Sins in the Priestly Historical Narrative,” in Theology of the Pentateuch ). 56 See Jeffrey H. Tigay, “The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments,” in ãîììå ãîìì. Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman (ed. Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen; New York: Ktav, )  n. , in conjunction with H. Haag, “ñîç  ch¯am¯as,” in TDOT .. 57 See H. J. Stoebe, “ñîç  h. ¯am¯as violence,” in TLOT .. See also Haag, in TDOT .. 58 See S. D. Snyman, “‘Violence’ in Amos , and ,,” ETL  ():  (on Am :), in conjunction with Harland, The Value of Human Life . Cf. Marc Vervenne, “All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis .–,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer (ed. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. E. Watson; JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) . 59 Note Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr ; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, ) . Cf. Wenham and Pope, cited in ch.  n. . 60 Sarna, Genesis  (on Gen :). In this context, see also Lohfink, in Die Zeit Jesu  (= Theology of the Pentateuch ); Wenham, Genesis .; and, differently, Haag, in TDOT .; and Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem/Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress, ) . 61 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –,” BA  (): , in conjunction with Lohfink, in Die Zeit Jesu  n.  (= Theology of the Pentateuch  n. ). See also Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, )  (comparing Gen : and :). Cf. Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, ) .




 

The Priestly writer acknowledges that the cosmos of Gen  has changed in other ways, too. Indeed, after the flood, P’s God concedes the violence in the world.62 There will be fear and terror of you [sc. Noah and his sons] upon all the earth’s animals and upon all birds of heaven, over everything that moves on the ground, and over all the fish of the sea; into your hand shall they be given. … But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood. From every animal I shall require a reckoning for it. (Gen :.a)

God plainly notes that “the natural relationships between created beings are in desperate disorder.”63 The once-harmonic relationship between the human population and animals has disintegrated into warlike hostility:64 human beings (will continue to) terrorize animate life, while animals (will continue to) attack people.65 Likewise, relations within the human community have deteriorated; bloodshed and homicide (will continue to) exist.66 But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood. … From a human being, from each one’s fellow (human being), I shall require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall his blood be shed. (Gen :aα.b-a)

Violence is now entrenched in the world, but it is neither unrestrained nor unremedied (see §...). Among other things, God assigns the postdiluvian survivors the responsibility to protect the community and punish violent offenses. It is a legal responsibility inherent in the human design; because God made humankind ‘in the image of God’ (v. b < :), human beings bear the inalienable duty to maintain and restore 62 Beauchamp, in La Création dans l’Orient ancien ; and Harland, The Value of Human Life . 63 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker;  vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row, – [–]) .. 64 E.g., Lohfink, in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  with n.  (= Theology of the Pentateuch  with n. ); Wenham, Genesis .; Groß, JBTh  (): ; and, in greater detail, Waschke, Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild . See also, sympathetically, Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . 65 Lohfink, in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  (= Theology of the Pentateuch ). 66 For antediluvian background, see idem, “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen,  (ed. J. A. Emerton et al.; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  (repr. as “The Priestly Narrative and History,” in Theology of the Pentateuch – ); and Tigay, in ãîììå ãîìì . For a Priestly effort to mitigate this background, see Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ) .


  



the world as God first constructed it. Created in the image of God, humankind must mobilize against outbreaks of ‘violence’ in the world.67 God’s ‘very good’ cosmos of Gen  is the antithesis of its subsequent degeneration. True, the cosmogony “provides a reflection of an orderly, harmonious creation.”68 True, P’s cosmos is “a pure and perfect age”69 that is “regulated by principles of justice and righteousness.”70 But it also exemplifies a world devoid of corruption and violence. Order and separation are instituted and maintained. The many components of the cosmos neither conflict nor collide; they are interdependent and mutually beneficial. The relationship among the different forms of animate life is nonadversarial and noncontentious. Each occupies a distinct zone, and there is no competition for space.71 Even “human governance of the animals was certainly intended as something altogether … nonviolent, as is evident from the fact that both humans and animals are restricted to vegetable food.”72 The ‘very good’ cosmos is very much nonhostile. .. Imposing Rule Within the harmonic order that P’s God forges in creation, he also establishes rule. For example, he makes the two great luminaries—the greater luminary íåéä úìùîîì to rule the day, and the lesser luminary äìéìä úìùîîì to rule the night—and the stars. God set them in the dome of heaven to shine over the earth ìùîìå and to rule over the day and the night. (Gen :–aα)

He also creates humankind ‘in the image of God’, with the mandate to dominate animate life (v. b; see also v. b) and wield control over the natural world (v. aβb; see also v. bαbβ) (see §...). The

67 For the antymony of ‘violence’ and ‘image of God’, see Harland, The Value of Human Life ; and Janowski, Stellvertretung . 68 Fishbane, Text and Texture . 69 Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology . 70 Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence . See also Robert B. Coote and David Robert Ord, In the Beginning: Creation and the Priestly History (Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –. 71 Since the insects and fauna created on the sixth day are not blessed with reproductive abundance (cf. Gen :), the human population has unfettered license to ‘fill the earth’ (v. ) (Jacob, Genesis ; and Beauchamp, in La Création dans l’Orient ancien –. Cf. Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; and Jüngling, cited in n. , above). 72 Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch , , respectively.




 

affirmation of sovereign rule and governance initiates, terminates, and characterizes the second phase of creation.73 ... The Priestly characterization of human rule also poses a potential problem. In brief, “v. f. contradicts v. b.”74 On the one hand, God makes human behavior reflect the world that he had created; relative to the co-occupants of the world as well as their food supply, human beings will behave without hostility, violence, abuse, or aggression (§.).75 On the other hand, God authorizes humankind to ‘have dominion over’ the natural world (äãø) and ‘conquer’ the earth (ùáë). The Priestly terms hardly express peaceful intent. “Both of the words used … in other places refer exclusively to a domination against the will of those who are subordinate, including the use of force.”76 According to the Priestly writer, humankind will rule the environment with formidable and nearly unqualified force that is, nevertheless, circumscribed and limited.77 However imperious, the power of human rule must not cross the boundary that separates it from ‘violence’. ... This view of human rule has a divine precedent in the cosmogony. For on three separate occasions, the Priestly writer narrates versions of “a general story in the ancient Near East, which describes the creation of the world and the establishment of cosmic order as a consequence of a god’s defeat of the sea. The sea embodies chaos; its defeat and containment constitute order.”78 The Priestly exemplars, though, abide by a different standard. There are no battle scenes,79 nor 73 See Beauchamp, Création et séparation , followed by Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): ; Angerstorfer, BN  (): ; and esp. Vogels, SJOT  (): –, among others. Their assymmetrical division of the six days of creation, however, is incorrect (see § .). 74 Westermann, Genesis . (characterizing Richard Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung [Marburg: N. G. Elwert, ] –). 75 See Beauchamp, in La Création dans l’Orient ancien . 76 Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress,  [])  n. . See also Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) .. 77 Jüngling, in Macht euch die Erde untertan? . 78 Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; Minneapolis: Winston, ) . 79 John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) , ; and Fishbane, “Five Stages of Jewish Myth


  



does conflict erupt.80 The Priestly narrative “eliminated war from the story it tells, with paradigmatic intent, of the beginning of the world.”81 Yet as P’s God makes the transition from chaos to cosmos, “the whiff of battle is not all that far distant.”82 God’s first confrontation with an aquatic foe occurs in a now-familiar setting (see §, intro.), prior to the creative act of v. . The earth was unformed and void; darkness was upon the surface of íåäú the deep; and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of íéîä the water. God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. (Gen :–)

At this time, God’s dynamic wind encounters an uncreated preexisting watery deep.83 It is a figure of chaos and, like the sea, has an ancient Near Eastern background. For even apart from its attestation elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible,84 the deep has undeniable mythological associations in Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literatures:85 at Ugarit, it can

and Mythmaking,” in idem, The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, ) . See also Talmon, ExAu  (): . 80 See Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) –. See also Fishbane, Text and Texture ; and, sermonically, Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) –. 81 Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch . See also idem, in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  (= Theology of the Pentateuch ). 82 J. C. L. Gibson, “The Kingship of Yahweh against Its Canaanite Background,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey; UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) . Cf. Smith, distancing the battle farther away (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts [Oxford: Oxford University Press, ] ); or McBride, denying it altogether (“Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner [ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ]  n. ). 83 E.g., Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (d ed.; SBT /; London: SCM, ) ; and Westermann, Genesis .–. See also Wellhausen, Prolegomenon ; and Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos2  (= idem, in Creation in the Old Testament –). 84 See Cassuto, “The Israelite Epic,” in idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans. Israel Abrahams;  vols., Jerusalem: Magnes, – []) .–; and Waschke, “íÇä"z t ehôm,” in TWAT .–. Cf. Westermann, “íÇä"z t ehôm flood,” in TLOT .– . 85 See David Toshio Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis  and : A Linguistic Investigation (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) –.




 

designate the oceanic abode of El (thmtm);86 in Mesopotamia, it is best known as the proto-goddess Tiamat. The Priestly deep combines both nonbiblical reflexes; íåäú is a Northwest Semitic locution87 that is strikingly similar to Tiamat as portrayed in the Enuma Elish.88 In both stories, Tiamat/íåäú is primaeval and ancestral to the created world (i ; Gen :). In both stories, it constitutes Wellhausen’s “primal stuff … as yet undistinguished” that is eventually, and necessarily, split to form the celestial and terrestrial worlds (iv –; Gen :–, respectively).89 In both texts too, neither Tiamat nor íåäú is destroyed. It is instead transformed by a masterful deity that “proceeds step by step” to construct “the ordered world.” But íåäú is not Tiamat. The Priestly deep is not a deity but a concrete token of chaos. It is ‘water’ (v. b). Compared with Tiamat, it has “been not only neutralized but demythologized and even depersonalized.”90 God is not Marduk, either. God does not engage the deep in battle.91 God does not commit violence. For the 86 For the relationship between primordial water and cosmogony, see Levenson, Sinai and Zion –. 87 Day, God’s Conflict , ; Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology  n. ; and Roberto Ouro, “The Earth of Genesis :: Abiotic or Chaotic?” AUSS  (): . 88 See, e.g., Batto, “Creation Theology in Genesis,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins; CBQMS ; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, ) –; and, esp., Levenson, Creation and ... Evil. In this context, see also I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . Cf. Weinfeld, “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarb  ():  (in Hebrew); and Lowell K. Handy, “Tiamat,” in ABD .a. 89 Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos 2  (= idem, in Creation in the Old Testament ). Cf. W. G. Lambert, “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,” JTS  (): – (repr. in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis – [ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study ; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ] –). 90 Levenson, Creation and … Evil . See also, inter alios, Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar über die Genesis  (= ET ); Childs, Myth and Reality2 ; Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) ; and Day, God’s Conflict –, . Cf. Luyster, ZAW  (): –; and, differently, David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Image (BRLAJ ; Leiden: Brill, ) –. 91 Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (trans. Leo G. Perdue;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, – [–]) .; Manfred Görg, “‘Chaos’ und ‘Chaosmächte’ im Alten Testament,” BN  (): –; and Niditch, Oral World and Written Word . Cf. S. Lee, “Power Not Novelty: The Connotations of àøá in the Hebrew Bible,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (ed. A. Graeme Auld; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, )  n. .


  



moment at least (see § ..), God contains the deep against outburst.92 Without fanfare, he imposes the force of rule over this potential counteragent, placing it under his control.93 Whereas God’s first theomachy lacks bloodshed, the second lacks a confrontation. God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living things, and birds fly over the earth across the surface of heaven’s dome.” God created ­úà íéìãâä íðéðúä the great sea monsters, and every living thing that moves with which the waters swarm according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, “Be fruitful, be numerous, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds become numerous on earth.” (Gen :–)

The sea monsters, like the deep, are attested in biblical and non-biblical literature alike. In the Ugaritic texts, tunnanu (tnn) ‘(the) dragon’ is a mythological being included among the vanquished marine and serpentine enemies of Baal:94 viz., Yamm (‘Sea’) || Nahar (‘River’) and the crooked serpent || the seven-headed “sultan” (KTU2 . iii – ). When Baal defeats this aquatic deity, he contains (lit., binds) it (cf. KTU2 .:).95 In the Hebrew Bible, ïéðú(ä) ‘the Dragon’ is comparably troublesome.96 It is always under attack. In the past, the monster was ‘pierced’ by Yahweh (Is :);97 so too, sea monsters’ heads were ‘smashed’ long ago (Ps :–) (see below).98 In the future as well, Yahweh ‘will kill the Dragon in the sea’ (Is :; see also Ez :, :).99 Whether in the Ugaritic or biblical texts, it represents a once-

92 Weimar, in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt ; and, differently, Görg, BN  (): –. 93 See Christian Brüning, “‘Lobet den Herrn, ihr Seeungeheuer und all ihr Tiefen!’ Seeungeheuer in der Bibel,” ZAW  (): – (on Ps :). 94 Cf. Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic Myths,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr.;  vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, –) . n. . 95 For a summary of opinions on this Ugaritic verb, see Wayne T. Pitard, “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU .,” JNES  (): –. 96 Fishbane, Text and Texture ; and, esp., Edward L. Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis , Constructively and Deconstructively,” Prooftexts  (): –. 97 Note Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (d ed.; HKAT III/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 98 Levenson, Creation and … Evil –, –. 99 See Hans Wildberger, Isaiah (trans. Thomas H. Trapp;  vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress, – [–]) .; and, on Ez , Theodore J. Lewis, “CT .–  and Ezekiel : Lion-Dragon Myths,” JAOS  (): –.




 

vital, marine opponent of the active head god whose continuing life threatens the god’s life and the world’s order. It symbolizes chaos.100 Yet in the Priestly cosmogony, the sea monsters are not destroyed. They are ‘created’.101 Like all of God’s other creatures and creations, these monsters are the intended result of God’s creative activity in the world.102 They are also included in the approbative formula of v. bβ. It is as though the Torah said, in effect: Far be it from any one to suppose that the sea monsters were mythological beings opposed to God or in revolt against Him; they were as natural as the rest of the creatures, and were formed in their proper time and in their proper place by the word of the Creator, in order that they might fulfil His will like the other created beings.103

In Priestly hands, they are stripped of their primaeval autonomy. But in other ways, the sea monsters are unlike God’s creatures. They are the only life form created as a plurality of distinct entities and not as a taxonomic species.104 By inference, they are ascribed fractured identity. Further, P’s God does not create them ‘according to their kind’. Hence, they are deprived of the (cap-) ability to reproduce, perhaps forever (see §.; cf. Gen :). All told, then, the Priestly writer pointedly tames this representative of uncreated evil. Without a hint of violence, P’s God quiets these potential enemies of God before they undo (him and) his cosmos. He places them under his creative control and subsumes them within the structure of his created order (see also vv. bαaα.bαa).105 There may be one more instance in which P’s God engages an olden divine nemesis. This nemesis is Yamm (‘Sea’). In the Ugaritic texts, he is the aquatic enemy of Baal who tries, unsuccessfully, to prevent Baal’s

E.g., NJPS ad Is : n. b. Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 102 Talmon, ExAu  (): ; and Brüning, ZAW  (): . See also Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline ; and, somewhat differently, Day, God’s Conflict . 103 Cassuto, Genesis .–. See also, in greater length, idem, Biblical and Oriental Studies .–; and, briefly, Zimmerli, .Mose3 .; and Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 . 104 Cassuto, Genesis .. Hence, the “reference to the tannîn¯ım in Genesis :” is hardly “generic” (cf. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism ). 105 In addition to the references in nn. –, see Day, “Leviathan,” in ABD .b (on Pss :, :). 100

101


  



rise to kingship.106 In the Hebrew Bible, Yamm’s legacy has been found in a number of texts,107 of which Ps  is perhaps the most transparent. God, my king from of old, agent of salvation amidst the earth, it was you who burst with your might íé the sea, who smashed the heads of the sea monsters over the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan, who presented him as food for the denizens of the desert. It was you who split the springs and wadis; you who dried up the ever-flowing rivers. (Ps :–)

This text celebrates God’s multiple victories over his ancient watery foes. In particular, it recalls how God dissevered Yamm/the sea just as Baal had dismembered108 Yamm (esp. KTU2 . iv –).109 But in Gen :,110 the allusion to this mythological figure—if there is one—is more subtle.111 Its polemical force takes a grammatical form. God said, “Let the waters under heaven be collected to one place,112 and the dry land will appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the collection of waters he called íéîé Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Gen :–)

106 See Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques,” MARI  (): –; and, briefly, F. Stolz, “Sea íé,” in DDD2 –. 107 Alan Cooper and Marvin Pope, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” in RSP .–; Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed.; The Biblical Resources Series; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, ) –; and N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) –. For discussions, see Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos2 – (= idem, in Creation in the Old Testament –); Fishbane, Text and Texture –, –; and Talmon, ExAu  (): –. 108 For philological justification of this translation, see Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (BiSe ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) – nn.  and  (which he rejects). 109 Cf. the alternate analysis of Day, God’s Conflict  n. , reargued by Jonas C. Greenfield, “’att¯a p¯orart¯a b˘e‘ozk¯a yam (Psalm : a),” in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (ed. Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton; Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) – (repr. in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology [ed. Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick;  vols.; Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/The Hebrew University Magnes Press, ] .–). 110 For connections between Ps  and Priestly material, see Harry P. Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) –. 111 Cf. Rudolf Kittel, Die Psalmen (–th ed.; KAT ; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) –. 112 See n. , above.




 

God assigns plural nomenclature to the newly pooled water (see also v. ) even though, as vv. . suggest, the referent is probably not a true, countable plurality.113 Delitzsch disagrees. “The sea in its origin is represented as a connected whole,114 in respect of which the lesser reservoirs, especially the rivers which it receives unto itself, are unnoticed.”115 Still, the plural is not strictly referential; “the plural is here conceived of as singular and intensive,”116 and the mythological background of the ‘sea’ suggests why. Like the deep, this symbol of unGodly aquatic chaos poses a “singular and intensive” threat to God and his cosmic order117—a threat which is undone or unmixed, as it were. For like the case of the sea monsters,118 P’s God dis-integrates and dissipates his powerful archenemy.119 He incorporates it into his orderly world as a product of his creative objective.120 He then deems its fractured body ‘good’. Like the sea monsters and the deep before them, the sea has “been not only neutralized but demythologized and even depersonalized” (see above). Without bloodshed or violence, God overcomes these restive waters and controls them like any other creation of his. ... God’s rule is firmly ensconced in the Priestly cosmos. It begins very early, when he confronts and subdues the evil deep. It is expressed in different ways when he names the world’s seas, appoints heavenly spheres to ‘rule’ the day and night, and creates sea monsters. Later, his rule is shared with the human race, present and future (§ ...). Even after the last creative act, it informs his own ability to allocate vegetable food among humans and animals. Whether explicitly or implicitly, then, the theme of God’s rule punctuates the entire Priestly cosmogony. As the Priestly writer depicts it, God’s rule is not simply a fact. It is an achievement.121 It begins when God emerges the victor of a highly sublimated clash with the deep. It is repeated when he disintegrates

113 Skinner, Genesis2 . Cf. König, Genesis ; and Otto Procksch, Die Genesis (–d ed.; KAT ; Leipzig/Erlangen: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) . 114 See also Driver, Genesis12 ; Paul H. Seely, “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis :,” WTJ  (): ; and perhaps, Jacob, Genesis . 115 See also Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .–). 116 Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis .. 117 See Zimmerli, .Mose3 .–. 118 Peleg, BetM  (): . 119 See, perhaps, Seebass, Genesis .. Cf. Talmon, ExAu  (): . 120 Greenfield, in Language, Theology, and the Bible  (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah .). 121 See Humbert, in Interpretationes … Mowinckel  (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ).


  



the disruptive sea and absorbs its pieces into the created world. It recurs a third time when God vitiates the primaeval sea monsters and reconstitutes them as a deliberately divided, sterilized, and good creation. In a series of preemptive measures, P’s God thus overpowers proven or potential enemies, demonstrating that/how he earned his dominion over the world. In each theomachy, P’s God performs a bloodless, noncombative, and nonviolent coup.122 Whereas the Priestly cosmogony describes the rule of order that God imposed on the world, other texts take the next logical step (see already Ps ). You rule over the grandeur of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. It was you who crushed Rahab like a corpse; with your mighty arm you scattered your enemies. Heaven is yours, so too the earth is yours; the world and its contents—it was you who founded them. North and south—it was you who created them. … Righteousness and justice are the seat of your throne. (Ps :–a.a) The Lord has become king,123 robed in grandeur. The Lord is robed, girded with might. The world is established; it is unshakeable. Your throne is established from old; you are from eternity. The rivers raise, O Lord, the rivers raise their voice; the rivers raise their crushing sound. More than the sounds of the mighty waters, more majestic than the breakers of the sea, the Lord is majestic on high. (Ps :–)

These texts assert God’s kingship.124 In Ps , God vanquishes old aquatic enemies (v. ) and rules them from his throne (vv. .a). In Ps , he suppresses the primordial waters (vv. –) and is enthroned as king (vv. a.a). And in Ps , the victorious master of watery chaos (vv. –) is entitled ‘God, my king from of old’ (v. a). In each text too, the divine king appears in the context of the world’s creation (:–, :b-a, :bβ).125 The implication for the Priestly cosmogony is therefore clear.126 While God is creating the world and See, e.g., Di Lella, in Mélanges … Delcor . For this proclamation and its different translations, see Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 ; John Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) –; and Levenson, Creation and … Evil xxiii. 124 See Görg, BN  (): –. 125 Day, God’s Conflict . 126 For Mettinger, the Psalms texts participate in a larger, Jerusalemite tradition of “the motif of the chaos battle” (The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies [trans. Frederick H. Cryer; CBOT ; Lund: CWK Gleerup, ]  with n. . Cf. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel [HSM ; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ] ). 122

123




 

prevailing over aquatic enemies, he is demonstrating and achieving supreme kingship of the cosmos.127

See, progessively, Miller, The Divine Warrior  (citing Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ] ); Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ) –; and Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis :– :,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ) –. 127


  GOD’S VICTORY OVER THE GODS, AND THE ELEVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE When God reveals his intention to make the human race, he is hardly in “divine isolation.”1 On the contrary, he is situated in his divine community, whose “members … are invited in Genesis : to participate in the last and most important act of creation”2 (see §§., .). They rise to the occasion and support their leader, too.3 “In the plural of vs.  a plurality of heavenly beings may be understood, but there is not a hint of diversity of will or purpose.”4 God’s divine court agrees to his proposal. The appearance of gods in Gen : might seem to prove that the Priestly writer holds a liberal interpretation of monotheism. Indeed, for many biblical authors “the monotheistic character of Israel’s faith never precluded the notion of Yahweh having a coterie or surrounded by a court of semi-divine beings whom he addresses, commands, and with whom he holds conversation”5 (§). But unlike those many biblical 1 See Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology (trans. Leo G. Perdue;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, – [–]) .. 2 Timothy Lenchak, “Puzzling Passages: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”’ (Genesis :),” BT  (): . See also Moshe Weinfeld, “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah,” Tarb  ():  (in Hebrew); idem, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –; Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol,” HBT / ():  (repr. in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays [JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] –); and, with qualification, Lothar Ruppert, “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte, vornehmlich von Gen –,” Cath  (): . 3 Cf. T. L. J. Mafico, “The Divine Compound Name íé!äÀ$à äåäé and Israel’s Monotheistic Polytheism,” JNSL  (): –. 4 B. Gemser, “God in Genesis,” in idem et al., Studies on the Book of Genesis (OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) . 5 Miller, Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT, ) . See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ) ; and, more generally, J. Day, “The Religion of Israel,” in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, ) –.




 

authors, Priestly tolerance of a divine plurality evaporates; P’s recognition of gods lasts only a moment. A great deal is accomplished during that moment, however. First, the Priestly writer defines human character. The human race will rule and create; it will be a creature sui generis yet placed in the context of, and in relationship to, the constituents of the cosmos. In particular, the human race will represent as well as imitate the divine constituents in the cosmos, God and gods. Second, P describes divine character. God is the incomparable creator; and he seeks the counsel of fellow immortals to make a creature that will ultimately be related to the divines, at least in part. The other divine party, the anonymous gods, agrees to God’s terms. After all, the human creation will reflect them too, at least in part. In this circumstance, the gods play a serious role, and their appearance conforms to form-critical and theological expectations. Though the Priestly writer refers to the gods only in this one text, then, in all probability the reference is not unimportant yet alone accidental or unconscious (see §.; cf. §.). If the author of Genesis  was in every other instance able to remove all trace of polytheism from the traditional material he was handling, as he is generally agreed to have done, why did he not manage to expunge the plural of ‘let us’?6 … If the plural is here, it is here deliberately.7

The plural and its referent seem purposeful. .. The Gods and Their Demise The gods are invoked in a conventional setting, when the worlds of divinity and humanity are about to meet (§.). But this Priestly episode is also nonconventional. There is no sign that human beings will disobey God. Nor is there a sign that the gods will collude with God and punish humankind (cf. §§.–). Rather, the gods are informed that

6 See also Andreas Angerstorfer, Der Schöpfergott des Alten Testaments. Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung des hebräischen Terminus àøá (bara) ‘schaffen’ (RST ; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, ) –. Cf. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, )  n. . 7 D. J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” TynB  ():  (repr. as “Humanity as the Image of God,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, – [ vols.; JSOTS –; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ] .– ), in a different context. See also the other references in Preface n. .


’    



they will be represented in humankind through their ‘image’ and their ‘likeness’. Then something else ensues. Among other things, the gods vanish from the Priestly Pentateuch. ... The gods’ fate is reflected in the two features that they are invited to contribute to the human race. ‘Likeness’ is one. íúà àøá äá÷ðå øëæ

åðúåîãë

… íãà äùòð … íãàä­úà íéäìà àøáéå

(Gen :a) (Gen :)

For as this comparison shows, v.  is an unusual execution clause. It does not narrate the enactment of God’s proposal in identical (e.g., v. ) or near-identical language (e.g., v. a). It somewhat resembles the pattern of those clauses in which God himself executes a nonagentive, third-person desiderative (vv. ..; see also vv. .a). In v. a, however, the desiderative is completely different; it includes the addressee in a cooperative, and agentive, task. Another unusual aspect of the execution clause is its predicate.8 In the proposal, P’s God uses an appropriately general and inclusive verb (äùò)9 to involve his divine colleagues in this last act.10 Yet in the execution, P replaces äùò with a verb that is absolutely and exclusively reserved for God (àøá) (see also §...).11 For P, God’s intrinsic and unique creative power overrides the creative potential of the gods.12 A third unusual aspect of 8 Jürgen Ebach, “Bild Gottes und Schrecken der Tiere. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte,” in idem, Ursprung und Ziel. Erinnerte Zukunft und erhoffte Vergangheit. Biblische Exegesen, Reflexionen, Geschichten (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –. 9 For this characterization, see J. Vollmer, “ä×ò ‘´ sh to make, do,” in TLOT .. Terence E. Fretheim, however, would also find a proleptic meaning in this verb (“Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis –,” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville [ed. Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury; Word & World Supplement Series ; St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, ] ). 10 See Weinfeld, Tarb  (): . Cf. Manfred Weippert, “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Zum sog. dominium terrae in Genesis ,” in Ebenbild Gottes— Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys; Biblisch-Theologische Studien ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) – . 11 Paul Humbert, “Emploi et portée du verbe bârâ (créer) dans L’Ancien Testament,” TZ  ():  (repr. in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ] –); and W. H. Schmidt, “àøá br’ to create,” in TLOT .. See also Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, )  (ad Ex :). 12 See, sympathetically, Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,–,a und ,b-, (d ed.; WMANT ; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) .




 

v.  pertains to the gods’ ‘likeness’ which was to be registered, albeit distantly, in the human creature. It simply does not survive beyond v. .13 And Gen  explains why. íàøá äá÷ðå øëæ

ºåúà äùò íéäìà úåîãá

íãà íéäìà àøá íåéá

(Gen :b-a)

It does not survive because the gods’ úåîã is replaced by God’s, just as their (cap-) ability to ‘make’ was trumped by God’s (cap-) ability to ‘create’. God, the sole maker íéäìà úåîãá in the ‘likeness’ of God, subsumes the gods’ úåîã under him. In an act of God, the gods and their ‘likeness’ fade away. The gods’ fate is also reflected in their other would-be contribution to the human race. As soon as God creates the first human beings, the gods’ ‘image’ disappears as well. åðîìöá íãà äùòð åúà àøá íéäìà íìöá åîìöá íãàä­úà íéäìà àøáéå

(Gen :a) (Gen :a; see also :b)

Despite God’s acknowledgement that his divine addressees possess a measure of íìö, it too does not survive beyond v. . ‘Our’ inclusive image is replaced by ‘his’ exclusively, as the grammar indicates. “The reflexive singular suffix … requires that the image be referred directly to God, the sole and single actor, and not to a lower order of divine beings.”14 As he takes charge of his troops, the divine leader imposes his ‘image’ over theirs. Notwithstanding its suitability in context, this power-based interpretation of v. a has rivals. In one case, the suffix on åîìöá is said to correct a referential unintelligibility or ambiguity in the plural suffixes in v. a.15 In another, the relationship between åîìöá and the adjacent 13 See Martin Buber, “Imitatio Dei,” in idem, Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis (d ed.; New York: Schocken, ) . 14 Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” HTR  ():  n.  (repr. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ]  n. ). See also Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt ; and, in nuce, Wilhelm Caspari, “Imago divina Gen I,” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Wilhelm Koepp;  vols.; Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) .. 15 Josef Scharbert, “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,,” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag (ed. Walter Baier et al.;  vols.; St. Ottilien: EOS, ) . n. ; and, perhaps, Walter Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift,” TQ  ():  (repr. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen


’    



is questioned: whereas åîìöá unambiguously refers to God, is allegedly congruent with the plural pronouns of v. a;16 its nomen rectum is to be analyzed as a semantically plural noun.17 These two grammatical analyses, however, miss the exegetical point. In the first case, any referential difficulties posed by the plural pronouns in v. a are clarified by form-critical background, not grammatical repair (§..). In the second case, the prepositional phrases åîìöá and íìöá íéäìà cannot be dissociated from each other; their appositive syntax signals coreferentiality.18 As in åîìöá, then, the possessor in íéäìà íìöá is necessarily a singular entity.19 So, the original interpretation stands. In the movement from v.  to v. , P’s God dominates the gods’ ‘image’ with his own and, in the process, dominates them, too. ... According to this description, God does more than invoke gods in Gen :. He confronts them as he had confronted other primaeval cohabitants of the world. As before, he does not wait for his opponent to erupt and disrupt the cosmos of his creation. As before, he takes preemptive yet nonviolent action, diffuses the threat, and neutralizes the once-mythological enemy. And as before, they are ultimately incorporated into the cosmos of God’s design. At this point in time, the gods are under his control. Nonetheless, God’s enemies can persist in different ways (see §..).20 For instance, the ‘deep’ of Gen : later bursts open, releasíéäìà íìöá

íéäìà íìöá

Gottesbildern [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] ). See also Johann Jakob Stamm, “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament,” in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg (ed. Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger; Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt, ) . 16 See H. Wildberger, “íìö  s. elem image,” in TLOT .. 17 Julian Morgenstern, “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :–:,” AJSL  (): –; G. W. Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (trans. Eric J. Sharpe; HSoed ; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, ) ; and John F. A. Sawyer, “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi,” JTS  (): . See also Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” ZAW  (): . 18 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis ( vols.; WBC –; Waco/Dallas: Word, –) .. For a complementary analysis, see Alviero Niccacci, “Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence—Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System,” ZAW  ():  with n. . 19 In this context, see Caspari, in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift .; Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2  n. ; and Willem A. M. Beuken, “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights,” LouvSt  (): . 20 Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos; Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []) ; and Donald B. Sharp, “A Biblical Foundation for an Environmental Theology: A New Perspec-




 

ing the flood in the tenth human generation (Gen : [P]).21 The water, though, is again contained by God (:– [P]).22 The ‘sea monsters’ persist as well, albeit in reduced scope and absolutely under God’s control. The scene is the contest between Aaron and the Egyptian magicians (Ex :– [P]; see also :– [J]),23 when Pharaoh asks for a demonstration of Yahweh’s power: Aaron produces a rod; the rod is transformed into a ‘sea monster’; and this one monster devours all the ‘sea monsters’ that the magicians similarly produce. As all agree, the rod demonstrates Yahweh’s power.24 He unleashes an evil creature that he had formerly deprived of autonomy, placed under his control, and worked into his cosmos.25 But Yahweh does something else as well; he transforms this primaeval creature into an expression of himself. Under his own overwhelming power, the olden sea monster has become an extension of God. The ‘Destroyer’ is another, and more radical, example of an unplugged divine remnant. In the J tradition, the Destroyer is angelic. When the Lord passes through to strike down the Egyptians and sees the blood on the lintel and the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and will not let úéçùîä the Destroyer enter your houses to strike (you) down. (Ex :)26 tive on Genesis :– and :–,” ScEs  (): . Cf. Ernst Würthwein, “Chaos und Schöpfung im mythischen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte,” in Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum . Geburtstag (ed. Erich Dinkler and Hartwig Thyen; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) – (repr. in Wort und Existenz. Studien zum Alten Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] –). 21 Otto Procksch, Die Genesis (–d ed.; KAT ; Leipzig/Erlangen: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, ) ; B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, ) ; and Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; Minneapolis: Winston, ) –. 22 See P. J. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) , who also finds God’s agency in Gen :. 23 For a source-critical discussion of these texts, see John Van Seters, “A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) –, esp. . 24 For the irony of this display, see John D. Currid, “The Egyptian Setting of the ‘Serpent’: Confrontation in Exodus ,–,” BZ  (): –. 25 See, in part, Scott B. Noegel, “Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus,” JANES  (): . Cf. Pnina Galpaz-Feller, who finds an Egyptian reference in the ‘sea monster’ here (“Egyptological Motifs in the Sign of the Serpent [Exodus :–; :–],” BetM  []: ,  [in Hebrew]). 26 For the assignment of this verse to J, see Bernhard W. Anderson, “Analytical Out-


’    



It is “a personalized, quasi-independent aspect of Yahweh”27 that functions as a destructive instrument of God’s will (see also  Sam :a.).28 Yet according to P, the Destroyer does not exist. The blood of yours will act as a sign on the houses where you are. When I see the blood, I shall pass over you. No plague shall come against you úéçùîì for (your) destruction when I strike the land of Egypt. (Ex :) úéçùî is not a concrete entity; it is not an angel or quasi-independent vehicle of God’s will;29 and it does not act at God’s behest. In v. , úéçùî is an abstraction.30 It does not even refer directly to God (cf. Gen :b [P]).31 P’s úéçùî is an attribute of ‘plague’.32 In the hands of P, then, the divine Destroyer is itself destroyed. No longer an aspect of God, it is depersonalized and demythologized out of existence.33 The Priestly writer seems more than casually aware that gods exist. In the cosmogony, God reckons with former mythological beings that

line of the Pentateuch,” in Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, ) ; J. Philip Hyatt, Exodus (rev. ed.; NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) ; and, tentatively, Childs, Exodus . Cf. the different opinions of Peter Weimar, “Exodus ,– a. Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomischer Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL ; Louvain: University Press/Peeters, )  n. ; William H. C. Propp, Exodus (AB – ; New York: Doubleday, – ) .; Shimon Bar-On, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex ,–,” ZAW  (): –; and Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) –. 27 Propp, Exodus .. 28 Hyatt, Exodus 2 ; and Schmidt, “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens,” in Congress Volume: Paris,  (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, )  with n. . See also S. A. Meier, “Destroyer úéçÖî,” in DDD 2 b. 29 Saul M. Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ ; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], )  n. . 30 See August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (ed. Victor Ryssel; d ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ) , ; Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) ; and Propp, Exodus .. 31 Cf. S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (CBSC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) . 32 See Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman; Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav,  []) . 33 Cf. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, ) – .




 

have the potential to upset his cosmos. One such being later loosens the flood. In Egypt, another being reappears yet under God’s firm harness. At the same time, P unplugs a destructive representative of God. On several occasions, then, P and P’s God reckon with the legacy of divine beings.34 Although all these Urgötter suffer a common fate in the early Priestly tradition, they are nonetheless not alike. Some symbolize evil, chaos, or harm. God’s first three antagonists in the cosmogony define the potential undoing of the cosmos. Similarly, the brief reinstatement of a sea monster in Ex  foreshadows the plagues that God will uncork against Egypt. But other Urgötter are not conspicuously or recognizably evil. On the sixth day, P’s God presumably solicits the gods because they will be cooperative and compliant. Also, God speaks only of positive attributes that they will share with human beings. Yet his divine assistants suffer the same fate as their obstructive and destructive counterparts. They quietly fall in a bloodless theomachy. ... Just as the divine scenario of Gen :– is supported by other Priestly narratives, it is also supported by non-Priestly traditions. For example, Job  corroborates that the gods were present at creation. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell (me), if you have understanding. Who set its measurements, since you know; or who stretched a (measuring) line over it? On what were its bases sunk? or who set its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together, and all the divinities shouted for joy? (Job :–)

The gods celebrated God’s first creative act.35 Perhaps they participated in creation as well: Since the verbs expressing creation in this text are not exclusively controlled by God, these terms open the possibility of

Weinfeld, Tarb  ():  n. . See also Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; ; repr., Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, )  n. ; and Michael V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ’ôt Etiologies,” RB  (): . Cf. Baruch Halpern, “Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the th-th Centuries B.C.E.,” in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference (ed. Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) . 35 For the sequence of creative acts in this episode, see Bernh. Duhm, Das Buch Hiob (KHAT ; Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], ) –; and Karl Budde, Das Buch Hiob (HKAT II/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) . 34


’    



co-divine involvement under God’s direction and leadership.36 As in Gen :, Job’s God was not alone at creation but was accompanied by divine ministers.37 If Job  places the gods at creation, Gen  demonstrates their úåîã. Mullen implies that, “in Canaanite, Phoenician, and early Hebrew sources,” gods do not engender or produce human beings. “They did not have the power of decree or of life. This belonged only to the ¯ 38 Greenstein, however, refutes the implication. high god ’El/Yahweh.” “[T]he notion of divine procreation is reflected, or if you wish, refracted in the episode of cohabitation between the sons of God and the human daughters in Gen. :–.”39 The Yahwist tradition, then, furnished P with clear evidence that gods are capable of producing a (semi-) human population. For Priestly as well as non-Priestly traditions, the gods serve an administrative function. The Priestly writer registers this trait as íìö. Other writers describe the setting in which their íìö comes to the fore (e.g., Dt :–+QDeutj :). The concern for order in the cosmos as a function of the divine assembly under the rule of Yahweh is seen not only in the governance of Israel but also in the way the council is the context in which the relationship between humankind and the divine world is worked out, the nations and peoples of the earth are established and governed, and righteousness as the foundation of the cosmos is maintained.40

God shares the governance of the world with his godly subordinates (§..). 36 See Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ); and Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) , in conjunction with Marc Zvi Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . Cf. Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen  und Ap Joh  (d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (repr. and abr. as “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story,” in Creation in the Old Testament [ed. Bernhard W. Anderson; IRT ; Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, ] –). 37 Day, God’s Conflict . 38 E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ) –, also quoted by Miller, HBT / ():  n.  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology  n. ). 39 Edward L. Greenstein, “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?” in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, –) Division A, *. 40 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ).




 

But non-Priestly traditions also assert that the gods can fail to execute their divine mission. Truly, O gods,41 do you pronounce justice? do you judge humanity equitably? Even so, with a perverse heart you act on earth; you mete out violence (with) your hands. (Ps :– [emended])

For this psalmist, their failure constitutes and breeds ‘violence’. For another, it provokes more than an indictment. God takes his position in the assembly of God, among the gods he executes justice. For how long will you judge perversely and favor the wicked? … I had said, “You are gods; all of you are sons of the Supreme One.” Alas (lit., not so!), you will die like humans and fall like any prince. (Ps :–.–)

God revokes their innate immortality.42 Having failed to maintain the justice and righteousness that constitute the basis of God’s rule (:a), having championed the antithesis of God’s fundamental design, God sentences his subordinates to death.43 Divine misdeeds are not tolerated.44 To a certain extent, Ps  and Gen  have a common theological agenda. They each depict a “dynamic monotheizing drama.”45 In Gen , God works to defeat once-divine enemies that threaten to corrupt the world of his creation. One by one, God confronts his enemy, neutralizes his enemy, and achieves victorious kingship. In Ps , God likewise punishes gods whose deeds betray their un-Godly evil. He confronts them in court (v. ):46 as a plaintiff, he charges them with their 41 Reading í!ìà  for MT íìà  , with, e.g., Gunkel (Die Psalmen [th ed.; HKAT II/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] ); Hans-Joachim Kraus (Psalms [trans. Hilton C. Oswald;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – ()] . n. b); and, with discussion, Matitiahu Tsevat (“God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm ,” HUCA – [–]: –). 42 For interpretations, see W. O. E. Oesterley, The Psalms (London: S.P.C.K.,  []) –; Hans-Winfried Jüngling, Der Tod der Götter. Eine Untersuchung zu Psalm  (SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) –; and Tsevat, HUCA – (–): –. 43 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ); and Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 44 H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” JTS  (): ; and Schmidt, Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel. Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes (d ed.; BZAW ; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, ) . 45 Levenson, Sinai and Zion  (on Ps ). See also Tsevat, HUCA – (–): . 46 Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm  as Myth and Liturgy,” RB  (): –. See also Jüngling, Der Tod der Götter –. Cf.


’    



crimes (vv. –);47 as a judge, he pronounces their sentence (v. ).48 Inasmuch as he holds the “ideal epithet” ïåéìò (v. b), which “emphasizes His supremacy over the other divine beings,”49 he exercises the authority that befits his rank.50 Since his divine subordinates (lit., ‘sons’) fall under his jurisdiction,51 he must intervene and restore a just order.52 Now, O God, judge the earth, for you own all the nations. (Ps :)

He must condemn his disloyal deputies, exercise his own rule, and restore justice.53 “The last verse of the psalm brings to God the victorious command to give justice to the world. … The God of Israel is regarded as the only true judge and protector of the weak.”54 Ultimately, justice is his responsibility (§..).55 And like any suzerain, God

Mitchell Dahood, Psalms ( vols.; AB –A; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, –) .. 47 Tsevat, HUCA – (–): . 48 Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM ; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, ) ; and Kraus, Psalms .. 49 Tigay, Deuteronomy  (ad Dt :). See also Herbert Schmid, “Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem,” ZAW  (): –, –; H.-J. Zobell, “ïÇé"ìò ‘elyôn,” in TDOT .; and, differently, R. N. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl –: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ) –. Nonetheless, the superlative degree of the epithet ïåéìò is not morphologically marked but semantically inferred (see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes [Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, ] §p©; and, esp., John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian [HSS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ] §.). 50 Cf. Schmidt, Königtum Gottes 2 ; or Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) –, . 51 Gerald Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW  (): ; idem, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” ZAW  (): ; and the references in ch.  nn.  and , above. ¯ YHWH,” JNSL  (): –; and Bernd 52 See John T. Willis, “QÛMAH Janowski, “Der barmherzige Richter. Zur Einheit von Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit im Gottesbild des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments,” in Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes. Studien zur biblischen Gottesrede und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte in Judentum und Christentum (ed. Ruth Scoralick; SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, )  n. , in conjunction with Tsevat, HUCA – (–): , –. 53 Parker, RB  (): –. 54 F. Charles Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES  (): a (repr. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East [ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn; New York/London: New York University Press, ] –). 55 For another example, shared with Dt :, see Parker, RB  ():  n. ,  n. .




 

has the right to depose errant vassals. To remedy their failure, God must impose his íìö over theirs. .. God’s Rule From beginning to end, the topic of the Priestly cosmogony is God. “Elohim is the subject; He is the singular agent of will; He has created everything, including man.”56 The human creation, of course, reflects God.57 “After God had make [sic] all the other creatures, he made a creature similar to himself in whom he could recognize himself. … God created another self.”58 As the form-critical background of Gen : suggests, he makes it partly for his own benefit, too (§.). Even the cosmos reflects God. Like its ancient Near Eastern analogues, the Priestly cosmogony tells of a god who triumphs over the forces of chaos and, as victor, constructs a (new) domain in which he can reside and rule forever.59 Most of all, then, the configuration of the world reflects God’s handiwork as well as the character of God himself.60 And vice versa. As the world changes, so does God.61 He assumes four different forms throughout the Priestly cosmogony, the first of which appears before the onset of creation. The earth was unformed and void; darkness was upon the surface of the deep; íéäìà çåøå and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of the water. (Gen :)

56 Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, ) . See also Erich Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (d ed.; SBS ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . 57 Note, however, Preuss, Old Testament Theology .; and Martin A. Klopfenstein, “Was heißt: ‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’? Überlegungen zur Schöpfungsgeschichte der Bibel in der Umweltkrise heute,” in idem, Leben aus dem Wort. Beiträge zum Alten Testament (ed. Walter Dietrich; BEAT ; Bern: Peter Lang, ) . 58 Walter Vogels, “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn ,),” ScEs  (): . 59 Levenson, Creation and … Evil –; and Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden;  vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  []) .. See also Norbert Lohfink, “Die Gottesstatue. Kreatur und Kunst nach Genesis ,” in idem, Im Schatten deiner Flügel. Große Bibeltexte neu erschlossen (d ed.; Freiburg: Herder,  []) . 60 See Fretheim, in All Things New –. 61 Cf. Thomas M. Krapf, “Biblischer Monotheismus und vorexilischer JHWHGlaube,” BTZ  (): .


’    



When the cosmos is yet unformed, the earth is shapeless and desolate,62 and there is seamless water all around (see §, intro.), God’s form is amorphous, invisible, and indistinct.63 At this stage, God is as nebulous as the world that he confronts.64 Then, the world begins to take shape. When íéäìà àøá God began to create heaven and earth65 … íéäìà øîàéå God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. (Gen :.)

At this time, God solidifies into a stable, generic entity like much else in the world. He next adopts a third identity, relative to others. Then God said, äùòð “Let us make humankind image, according to our likeness.” (Gen :a)

åðúåîãë åðîìöá

in our

When God conceives of his future, self-reflecting partners in the world, when he assembles his nameless fellow divinities to undertake the joint task of realizing his wish, God begins to assert—or reveal—an ego. On the sixth day, God identifies himself as a member of a community, present and/or future, that in turn represents him in the world. Thereafter, God takes one last form. God said, éúúð “I hereby give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon the surface of the whole earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit. It shall be yours for food.” (Gen :)

The moment that God asserts control over human beings (see § .), God becomes fully individuated. He is a self-defined, unique, and completely distinct entity. Once an indefinite, abstract, meteorological phenomenon (v. ),66 God progressively transforms into a self-referential, concrete, singular being (v. ). In the end, God achieves a unique, selfconscious singularity.

62 Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (d ed.; SBT /; London: SCM, )  with n. ; William P. Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) ; and Roberto Ouro, “The Earth of Genesis :: Abiotic or Chaotic?” AUSS  (): . 63 See Nicolas Wyatt, “The Darkness of Genesis i ,” VT  (): ; and Ouro, AUSS  (): . 64 See Walther Zimmerli, .Mose ( vols.; d/st ed.; ZB.AT /–; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –) ., in conjunction with Ouro, AUSS  (): . 65 See Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology –. 66 Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of ruah in Gen. .,” in Dropsie College . Jubilee Alumni Issue (JQR /; Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, ) –; Robert Luyster, “Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament,” ZAW  (): –; and Day, God’s Conflict –. Cf. Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology .




 

... This achievement is accompanied by another, in which God attains his unique rank (see § ..). It is an achievement “founded upon the demonstrated authority of the God who is triumphant over all rivals.” It is the achievement of God’s victory over gods, whose “elimination … is the tangible proof of his lordship.”67 From a certain perspective, it is a mark of Israelite monotheism and one of its tenets—“that YHWH is king and that all other beings, including the other gods, are therefore subordinate to him.”68 For throughout the Priestly cosmogony, God disempowers his rivals and realizes kingship for himself.69 These achievements are not only described in the Priestly cosmogony. They are imprinted on God’s standard Priestly name and title: íéäìà. According to traditional interpretation, in fact, the morphology of íéäìà connotes the majesty that belongs to God (pluralis maiestatis) (see §§., ..). But the theomachies and God’s other achievements over the course of creation suggest a complementary interpretation as well.70 In this latter case, íéäìà is similar to several other nouns whose plural morphology does not express numerical plurality: e.g., íéðåà ‘strength’ (Is :), úåøåáâ ‘might’ (:), íéîéà ‘terror’ (Jer :; see also Job :), and úåî÷ð ‘vengeance’ (Jdg :;  Sam :).71 They each express (a type of) inherent strength, power, or potent force. íéäìà, like úåîäá ‘Behemoth’ (Job :),72 expresses the same feature: great or intense power.73 It is a feature, moreover, that non-Priestly

Levenson, Creation and … Evil . Idem, Sinai and Zion . See also Caspari, “Der Herr ist König,” CuW  (): ; and Schmidt, Königtum Gottes2 . 69 See Schmidt, Königtum Gottes 2 , . 70 See Heinrich Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes (th ed.; Göttingen: Dieterich, ) §b. 71 For the list, see Aaron Ember, “The Pluralis Intensivus in Hebrew,” AJSL  (): . See also Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. and rev. T. Muraoka;  vols.; SubBi /I–II; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, )  §f. 72 See the discussions in A. de Wilde, Das Buch Hiob (OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and Samuel E. Balentine, “‘What Are Human Beings, That You Make So Much of Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth,’” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) –. See also Day, God’s Conflict , . 73 Ember, AJSL  (): , in conjunction with Greenstein, “Presenting Genesis , Constructively and Deconstructively,” Prooftexts  (): . Compare the intensive plural (pluralis intensivus), as in úåòã ‘(complete) knowledge’ ( Sam :), úåçîù ‘(utter) gladness’ (Pss :, :), and even úåöò ‘(any) counsel (whatsoever)’ (Dt :) (see 67

68


’    



texts attribute to God at creation (e.g., Pss :, :; see also :– ).74 God’s name and title, then, reveal what he himself demonstrates through the cosmogony:75 the application of intense power to suppress rivals,76 create the cosmos as his domain, and achieve the status of king (see §..).77 ... Towards the end of the cosmogony, God repeats this achievement one more time (see §..). But on this occasion, his rivals are not intrinsically evil or hostile. They do not threaten to undo the harmonic order that God imposes on the world. On the contrary, these would-be rivals are ostensibly supportive—a divine phalanx that God deliberately assembles to help him make humankind. These gods represent a threat of a different kind, however. This threat might not exist in other traditions (see §, intro.). The conception of a host of heavenly beings, Yahweh’s entourage, was always present in the faith of Israel, and … it never clashed with monotheism, but in fact emphasized Yahweh’s majesty and uniqueness.78

In these other traditions, God is specifically enthroned over his divine assembly.79 P, though, objects. The Priestly theology … posits the existence of one supreme God who contends with neither a higher realm nor with competing peers.80

GKC §e; and, esp., Ember, AJSL  []: –. Cf. the phonological interpretation advanced by Gary A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms [SBLMS ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ] , ). 74 Fishbane, Text and Texture –. 75 See S. Dean McBride Jr., “Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner (ed. William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr.; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, )  n. . 76 See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker;  vols.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, – [–]) .–. 77 See Schmidt, Königtum Gottes 2 –. 78 C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (POS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –. See also Dale Patrick, The Rendering of God in the Old Testament (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, )  n. ; Herbert Niehr, “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. Diana Vikander Edelman; Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []) –; and Miller, quoted above in §, intro. 79 Mullen, “Divine Assembly,” in ABD .b. 80 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus ( vols.; AB –B; New York: Doubleday, –) .. See also Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) ; and Westermann and Harland, quoted in §§., ., respectively.




 

P’s God does not have a heavenly entourage. P’s God does not have divine assistants or ambassadors. P’s God has no divine peers. For P, “a host of heavenly beings” very much “clashed with monotheism.”81 Their existence is a theological affront, defining them as God’s rivals (see §..). And “Yahweh the suzerain cannot tolerate rivals.”82 He defeats them as he defeated other rivals in the cosmogony: He neutralizes, or engulfs, them; and they never reemerge in the Priestly pentateuchal tradition. P’s God therefore achieves sole majestic rule over the world and, in the process, establishes monotheism itself.83 ... Whereas God’s council disappears, another set of nonmalevolent divine beings has left distinct traces in the subsequent Priestly narrative.84 They too were once God’s assistants. They too are now deposed, depersonalized, demythologized, and deprived of any vitality whatsoever. And they too specifically express the “kingly deity.”85 These beings are the Cherubim. Outside of the early Priestly tradition, the Cherubim are mythological beings. In most texts, they are “celestial winged bearers of God upon which he was imagined as sitting enthroned” (e.g., Ps :).86 They can transport God through space (e.g.,  Sam :; Ps :). They represent and attend to God (e.g., Ez :–). In other texts, the Cherubim are protective beings associated with Eden (e.g., :).87 He [sc. the Lord God] expelled the man, and he stationed east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim and the flame of a whirling sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen : [J])

Cf. Whybray, The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl – . Levenson, Sinai and Zion . 83 For other developmental statements, see Fritz Stolz, “Jahwes Unvergleichlichkeit und Unergründlichkeit. Aspekte der Entwicklung zum alttestamentlichen Monotheismus,” WuD  (): –; and Walter Dietrich, “Grenzen göttlicher Macht nach dem Alten Testament,” ZTK  (): . Cf. Edwin Firmage, “Genesis  and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT  (): –. 84 Propp (p.c.). 85 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,  []) . See also, inter alios, Preuss, Old Testament Theology .; and Mettinger, “Cherubim íéáåøë,” in DDD2 b. 86 Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel (AB – ; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, – ) .. 87 Benjamin D. Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle,” BI  (): . 81

82


’    



For J, these divine guards are important.88 They serve as God’s representatives,89 appointed by God to guard Eden against human incursion.90 By divine decree, the Cherubim function as God’s deputies, on earth, to protect God’s domain against violation.91 In the Priestly tradition, there are two types of Cherubim, both of which are incorporated into the physical design of the tabernacle. One type is three-dimensional. Located in the adytum, these Cherubim do not bear God’s throne (Ex :; Num : [P]). They are gold icons that protect the covering atop the ark (Ex :–, :– [P]),92 “which are the symbol par excellence of Yahweh’s Presence in Israel’s midst.”93 The other type of Priestly Cherubim is two-dimensional.94 These latter Cherubim are artistic designs adorning tabernacle curtains. They are embroidered on the innermost set of curtains that cover the tabernacle proper (:, : [P]), and they decorate the curtain that screens off the Holy of Holies and the ark (:, : [P]). In their Priestly incarnation, then, the Cherubim have been converted from angelic assistants to symbolic ornamentation.95 They still implicate God, albeit differently than in other traditions.96 Regardless of their degree of physicality, the Priestly Cherubim are stationed at boundaries between ever-increasing spheres of holiness:97 the tabernacle proper (see also  Kgs :); the entrance into the Holy of Holies (see also 88 Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion;  vols.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]) .; and van Seters, “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King,” ZAW  (): . 89 See Zimmerli, .Mose3 .–. 90 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. Israel Abrahams;  pts.; Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]) .; David P. Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Bib  (): ; and Beuken, LouvSt  (): . 91 See Dillmann, Die Genesis (th ed.; KeHAT ; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, )  (= Genesis [trans. Wm. B. Stevenson;  vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ] .); and Jacob, Genesis . 92 Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (trans. Frederick H. Cryer; CBOT ; Lund: CWK Gleerup, ) . See also Mettinger, in DDD2 b. 93 John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC ; Waco: Word, )  (italics original). See also Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth . 94 See Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images –. 95 M. Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual,” IEJ  (): ; and idem, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) . See also Olyan, A Thousand Thousands Served Him . 96 Sommer, BI  (): –. 97 For the organizational principle, see Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, ) .




 

vv. .); and the ark’s covering, or sound stage of God’s theophany (Num : [P]; see also  Kgs :–, :–). In the Priestly tradition, these Cherubim are ossified symbols of a God enthroned amidst royal splendor in his earthly sanctuary.98 ... Priestly monotheism mandates that God have no competitors, whether disruptive or supportive. In the case of evil challengers, God struggles to eliminate them from his world. In the case of other divine powers that cohabit his world, they pose a different kind of threat. They pose an immediate threat to God’s singularity in the divine realm. But they also pose a prospective threat; even God’s divine servants may fail God, disobey him, and provoke violence. Nevertheless, there is one Priestly response. The threat is contained and submerged under God’s control. And through this process, God expresses his claim to exclusive and all-powerful kingship. In the cosmogony, God demonstrates and then claims exclusive right to úåîã. God exercises this power as the creator of the world (§.), and he strips his co-creative peers of theirs (§..). His timing is impeccable. As he deliberately seeks their participation to make a human race that will somewhat resemble their own (cap-) ability to generate úåãìåú and populate the world with human beings, God thwarts them. He quietly imposes his úåîã and, without assistance, successfully creates a selfsustaining human race. With the same stroke, P’s God also checks their potential to make miscreants like the Nephilim. God is and remains prime creator in the world. What befalls the gods’ úåîã also befalls their íìö. The gods and their íìö succumb to “the essence of the idea of creation in the Hebrew Bible”; like everything else in the cosmos, their ultimate disposition reflects “the uncompromised mastery of YHWH, God of Israel, over all else” (see §..).99 But their fate is also implicit in God’s proposal to make the human race. P’s God intends that the human ‘image’ reflect a divine counterpart; the ‘image’ of the human race will be homological with God’s as well as the gods’ (§ ...).100 In the divine world, how-

See Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images . Levenson, Creation and … Evil . See also Walter Brueggemann, “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW  ():  (repr. in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions [d ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, ] ). 100 Cf. Bird, HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ); and Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment,” ExAu  (): –. 98

99


’    



ever, God and the gods do not share ‘image’ equally. It is a trait that God, the absolute monarch, wields over his co-regental subordinates. It is a trait that will allow P’s God to dismiss Cherubic guardians of the created world (§..). It is also a trait that God can impose on violators of his sovereign rule. Towards the end of the cosmogony, God exercises his íìö yet again to neutralize even unexpressed threats to his exclusive majestic status. The Priestly cosmogony shows how God achieves kingship after overpowering legacies of evil. It shows how God predominates over his domain, including his traditional allies that comprise his pantheon. The cosmogony demonstrates, then, how effectively God imposes rule over the cosmos.101 For the Lord is a great God and a great king over all gods. (Ps :; see also :, :) The Lord is king! … For you, O Lord, are supreme over the whole earth; you are exalted far above all gods. (Ps :aα.)

Not only is God incomparable among all his peers, ‘the God of gods’ and ‘the Lord of lords’ (Ps :–) (see §..).102 P’s God is altogether without peer. .. Imitatio Dei et deorum According to the Priestly writer, humankind is a godlike and God-like creation. Created ‘in our image’ and ‘in the image of God’, it represents both levels of divine authority that govern the cosmos. Humankind represents God’s community of co-rulers, responsible for performing the justice and enacting the sovereign will of God. It also represents the rule of God himself, at least as he demonstrates it throughout the Priestly cosmogony. A theophany, humankind represents the Enthroned One as well as those surrounding His throne.

See Caspari, CuW  (): . In addition to Schmidt and Niehr, cited above in nn.  and , respectively, see Stolz, WuD  (): ; and J. C. L. Gibson, “The Kingship of Yahweh against Its Canaanite Background,” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey; UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) . 101

102




 

Ps  offers a “variant meditation on the creation of humanity”103 as it is depicted in Gen .104 When I see your heaven, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you established, what is humanity that you would think of it, a human being that you take note of him? You made it less than íéäìà divine105 and crowned it with glory and majesty. åäìéùîú You gave it rule over the work of your hands. You laid everything at its feet: sheep and oxen, all of them; also the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven; and the fish of the sea, (whatever) crosses the paths of the seas. (Ps :–)

Like Gen , this psalm ascribes ‘image’ to human beings.106 God ensures that they dominate terrestrial, aviary, and marine life (vv. –; see Gen :b.b). They collaterally hold the power to place everything under their control (v. b; see Gen :bαbβ.aβb).107 God even assigns 103 Levenson, Creation and … Evil . See also Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUN ; Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, ) ; Bird, “‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh,’” ThTo  (): –; and the discussion by Sarah Stroumsa, “‘What is Man’: Psalm :– in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Exegesis in Arabic,” Hen  (): –. Cf. Beuken, LouvSt  (): –. 104 The tradition-historical relationship between these two texts is debated (Harland, The Value of Human Life ). It has been suggested that the Priestly text is dependent upon Ps  (Sigmund Mowinckel, “Urmensch und ‘Königsideologie’,” ST  []: ), independent of Ps  yet derived from a common previous tradition (Preuss, Old Testament Theology .), or subsequent to Ps  (Stamm, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament [ThSt ; Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, ] –, in conjunction with Kraus, Psalms .). 105 For this interpretation of íéäìà, see Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms ( vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, –) ., in conjunction with A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms ( vols.; NCBC; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, ) .. Cf. Schmidt, “Gott und Mensch in Ps. . Form- und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwägungen,” TZ  (): – (repr. in Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens [ed. Axel Graupner, Holger Delkurt, and Alexander B. Ernst;  vols.; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ] .–). 106 Humbert, Études sur le récit du paradis ; Wildberger, “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –,” TZ  (): – (repr. in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar  [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] –); and Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 –. 107 Schmidt, TZ  ():  (= Vielfalt und Einheit .); Manfred Görg, “Alles hast Du gelegt unter seine Füße. Beobachtungen zu Ps ,b im Vergleich mit Gen ,,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum . Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld; SBB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) – (repr. in Studien zur biblisch-ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [SBAB ; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ] –); and James Limburg, “Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment,” in All Things New .


’    



them royal status and royal rule comparable to his own (e.g., v. b).108 Nonetheless, the psalmist deems humanity inherently diminutive (v. ).109 As Wolff asserts, “the crowning of man to be steward over the world is (in view of his minuteness …) anything but a matter of course, and certainly does not have its ground in man himself (vv. f.).”110 God chooses to elevate human beings “to the highest status conceivable, short of complete divinization” (v. a).111 Like the stars before them (Gen :–aα) (§.), God grants his human creation rulership of the world. He is the majestic Lord of the universe (vv. .); humankind is his underlord with whom he shares sovereignty.112 Humanity attests to God on earth.113 Ps  and Gen  each affirm that humanity occupies a privileged position in the world. In Ps , God gives it special protection (v. b) and determines that it be his near-divine co-regent (vv. –). In Gen , its privileged position is more dynamic and replacive. For when God ele-

108 In addition to the references in n. , see Mowinckel, ST  (): ; Herbert G. May, “The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel :–,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; London: SCM, ) ; Kraus, Psalms .; and, in greater detail, Schmidt, TZ  (): – (= Vielfalt und Einheit .–). 109 Anderson, Psalms .–. See also Peter C. Craigie, Psalms – (WBC ; Waco: Word, ) ; and Tigay, “What is Man That You Have Been Mindful of Him? (On Psalm :–),” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, ) b. There are also linguistic tokens of this property: viz., the morphology of ùåðà (see GvG  §cα; and, perhaps, Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §Ee) and the phraseology of íãà­ïá (see Eichrodt, Ezekiel [trans. Cosslett Quin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster,  (–)]  [on Ez :]). 110 Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. Margaret Kohl; Philadelphia: Fortress,  []) . 111 Clines, TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .). See also, inter alios, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press,  []) . 112 Heinrich Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,” in Lex Tua Veritas. Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. idem and Franz Mußner; Trier: Paulinus, ) ; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament,” ErJ  ():  (repr. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Leo Scheffczyk; WdF ; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, ] ); Craigie, Psalms – ; and, by implication, Childs, “Psalm  in the Context of the Christian Canon,” Int  ():  (repr. in Biblical Theology in Crisis [Philadelphia: Westminster, ] ). 113 Stamm, in Humanität und Glaube –; Talmon, ExAu  (): ; and James L. Mays, “What is a Human Being? Reflections on Psalm ,” ThTo  (): . See also Schmidt, TZ  ():  (= Vielfalt und Einheit .); and Levenson, quoted in §.., above.




 

vates the human race to the rank of co-regent, he counterbalances this act with another. God demotes the gods that have hitherto served this co-regental role. It is an act of theological necessity (§..). Perhaps it is an act of self-protection, since God neutralizes potential challengers to his created order (§.). It is certainly an act that gives precursory protection to human beings against the dangers that the gods can pose (§§., ..). Yet it is also an act of disruption; without gods, there is a vacuum in God’s world. God loses an entire administrative stratum with which he would otherwise share the governance of the world. So God adopts a replacement (§ ...). He creates a new cooperative that will imitate and replace, at least in part, the functions of his divine comrades. P’s God elects humankind as the community with which he will enter into a special binding relationship.114 ... Imitatio deorum. Gen  is not the only biblical text to replace God’s divine community with a human entourage. Ascribe to the Lord, íéìà éðá O divinities, ascribe to the Lord glory and might. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name, bow down to the Lord in holy majesty. (Ps :b-) Ascribe to the Lord, íéîò úåçôùî O families of peoples, ascribe to the Lord glory and might. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name, ... bow down to the Lord in holy majesty. (Ps :–a.a; see also  Chr :– )

Whereas Ps  situates Yahweh in his divine court among his divine affiliates, Ps  relocates him in this world.115 Here, the gods are an insignificant trifle (v. a); “they have done nothing for the people that worship them, they can do nothing, they are in reality nothing, they have no real existence and are not gods at all.”116 They are not Yahweh’s loyal servants, either. Instead, all peoples should honor and glo-

For this Priestly motif, see Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. David E. Green; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []) ; and Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion . n. . 115 Friedrich Baethgen, Die Psalmen (d ed.; HKAT II/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ) ; and H. L. Ginsberg, “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody,” in W. F. Albright Volume (ed. A. Malamat; EI ; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, ) a. See also Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy . Cf. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (d ed.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Royal Van Gorcum, ) . 116 Briggs and Briggs, Psalms .–. 114


’    



rify him as creator (e.g., v. b), king (e.g., v. aαb), and judge (e.g., v. ). They should “assume the place of his council (in Ps ),” becoming God’s devotional community.117 Text-critical analysis adds several other instances of this replacement pattern. When [the Supreme One] allot[ted the nations, when he separated humankind, he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of] íéäåìà éðá divinities. (QDeutj : [completed after LXX/MT])118 When the Supreme One allotted the nations, when he separated humankind, he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of éðá ìàøùé Israelites. (Dt :) Celebrate, íéîù O heaven, with him; íéäìà ìë åì ååçúùäå bow down to him, all divinities. For åéðá íã the blood of his sons will he avenge; he will bring vengeance back on his foes. (QDeutq :;119 see also LXX) Celebrate, íéåâ O nations, his people, for åéãáò­íã the blood of his servants will he avenge; he will bring vengeance back on his foes. (Dt : a-bα); see also The Lord is great in Zion; he is exalted above íéäìà ìë all the gods. (Ps : [with, e.g., Kenn. , ;120 see also Pss :, :, :]) The Lord is great in Zion; he is exalted above íéîòä­ìë all the peoples. (Ps :; see also QPsk :121)

They present the same issue as in the comparison between Pss  and . The former version of each doublet poses a theological problem; they each recognize that God does not exist in “divine isolation” (see §, intro.) but is set in a wider divine context that includes gods. The problem, then, lies in the “polytheistic misinterpretation” that the underlying, pre-Masoretic text can promote.122 The second version of each doublet offers the Masoretic solution; they each eliminate viable divine beings from God’s context, restoring him to a more orthodox, Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy . See above, ch.  n. . 119 DJD .. 120 See Benjaminus Kennicott, ed., Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, cum Variis Lectionibus ( vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, –) .b; and Johannis Bern. De-Rossi, Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti ( vols.; Parma: Ex Regio Typographeo, –) .b. 121 DJD .. 122 Tigay, Deuteronomy . See also Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible2 ; and Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, )  with n. . 117

118




 

uncompromised “divine isolation.”123 These Masoretic revisions protect God from peer rivalry and, in the process, elevate (Israelite) humankind “to the highest status conceivable, short of complete divinization” (see §.). Humanity writ large, and Israel writ small, replace the gods, becoming “the functional equivalent of the pantheon.”124 .... One measure of the alliance between P’s God and his human creation appears almost immediately, in God’s first speech to the first human beings. God blessed them íäì øîàéå and God said to them, “Be fruitful, be numerous, and fill …” (Gen :a; see also :b); cf. God blessed them :)

øîàì,

“Be fruitful, be numerous, and fill …” (Gen

Although these two blessings begin identically, they are each headed by a different introductory frame.125 The blessing of v.  is preceded by øîàì. It indicates that, when God speaks to the marine and aviary life created on the fifth day, the event is not a prototypical dialogue;126 in the Priestly world, animals do not speak and do not engage in conversation.127 Hence, øîàì is pragmatically appropriate. But in v. , God’s addressees are human, speech-producing, and finite in number (§..). Each participant is fully capable of engaging in interactive speech,128 as the introductory frame conveys. The frame suggests that human beings, unlike animals, can be God’s (conversational) partner in the world.129 They can replace his deliberative body in heaven.130 See Tigay, Deuteronomy –. Levenson, Creation and … Evil  with  n. . See also McBride, in God Who Creates . 125 Ebach, “Die Erschaffung des Menschen als Bild Gottes. Überlegungen zur Anthropologie im Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift,” WPKG  (): . Cf. Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, ) . 126 Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology  n. . See also the discussion by Cynthia L. Miller, The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) , –, . 127 Richard Elliott Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch),” in ABD .a. 128 E.g., Friedrich Horst, “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God,” Int  (): – (repr. as “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes,” in Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [ed. Hans Walter Wolff; TBü ; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, ] –); and Brueggemann, Genesis (Interp; Atlanta: John Knox, ) . See also the survey by Westermann, Genesis .–. 129 Ebach, Ursprung und Ziel . 130 See Horst Seebass, Genesis ( vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, – ) .. 123

124


’    



In later stages of the Priestly narrative, there is other evidence to show that the Israelite community replaces—or mimics—the divine court. This evidence is terminological; the Israelites are organized into the same collective categories as were the gods before them (see §..). One category is the ìä÷ ‘gathering’ (e.g., Gen :; Ex :; Num : [P]). In the Priestly tradition, this term characterizes the community as a vast collective,131 particularly in relation to God’s blessings of Gen :.132 Another, more specific category is the äãò ‘assembly’ (e.g., Ex :, :; Num : [P]). As Milgrom describes it, the Priestly ‘assembly’ “clearly appears as a political body invested with legislative and judicial functions.”133 Moreover, it has a Yahwistic affiliation or identity,134 especially through the performance of his decrees, commands, and commandments.135 A third organizational category shared with the gods is the àáö ‘army’136 (e.g., Ex :, :; Num :– [P]). Within the Priestly tradition, this military designation is applied only

131 E.g., Pierre Azzi, “La notion d’‘assemblée’ dans l’Ancien Testament,” Melto  (): ; and F.-L. Hossfeld and E.-M. Kindl, “ìäJ q¯ah¯al; ìä÷ qhl; älä ! O qehillâ; úìä  S q¯ohelet. IV,” in TDOT .. 132 See Westermann, Genesis .; and Thomas Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g (WMANT ; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) . 133 Milgrom, “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel,” JQR  ():  (repr. in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology [SJLA ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ] ). See also Robert Gordis, “Democratic Origins ¯ ah,” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of in Ancient Israel—The Biblical ‘Ed¯ His Seventieth Birthday ( sections; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, ) English Section, , – (repr. as “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Israel,” in Poets, Prophets, and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation [Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press, ] , ); and J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus – (VTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) –. 134 G. Sauer, “ãòé y‘d to appoint,” in TLOT .; Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift ; and, by implication, Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. Cf. Leonhard Rost, Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament. Eine wortgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BWANT /; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) . 135 See, however, Ursula Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH (ÖBS ; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, ) . For the diverse functions of the Israelite ‘assembly’, see, inter alios, Milgrom, JQR  (): – (= Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology –); and Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code –. 136 Preuss, Old Testament Theology ., in conjunction with Gibson, in Ugarit and the Bible –.




 

to the Israelites. From a lexical perspective, the Israelites collectively substitute for the gods of non-Priestly traditions.137 And like the gods, they belong to God alone. The Israelites are his ‘gathering’ (Num :, : [P]). They comprise his ‘assembly’ (:, : [H]; see also : [P?]),138 and they serve as his ‘army’ (Ex : [P]; see also Num :. [H]). The Israelites are God’s subordinate community. .... In addition to grammatical and terminological indicia that the (Israelite) human community replaces an antecedent divine community, the Priestly author stresses a performative feature that humankind inherits from the gods. This feature is its godlike ‘image’ (§ ...). The context of the replacement is laid by the Yahwist tradition. At first, J assigns a version of ‘image’ to the man. The Lord God took the man and set him in the garden of Eden to work it äøîùìå and to guard (or: keep, tend) it. (Gen : [J])

But the role is soon reassigned. Despite Yahweh’s intention that the man “preserve [the garden] from all damage,”139 the man damages it and disrupts God’s established order (§..). Then the Lord God said, “Since the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, no way then should he stretch out his hand, take from the tree of life as well, and eat and live forever!” So the Lord God drove him out of the garden of Eden, to work the soil from which he was taken. He expelled the man, and he stationed east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim and the flame of a whirling sword, øîùì to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen :– [J])

Yahweh punishes the disobedience. He summons his array of divine councillors, as the situation demands (§..), and restores order. He also rescinds his original assignment of human guardianship and posts

137 For another, non-Priestly lexical correspondence between God’s divine and human communities, ãåñ ‘council’, see M. Sæbø, “ãÇñ sôd secret,” in TLOT .– ; and Abraham Malamat, “The Secret Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari and Israel,” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum . Geburtstag (ed. Rüdiger Liwak and Siegfried Wagner; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ) – (repr. in Mari and the Bible [SHCANE ; Leiden: Brill, ] –). 138 Note D. Levy and J. Milgrom, “ä@ò ‘¯edâ. I–IV,” in TDOT ., for the comparison. 139 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (trans. John H. Marks; rev. ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, ) .


’    



divine guards to maintain and preserve Eden, on his own behalf, against human ‘violence’ (§§., ..). J’s Cherubim now do God’s work. In the Priestly tradition, they do not. Their role as protectors of the world is a human prerogative; it is a royal duty that God voices, institutes, and mandates for all time (Gen :b-.aβbβ-b). Instead of J’s active Cherubim, P’s human race serves as God’s underlord on earth, enacting his will. Instead of a cherubic theophany, P describes a theophany of human beings. Created in the divine image and divine likeness, humankind will be a permanent fixture that reveals God’s active presence and participation in the world of his creation. True, P accepts a traditional administrative model of divine governance, in which God rules over all of the universe as the divine king. But rather than gods, the lower administrative tier in the Priestly version is occupied by human beings. In the absence of gods or Cherubim, God empowers the human race to rule and police the world with vigilance. P thus defies Yahwist doctrine. Humankind replaces the gods, representing godlike sovereignty and legal guardianship in/over the world. .... From this perspective, the creation of the human race is also a divine pledge of allegiance. For the moment that God ousts the gods of Gen :a, he chooses to ally himself with humankind. “Humans are to be the feudal partner of God in his formation and administration of the creation.”140 They are to be his vassal, and he is to be their overlord.141 P’s God comes to rule a new community that is intimately related to him (v. ). In later generations, the relationship will be defined as a covenant. God will promise to become ‘God’ of his elect community (e.g., Gen : b [P]),142 provided that it worship him alone (e.g., v. b [P]) and comply with his distinctive religious practices (e.g., vv. b- [P]).143 He will

Preuss, Old Testament Theology .. See Caspari, CuW  ():  n. . 142 For a developmental interpretation of this formula, see Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (trans. Margaret Kohl; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,  []) . 143 Fretheim, The Pentateuch (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, ) ; Levenson, “Exodus and Liberation,” in idem, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) ; and Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem/Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress, ) . 140

141




 

promise that his loyal subordinates will exercise sovereign control (e.g., vv. .b [P]) over the land, under his ultimate authority. And God will promise to claim Israel exclusively as his own ‘people’ (e.g., Ex :a [P]).144 At this later time, Yahweh will be God of the Israelites (e.g., Lev :, : [H]). He will also acquire the Israelites as his slaves (: [H]).145 In the cosmogony, however, these developments are only incipient.146 Of all God’s creations, humankind alone has a special stated relationship to God (§.). The relationship is not based on any intrinsic human merit but, like a blessing, is a gift of God. He initiates this relationship, and he commits himself to it.147 It is cooperative and binding. It is an expression of his right as the (newly) enthroned king. He replaces his precarious, former partners and creates new ones who must strictly abide by the terms of the relationship. Among other things, they must be “the functional equivalent of the pantheon” (§.., intro.) and represent divine rule in the world.148 For P, God chooses human vassals to be his godlike deputies and do his bidding obediently (§..).149 .... God’s new community imitates the internal organization of the gods, too. Within the pantheon, for example, not all gods share íìö equally. The dominant ‘image’ lies with God, while the lesser ‘image’ belongs to the gods (§§.., ..). It is a function of differential power and authority, and it affects the divine rank. Inter alia, God’s divine subordinates owe him his due reverence. Within the human community, there is a comparably unequal distribution of ‘image.’

144 Brueggemann, “Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of a Political Metaphor,” CBQ  (): –; and, esp., Schmidt, Exodus – (BKAT /; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ) –. 145 See Weinfeld, Social Justice –; and Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code –, . 146 See, similarly, Jos Luyten, “Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Moses (Dt ,–),” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (ed. Norbert Lohfink; BETL ; Louvain: Leuven University Press/Peeters, ) – (on Dt :–). 147 Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri . 148 Miller, HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ); and McBride, in God Who Creates . See also Groß, in Lex Tua Veritas . 149 Eryl W. Davies, “Walking in God’s Ways: The Concept of Imitatio Dei in the Old Testament,” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Roland E. Clements (ed. Edward Ball; JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) .


’    



When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he fathered (a son) … åîìöë according to his image, and he named him Seth. (Gen : [PT]); cf. Then God said, “Let us make humankind åðîìöá in our image …” So God created humankind åîìöá in his image, íéäìà íìöá in the image of God he created it, male and female he created them. (Gen :a.; see also :b [P])

Although humanity as a whole intimately reflects and participates in the divine image, ‘image’ is expressed differentially between generations: a child’s ‘image’ only approximates that of the parent (§...). A child must ‘honor’ his/her parents, as stated in the fifth commandment and its analogues. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may grow long … (Ex :; see also Dt :); see also You shall each revere your mother and your father. (Lev :aα [H])

That is to say, the child-parent relationship should imitate a basic relationship with God. Just as God is revered (e.g., Lev :b [H]), so are parents;150 as the gods glorify God (e.g., Ps :), “you have a duty to honour … your father and your mother … just as you honour your Creator”151 (e.g., :). To honor one’s parents is to maintain, on a nuclear scale, the order of God’s cosmos.152 For the gods and human beings alike, obedience has its reward. When the gods are obedient, their harmonic relationship with God continues. According to the fifth commandment, God rewards human obedience with life. God grants human beings continued existence, even beyond natural expectations.153 God rewards Noah’s perfect obedience (Gen :aβ-b [PT]) with life-saving protection against the flood (vv. –; see also : [P]) and continued exercise of ‘likeness’ (:b. [P]). God promises Abraham abundant progeny as well as a dynastic

John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC ; Dallas: Word, ) –. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes,  [])  (italics deleted). 152 See Greenberg, “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes,  [])  n.  (repr. in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought [JPS Scholar of Distinction Series; Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, ]  n. ); and, perhaps, Anselm C. Hagedorn, “Guarding the Parents’ Honor— Deuteronomy .–,” JSOT  (): . 153 Childs, Exodus ; and Levenson, Sinai and Zion  with n. . 150

151




 

line (e.g., :. [P]; see also Num :– [P?]) (§...). Obedience to God brings life and therefore inclusion in God’s community (see also Lev :..– [H]).154 Disobedience brings the opposite, whether to gods or humans. In response to Helel’s challenge of God’s kingship, God ejects him from the pantheon and banishes him permanently to the underworld depths (Is :–).155 Yahweh likewise punishes human disobedience in Eden (§§.., ...).156 Yet disobedience can also be punished with death.157 God demotes his divine council to mortal status for judicial failure (§..). He effects the flood on the world.158 He orders a death penalty for violations of the fifth commandment. Whoever slights (or: curses) one’s father or one’s mother shall be put to death. (Ex :; see also v. ) Anyone who slights (or: curses) one’s father or one’s mother shall be put to death. (Lev :a [H]; see also Dt :–, :a)

Within God’s community, disobedience of God guarantees punishment (see Lev :– [H]). .... But in Gen , the mood is very different. V. a “speaks of some direct relation between the divine and human world where the human participates potentially in deity.”159 By the application of his ‘image’, God has neutralized several inherited obstacles to the order that he is creating (§ ..). He is also in the process of shedding himself of beings who, by their very existence, provoke conflict. The mood is triumphant. In defiance of J, it is also celebratory. J recognizes that a “point of comparison between men and gods … really exists.” As that comparison is presented in Gen :, though, “[m]an has stepped outside the state of dependence, he has refused obedience and willed to make him-

154 See, e.g., Harland, The Value of Human Life ; and, in this context, Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship –. See also Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus (trans. Douglas W. Stott; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  [])  (on ritual performance). 155 Cooke, ZAW  (): ; Levenson, Creation and … Evil –; and Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) . For a recent discussion, see Day, Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses –. 156 For the nature of this domain, see the references in n. , above. 157 Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism . 158 Sharp, ScEs  (): –. 159 Miller, Genesis – .


’    



self independent. The guiding principle of his life is no longer obedience.”160 P maintains otherwise;161 there is … a narrative tension and contrast between P and J. The former speaks quite positively of this similarity of the human to the divine; the latter reacts very negatively. The kidmûtenû of P is a statement of God’s highest intention for the human being while being k˘e’ah. ad mimmennû is for J that which is absolutely prohibited for the human being and indeed the result of human sin and the cause of banishment from the garden. To be ’˘el¯ohîm-like is for P God’s will for his creature; in J to become ’˘el¯ohîm-like is to go precisely counter to the divine will.162

Whereas J condemns the comparison, P applauds it.163 For P, the divinehuman resemblance is a deliberate expression and act of God. ... Imitatio Dei. From the very beginning, the Priestly writer “establishes a clear connection between the human world and the divine world in the creation of ’¯ad¯am.”164 On the one hand, humankind is comparable to the lower level of the divine world (§..).165 On the other hand, it is comparable to the leader of that divine world, whose ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are ultimately imprinted on that segment of the human race destined to become Israelite. Preuss presses the comparison one step further. [N]ot only is God imagined in anthropomorphic terms, humans also are believed to be theomorphic.166 … What are present here [in Gen. ] are statements of relationship between God and humanity. … Whoever chooses to speak of God must therefore speak at the same time of humanity, and whoever wishes to speak correctly about humanity must also speak about God.167

160 Von Rad, Genesis . See also, inter alios, Gunkel, Genesis (th ed.; HKAT I/; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Mercer Library of Biblical Studies; Macon: Mercer University Press, ] ); and John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) –. 161 Cf. Dillmann, Genesis6  (= ET .). 162 Miller, Genesis – . 163 Note David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) . 164 Miller, Genesis – . 165 McBride, in God Who Creates . 166 See § .. with n. . 167 Preuss, Old Testament Theology .–. See also Christoph Dohmen, “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes,” LebZeug  (): .




 

The divine-human comparison is a mutual and reciprocal relationship. For Brueggemann, it is also a relationship of representation. There is one way in which God is imaged in the world and only one: humanness! This is the only creature, the only part of creation, which discloses to us something about the reality of God.168

The human and divine worlds therefore implicate each other. Yet the prototype of the human world lies in “the reality of God.” That reality changes over the course of the cosmogony. Situated in a world that is undifferentiated, shapeless, and chaotic, God moves step by step to build a world that satisfies him (‘very good’ [Gen :]). He combats forces in/of the world that can destabilize his creation. He exercises his right to unseat his morphologically kindred colleagues with whom he might share both realms of the universe: viz., the celestial realm of the gods and the terrestrial realm of humankind. P’s God attains complete control of the world, as creator and as absolute king. These changes in the reality of God directly impact the world of human creation. Divinity implicates humanity, as Preuss and Brueggemann note. More narrowly, God implicates “the only creature … which discloses to us something about the reality of God.” From this perspective, God’s role throughout the cosmogony is analogous to the role of P’s cosmogony in the Priestly pentateuchal corpus: each establishes the paradigm that will be repeated throughout P’s version of history (§ ). In the latter case, the cosmogony “may be regarded as a charter text that informs other priestly passages in the Pentateuch.”169 In the former case, God himself is the paradigm for all future human behavior (§..). P’s God institutes harmonious cosmic order in the universe. Thereafter, “it is the task of mankind to extend and complete on earth the divine work of creation.”170

Brueggemann, Genesis . Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS ; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ) . See also Janowski, “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption,” JBTh  (): – (repr. in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, ] –); and McBride, in God Who Creates –, esp. . 170 Fishbane, Text and Texture . See Lohfink, “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’?” Orien  (): a (repr. as “‘Subdue the Earth?’ [Genesis :],” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, ] ). 168

169


’    



.... That task involves the exercise of úåîã. God initiates the process; his úåîã effects the creation of humankind (íãà úIìåú) and the creation of the cosmos (õøàäå íéîùä úåãìåú) (§.). The process then continues. God empowers human beings to repeat his cosmogonic model.171 They must perpetuate the human race and construct a domain that is fit for God as well as the developing relationship between God and his chosen people.172 Part of the human task is biological (§§ .., ..). From the moment of its creation, humankind is a primitive reproductive community (e.g., Gen :b). It is explicitly equipped with the means to reproduce.173 So too, it is obliged to reproduce aplenty, to continue the creative work that God had begun (v. aβaβ).174 God, though, does not withdraw at this point. When trouble occurs in the genealogical trajectory, God intervenes. He can override natural biology and secure progeny for an infertile couple (§...). The (cap-) ability to populate the world with human beings, in imitation of God’s creation, remains a gift of God. Not only does humankind have a duty to continue íãà úIìåú. It must imitate õøàäå íéîùä úåãìåú. In this latter case, human beings must re-create a residence for God on earth.175 It is a project homological to the cosmogony.176 It begins with íéäìà çåø—creative expertise that God invests in the project foreman (Ex :, : [P]; see Gen :). It Note Fretheim, in All Things New . Angerstorfer, “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw(t). Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre,” BN  (): , in conjunction with Frank H. Gorman, Jr., The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) . See also Janowski, JBTh  ():  (= Gottes Gegenwart in Israel ). 173 Victor Maag, “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie,” AsSt  ():  (repr. in Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Zum . Geburtstag [ed. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck; Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ] ). 174 See Johannes C. de Moor, “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting …  (ed. idem; OTS ; Leiden: E. J. Brill, ) ; and, differently, Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament  (on the divine image). 175 Fishbane, Text and Texture ; and Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual . See also Cassuto, Exodus . 176 E.g., Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis  with n. ; Vogels, “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen ,b),” SJOT  ():  with n. ; and Sommer, BI  (): . For detailed discussions, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ  (): –; Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex –,” ZAW  (): –; Levenson, Creation and … Evil – ; and Janowski, cited in n. , above. See also McBride, in God Who Creates –. Cf. Groß, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen ,. in der Diskussion 171

172




 

is commanded by God, through a heptad of instructions which impose, among other things, multiple forms of order: viz., internal (sub-) divisions, separate and dedicated space, exact measurements, and permanent fixtures; the seventh day is dedicated to the Sabbath (Ex :–; see Gen :– [P]). The instructions are each executed immediately and perfectly, ‘just as the Lord had commanded’. Then, after ‘all the work’ is completed (see Gen :.b [P]), the project concludes with a voice of approval (Ex :; see Gen : [P]). The project, of course, is the tabernacle. As God had done before them, the Israelites create “an ordered, supportive, and obedient environment … in which the reign of God is visible and unchallenged.”177 They are his collaborators and cocreators.178 Imitatio Dei, they extend and complete God’s creative work on earth in perfect obedience.179 .... Humankind also extends and completes “the essence of the idea of creation in the Hebrew Bible”: “mastery” (see §..). It will dominate the animals that inhabit the world (§§ ..., .).180 It will tend the world,181 “maintain the order of creation, and … when necessary, restore the order of creation.”182 It will combat eruptions of violence and chaos (§ ...).183 It will impose and administer the rule of law (see also Lev : [H]).184 It will even develop into a dynasty of

des letzten Jahrzehnts,” BN  (): – (repr. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern –). 177 Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 178 See Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan; JSOTS ; Sheffield: JSOT Press, ) ; and, by implication, Brown, “Divine Act and the Art of Persuasion in Genesis ,” in ibid. . 179 Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual . 180 For a qualification, see Eichrodt, Man in the Old Testament (trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith; SBT /; London: SCM,  []) . 181 Note Ian Hart, “Genesis :–: as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis,” TynB  (): . 182 Gorman, in History and Interpretation . See also idem, The Ideology of Ritual ; and Sharp, ScEs  (): . 183 E.g., Görg, “‘Chaos’ und ‘Chaosmächte’ im Alten Testament,” BN  (): ; and Weimar, “Chaos und Kosmos. Gen , als Schlüssel einer alteren Fassung der priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung,” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum . Geburtstag (ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld; BZAW ; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) . 184 See Gerstenberger, Yahweh the Patriarch: Ancient Images of God and Feminist Theology (trans. Frederick J. Gaiser; Minneapolis: Fortress,  []) .


’    



monarchs who will rule the world with, and under, God (§...).185 Humankind, and its Israelite derivative, will be God’s lesser king.186 As ‘the image of God’, they will represent and perpetuate God’s kingship on earth as he achieved it at the beginning of time (§§ .., ..).187 The Israelites serve a related role in the world of the tabernacle. Like the first human beings, they are a community of genetically related (Priestly) caretakers, defined in relation to God and one another.188 They are empowered to use vast swaths of preexisting material for themselves and, especially, for regulating their exclusive alliance with God.189 As God’s staff in this newly created world, they also ensure that the tabernacle operates in good order.190 They must, for instance, preserve the “distinctive order of time as commanded by God” at creation by maintaining a cultic calendar.191 They must combat the constant insinuation of evil; they must remove sinful breaches that would disqualify them, individually or as a community, from a harmonic relationship with God.192 As God did at creation, they must both build an orderly environment for the Divine King and his people, and they must continually neutralize outbreaks of chaos.193 .... In the Priestly cosmogony, however, “the divine work of creation” is more than the concrete product of creative activity (e.g., §..).194 It includes different ways that God engages and suppresses Levenson, Creation and … Evil . Klopfenstein, Leben aus dem Wort –. 187 Marsha M. Wilfong, “Human Creation in Canonical Context: Genesis :– and Beyond,” in God Who Creates –. 188 Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress,  []) –; and Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code . 189 For a characterization of the Priestly cult, see Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual – ; idem, in History and Interpretation ; and Israel Knohl, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ) . 190 See Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual –. 191 Dennis T. Olson, Numbers (Interp; Louisville: John Knox, ) , with accompanying discussion. See also Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual –. 192 See Childs, Myth and Reality2 , as elaborated by Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship –. 193 Görg, BN  (): ; and, differently, Levenson, Creation and … Evil . See also Gerstenberger, Leviticus . 194 See Loren R. Fisher, “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament,” VT  (): . For the constellation of creation-related features, see Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis :–:,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles 185

186




 

indigenous enemies. It includes the demonstration of power, and achievement of victory, over a realm that God effectively selects as his domain. It includes conquest as well as kingship. For the Priestly writer, creation is only one outcome of the Chaoskampf, “the paradigm of all victories.”195 The setting of the paradigm is õøàä. In its earliest stage, before creation, ‘the earth’ was “a chaotic mass, without order or life” (§, intro.). Next, it is ordered. It is also fertilized, illuminated, and occupied by animals. Then it is mentioned again, in the proposal to make the human race. and let them have dominion over … the whole earth. (Gen :bα [P])

In addition to wildlife, human beings will dominate the entire earth.196 õøàä, which God works to tame and mold into a life-sustaining environment, is eventually transferred by him to human control. The transfer culminates in Gen :, where P’s God presents “the program for the whole history of the culture of the human race.”197 God blessed them and God said to them, “… fill õøàä­úà the earth äùáëå and conquer it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of heaven, and over every thing that moves õøàä­ìò on the earth.” (Gen :)

The program has several components. One is the directive that human beings wage campaigns and conquer their region (ùáë).198 Another is the region itself, which is explicitly territorial (õøàä). Yet a third (ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor; AOAT ; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ) –; Levenson, Sinai and Zion –; and, esp., John Gray, The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, ) –. 195 Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL ; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, ) . See also ibid. , on Gen . 196 Note Jacob, Genesis –. Cf. Jüngling, “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen ,). Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung,” in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise (ed. Philipp Schmitz; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, ) – n. ; Hendel, The Text of Genesis – –; and Weippert, in Ebenbild Gottes— Herrscher über die Welt  n. , each differently. 197 Gunkel, Genesis4  (= ET ), followed, e.g., by Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament .. 198 See Görg, in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn – (= Studien zur … Religionsgeschichte –), with Harland, The Value of Human Life . See also Brueggemann, ZAW  (): – (= idem, in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions2 – ); Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, ) ; and, differently, Lohfink, Orien  (): – (= Theology of the Pentateuch –).


’    



component is the exercise of kingly power to dominate and subjugate those who dwell in their realm (äãø) (§...).199 It is a program, in fact, that will guide the Israelite effort to attain the promised land. You will keep all my laws and all my judgements, and you will perform them so the land to which I am about to bring you to dwell in will not vomit you out. You will not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out from before you. Since they did all these things, I loathe them. I said to you, “You will possess their land; I shall give it to you to possess, a land with oozing milk and honey.” (Lev :–a; see also :– [H]) You will dispossess all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their figured objects, destroying all their molten images and demolishing all their high places. You will appropriate the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess. (Num :– [H])

The Israelites must obey God, enact his directives, and reclaim the area from a native nation whose practices are the antithesis of their own.200 In other words, “Israel’s occupation of Canaan is the realization of the Creator’s blessing given to all the nations of the world.”201 But it is also a reenactment, extension, and completion of “the divine work of creation.” The Israelites should replicate that which God accomplished in the cosmogony. .... The continuation of God’s speech in Lev  recalls another creative “modality” that the Israelites must imitate and reenact: separation, differentiation, and division (§ .). I am the Lord your God who éúìãáä has separated you from the (other) peoples. íúìãáäå You should separate between the pure beast and the impure, and between the impure bird and the pure. You will not make yourselves despicable by beast or by bird or by anything that moves on the ground, which éúìãáä I have separated (out) for you to hold impure. (Lev :b- [H])

Just as God separated out the cosmos, so he has separated Israel from its multifarious ambience; God created Israel as he created the world. Note Görg, in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn  (= Studien zur … Religionsgeschichte –). 200 See Weinfeld, Social Justice –. 201 Lohfink, “Öøé y¯araˇ s; äÖVé yer¯esˇâ; äg\é yeruˇssˇâ; ÖTÇî môr¯asˇ; äÖTÇî môr¯asˇâ,” in TDOT .. See also, sympathetically, Frans Breukelman, “Das Buch Genesis als das Buch der úåãìåú Adams, des Menschens—eine Analyse der Komposition des Buches,” in Störenfriedels Zeddelkasten. Geschenkpapier zum . Geburtstag von Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt (Berlin: Alektor, ) , . 199




 

For H, the Israelites should follow suit, too. H characterizes “Israel’s own separation of fit from unfit foods as a continuation of the process of her own separation from the Gentiles so that even so humble an activity as eating replicates the ordering that is fundamental to God’s good world.”202 Israel’s distinct identity is anchored in creation. Israel is obliged to maintain this distinct identity in other ways, too. Israel may worship only one God and be forever bound to him in an exclusive covenantal relationship. Israelite males must bear a ‘sign’ of this relationship, circumcision (Gen :b-; see also Lev : [P]), without which a male will be ‘cut off’ from the community (Gen : ).203 Israelites must commemorate a separate period of time, at the week’s end, during which God ceased all creative activity (Ex :–  [P]; see also :–); in this case as well, anyone who violates the Sabbath—failing to abide by, and imitate, God’s precedent—will be ‘cut off’ (:b; see also : [P]).204 Most of all, perhaps, the Israelites must maintain their holiness.205 You [sc. Israelites] will be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy ìãáàå and have separated you from the (other) peoples to be mine. (Lev : [H])

Inasmuch as God separated the Israelites from the world around them, he sanctified them (:b- [H]).206 As agent and essence of holiness (e.g., Ex :b [P]; Lev :a.b [H?], respectively), God wills that Israel imitate him.207 Imitatio Dei, Israel must actively represent God, God’s holiness, and his separative modality of creation in the world.208

202 Levenson, Creation and … Evil . See also Milgrom, Leviticus .; and, despite his source-critical judgement, Firmage, JSOT  (): –. 203 For discussion, see Jacob, Genesis –. See also, more generally, Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) ; and Milgrom, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, ) –. 204 For the centrality of the Sabbath to P, see Weinfeld, Tarb  (): ; and, source-critical assignment aside, Yairah Amit, “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness,” in Tehillah le-Moshe *–* (in Hebrew). 205 Greenstein, Prooftexts  (): –. 206 Harland, The Value of Human Life ; and Greenstein, Prooftexts  (): . 207 E.g., Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament .; and Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula –. 208 Levenson, Creation and … Evil ; and Milgrom, Leviticus .–. See also Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code –.


’    



Stated thus, God provides more than one model for humanity, and Israel, to follow. True, they should sustain the many ways that God created the paradigmatic world (§ ) and actively participate in “the unfolding of a cosmic order planned for permanence and perfection.”209 But they should also imitate God himself. After all, the early history of God is a model of Priestly achievement (§.).210 He begins as an amorphous entity in an inherited, undifferentiated context; ultimately, he attains a completely differentiated uniqueness in an environment of his making. He wrestles forces of opposition, tames the terrain, utilizes its resources, and makes this world his home. He rules the world as king, without peer. And he makes himself available to only one partner in a covenantal relationship. To “extend and complete on earth the divine work of creation” (§ .., intro.), then, is to imitate and represent God in the world. .... But in the end, there is something missing from the Priestly account of human creation. Despite its celebratory tone, P does not expressly celebrate the human creature. God does not pronounce humanity ‘good’.211 Commentators explain the omission. It is possible, for example, that humankind is a self-explanatory good.212 It is also possible that the climactic evaluative clause of Gen :a, at the end of the sixth day, includes the human creature.213 Or maybe the perfect heptadic repetition of áåè éë compensates for its absence elsewhere in the cosmogony.214 Such interpretations, then, attempt to retrieve human goodness. But they do not address the import of the omission at this juncture or elsewhere in the cosmogony. P’s God does not pronounce the second creative act ‘good’, either.215 In this case, though, the reason is clear enough: the approbative formula is “not placed here by the original writer, because the separation of the waters by a firmament was only

Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament . (italics deleted). See, generally, Davies, in In Search of True Wisdom –. 211 Cf. Driver, The Book of Genesis (th ed.; WC; London: Methuen, )  (ad Gen :); and Hendel, The Text of Genesis – . 212 See the references in ch.  n. . 213 E.g., Procksch, Die Genesis 2/3 ; and Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte 2 . But see Westermann, Genesis . (on ‘darkness’). 214 See Levenson, Creation and … Evil . 215 Cf. LXX (James Barr, “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible,” in God in the Fray ; as explained by Hendel, The Text of Genesis – ). 209

210




 

a preliminary and imperfect stage in what was completed only on the Third Day.”216 Like Yahweh in Gen : (J),217 P’s God does not approve what is (still) incomplete.218 The absence of an approbative clause in the last creative act may serve a proleptic function as well. For in their final forms, the Priestly and Yahwist stories of early humanity do not belie one another. Indeed it [sc. P’s approbative formula] had to be omitted in order to avoid a seeming contradiction of what is subsequently written of man: and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only EVIL continually (vi  [J]); and afterwards: for the imagination of man’s heart is EVIL from his youth (viii  [J]).219

That is to say, P makes a concession to J.220 P concedes that the story of human history is not necessarily good (see also :).221 But P concedes something else, too. By omitting the approbative formula, P also acknowledges that the story of human history is not completed (see also :–a). P withholds (final) approval to humanity. Simply put, the story of (human) creation is not yet over.

216 Driver, Genesis12 . See also Jacob, Genesis ; Cassuto, Genesis .; Westermann, Genesis .; Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, ) ; and Brown, Structure, Role, and Ideology . Cf. A. van der Voort, “Genèse I,  à II, a et le Psaume CIV,” RB  ():  n. . 217 Vogels, “‘Like One of Us, Knowing tôb and ra‘,’” in Thinking in Signs: Semiotics and . Biblical Studies … Thirty Years After (ed. Daniel Patte; Semeia ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, ) ,  with n. . 218 Note Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York/Washington: Frederick A. Praeger, ) –. 219 Cassuto, Genesis . (italics and emphasis original). 220 Bernard F. Batto, “Creation Theology in Genesis,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins; CBQMS ; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, ) . 221 Morgenstern, AJSL  (): –, in conjunction with Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, ) . See also Barr, in God in the Fray .


BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Image. BRLAJ . Leiden: Brill, . Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, . Ahlström, G. W. Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion. Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. HSoed . Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, . Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Translated by John Bowden.  vols. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  []. ——— and C. Westermann. “çeø rûah. spirit.” In TLOT .–. Allen, Leslie C. “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel I.” VT  (): –. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, . Amit, Yairah. “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness.” Pp. *–* in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,  (in Hebrew). Andersen, Francis I. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica . The Hague: Mouton, . Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms.  vols. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, . ———.  Samuel. WBC . Dallas: Word, . Anderson, Bernhard W. “Analytical Outline of the Pentateuch.” Pp. – in Martin Noth. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, . ———. “The Earth is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation.” Pp. – in Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against CreationScience. Edited by Roland Mushat Frye. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, ; repr. as “The Earth is the Lord’s.” Pp. – in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “God, Names of.” In IDB .–. ———. “Human Dominion over Nature.” Pp. – in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought. Edited by Miriam Ward. Somerville, Mass.: Greeno, Hadden, ; repr. pp. – in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Relation between the Human and Nonhuman Creation in the Biblical Primeval History.” AJTP  (): –; repr. pp. – in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story.” Pp. – in






Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology. Edited by George W. Coats and Burke O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, ; repr. as “The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study.” Pp. – in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Angerstorfer, Andreas. “Ebenbild eines Gottes in babylonischen und assyrischen Keilschrifttexten.” BN  (): –. ———. “Hebräisch dmwt und aramäisch dmw(t). Ein Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre.” BN  (): –. ———. Der Schöpfergott des Alten Testaments. Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung des hebräischen Terminus àøá (bara) ‘schaffen’. RST . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, . Azzi, Pierre. “La notion d’‘assemblée’ dans l’Ancien Testament.” Melto  (): –. Baentsch, Bruno. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri. HKAT I/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Baethgen, Friedrich. Die Psalmen. d ed. HKAT II/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Balentine, Samuel E. The Torah’s Vision of Worship. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “ ‘What Are Human Beings, That You Make So Much of Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth.’ ” Pp. – in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Bar-On, Shimon. “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex ,–.” ZAW  (): –. Baranzke, Heike and Hedwig Lamberty-Zielinski. “Lynn White und das dominium terrae (Gen ,b). Ein Beitrag zu einer doppelten Wirkungsgeschichte.” BN  (): –. Barr, James. “Adam: Single Man, or All Humanity?” Pp. – in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Edited by Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin. BJS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . ———. “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis .” Pp. – in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by Hans-Peter Mathys. Biblisch-Theologische Studien . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis—A Study of Terminology.” BJRL  (): –. ———. “The Image of God in Genesis—Some Linguistic and Historical Considerations.” OTWSA  (): –. ———. “Man and Nature—The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament.” BJRL  (): –. ———. “One Man, or All Humanity? A Question in the Anthropology of Genesis.” Pp. – in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium in Amsterdam, – May . Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. STAR . Leiden: Deo, . ———. “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the






First Verse of the Bible.” Pp. – in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Barth, Jacob. Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen. . Repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, . Batto, Bernard F. “Creation Theology in Genesis.” Pp. – in Creation in the Biblical Traditions. Edited by Richard J. Clifford and John J. Collins. CBQMS . Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, . ———. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, . Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer, . Beauchamp, Paul. “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn , –, a. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn , s.” Pp. – in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Lille (). Edited by Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux. LeDiv . Paris: Cerf, . ———. Création et séparation. Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse. BScR. Aubier Montaigne/Delachaux & Niestlé: Cerf/Desclée De Brouwer, . Beck, H. F. “Nephilim.” In IDB .. Berges, Ulrich. “Gen ,–: Babel oder das Ende der Kommunikation.” BN  (): –. Berlejung, Angelika. Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. OBO . Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Bertholet, Alfred. Leviticus. KHAT . Tübingen/Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . Beuken, Willem A. M. “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights.” LouvSt  (): –. Biale, David. “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible.” HR  (): –. Bickel, Balthasar. “Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” LT  (): –. Bird, Phyllis A. “ ‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh.’ ” ThTo  (): –. ———. “Genesis I–III as a Source for a Contemporary Theology of Sexuality.” ExAu  (): –; repr. pp. – in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Genesis  in der gegenwärtigen biblischen Forschung.” JBTh  (): –; repr. as “Genesis  in Modern Biblical Scholarship.” Pp. – in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, . ———. “ ‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation.” HTR  (): –; repr. pp. –  in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, .






———. “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts.” Pp. – in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition. Edited by Kari Elisabeth Børresen. Oslo: Solum, . Birkeland, Harris. Akzent und Vokalismus im Althebräischen. Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-filos. Klasse, , no. . Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, . Blake, Frank R. “The Interrogative Particle à in Hebrew.” AJSL  (): –. Blau, Joshua. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. d ed. PLO . Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, . ———. “Notes on Changes in Accent in Early Hebrew.” Pp. – in Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume. Edited by Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky. Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research,  (in Hebrew); repr. pp. – in Studies in Hebrew Linguistics. Jerusalem: Magnes, . Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezekiel. Interp. Louisville: John Knox, . ———. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Rev. and enl. ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, . ———. “P and J in Genesis :–:: An Alternative Hypothesis.” Pp. –  in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. London: SCM, . ———. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, . ———. “The Structure of P.” CBQ  (): –. Boehmer, Julius. “Wieviel Menschen sind am letzten Tage des Hexaëmerons geschaffen worden.” ZAW  (): –. de Boer, P. A. H. Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety. Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Böttcher, Friedrich. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. Edited by Ferdinand Mühlau.  vols. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, –. Bordreuil, Pierre. “ ‘À l’ombre d’Élohim.’ Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec ‘L’Imago Dei.’ ” RHPR  (): –. ——— and Dennis Pardee. “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques.” MARI  (): –. ˇ Borger, R. “Amos ,, Apostelgeschichte , und Surpu II, .” ZAW  (): –. Bottéro, Jean. “L’Epopée de la création ou les hauts-faits de Marduk et son sacre.” AEPHE  (–): –; repr. pp. – in Mythes et rites de Babylone. Paris: Honoré Champion, . ———. “The Substitute King and His Fate.” Pp. – in Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press,  []; repr. from Akkadica  (): –.






Brettler, Marc Zvi. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . ———. “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah –.” JSOT  (): –. Breukelman, Frans. “Das Buch Genesis als das Buch der úåãìåú Adams, des Menschens—eine Analyse der Komposition des Buches.” Pp. – in Störenfriedels Zeddelkasten. Geschenkpapier zum . Geburtstag von Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt. Berlin: Alektor, . Briggs, Charles Augustus and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.  vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, –. Brockelmann, Carl. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen Kreis Moers: Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, . Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  [/]. Brown, William P. “Divine Act and the Art of Persuasion in Genesis .” Pp. – in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . ———. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–:. SBLDS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Brueggemann, Walter. “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel.” HBT  (): –; repr. pp. – in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. Genesis. Interp. Atlanta: John Knox, . ———. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” ZAW  (): –; repr. pp. –, – in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. d ed. Atlanta: John Knox, . ———. “Old Testament Theology as a Particular Conversation: Adjudication of Israel’s Socio-theological Alternatives.” TD  (): –; repr. pp. – in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of a Political Metaphor.” CBQ  (): –. Brüning, Christian. “ ‘Lobet den Herrn, ihr Seeungeheuer und all ihr Tiefen!’ Seeungeheuer in der Bibel.” ZAW  (): –. Buber, Martin. “Imitatio Dei.” Pp. – in Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis. d ed. New York: Schocken, . ———. Moses. Oxford/London: Phaidon, . Budd, Philip J. Leviticus. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, . Budde, Karl. Das Buch Hiob. HKAT II/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ———. Die Bücher Samuel. KHAT . Tübingen/Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . Burney, C. F. The Book of Judges. . Repr., New York: Ktav, .






Carr, David. “ΒÝβλο̋ γενÛσεω̋ Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah.” ZAW  (): –, –. ———. “Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and Its Interpretation.” JBL  (): –. ———. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, . Caspari, W. “Der Herr ist König.” CuW  (): –. ———. “Imago divina Gen I.” Pp. – in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift. Edited by Wilhelm Koepp. Vol. . Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, . Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes,  []. ———. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Israel Abrahams.  pts. Jerusalem: Magnes, – [–]. ———. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes,  []. ———. “The Israelite Epic.” Pp. – in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Vol. . Jerusalem: Magnes,  []. Cazelles, Henri. “Myn = espèce, race ou ressemblance?” Pp. – in Mémorial du cinquantenaire – [de l’École des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris]. TICP . Paris: Bloud & Gay, . ———. “S. elem et demût en Gn ,–.” Pp. – in La vie de la Parole. De l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot. Paris: Desclée, . ———. “ˇsm‘ qôl et sˇm‘ b qôl.” GLECS  (–): –. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Charlesworth, J. H. “The Beth Essentiae and the Permissive Meaning of the Hiphil (Aphel).” Pp. – in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. College Theology Society Resources in Religion . Lanham: University Press of America, . Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, . ———. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, . ———. Isaiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, . ———. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. d ed. SBT /. London: SCM, . ———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM, . ———. “Psalm  in the Context of the Christian Canon.” Int  (): – ; repr. pp. – in Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster, . ———. “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets.” ZAW  (): –. Clements, Ronald E. “éÇb gôy.” In TDOT .–, –. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, – . ———. “The Image of God in Man.” TynB  (): –; repr. as “Hu-






manity as the Image of God.” Pp. – in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, –. Vol. . JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Cohen, Jeremy. “Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, . Cohen, Marcel. Traité de langue amharique (Abyssinie). Travaux et mémoires de l’Institut d’ethnologie de l’Université de Paris . Paris: Institut d’ethnologie, . Cohen, Naomi G. “ ‘éá … øáã’: An ‘Enthusiastic’ Prophetic Formula.” ZAW  (): –. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  []. Cooke, G. A. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Cooke, Gerald. “The Israelite King as Son of God.” ZAW  (): –. ———. “The Sons of (the) God(s).” ZAW  (): –. Cooper, Alan. “Ps :–: Mythology and Exegesis.” JBL  (): –. ——— and Marvin Pope. “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts.” In RSP .–. Coote, Robert B. and David Robert Ord. In the Beginning: Creation and the Priestly History. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Craigie, Peter C. Psalms –. WBC . Waco: Word, . Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, . ———. “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah.” JNES  (): –. ———. “ìà ’¯el.” In TDOT .–. ———. “The Priestly Tabernacle and the Temple of Solomon.” Pp. – in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, . ———. “Traditional Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions.” Pp. – in From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, . Crüsemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress,  []. Currid, John D. “The Egyptian Setting of the ‘Serpent’: Confrontation in Exodus ,–.” BZ  (): –. Curtis, Edward M. “Image of God (OT).” In ABD .–. ———. “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study.” Pp. – in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Edited by William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies . Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, . ———. “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, .






Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms.  vols. AB –A. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, –. Davidson, A. B. Hebrew Syntax. d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. Davies, Eryl W. “Walking in God’s Ways: The Concept of Imitatio Dei in the Old Testament.” Pp. – in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Roland E. Clements. Edited by Edward Ball. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Davies, Philip R. “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis.” Pp. – in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. Edited by M. Daniel Carroll R., David J. A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies. JSOTS . [Sheffield:] Sheffield Academic Press, . Day, John. “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature.” JBL  (): –. ———. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . ———. “Leviathan.” In ABD .–. ———. “The Religion of Israel.” Pp. – in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by A. D. H. Mayes. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, . ———. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . De Regt, L. J. Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator. Studia Semitica Neerlandica . Assen: Van Gorcum, . De-Rossi, Johannis Bern. Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti.  vols. Parma: Ex Regio Typographeo, –. Delitzsch, Franz. Neuer Commentar über die Genesis. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke,  = A New Commentary on Genesis. Translated by Sophia Taylor.  vols. . Repr., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, . Derenbourg, Joseph and Hartwig Derenbourg. Opuscules et traités d’Abou ’l-Walid Merwan ibn Djanah de Cordoue. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, . Dever, William G. “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ‘Ajrûd.” BASOR  (): –. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Genesis :–: A Formal Introduction to P’s Creation Account.” Pp. – in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, . Diehl, Johannes F. “ ‘Steh auf, setz dich und iß’—Imperative zwischen Begriffswort und Interjektion.” In KUSATU  (): –. Dietrich, Walter. “Grenzen göttlicher Macht nach dem Alten Testament.” ZTK  (): –. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Edited by Victor Ryssel. d ed. KeHAT . Leipzig: S. Hirzel, . ———. Die Genesis. th ed. KeHAT . Leipzig: S. Hirzel,  = Genesis. Translated by Wm. B. Stevenson.  vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, .






Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Ingressive qwm in Biblical Hebrew.” ZAH  (): – . Dohmen, C. “äëqî mass¯ekâ.” In TDOT :–. ———. “Die Statue von Tell Fecher¯ıye und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie.” BN  (): –. ———. “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes.” LebZeug  (): –. Douglas, Mary. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . ———. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York/Washington: Frederick A. Praeger, . Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles, eds. and trans. The Babylonian Laws.  vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Driver, S. R. The Book of Exodus. CBSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . ———. The Book of Genesis. th ed. WC. London: Methuen, . ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. d ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. ———. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. th ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. Duhm, Bernh. Das Buch Hiob. KHAT . Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . ———. Das Buch Jesaia. d ed. HKAT III/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Duncker, P. G. “L’immagine di Dio nell’uomo (Gen. , .). Una somiglianza fisica?” Bib  (): –; repr. as “Das Bild Gottes im Menschen (Gen. , .). Eine physische Ähnlichkeit?” Pp. – in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes. Edited by Leo Scheffczyk. WdF . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, . Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC . Waco: Word, . Ebach, Jürgen. “Bild Gottes und Schrecken der Tiere. Zur Anthropologie der priesterlichen Urgeschichte.” Pp. – in Ursprung und Ziel. Erinnerte Zukunft und erhoffte Vergangheit. Biblische Exegesen, Reflexionen, Geschichten. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. “Die Erschaffung des Menschen als Bild Gottes. Überlegungen zur Anthropologie im Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift.” WPKG  (): –. Edelman, Diana V. Introduction to The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []. Edzard, D. O. “Sumerische Komposita mit dem ‘Nominalpräfix’ nu-.” ZA  (): –. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebraïschen Bibel.  vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, –. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel. Translated by Cosslett Quin. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  [–]. ———. Man in the Old Testament. Translated by K. and R. Gregor Smith.






SBT /. London: SCM,  []. ———. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker.  vols. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, – [–]. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. God’s Phallus and Other Problems for Men and Monotheism. Boston: Beacon, . Eissfeldt, Otto. “Renaming in the Old Testament.” Pp. – in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ; repr. as “Umnennungen im Alten Testament.” Pp. – in Kleinen Schriften. Edited by Rudolf Sellheim and Fritz Maass. Vol. . Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . Elnes, Eric E. “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism.’ ” HBT  (): –. Ember, Aaron. “The Pluralis Intensivus in Hebrew.” AJSL  (): –. Emerton, J. A. “The Priestly Writer in Genesis.” JTS  (): –. ———. “ ‘Yahweh and His Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol?” VT  (): –. Engnell, I. “ ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story.” Pp. – in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Ewald, Heinrich. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes. th ed. Göttingen: Dieterich, . ———. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. Translated by James Kennedy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. Fassberg, Steven E. “The Lengthened Imperative äì"èJ in Biblical Hebrew.” HS  (): –. ———. Studies in Biblical Syntax. Jerusalem: Magnes,  (in Hebrew). Fensham, F. Charles. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES  (): –; repr. pp. –  in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York/London: New York University Press, . Fenz, Augustinus Kurt. Auf Jahwehs Stimme hören. Eine biblische Begriffsuntersuchung. WBTh . Vienna: Herder, . Firmage, Edwin. “Genesis  and the Priestly Agenda.” JSOT  (): –. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press,  []. ———. “Five Stages of Jewish Myth and Mythmaking.” Pp. –, – in The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press, . ———. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken, . Fisher, Loren R. “Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament.” VT  (): –. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Stephen A. Kaufman. Old, Official, and Biblical Aramaic. Pt.  of An Aramaic Bibliography. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, .






Fohrer, Georg. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel. BZAW . Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, . Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature.  vols. d ed. Bethesda: CDL, . Fox, Michael V. “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ’ôt Etiologies.” RB  (): –. ———. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press,  []. Freedman, David Noel. “Notes on Genesis.” ZAW  (): –; repr. pp. – in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Edited by John R. Huddlestun. Vol. . Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ———. “ ‘Who is like Thee among the Gods?’ The Religion of Early Israel.” Pp. – in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, ; repr. pp. – in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Edited by John R. Huddlestun. Vol. . Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ——— and B. E. Willoughby. “_à"ìî mal’¯ak.” In TDOT .–, –, , –, –. Fretheim, Terence E. “Creator, Creature, and Co-Creation in Genesis –.” Pp. – in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville. Edited by Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury. Word & World Supplement Series . St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, . ———. The Pentateuch. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, . Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion.  vols. BBB /–. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, . Friedman, Richard Elliott. “Torah (Pentateuch).” In ABD .–. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –.” BA  (): –. ———. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Fawcett Columbine, . Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. “Egyptological Motifs in the Sign of the Serpent (Exodus :–; :–).” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). Garr, W. Randall. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, – B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, . ———. “Driver’s Treatise and the Study of Hebrew: Then and Now.” Pp. xviii– lxxxvi in S. R. Driver. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. th ed. . Repr., The Biblical Resources Series. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ———. “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus :.” JBL  (): – .






———. “ ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh.” IEJ  (): –. Gaster, T. H. “Angel.” In IDB .–. Gemser, B. “God in Genesis.” Pp. – in B. Gemser et al. Studies on the Book of Genesis. OTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,  []. ———. Yahweh the Patriarch: Ancient Images of God and Feminist Theology. Translated by Frederick J. Gaiser. Minneapolis: Fortress,  []. Gevirtz, Stanley. “A New Look at an Old Crux: Amos  .” JBL  (): –. Gibson, J. C. L., ed. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax. th ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, . ———. “The Kingship of Yahweh against Its Canaanite Background.” Pp. –  in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September . Edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey. UBL . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, . ———. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions.  vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, –. Ginsberg, H. Louis. The Israelian Heritage of Judaism. Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America . New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, . ———. “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody.” Pp. – in W. F. Albright Volume. Edited by A. Malamat. EI . Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, . ———. The Supernatural in the Prophets with Special Reference to Isaiah. N.p.: Hebrew Union College Press, . Görg, Manfred. “Alles hast Du gelegt unter seine Füße. Beobachtungen zu Ps ,b im Vergleich mit Gen ,.” Pp. – in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. Festgabe zum . Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß. Edited by Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. SBB . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ; repr. pp. – in Studien zur biblisch-ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte. SBAB . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . ———. “ ‘Chaos’ und ‘Chaosmächte’ im Alten Testament.” BN  (): – . Good, Robert M. “Exodus :.” Pp. – in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, . ¯ ah.” Gordis, Robert. “Democratic Origins in Ancient Israel—The Biblical ‘Ed¯ Pp. – in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. English Section. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, ; repr. as “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Israel.” Pp. – in Poets, Prophets, and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press, . Gorman, Frank H., Jr. The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, .






———. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status.” Pp. – in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . Grabbe, Lester L. “The Book of Leviticus.” CRBS  (): –. Gray, John. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, . Greenberg, Moshe. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press, . ———. “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined.” Pp. – in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition. Edited by Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. Jerusalem: Magnes,  []; repr. pp. – in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought. JPS Scholar of Distinction Series. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, . ———. Ezekiel. AB – . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, – . Greenfield, Jonas C. “’att¯a p¯orart¯a b˘e‘ozk¯a yam (Psalm : a).” Pp. – in Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr. Edited by Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ; repr. pp. – in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick. Vol. . Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/The Hebrew University Magnes Press, . ———. “Ba‘al’s Throne and Isa. :.” Pp. – in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, ; repr. pp. – in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Michael E. Stone, and Avital Pinnick. Vol. . Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/The Hebrew University Magnes Press, . Greenhalgh, Stephen. “Creative Partnership in Genesis.” ScrB  (): –. Greenstein, Edward L. “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?” Pp. *–* in The Bible and Its World. Edited by Ron Margolin. Division A of Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, . ———. “Presenting Genesis , Constructively and Deconstructively.” Prooftexts  (): –. Gropp, Douglas M. “Progress and Cohesion in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: The Function of k˘e-/b˘e- + the Infinitive Construct.” Pp. – in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Groß, Heinrich. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen.” Pp. – in Lex Tua Veritas. Festschrift für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am . August . Edited by Heinrich Groß and Franz Mußner. Trier: Paulinus, . Groß, Walter. “Gen ,.; ,: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut.” JBTh  (): –.






———. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift.” TQ  (): –; repr. pp. – in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern. SBAB . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . ———. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen ,. in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts.” BN  (): –; repr. pp. –  in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern. SBAB . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . Gruber, Mayer. “ ‘In the Image of God’—What is It?” Pp. – in Hommage to Shmuel. Studies in the World of the Bible. Edited by Zipora Talshir, Shamir Yona, and Daniel Sivan. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Bialik Institute,  (in Hebrew). ———. “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code.” Pp. – in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, ; repr. pp. – in The Motherhood of God and Other Studies. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. th ed. HKAT I/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  [] = Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon: Mercer University Press, . ———. Die Psalmen. th ed. HKAT II/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ———. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen  und Ap Joh . d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  []; repr. and abr. as “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story.” Pp. – in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson. IRT . Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK, . Haag, H. “ñîç ch¯am¯as.” In TDOT .–. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, . Hadley, Judith M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . ———. “The Queen of Heaven—Who Is She?” Pp. – in Prophets and Daniel. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible /. London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, . Hagedorn, Anselm C. “Guarding the Parents’ Honor—Deuteronomy .– .” JSOT  (): –. Hahn, E. Adelaide. Subjunctive and Optative: Their Origin as Futures. New York: American Philological Association, . Hallo, William W. “The Birth of Kings.” Pp. – in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, . ———. “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study.” Pp. – in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, .






———. “Texts, Statues and the Cult of the Divine King.” Pp. – in Congress Volume: Jerusalem, . Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Halpern, Baruch. “The Baal (and the Asherah) in Seventh-Century Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired.” Pp. – in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Rüdiger Bartelmus, Thomas Krüger, and Helmut Utzschneider. OBO . Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ———. “ ‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.” Pp. – in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress, . ———. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel. HSM . Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, . ———. “The New Names of Isaiah :: Jeremiah’s Reception in the Restoration and the Politics of ‘Third Isaiah.’ ” JBL  (): –. ———. “Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the th-th Centuries B.C.E.” Pp. – in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Edited by Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . ———. “What They Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them: Genesis –.” Pp. –  in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . Handy, Lowell K. “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah.” Pp. – in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []. ———. “Tiamat.” In ABD .–. Haran, M. “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual.” IEJ  (): –, –. ———. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Harland, P. J. The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –). VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel.” VT  (): –. Hart, Ian. “Genesis :–: as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis.” TynB  (): –. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC . Dallas: Word, . Hasel, Gerhard F. “The Meaning of ‘Let Us’ in Gn :.” AUSS  (): –. Hehn, Johannes. “Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’.” Pp. – in Festschrift Eduard Sachau zum siebzigsten Geburtstage. Edited by Gotthold Weil. Berlin: Georg Reimer, . Heintz, Jean-Georges. “ ‘L’homme créé à l’image de Dieu’ (Genèse ,–): pierre de touche de l’interprétation biblique.” FV / (): –.






Hendel, Ronald S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis :–.” JBL  (): –. ———. “Tangled Plots in Genesis.” Pp. – in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ———. The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, . Henkin, Roni. “ ‘Come We’ll Go!’ and ‘Let’s See!’—Imperatives in Indirect Commands.” Pp. – in Semitic and Cushitic Studies. Edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Shlomo Raz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, . [Henry, Matthew.] Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. . Repr.,  vols. Marshallton, Del.: National Foundation for Christian Education, n.d. Herrmann, W. “El ìà.” In DDD2 –. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  []. Hess, Richard S. “Nephilim.” In ABD .–. ———. “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ’¯ad¯am in Genesis I–V.” Pp. – in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Hetzron, Robert. “Toward an Amharic Case-Grammar.” Studies in African Linguistics  (): –. Hillers, Delbert R. “Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Bible.” ZAH  (): –. Hinschberger, Régine. “Image et ressemblance dans la tradition sacerdotale Gn ,–; ,–; ,b.” RScR  (): –. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah.  vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia/Minneapolis: Fortress, –. Holmes, Janet. “Politeness Strategies in New Zealand Women’s Speech.” Pp. – in New Zealand Ways of Speaking English. Edited by Allan Bell and Janet Holmes. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters, []. Holtgraves, Thomas. “Language Structure in Social Interaction: Perceptions of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts and Interactants Who Use Them.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  (): –. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Horst, Friedrich. “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God.” Int  (): –; repr. as “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes.” Pp. –  in Gottes Recht. Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament. Edited by Hans Walter Wolff. TBü . Munich: Chr. Kaiser, . Hossfeld, F.-L. and E.-M. Kindl. “ìäJ q¯ah¯al; ìä÷ qhl; äl!äO qehillâ; úìäS q¯ohelet. IV.” In TDOT .–. Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. HSS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Hulst, A. R. “íò/éÇb ‘am/gôy people.” In TLOT .–. Hultgård, Anders. “Man as Symbol of God.” Pp. – in Religious Symbols and Their Functions Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Religious Symbols and






Their Functions Held at Åbo on the th-th of August . Edited by Haralds Biezais. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, . Humbert, Paul. “Emploi et portée du verbe bârâ (créer) dans L’Ancien Testament.” TZ  (): –; repr. pp. – in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant. MUN . Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, . ———. Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse. MUN . Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, . ———. “Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis. (Kritische Untersuchung der These von von Rad).” ZAW  (): –. ———. “Trois notes sur Genèse I.” Pp. – in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae. Oslo: Land og kirke, ; repr. pp. – in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant. MUN . Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel, . ———. “Yahvé Dieu Géniteur? (Les verbes y¯alad et h.¯ıl avec Yahvé comme sujet. Image ou réalité?).” AsSt / (): –. Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor). I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTS . JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CRB . Paris: J. Gabalda, . Hyatt, J. Philip. Exodus. Rev. ed. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/ Marshall, Morgan & Scott, . Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora. Genesis. Berlin: Schocken, . ———. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman. Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav,  []. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “The Graven Image.” Pp. – in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, . ———. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, . Janowski, Bernd. “Der barmherzige Richter. Zur Einheit von Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit im Gottesbild des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments.” Pp. – in Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes. Studien zur biblischen Gottesrede und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte in Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Ruth Scoralick. SBS . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . ———. “Herrschaft über die Tiere. Gen ,– und die Semantik von äãø.” Pp. – in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, ; repr. pp. – in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. Stellvertretung. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff. SBS . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . ———. “Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption.” JBTh  (): –; repr. pp. –  in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, .






Jenni, E. “äîã dmh to be like.” In TLOT .–. ———. “Philologische und linguistische Probleme bei den hebräischen Präpositionen.” Pp. – in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . ———. “Pleonastische Ausdrücke für Vergleichbarkeit (Ps ,; ,).” Pp. – in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Für Walter Beyerlin. d ed. HBS . Freiburg: Herder,  []; repr. pp. – in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . ———. Die Präposition Beth. Die hebräischen Präpositionen . Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . ———. Die Präposition Kaph. Die hebräischen Präpositionen . Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . ———. “ ‘Schlagen’ in .Sam , und in den historischen Büchern.” Pp. *– * in Avraham Malamat Volume. Edited by S. Ahituv and B. A. Levine. . EI . Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, ; repr. pp. – in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments. Edited by Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . Jenson, Philip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . Jones, G. H.  and  Kings.  vols. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, . Jongeling, K. “The Hebrew Particle êà.” DS-NELL  (): –. Jónsson, Gunnlaugur A. The Image of God: Genesis :– in a Century of Old Testament Research. Revised by Michael S. Cheney. Translated by Lorraine Svendsen. CBOT . Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, . Joosten, J. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus –. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka.  vols. SubBi /I–II. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, . ———. “Notes de lexicographie hébraïque.” MFOB  (): –. Jüngling, Hans-Winfried. “ ‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen ,). Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung.” Pp. – in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise. Edited by Philipp Schmitz. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, . ———. Der Tod der Götter. Eine Untersuchung zu Psalm . SBS . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . Kaddari, Menahem Z. “-á äàø as an Expression of Empathy in Biblical . Hebrew.” Pp. – in Israel Yeivin Festschrift. Language Studies –. Jerusalem: Magnes, . Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah –. Translated by R. A. Wilson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  []. ———. “Der Mensch, Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden.” NZST  (): –; repr. pp. – in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit. Gesammelte Aufsätze. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, . Kaufman, Stephen A. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. AS . Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, .






———. “An Emphatic Plea for Please.” Pp. – in Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz. Edited by Robert J. Ratner et al. Pt. . Maarav . Rolling Hills Estates, Calif.: Western Academic Press,  []. Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex –.” ZAW  (): –. Kedar-Kopfstein, B. “íc d¯am.” In TDOT .–. Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,  []. Kennicott, Benjaminus, ed. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, cum Variis Lectionibus.  vols. Oxford: Clarendon, –. Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblical N˘ep¯ılîm.” Pp. – in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, June , . Edited by Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . [Kimhi, David.] íéùøùä øôñ. Rabbi Davidis Kimchi Radicum Liber sive Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon. Edited by Jo. H. R. Biesenthal and F. Lebrecht. Berlin: G. Bethge, . Kirkpatrick, A. F., ed. The Book of Psalms. CBSC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Kister, Menahem. “ ‘Let Us Make a Man’—Observations on the Dynamics of Monotheism.” Pp. – in Issues in Talmudic Research: Conference Commemorating the Fifth Anniversary of the Passing of Ephraim E. Urbach,  December . Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section of Humanities. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  (in Hebrew). Kittel, Rudolf. Die Bücher der Könige. HKAT I/. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ———. Die Psalmen. –th ed. KAT . Leipzig: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, . Klein, Ralph W.  Samuel. WBC . Waco: Word, . ———. “The Message of P.” Pp. – in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . Klopfenstein, Martin A. “ ‘Und siehe, es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis ,). Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” Pp. – in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by Hans-Peter Mathys. BiblischeTheologische Studien . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. “Was heißt: ‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’? Überlegungen zur Schöpfungsgeschichte der Bibel in der Umweltkrise heute.” Pp. – in Leben aus dem Wort. Beiträge zum Alten Testament. Edited by Walter Dietrich. BEAT . Bern: Peter Lang, . Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting.’ ” Pp. – in Tehillah le-






Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . Koch, Klaus. “Die Toledot-Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis.” Pp. – in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . Koehler, Ludwig. “Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei-Lehre, Genesis , .” TZ  (): –; repr. pp. – in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes. Edited by Leo Scheffczyk. WdF . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, . ———. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd. London: Lutterworth,  []. König, Eduard. Die Genesis. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, . ———. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache.  pts. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, –. Kraetzschmar, Richard. Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, . Krapf, Thomas M. “Biblischer Monotheismus und vorexilischer JHWHGlaube.” BTZ  (): –. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald.  vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg, – []. ———. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg,  []. Kühlewein, J. “ïa b¯en son, úa bat daughter.” In TLOT .–. Kugel, James L. “The Adverbial Use of kî .tôb.” JBL  (): –. ———. “Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms.” Pp. – in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages. Edited by Arthur Green. World Spirituality . New York: Crossroad, . Kunz, Andreas. “Die Vorstellung von Zeugung und Schwangerschaft im antiken Israel.” ZAW  (): –. Kutsko, John F. “Will the Real s. elem ’˘el¯ohîm Please Stand Up? The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pp. – in Society of Biblical Literature  Seminar Papers. Pt. . SBLSP . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. POS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Lacocque, André. The Book of Daniel. Translated by David Pellauer. Rev. English ed. Atlanta: John Knox, . Lakoff, Robin. “What You Can Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics & Performatives.” Pp. XVI--XVI- in Berkeley Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Edited by Charles Fillmore, George Lakoff, and Robin Lakoff. Vol. . Berkeley: Department of Linguistics and Institute of Human Learning, University of California, Berkeley, ; repr. pp. – in Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures. Edited by Andy Rogers, Bob Wall, and John P. Murphy. Arlington, Vir.: Center for Applied Linguistics, . Lambert, Mayer. Traité de grammaire hébraïque. . Repr., Hildesheim: H. A. Gerstenberg, .






Lambert, W. G. “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. – in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the th to the th of April . Edited by J. Quaegebeur. OLA . Louvain: Peeters, . ———. “A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.” JTS  (): –; repr. pp. – in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis –. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study . Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,  (with postscripts). ———. “The Seed of Kingship.” Pp. – in Le palais et la royauté (Archéologie et Civilisation). Edited by Paul Garelli. CRRAI . Paris: Paul Geuthner, . ———. “Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic.” AfO  (–): –. ———. “[Review of Gössmann, Das Era-Epos].” AfO  (–): –. Lande, Irene. Formelhafte Wendungen der Umgangssprache im Alten Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Larsen, Mogens Trolle. “The City and Its King: On the Old Assyrian Notion of Kingship.” Pp. – in Le palais et la royauté (Archéologie et Civilisation). Edited by Paul Garelli. CRRAI . Paris: Paul Geuthner, . ———. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies. Mesopotamia . Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, . Lee, S. “Power Not Novelty: The Connotations of àøá in the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. – in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson. Edited by A. Graeme Auld. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman Linguistics Library . London/New York: Longman, . Lemaire, André. “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah? Startling New Inscriptions from Two Different Sites Reopen the Debate about the Meaning of Asherah.” BARev / (): –. Lenchak, Timothy. “Puzzling Passages: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” ’ (Genesis :).” BT  (): . Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge‘ez-English/ English-Ge‘ez. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, . ———. Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon. University of California Publications in Semitic Philology . Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, . ———. Hebrew Cognates in Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, . ———. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, . Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Mythos. Princeton: Princeton University Press,  []. ———. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, .






———. “Exodus and Liberation.” Pp. –, – in The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, . ———. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New Voices in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis: Winston, . Levine, Baruch A. “An Essay on Prophetic Attitudes toward Temple and Cult in Biblical Israel.” Pp. – in Minh. ah le-Nah. um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of His th Birthday. Edited by Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . ———. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. SJLA . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, . Levy, D. and J. Milgrom. “ä@ò ‘¯edâ. I–IV.” In TDOT .–. Lewis, Theodore J. “CT .– and Ezekiel : Lion-Dragon Myths.” JAOS  (): –. Lim, Johnson T. K. Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis –. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, . Limburg, James. “Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment.” Pp. – in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Harrisville. Edited by Arland J. Hultgren, Donald H. Juel, and Jack D. Kingsbury. Word & World Supplement Series . St. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary, . Lipinski, ´ Edward. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. OLA . Louvain: Peeters, . Loewenstamm, Samuel E. “Man as Image and Son of God.” Tarb  (): – (in Hebrew); repr. as “Beloved is Man in that He Was Created in the Image.” Pp. – in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Literatures. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, . Lohfink, Norbert. “Die Gottesstatue. Kreatur und Kunst nach Genesis .” Pp. – in Im Schatten deiner Flügel. Große Bibeltexte neu erschlossen. d ed. Freiburg: Herder,  []. ———. “ ‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’?” Orien  (): –; repr. as “ ‘Subdue the Earth?’ (Genesis :).” Pp. – in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte.” Pp. – in Congress Volume: Göttingen, . Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, ; repr. as “The Priestly Narrative and History.” Pp. – in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg.” Pp. – in Ernst Haag et al. Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament. Edited by Norbert Lohfink. QD . Freiburg: Herder, ; repr. as “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War.” Pp. – in Theology of the Pentateuch:






Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Der Schöpfergott und der Bestand von Himmel und Erde. Das Alte Testament zum Zusammenhang von Schöpfung und Heil.” Pp. – in Günter Altner et al. Sind wir noch zu retten? Schöpfungsglaube und Verantwortung für unsere Erde. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, ; repr. as “God the Creator and the Stability of Heaven and Earth: The Old Testament on the Connection between Creation and Salvation.” Pp. – in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “Die Ursünden in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung.” Pp. – in Die Zeit Jesu. Festschrift für Heinrich Schlier. Edited by Günther Bornkamm and Karl Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, ; repr. as “Original Sins in the Priestly Historical Narrative.” Pp. – in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, . ———. “ÖUé y¯araˇs; äÖVé yer¯esˇâ; äg\é yeruˇssˇâ; ÖTÇî môr¯asˇ; äÖTÇî môr¯asˇâ.” In TDOT .–. Long, Burke O. “Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Postmodern Age.” Pp. – in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . Loretz, Oswald. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik. Munich: Kösel, . Lust, Johan. “Exodus ,– and Ezekiel.” Pp. – in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. BETL . Louvain: University Press/Peeters, . Lutzky, Harriet. “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet.” VT  (): –. Luyster, Robert. “Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament.” ZAW  (): –. Luyten, Jos. “Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Moses (Dt ,–).” Pp. – in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by Norbert Lohfink. BETL . Louvain: Leuven University Press/Peeters, . Lyons, John. Semantics.  vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, –  []. Maag, Victor. “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie.” AsSt  (): –; repr. pp. – in Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck. Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Machinist, Peter. “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible.” CBQ  (): –. ———. “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” Pp. –  in Ah, Assyria … Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Eph‘al. ScrH . Jerusalem: Magnes, ; repr. pp. – in Essential Pa-






pers on Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York/London: New York University Press, . Mafico, T. L. J. “The Divine Compound Name íé!äÀ$à äåäé and Israel’s Monotheistic Polytheism.” JNSL  (): –. Malamat, Abraham. “The Secret Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari and Israel.” Pp. – in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Rüdiger Liwak and Siegfried Wagner. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, ; repr. pp. – in Mari and the Bible. SHCANE . Leiden: Brill, . Mann, Yizhaq. “On the Use of Verbs of Exhortation.” Leˇs  (): – (in Hebrew). Margueron, Jean and Javier Teixidor. “Un object à légende araméenne provenant de Meskéné-Emar.” RA  (): –. Martin, W. J. “Some Notes on the Imperative in the Semitic Languages.” Pp. – in Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Furlani. RSO . Rome: Giovani Bardi, . May, Herbert G. “The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel :– .” Pp. – in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. London: SCM, . Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/ Morgan & Scott,  []. Mays, James L. “What is a Human Being? Reflections on Psalm .” ThTo  (): –. McBride, S. Dean, Jr. “Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch.” Pp. – in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data.” Pp. – in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, . ———. I Samuel. AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, . ———. II Samuel. AB . New York: Doubleday, . McEvenue, Sean E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib . Rome: Biblical Institute Press, . ———. “Word and Fulfillment: A Stylistic Feature of the Priestly Writer.” Semitics  (): –. Meek, Theophile J. “The Code of Hammurapi.” Pp. – in ANET 3. Meier, S. A. “Angel I êàìî.” In DDD2 –. ———. “Destroyer úéçÖî.” In DDD2 –. van der Merwe, Christian H. J. “The Old Hebrew ‘particles’ ’ak and raq (in Genesis to  Kings).” Pp. – in Text, Methode und Grammatik. Wolfgang Richter zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidl. St. Ottilien: EOS, . ———. “Old Hebrew Particles and the Interpretation of Old Testament Texts.” JSOT  (): –.






———, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht.” ZAW  (): –. ———. “Cherubim íéáåøë.” In DDD2 –. ———. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. CBOT . Lund: CWK Gleerup, . Meyer, Rudolf. “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium , f.  (Q) für die Auslegung des Moseliedes.” Pp. – in Verbannung und Heimkehr. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im . und . Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum . Geburtstage. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ; repr. pp. – in Beiträge zur Geschichte von Text und Sprache des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by Waltraut Bernhardt. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, . ———. Hebräische Grammatik. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,  [– ]. Meyers, Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah –. AB B. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, . Miles, Jack. God: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, . Milgrom, Jacob. The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ‘Aboda. Vol.  of Studies in Levitical Terminology. University of California Publications Near Eastern Studies . Berkeley: University of California Press, . ———. Leviticus.  vols. AB –B. New York: Doubleday, –. ———. Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, . ———. “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel.” JQR  (): –; repr. pp. – in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLA . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Miller, Cynthia L. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis. HSM . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Miller, J. Maxwell. “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God.” JBL  (): – . Miller, Patrick D., Jr. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol.” HBT / (): – ; repr. pp. – in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, . ———. Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT, . Mitchell, Christopher Wright. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament. SBLDS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. de Moor, J. C. “äTÖ#à ’ ash¯er¯ah.” In TDOT .–. ———. “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account.” Pp. – in Intertextuality in Ugarit and






Israel. Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie Held at Oxford, . Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. “The First Human Being a Male? A Response to Professor Barr.” Pp. – in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium in Amsterdam, – May . Edited by Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten. STAR . Leiden: Deo, . Moore, Stephen D. “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body.” JSOT  (): –. Morgenstern, Julian. “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :–:.” AJSL  (): –. Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Urmensch und ‘Königsideologie’.” ST  (): –. Müller, Hans-Peter. “Das Bedeutungspotential der Afformativkonjugation. Zum sprachgeschichtlichen Hintergrund des Althebräischen.” ZAH  (): –, –. ———. “Das Beth existentiae im Althebräischen.” Pp. – in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum . Geburtstag am . Juni . Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. “Der Welt- und Kulturentstehungsmythos des Philon Byblios und die biblische Urgeschichte.” ZAW  (): –. Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr. “Divine Assembly.” In ABD .–. ———. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. HSM . Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, . Muraoka, Takamitsu. “The Alleged Final Function of the Biblical Hebrew Syntagm <waw + a Volitive Verb Form>.” Pp. – in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference . Edited by Ellen van Wolde. BIS . Leiden: Brill, . ——— and Bezalel Porten. A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic. HdO /. Leiden: Brill, . Nasuti, Harry P. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. SBLDS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Neef, Heinz-Dieter. Gottes himmlischer Thronrat. Hintergrund und Bedeutung von sôd YHWH im Alten Testament. AzTh . Stuttgart: Calwer, . Newsom, Carol A. “Angels.” In ABD .–. Niccacci, Alviero. “Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence— Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System.” ZAW  (): –. ———. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press,  []. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, . Niehr, Herbert. “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects.” Pp. – in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []. Noegel, Scott B. “Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus.” JANES  (): –.






Nöldeke, Th. “úåî"ìö und íìö.” ZAW  (): –. Ockinga, Boyo. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament. ÄAT . Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, . Oesterley, W. O. E. The Psalms. London: S.P.C.K.,  []. del Olmo Lete, G. “The Monoconsonantal Lexical Series in Semitic.” AuOr  (): –. Olshausen, Justus. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, . Olson, Dennis T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. BJS . Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, . ———. Numbers. Interp. Louisville: John Knox, . Olyan, Saul M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . ———. A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism. TSAJ . Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Completed by Erica Reiner. Rev. ed. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, . ———. “Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire.” Centaurus  (): –. Orlinsky, Harry M., ed. Notes on the New Translation of the Torah. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, . ———. “On the Cohortative and Jussive After an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew.” JQR  (): –;  (): –;  (): –. ———. “On the Commonly Proposed l¯ek wena‘abo´¯ r of I Kings  .” JBL  (): –. ———. “The Plain Meaning of Genesis :–.” BA  (): –. ———. “The Plain Meaning of ruah. in Gen. ..” Pp. – in Dropsie College Jubilee Alumni Issue. JQR /. Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, . Ouro, Roberto. “The Earth of Genesis :: Abiotic or Chaotic?” AUSS  (): –;  (): –;  (): –. Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . Pardee, Dennis. “Ugaritic Myths.” Pp. – in The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Vol. . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. “[Review of Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al].” JNES  (): –. Parker, Simon B. “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm  as Myth and Liturgy.” RB  (): –. ———. “Sons of (the) God(s) íéäìà(ä)/íéìà/ïåéìò éðá.” In DDD2 –. Patrick, Dale. The Rendering of God in the Old Testament. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, . Paul, Shalom M. Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, . Peckham, Brian. “Writing and Editing.” Pp. – in Fortunate the Eyes That






See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . Peleg, Yizhaq (Iziq). “ ‘In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth.’ ” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). Pettey, Richard J. Asherah: Goddess of Israel. American University Studies VII/. New York: Peter Lang, . Pitard, Wayne T. “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU ..” JNES  (): –. Podella, Thomas. Das Lichtkleid JHWHs. Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt. FAT . Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), . Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g. WMANT . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . Pope, Marvin H. El in the Ugaritic Texts. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. “Mixed Marriage Metaphor in Ezekiel .” Pp. – in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Astrid B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ——— and Wolfgang Röllig. “Syrien. Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phönizier.” In WdM /.–. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “God’s Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy: Esarhaddon’s Return of Marduk to Babylon.” Pp. – in Religious Transformations and Socio-Political Change: Eastern Europe and Latin America. Edited by Luther Martin. Religion and Society . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, . Preuss, H. D. “äîc d¯am¯ah; úeî"c d emûth.” In TDOT .–. ———. Old Testament Theology. Translated by Leo G. Perdue.  vols. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, – [–]. Procksch, Otto. Die Genesis. –d ed. KAT . Leipzig/Erlangen: A. Deichert/Werner Scholl, . Propp, William H. C. Exodus. AB – . New York: Doubleday, – . ———. “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT  (): –. Provan, Iain W.  and  Kings. NIBC . Peabody, Mass./Carlisle, U.K.: Hendrickson/Paternoster, . von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy. Translated by Dorothea Barton. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  []. ———. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks. Rev. ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, . ———. “_à"ìî in the OT.” In TDNT .–. ———. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker.  vols. New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row, – [–]. ———. “Vom Menschenbild des Alten Testaments.” Pp. – in G. von Rad et al. Der alte und der neue Mensch. Aufsätze zur theologischen Anthropologie. BEvTh . Munich: Evangelischer Verlag Albert Lempp, . Rainey, Anson F. “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of






Amarnah Canaanite.” HS  (): –. ———. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Deities and Demons.” Pp. – in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Shlomo Izre’el, Itamar Singer, and Ran Zadok. IOS . Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . Ratner, Robert. “The ‘Feminine Takes Precedence’ Syntagm and Job ,.” ZAW  (): –. Rechenmacher, Hans. “Gott und das Chaos. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Gen ,–.” ZAW  (): –. Redditt, Paul L. Daniel. NCBC. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Reed, William L. The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, . Reiner, Erica. Astral Magic in Babylonia. TAPS /. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, . Rendsburg, Gary A. “Biblical Literature As Politics: The Case of Genesis.” Pp. – in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Adele Berlin. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture. Bethesda: University of Maryland Press, . ———. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. SBLMS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,  []. ———. “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies.” CRBS  (): –. Renger, J. “Kultbild. A. Philologisch.” In RLA .–. Revell, E. J. The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative. CBET . Kampen: Kok Pharos, . ———. “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix.” JSS  (): –. ———. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose.” HUCA  (): –. Ridderbos, Nic. H. “Genesis i  und .” Pp. – in B. Gemser et al. Studies on the Book of Genesis. OTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Ringgren, H. “àáö s. ¯ab¯a’.” In TDOT .–. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Divine King and the Human Community in Isaiah’s Vision of the Future.” Pp. – in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall. Edited by H. B. Huffmon, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, ; repr. pp. – in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . ———. “Isaiah.” Pp. – in The HarperCollins Study Bible. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. [New York:] HarperCollins, . Robinson, H. Wheeler. “The Council of Yahweh.” JTS  (): –. Robinson, Robert B. “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis.” CBQ  (): –. Rosén, Haiim B. “On Some Nominal Morphological Categories in Biblical Hebrew.” Pp. – in On the Dignity of Man: Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren. Edited by Tryggve Kronholm et al. OrSu –. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, .






Rosenthal, Franz. “Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions.” Pp. – in ANET 3. Ross, James F. “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger.” Pp. – in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. London: SCM, . Rost, Leonhard. Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament. Eine wortgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BWANT /. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, . Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. d ed. WAW . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Rüterswörden, Udo. Dominium terrae. Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, . ———. “òîÖ sˇ¯ama‘, òîÖ sˇema‘, äòeî"Ö sˇemû‘¯ah.” In TWAT .–. Ruppert, Lothar. “ ‘Machen wir uns ein Namen … ’ (Gen .). Zur Anthropologie der vorpriesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte.” Pp. – in Der Weg zum Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie. Für Alfons Deissler. Edited by Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert. Freiburg: Herder, ; repr. pp. – in Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. SBAB . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . ———. “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte, vornehmlich von Gen –.” Cath  (): –. Sæbø, Magne. “Divine Names and Epithets in Genesis :b-a: Some Methodological and Traditio-Historical Remarks.” Pp. – in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May th . Edited by André Lemaire and Benedikt Otzen. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, ; repr. pp. – in On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———. “ãÇñ sôd secret.” In TLOT .–. Sarauw, Chr. Über Akzent und Silbenbildung in den älteren semitischen Sprachen. Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser /. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, . Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society, . ———. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, . Sauer, G. “ãòé y‘d to appoint.” In TLOT .–. Sawyer, John F. A. “The Image of God, the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Pp. – in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . ———. “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi.” JTS  (): –. Scharbert, Josef. “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen ,.” Pp. – in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Walter Baier et al. Vol. . St. Ottilien: EOS, . ———. “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift.” Pp. – in Wort—Gebot—Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt






zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernst Jenni. ATANT . Zurich: Zwingli, . Schenker, Adrian. “Once Again, The Expiatory Sacrifices.” JBL  (): –. Schmid, Herbert. “Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem.” ZAW  (): –. Schmidt, Brian B. “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts.” Pp. – in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman. Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos,  []. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig. “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament.” ErJ  (): –; repr. pp. – in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes. Edited by Leo Scheffczyk. WdF . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, . Schmidt, W. H. “àøá br’ to create.” In TLOT .–. ———. “Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches. Zu den theologischen Unterschieden zwischen den Prophetwort und seiner Sammler.” ZAW  (): –. ———. “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens.” Pp. – in Congress Volume: Paris, . Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. Exodus –. BKAT /. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. “Gott und Mensch in Ps. . Form- und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwägungen.” TZ  (): –; repr. pp. – in Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens. Edited by Axel Graupner, Holger Delkurt, and Alexander B. Ernst. Vol. . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel. Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes. d ed. BZAW . Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, . ———. “ ‘Monotheismus’ und Erstes Gebot.” TLZ  (): –. ———. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis ,–,a und ,b-,. d ed. WMANT . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . Schneider, Wolfgang. Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch. Ein Lehrbuch. th ed. Munich: Claudius,  []. Schreiner, Stefan. “Partner in Gottes Schöpfungswerk—Zur rabbinischen Auslegung von Gen ,–.” Judaica  (): –. Schwally, Friedrich. “Die biblischen Schöpfungsberichte.” ARw  (): – . Seebass, Horst. Genesis.  vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, – . Seely, Paul H. “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis :.” WTJ  (): –. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah.” JBL  (): –. Seybold, K. “"k k e; Çî"k k emô; øÖ#àk ka’ asˇer.” In TDOT .–. Sharp, Donald B. “A Biblical Foundation for an Environmental Theology: A New Perspective on Genesis :– and :–.” ScEs  (): –.






Shulman, Ahouva. “The Particle àð in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” HS  (): –. Sifre ad Deuteronomium. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. . Repr., New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, . Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. d ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, . Smith, Carlota S. The Parameter of Aspect. d ed. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy . Dordrecht: Kluwer, . Smith, Mark S. “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion.” ZAW  (): –. ———. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. d ed. The Biblical Resources Series. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . ———. “God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and His ‘Asherah’.” TS  (): –. ———. “Mythology and Myth-making in Ugaritic and Israelite Literatures.” Pp. – in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September . Edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey. UBL . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, . ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . ———. “Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel: Observations on Old Problems and Recent Trends.” Pp. – in Ein Gott allein? JHWHVerehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. OBO . Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ——— and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . Smith, Morton. “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles.” Pp. – in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SHR . Leiden: E. J. Brill, ; repr. pp. –  in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen. Vol. . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . ———. Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York/ London: Columbia University Press, . Snaith, N. H. “The Meaning of the Hebrew _à.” VT  (): –. Snyder, Jill. “*yhb in the Bible from a Grammaticization Perspective.” Master’s thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, . Snyman, S. D. “ ‘Violence’ in Amos , and ,.” ETL  (): –. Sokoloff, Michael. “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Buk¯an: A Revised Interpretation.” IEJ  (): –, . Sommer, Benjamin D. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle.” BI  (): –. Sparks, Kent. “A Comparative Study of the Biblical äìáð Laws.” ZAW  (): –. Speiser, E. A. “Akkadian Myths and Epics.” Pp. – in ANET 3.






———. Genesis. AB . Garden City, New York: Doubleday, . ———. “Note on Amos :.” BASOR  (): –. Sperling, S. David. The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible’s Writers. New York/London: New York University Press, . Spina, Frank Anthony. “Babel.” In ABD .–. Spycket, Agnès. Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la I re dynastie de Babylone. CRB . Paris: J. Gabalda, . Stamm, Johann Jakob. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament. ThSt . Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, . ———. “Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.” Pp. – in Antwort. Karl Barth zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am . Mai . Zollikon/Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, ; repr. pp. – in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes. Edited by Leo Scheffczyk. WdF . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, . ———. “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament.” Pp. – in Humanität und Glaube. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg. Edited by Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger. Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt, . Steck, Odil Hannes. “Der Mensch und die Todesstrafe. Exegetisches zur Übersetzung der Präposition Beth in Gen ,a.” Pp. – in Veritas Hebraica. Alttestamentliche Studien Ernst Jenni gewidmet zum . Geburtstag. TZ /– . Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, . ———. Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis ,–,a. d ed. FRLANT . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Steiner, Richard C. “úc and ïéò: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy :, ).” JBL  (): –. Stendebach, F. J. “íìö s. elem.” In TDOT .–. Stoebe, H. J. “ñîç h. ¯am¯as violence.” In TLOT .–. ———. Das zweite Buch Samuelis. KAT /. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, . Stolz, Fritz. “Jahwes Unvergleichlichkeit und Unergründlichkeit. Aspekte der Entwicklung zum alttestamentlichen Monotheismus.” WuD  (): – . ———. “Sea íé.” In DDD2 –. Streibert, Christian. Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Funktion schöpfungstheologischer Aussagen in exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit. BEAT . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, . Stroumsa, Sarah. “ ‘What is Man’: Psalm :– in Jewish, Christian and Muslim Exegesis in Arabic.” Hen  (): –. Struppe, Ursula. Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH. ÖBS . Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, . Swiggers, Pierre. “Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (Genesis :–).” Pp. – in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, .






Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment.” ExAu  (): –. Teshima, Yeshayahu. “ ‘Come, Let Us Deal Shrewdly with Them, or They Will Increase’: Rashi’s Linguistic Evaluation of the Functions of äáä and the Hithpael Stem.” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). Thompson, Sandra A. “A Discourse Approach to the Cross-Linguistic Category ‘Adjective.’ ” Pp. – in Explaining Language Universals. Edited by John A. Hawkins. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ; repr. pp. – in Linguistic Categorization. Edited by Roberta Corrigan, Fred Eckman, and Michael Noonan. CILT . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, . Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, . ———. “ ‘He Begot a Son in His Likeness after His Image’ (Genesis :).” Pp. – in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . ———. “The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments.” Pp. – in ãîììå ãîìì. Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman. Edited by Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen. New York: Ktav, . ———. “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.” IEJ  (): . ———. “What is Man That You Have Been Mindful of Him? (On Psalm :– ).” Pp. – in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters, . ———. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. HSS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. d ed. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Royal Van Gorcum, . Trask, R. L. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, . Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. London: SCM,  []. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm .” HUCA – (–): –. Tsumura, David Toshio. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis  and : A Linguistic Investigation. JSOTS . Sheffield: JSOT Press, . Ungnad, A. “Zum hebräischen Verbalsystem.” BASS / (): –. Urbach, Ephraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Translated by Israel Abrahams.  vols. d enl. ed. Jerusalem: Magnes, . Van Seters, John. “A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P.” Pp. –  in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . ———. “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King.” ZAW  (): –.






———. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, . Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, . Vervenne, Marc. “All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis .–.” Pp. –  in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. A. Sawyer. Edited by Jon Davies, Graham Harvey, and Wilfred G. E. Watson. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———. “ ‘The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Blood’: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death in Biblical Tradition. (Gen. ,).” Pp. – in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the th to the th of April . Edited by J. Quaegebeur. OLA . Louvain: Peeters, . Vogels, Walter. “The Cultic and Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen ,b).” SJOT  (): –. ———. “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn ,).” ScEs  (): –. ———. “ ‘Like One of Us, Knowing .tôb and ra‘.’ ” Pp. – in Thinking in Signs: Semiotics and Biblical Studies … Thirty Years After. Edited by Daniel Patte. Semeia . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Vollmer, J. “ä×ò ‘´sh to make, do.” In TLOT .–. van der Voort, A. “Genèse I,  à II, a et le Psaume CIV.” RB  (): – . Wagner, S. “Öák k¯abaˇs; Öák kebeˇs; ïÖ"á!k kibˇs¯an.” In TDOT .–. Walker, Christopher and Michael B. Dick. “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian m¯ıs pî Ritual.” Pp. – in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael B. Dick. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . Walker, Norman. “Do Plural Nouns of Majesty Exist in Hebrew?” VT  (): . Wallace, Howard N. “The Toledot of Adam.” Pp. – in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, . Waschke, E.-J. “íÇä"z t ehôm.” In TWAT .–. ———. Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. ThAr . Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, . Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. d corrected ed. JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———. “The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey.” SEL  (): –. Weidner, Ernst F. “Eine Beschreibung des Sternenhimmels aus Assur.” AfO  (): –. Weimar, Peter. Die Berufung des Mose. Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus ,–,. OBO . Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . ———. “Chaos und Kosmos. Gen , als Schlüssel einer alteren Fassung der priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung.” Pp. – in Mythos im Alten






Testament und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld. BZAW . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, . ———. “Exodus ,–a. Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomischer Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion.” Pp. – in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL . Louvain: University Press/Peeters, . Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy –. AB . New York: Doubleday, . ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . ———. “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree.” VT  (): –. ———. “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah.” Tarb  (): – (in Hebrew). ———. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, . ———. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis :–:.” Pp. – in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Delcor. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, . ———. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem/Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress, . ———. “The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Background.” UF  (): –. Weippert, Manfred. “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Zum sog. dominium terrae in Genesis .” Pp. – in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen. Edited by Hans-Peter Mathys. Biblisch-Theologische Studien . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, . Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  []. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies. . Repr., Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, . Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis.  vols. WBC –. Waco/Dallas: Word, –. ———. “The Priority of P.” VT  (): –. Westermann, Claus. “Bedeutung und Funktion des Imperativs in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments.” Pp. – in Der Weg zum Menschen. Zur philosophischen und theologischen Anthropologie. Für Alfons Deissler. Edited by Rudolf Mosis and Lothar Ruppert. Freiburg: Herder, . ———. Genesis. Translated by John J. Scullion.  vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg, – [–]. ———. Handbook to the Old Testament. Edited and translated by Robert H. Boyd. Minneapolis: Augsburg,  []. ———. Isaiah –. Translated by David M. G. Stalker. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,  [].






———. “íÇä"z t ehôm flood.” In TLOT .–. de Wette, W. M. L. Commentar über die Psalmen. Edited by Gustav Baur. th ed. Breslau: Herrmann Kelsch, . Whitley, C. F. “Some Functions of the Hebrew Particles beth and lamedh.” JQR  (): –. Whybray, R. N. The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl –: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah. SOTSMS . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, . ———. Isaiah –. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott,  []. Wiggins, Steve A. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. AOAT . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, . Wildberger, Hans. “Das Abbild Gottes. Gen. , –.” TZ  (): –, –; repr. pp. – in Jahwe und sein Volk. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem . Geburtstag am . Januar . Edited by Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck. TBü . Munich: Chr. Kaiser, . ———. “øçá bh. r to choose.” In TLOT .–. ———. Isaiah. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp.  vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, –  [–]. ———. “íìö s. elem image.” In TLOT .–. de Wilde, A. Das Buch Hiob. OTS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Wilfong, Marsha M. “Human Creation in Canonical Context: Genesis :–  and Beyond.” Pp. – in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner. Edited by William P. Brown and S. Dean McBride Jr. Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, . Williams, David T. “ ‘Fill the Earth and Subdue It’ (Gn :): Dominion to Exploit and Pollute?” Scriptura  (): –. Williams, Ronald J. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. d ed. Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, . Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, . ———.  and  Chronicles. NCBC. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, . ¯ YHWH.” JNSL  (): –. Willis, John T. “QÛMAH Wilson, Robert R. “ Kings.” Pp. – in The HarperCollins Study Bible. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. [New York:] HarperCollins, . ———. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. YNER . New Haven/London: Yale University Press, . ———. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, . Wilt, Timothy. “A Sociolinguistic Analysis of n¯a’.” VT  (): –. Winter, Irene J. “ ‘Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia.” JRS / (): –. ———. “[Review of Spycket, La statuaire du proche-orient ancien].” JCS  (): –. Wöller, Ulrich. “Zur Übersetzung von kî in Gen   and  .” ZAW  (): –.






van Wolde, Ellen. Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis –. BIS . Leiden: E. J. Brill, . Wolfensohn, Avraham. “ ‘Come, Let Us Build Ourselves a City …’ ” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress,  []. ———. The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings. Translated by Keith R. Crim. Philadelphia: Fortress,  []. van der Woude, A. S. “àáö s. ¯ab¯a’ army.” In TLOT .–. Wright, David P. “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden.” Bib  (): –. Würthwein, Ernst. “Chaos und Schöpfung im mythischen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte.” Pp. – in Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum . Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Dinkler and Hartwig Thyen. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), ; repr. pp. – in Wort und Existenz. Studien zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, . Wyatt, N. “Asherah äøÖà.” In DDD2 –. ———. “The Darkness of Genesis i .” VT  (): –. ———. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. UBL . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, . ———. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues. BiSe . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, . ———. “The Theogony Motif in Ugarit and the Bible.” Pp. – in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September . Edited by George J. Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis, and John F. Healey. UBL . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, . Zenger, Erich. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte. d ed. SBS . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, . Zevit, Ziony. The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew. SBLMS . Atlanta: Scholars Press, . Zimmerli, Walther. .Mose.  vols. d/st ed. ZB.AT /–. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, –. ———. Ezekiel. Translated by Ronald E. Clements, James D. Martin, et al.  vols. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, – []. ———. Old Testament Theology in Outline. Translated by David E. Green. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,  []. Zobell, H.-J. “ïÇé"ìò ‘elyôn.” In TDOT .–. ———. “ä@T r¯ad¯ah, ä@T II r¯ad¯ah II, ãAT r¯adad.” In TWAT .–. Zoran, Yair. “The Language of Greatness—The Majestic Plural.” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew).


TEXT INDEX Biblical Texts   :–: : :– : :– : : : :– :– :– : : :– :– : : :– : : :– :– : :– : : : : :–

, , –, – ,  with n. , –,  , – , ,   –, –, , –,   , , , ,     , –    n. , ,     with n.  – –  ,   –,    , –, –,   n. , , ,    n. , –,  –, – with n. , – , , , –, , , –, –, , –, 

:– :

 –, , –, , , , –, –, , , , –, –, –, –, , –, , , – , –, , , , , , –, , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  : , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , ,  :–  : , , , , –, , , –, , , , – with n. , , , , , , ,  :– ,  : , ,  : ,  : , , , , , – :–  :–  :– – :  : , ,  :  :a , , ,  n.  :b  n.  :b–  :b–: 


 : : : : : : : : : :– : : :– : :– : :– : : :– :– : : :– :– : : :

: :– : :– : : :

   ,   ,     ,     ,   – –, , , , – , , – with n. , , , , , , , , , , –,  ,   , – –    , , ,  , ,  , –, , , , , –, –, , ,  , , , ,  , –, , , , , , , , –,  n. , , , , , , , –, –, , , ,      with n. , , , , , , , , –,   , ,  , 

: :– : : :– : : :– : : : :– : : : : : : : : : :– : :  :– : :– :– :– :– : : :– : :

: :– : : : :– :–

,   ,  ,  with n. ,   n.   n. , ,   – ,   , , , ,    ,      with n.  ,  n.   , –  ,  , –,  –,  – , , , , , ,  ,    –,   –,  –,  ,   with n. , –, , –, –, , , –, , –, ,  , , , , ,   ,   ,  , ,  , , 


  : :– : :– : : :– :– : : :– : :– : : :– : : :– :– : : : : : : : : : :– : : : : : :– : : : : : :

   –, , , ,  –, , , , , –, ,  –, , , , , , –, , , , ,  , – – , ,  , ,  ,  , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  , ,  ,  ,    – –  –   –      ,   –, , –, – ,  ,   ,      , –, – 

: :– : : : : : : : :– : : : : :– :– : : : :– : :– : : : : : : :– : : : :– : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

  ,   –     –  ,      – , ,   ,    – – ,      – –    ,   –  , ,  , ,    –  ,    




 

: : : : : : :– :– :– : :– :

  –   –  n.  –, – ,    ,  n. , –, , –, , , ,  :  :  :  :  :  :  :  :– ,  :  :–  :   :– : : : : : :– : : : : :– : :– : : : : :– :

,  , , ,  ,  n. , , , –, –, , ,  ,     –      –  – –   

: : :– : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :– :– :– : : : : : :– : : : : : : : : :– : : :– :– : : : : : :– :

  ,   ,    ,  – with n.                  , ,          ,         ,  ,    – with n. 


  : : : : : : :– : :

,    ,      

 :– : : : : : : :– : : : : :– :– : : : : :– : : : : : : :– :– :– : : : : :

 n.     –     ,     –         ,       ,    – 

 :



:– : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :– : :– : : : : : : :–

   ,        ,         ,             , – n. , , ,  

 :  n. , – :  :–  :  :  :–  :– ,  :–  :  n.  :–  :  :–  :– 


 : : :– : : : : :– : : : : : :

  : :– : :– :– :– : : : : : : : :– : : : :– : : :– : : :

     ,   with n.  ,   ,          ,  ,      –      –      n.        

: : :

   , ,       – –    nn.  and , – –, –, ,   n.  , –  n. 

 : :– : : :

–   – –

 : : : : : : : : :– :– : : : :

,   ,     –   –  –  –

  : : : :– : : :– :– : : : : : : :– : :

  : :–

 n.  –

  : :–

:–


  : : : :– : : : : :– : : : : : : : : : : : :– :  : :– : : :

           –  – – with n.  –   –,    ,   n.  – ,   , ,  

  : : : : : : : :

– –    – with n.   

  :– : : : : :

 n. ,  –  , –, , ,    , 



: :– : :– : : : : : : : : :– : : : :

   –      ,   n. ,     n.    

 : : : : : : : : : :

  ,   – –    

 :– : :– : : : : : : :– :– : : : : :

–   , ,  , – ,    , ,    ,  ,,  , ,  , ,  




 

:– : : :– : : : :– :– : : : : : : :

 , ,  ,   ,  ,  , , ,  –, ,    , ,      

 : : :

 ,  n.  

 :



 : :– :

,   , 

 :

–

 :–



 :  :  :  : , 

:– : :– : : : :  :– : : :– : :– : : : :– : : : : :  :– :– :– :– :– :  :– : :– :– :– :– : 

 :



:– :

 

 with n. ,  with

:– :–

n. , – with n.     –  n.     ,  ,    – ,  ,      –    ,       ,   n.         –, – with n.   , –, , ,  – –


  :– : : : : :– : : :– : : :– : : : :– : :– : : :– :  : : :– : : :– : : : : : : :– : : : : :  :– : :– : :

 ,  ,  ,  ,     –  ,   ,          , – – , , – ,       , –  –  – with n.  –, , ,           ,  

: :– :

 ,   

 :  :  :   : : : : : : :– : :

  ,  , ,    , – ,  

 :



 :– :– : : : : :–  : : : : : : :– : : : :– : : :– :

    ,    ,  ,    ,         ,    


 : : :

    , 

 :    :–  :–    : ,  :  :  n.  : – :–  :  : , ,  :  : ,  Biblical Manuscripts Kenn :  Kenn :  Qumran QDeutj :: , , , ,  QDeutq :: , ,  QPsk ::  Rabbinic b. Meg a:  Sifre Deuteronomy :  n.  Akkadian AKA  i :  n.  AKA  i –:  n.  AKA  ii :  nn.  and  BBSt  i –:  BBSt  i :  BBSt  Face A :  n. ,  BBSt  Face A –:  n. , 

BBSt  Face A :  n. ,  BBSt  Face B :  n. ,  BBSt :–:  with n.  BBSt ::  n.  BBSt  iii :  n.  BBSt  iv –:  n.  BBSt  iv :  B¯ıt M¯esiri ii :  n. ,  BM :  with n.  Borger, Esarh.  rev. :  Borger, Esarh. ::  n.  Borger, Esarh.  rev. –:  n.  Borger, Esarh.  rev. –:  CH i –:  CH xlvii –:  CH xlviii –:  CH xlviii –:  En El i :  En El i –:  En El iv –:  En El v :  n.  KAH   rev. :  n.  KAR :–.–:  KAR  i –:  n.  KAV  rev. :  n.  Lambert, BWL ::  n.  Layard ::  n.  Layard ::  n.  OIP  ::  n. ,  n.  OIP   vi :  n.   R  iii –:  RA   i :  n.  RAcc ::  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIMA  A...:  RIMA  A...:–:  RIME  E... v. ′–′:  n.  SAA   rev. –: 


  SAA   rev. :  n.  SAA   obv.  – rev. :  SAA   rev. –:  n.  SAA   rev. :  n.  SAA   rev. :  n.  SAA   rev. :  n.  Streck, Asb. :ff.:  n.  Streck, Asb.  L ff.:  n.  Streck, Asb.  iv –:  n. ,  n.  STT ::  n.  STT ::  STT :.:  n.  STT :–:  TCL  :  n.  TCL  :  n.  Tell Fakhariyeh .:  Tukulti-Ninurta i/A obv.:  TuL ::  n.  Unger, Bel-Harran-beli-usser :  n.  Weidner, AfO  – obv. –:  n. 



Weidner, AfO  – obv. .., rev. .:  n.  YOS   i :  n.  YOS   i :  n.  Epigraphic Aramaic Bukan :  n.  KAI :  with n.  KAI :  Tell Fakhariyeh: –, – Epigraphic Hebrew Kh. el-Qom :–.:  K. Ajrud Pithos :–:  K. Ajrud Pithos :–:  Ugaritic KTU2 . iv –:  KTU2 . iii –:  KTU2 .:: 


This page intentionally left blank


WORD INDEX Akkadian aˇs¯abu,  iˇssˇakku, – izuzzu, ,  kakku,  with n.  s. almu, –,  sˇarru, – Tiamat, – Amharic kä/kÃ, – Biblical Aramaic êìà, ïéìà, äìà, – àã, ïëã, êã, äðã, – (à)îìö, , ,  Epigraphic Aramaic àúåîã, – àáöð,  n.  àîìö, –, – with n.  Biblical Hebrew ìáàúä,  íãà, – íéðãà,  íéðåà,  íéîéà,  (íéäìàä) ùéà, – êà, – ìà,  íìà, ,  n.  íéäìà(ä), , –, , , –,  with n.  íéäìàä éäìà,  øîà øîàì,  ùåðà,  n.  õøà, –

úãùà,  n.  äøùà, –, – íéøùà, – úåøùà,  á, , –, – ìéãáä, –, – úåîäá,  àåá àåáà, – äàåáàå,  äàéáä,  íãà­ïá,  n.  íéäìàä­éðá, –, –,

, , –, ,  íéìà éðá,  ìòá,  àøá, – øùá,  úåøåáâ,  íéøåáâ,  ãâ,  úåîã, –, –, –, –, , , ,  úåòã,  n. 

êìä äëì, – äðæ,  with n.  äåçúùä,  íëçúä, – ñîç, –, ,  áåè, , – áäé äáä, –, – íé, – íéîé, – ë, , –, – ùáë, –, ,  íéáåøë, –,  ìëàî, 




 

ìâî,  êìäî,  àøåî,  ïéî, –,  íéøùéî, – äëî,  êàìî, –, –, – íéëàìî, ,  íéîùä úëàìî,  ïî,  n. ,  n.  òñî,  ãöòî,  àùî,  úéçùî, – ìùî, – èôùî, – íéúøùî, – ïúî,  àð, – àáðúä,  ìôð,  íéìôð,  ìôð,  úåî÷ð,  ãåñ, , ,  n.  ãáò,  íéãáò, ,  äãò, , ,  with n. ,



ïåéìò,  with n.  úåöò,  n.  äùò, , – øùòúä,  úåøúùò, – àáö, , – úåàáö (äåäé), 

(ä)÷ãö, – íìö, –, –,

–, –, –, –, –, –, –, – íéùã÷,  ìä÷, , , 

íå÷ äîå÷, – ùã÷ úááø,  n.  äãø, –, ,  çåø, –, ,  íéäìà çåø, –, – úåçîù,  n.  äåäé­àáö­øù,  íçøå íéãù,  úçù, –, – øîù,  íåäú, –, – úåãìåú, –, , , ïéðú,

–, –,  –, , 

Epigraphic Hebrew äúøùà, – Sumerian , – ,  n.  Nudimmud,  n.  Ugaritic ’atrt, – with n.  ym, – thmtm,  tnn, –


AUTHOR INDEX Aaron, David H.,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Ackroyd, Peter R.,  n. ,  Ahlström, G. W.,  n. ,  n. ,  Albertz, Rainer,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Allen, Leslie C.,  with n. ,  Alter, Robert,  with n. ,  n. ,  Amit, Yairah,  n. ,  Andersen, Francis I.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. , – with n. ,  n. ,  Anderson, A. A.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Anderson, Bernhard W.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , , – n. , – n. , – Angerstorfer, Andreas,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Azzi, Pierre,  n. ,  Baentsch, Bruno,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Baethgen, Friedrich,  n. ,  Balentine, Samuel E.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Bar-On, Shimon,  n. ,  Baranzke, Heike,  n. ,  Barr, James,  nn.  and ,  n. ,

 n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. , – nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Barth, Jacob,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Batto, Bernard F.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Bauer, Hans,  n. ,  n. ,  Baumgartner, Walter et al., xvi,  with n. ,  n.  BDB, xiv,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n.  Beauchamp, Paul,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Beck, H. F.,  with n. ,  Berges, Ulrich,  n. ,  n. ,  Bergsträsser, G., xv,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n.  Berlejung, Angelika,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Bertholet, Alfred,  n. ,  Beuken, Willem A. M.,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , 




 

Biale, David,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Bickel, Balthasar, – n. ,  Bird, Phyllis A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Birkeland, Harris,  n. ,  Blake, Frank R.,  n. ,  Blau, Joshua,  n. ,  n. ,  Blenkinsopp, Joseph,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth M.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Boehmer, Julius,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  de Boer, P. A. H.,  n. ,  Böttcher, Friedrich,  n. ,  Bordreuil, Pierre,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Borger, R.,  n. ,  n. ,  Bottéro, Jean, – with nn.  and ,  n. ,  Brettler, Marc Zvi,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Breukelman, Frans,  n. ,  n. ,  Briggs, Charles Augustus,  n. ,  with n. , . See also s.v. BDB

Briggs, Emilie Grace,  n. ,  with n. ,  Brockelmann, Carl, xv,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Brown, Francis. See s.v. BDB Brown, Penelope,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Brown, William P.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Brueggemann, Walter,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. , – with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Brüning, Christian,  n. ,  n. ,  Buber, Martin,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Budd, Philip J.,  n. ,  Budde, Karl,  n. ,  n. ,  Burney, C. F.,  n. ,  Carr, David,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Caspari, W.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Cassuto, U.,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,


   n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , ,  with nn.  and ,  Cazelles, Henri,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Charles, R. H.,  n. ,  Charlesworth, J. H.,  n. ,  n. ,  Childs, Brevard S.,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. , – with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Clements, Ronald E.,  n. ,  Clines, David J. A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – with n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. , , – Cohen, Jeremy,  n. ,  n. ,  Cohen, Marcel,  n. ,  n. ,  Cohen, Naomi G.,  n. ,  Collins, John J.,  n. ,  n. ,  Comrie, Bernard,  n. ,  Cooke, G. A.,  with nn.  and ,  Cooke, Gerald,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Cooper, Alan,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Coote, Robert B.,  n. , 



Cowley, A. E. See s.v. Gesenius, Wilhelm Craigie, Peter C.,  nn.  and ,  Cross, Frank Moore,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Crüsemann, Frank,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Currid, John D.,  n. ,  Curtis, Edward M.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Dahood, Mitchell,  n. ,  n. ,  Davidson, A. B.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. , ,  Davies, Eryl W.,  n. ,  n. ,  Davies, Philip R.,  n. ,  with n. ,  Day, John,  n. ,  n.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  De Regt, L. J.,  n. ,  De-Rossi, Johannis Bern.,  n. ,  Delitzsch, Franz,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Derenbourg, Hartwig,  n. ,  n. ,  Derenbourg, Joseph,  n. ,  n. ,  Dever, William G.,  with n. , 




 

Di Lella, Alexander A.,  n. ,  n. ,  Dick, Michael B.,  nn.  and ,  with nn. , , , and ,  n. ,  Diehl, Johannes F.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Dietrich, Walter,  n. ,  Dillmann, August,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.,  n. ,  Dohmen, C.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Douglas, Mary,  n. ,  n. ,  Driver, G. R.,  n. ,  Driver, S. R.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. , – with nn.  and , . See also s.v. BDB Duhm, Bernh.,  n. ,  n. ,  Duncker, P. G.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Durham, John I.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Ebach, Jürgen,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Edelman, Diana V.,  n. ,  Edzard, D. O.,  n. , 

Ehrlich, Arnold B.,  n. ,  Eichrodt, Walther,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. , – Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Eissfeldt, Otto,  with n. ,  Elnes, Eric E.,  n. ,  Ember, Aaron,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  Emerton, J. A.,  n. ,  n. ,  Engnell, I.,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  Ewald, Heinrich,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Fassberg, Steven E.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Fensham, F. Charles,  with n. ,  Fenz, Augustinus Kurt,  n. ,  Firmage, Edwin,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Fishbane, Michael,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. , – nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , , , ,  Fisher, Loren R.,  n. ,  Fitzmyer, Joseph A., – nn.  and ,  Fohrer, Georg,  n. ,  Foster, Benjamin R.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Fox, Michael V.,  n. ,  n. ,  Freedman, David Noel,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Fretheim, Terence E.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , 


  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Frevel, Christian,  n. ,  Friedman, Richard Elliott,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Frymer-Kensky, Tikva,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Galpaz-Feller, Pnina,  n. ,  Garr, W. Randall,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Gaster, T. H.,  n. ,  with n. , ,  Geers, F. W.,  n.  Gemser, B.,  n. ,  with n. ,  Gerstenberger, Erhard S.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Gevirtz, Stanley,  n. ,  Gibson, J. C. L.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Ginsberg, H. Louis,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Gesenius, Wilhelm, xv,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. . See also s.v. Bergsträsser, G. Görg, Manfred,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Good, Robert M.,  n. ,  Gordis, Robert,  n. , 



Gorman, Frank H., Jr.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with nn. , , and ,  nn. , , and , – Grabbe, Lester L.,  n. ,  Gray, John,  n. ,  n. ,  Grayson, A. Kirk,  with n.  Greenberg, Moshe,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , –  nn. , , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Greenfield, Jonas C.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Greenhalgh, Stephen,  n. ,  with n. ,  Greenstein, Edward L.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Gropp, Douglas M.,  n. ,  Groß, Heinrich,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Groß, Walter,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. , – n. , – Gruber, Mayer,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Gunkel, Hermann,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. , 




 

Haag, H.,  nn. , , and ,  Habel, Norman C.,  n. ,  n. ,  Hadley, Judith M.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Hagedorn, Anselm C.,  n. ,  Hahn, E. Adelaide,  n. ,  Hallo, William W.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Halpern, Baruch,  n. ,  with n. , – nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Handy, Lowell K.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Haran, M.,  n. ,  Harland, P. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Hart, Ian,  n. ,  n. ,  Hartley, John E.,  n. ,  Hasel, Gerhard F.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Hehn, Johannes,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , 

Heintz, Jean-Georges,  n. ,  n. ,  Hendel, Ronald S.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Henkin, Roni,  n. ,  n. ,  Henry, Matthew,  with n. ,  Herrmann, W.,  with n. ,  Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm,  nn.  and ,  Hess, Richard S.,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Hetzron, Robert, – with nn. , , , and ,  Hillers, Delbert R.,  n. ,  Hinschberger, Régine,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Hoftijzer, J., xv,  n.  Holladay, William L.,  n. ,  Holmes, Janet, – n. ,  Holtgraves, Thomas,  n. ,  Hopper, Paul J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Horst, Friedrich,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. , ,  n. ,  Hossfeld, F.-L.,  n. ,  Huehnergard, John,  n. ,  Hulst, A. R.,  n. ,  Hultgård, Anders,  n. , – Humbert, Paul,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor),  n. , 


 



Hurvitz, Avi,  with n. ,  n. ,  Hyatt, J. Philip,  nn.  and , 

Jüngling, Hans-Winfried,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. , 

Jacob, B.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Jacobsen, Thorkild,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  Janowski, Bernd,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Jenni, E.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , , and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Jenson, Philip Peter, – with n. ,  n. ,  Jones, G. H.,  n. ,  Jongeling, K., xv,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Jónsson, Gunnlaugur A.,  n. ,  Joosten, J.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Joüon, Paul,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. , 

Kaddari, Menahem Z.,  n. , .  Kaiser, Otto,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Kaufman, Stephen A.,  n. , – nn. , , and , , – Kautzsch, E. See s.v. Gesenius, Wilhelm Kearney, Peter J.,  n. ,  Kedar-Kopfstein, B.,  n. ,  Keel, Othmar,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Kennicott, Benjaminus,  n. ,  Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn,  n. ,  Kimhi, David,  n. ,  n. ,  Kindl, E.-M.,  n. ,  King, L. W.,  n.  Kirkpatrick, A. F.,  n. ,  Kister, Menahem,  n. ,  n. ,  Kittel, Rudolf,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Klein, Ralph W.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Klopfenstein, Martin A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Knohl, Israel,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , – Koch, Klaus,  n. ,  Koehler, Ludwig,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , 




 

König, Eduard,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Kraetzschmar, Richard,  n. ,  Krapf, Thomas M.,  n. ,  Kraus, Hans-Joachim,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Kroeze, Jan H.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Kühlewein, J.,  n. ,  Kugel, James L.,  n. ,  n. ,  Kunz, Andreas,  nn.  and ,  Kutsko, John F.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Labuschagne, C. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Lacocque, André,  n. ,  Lakoff, Robin,  n. ,  Lambert, Mayer,  n. ,  n. ,  Lambert, W. G.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Lamberty-Zielinski, Hedwig,  n. ,  Lande, Irene,  n. ,  Larsen, Mogens Trolle,  with n. ,  with n. ,  Leander, Pontus,  n. ,  n. ,  Lee, S.,  n. ,  Leech, Geoffrey N.,  n. ,  Lemaire, André,  nn.  and ,  Lenchak, Timothy,  with n. , , ,  Leslau, Wolf,  nn.  and ,  nn. , , and ,  Levenson, Jon D.,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,

 n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. , – Levine, Baruch A.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Levinson, Stephen C.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Levy, D.,  n. ,  Lewis, Theodore J.,  n. ,  Lim, Johnson T. K.,  n. ,  n. ,  Limburg, James, – n. ,  n. ,  Lipinski, ´ Edward,  n. ,  n. ,  Loewenstamm, Samuel E.,  n. ,  Lohfink, Norbert, – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  nn. , , and ,  nn. , , and ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Long, Burke O.,  n. ,  Loretz, Oswald,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Lust, Johan,  with n. , 


  Lutzky, Harriet,  n. ,  n. ,  Luyster, Robert,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Luyten, Jos,  n. ,  Lyons, John,  n. ,  n. ,  Maag, Victor,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Machinist, Peter, – n. ,  nn.  and , – Mafico, T. L. J.,  with n. ,  n. ,  Malamat, Abraham,  n. ,  Mann, Yizhaq,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Martin, W. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  May, Herbert G.,  n. ,  Mayes, A. D. H.,  n. ,  n. ,  Mays, James L.,  n. ,  McBride, S. Dean, Jr.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  McEvenue, Sean E.,  n. ,  n. ,  Meek, Theophile J.,  n. ,  Meier, S. A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  van der Merwe, Christian H. J.,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. , – Mettinger, Tryggve N. D.,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Meyer, Rudolf,  n. , – nn.  and ,  n. ,  Meyers, Carol L.,  n. ,  Meyers, Eric M.,  n. ,  Miles, Jack,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , 



Miles, John C.,  n. ,  Milgrom, Jacob,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and , ,  Miller, Cynthia L.,  n. ,  Miller, J. Maxwell,  n. ,  n. ,  Miller, Patrick D., Jr.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with nn.  and ,  Mitchell, Christopher Wright,  n. ,  with n. ,  Montgomery, James A.,  n. ,  n. ,  de Moor, J. C.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Moore, Stephen D.,  n. ,  Moran, William L.,  n.  Morgenstern, Julian,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Mowinckel, Sigmund,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Müller, Hans-Peter,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Mullen, E. Theodore, Jr.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Muraoka, Takamitsu,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. , 




 

n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , ,  Nasuti, Harry P.,  n. ,  Naudé, Jackie A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Neef, Heinz-Dieter,  n. ,  Newsom, Carol A.,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Niccacci, Alviero,  n. ,  n. ,  Niditch, Susan,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Niehr, Herbert,  n. ,  n. ,  Noegel, Scott B.,  n. ,  Nöldeke, Th.,  n. ,  Nyberg, H. S.,  n.  Ockinga, Boyo,  n. ,  O’Connor, M.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Oesterley, W. O. E.,  n. ,  n. ,  del Olmo Lete, G.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Olshausen, Justus,  n. ,  n. ,  Olson, Dennis T.,  with n. ,  with n. ,  Olyan, Saul M.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Oppenheim, A. Leo,  n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and , 

Ord, David Robert,  n. ,  Orlinsky, Harry M., – n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Ouro, Roberto,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  Palmer, F. R.,  n. ,  Pardee, Dennis,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , ,  Parker, Simon B.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Patrick, Dale,  n. ,  n. ,  Paul, Shalom M.,  n. ,  Peckham, Brian,  n. , – Peleg, Yizhaq (Iziq),  n. ,  n. ,  Pettey, Richard J.,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Pitard, Wayne T.,  n. ,  Podella, Thomas,  n. ,  Pola, Thomas,  n. ,  Pope, Marvin H.,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , ,  Porten, Bezalel,  n. ,  Porter, Barbara Nevling,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  Preuss, H. D.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  with n. , ,  Procksch, Otto,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Propp, William H. C.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  Provan, Iain W.,  n. , 


  von Rad, Gerhard,  with n. ,  n. , – with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with n. , – with n. ,  Rainey, Anson F.,  n. , – nn.  and , – Rashi,  n.  Ratner, Robert,  n. ,  Rechenmacher, Hans,  nn.  and ,  Redditt, Paul L.,  n. ,  Reed, William L., – with nn.  and ,  Reiner, Erica,  nn.  and ,  Rendsburg, Gary A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Rendtorff, Rolf,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Renger, J.,  nn.  and ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Revell, E. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  Ridderbos, Nic. H.,  n. ,  Ringgren, H.,  n. ,  Roberts, J. J. M.,  n. ,  n. ,  Robinson, H. Wheeler,  n. ,  n. ,  Robinson, Robert B.,  n. ,  Rosén, Haiim B.,  n. ,  Rosenthal, Franz,  n. ,  Ross, James F.,  n. ,  Rost, Leonhard,  n. ,  Roth, Martha T.,  n. ,  n. , 



Rüterswörden, Udo,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  Ruppert, Lothar,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Sæbø, Magne,  n. ,  n. ,  Sarauw, Chr.,  nn.  and ,  Sarna, Nahum M.,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – with nn.  and , – with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. , ,  with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  with n. , ,  n. ,  Sauer, G.,  n. ,  Sawyer, John F. A.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Scharbert, Josef,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. , – nn.  and , – n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Schenker, Adrian,  n. ,  Schmid, Herbert,  n. ,  Schmidt, Brian B.,  n. ,  Schmidt, Karl Ludwig,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Schmidt, W. H.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,




 

 n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Schneider, Wolfgang,  n. ,  Schreiner, Stefan,  n. ,  Schwally, Friedrich,  n. ,  n. ,  Seebass, Horst,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Seely, Paul H.,  n. ,  Seitz, Christopher R.,  n. ,  Seybold, K.,  n. ,  Sharp, Donald B.,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Shulman, Ahouva,  n. , – with nn.  and ,  Skinner, John,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Smith, Carlota S.,  n. ,  Smith, Mark S.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn. , , and ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Smith, Morton,  n. ,  n. ,  Snaith, N. H.,  n. ,  Snyder, Jill,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  Snyman, S. D.,  n. ,  von Soden, Wolfram, xiii,  n. ,  n. ,  n.  Sokoloff, Michael,  n. ,  Sommer, Benjamin D.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Sparks, Kent,  n. , 

Speiser, E. A.,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Sperling, S. David,  n. ,  Spina, Frank Anthony,  n. ,  Spycket, Agnès,  n. ,  Stamm, Johann Jakob,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Steck, Odil Hannes,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Steiner, Richard C.,  n. ,  Steinkeller, Piotr,  n.  Stendebach, F. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Stoebe, H. J.,  n. ,  n. ,  Stolz, Fritz,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Streibert, Christian,  n. ,  Stroumsa, Sarah,  n. ,  Struppe, Ursula,  n. ,  Swiggers, Pierre,  n. ,  Talmon, Shemaryahu,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Teixidor, Javier,  n. ,  Teshima, Yeshayahu,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Thompson, Sandra A.,  n. ,  Tigay, Jeffrey H.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , 


  Tov, Emanuel,  n. ,  n. ,  Trask, R. L.,  with n. ,  Traugott, Elizabeth Closs,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Trible, Phyllis,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Tsevat, Matitiahu,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn.  and ,  Tsumura, David Toshio,  n. ,  Uehlinger, Christoph,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Ungnad, A.,  n. ,  Urbach, Ephraim E.,  n. ,  n. ,  Van Seters, John,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Vawter, Bruce,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Vervenne, Marc,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Vogels, Walter,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Vollmer, J.,  n. ,  van der Voort, A.,  n. ,  Wagner, S.,  n. ,  Walker, Christopher,  nn.  and ,  with nn. , , , and ,  n. ,  Walker, Norman,  n. ,  Wallace, Howard N.,  n. , 



with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Waltke, Bruce K.,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  Waschke, E.-J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Watson, Wilfred G. E.,  n. , – n. ,  Weidner, Ernst F.,  n. ,  Weimar, Peter,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – Weinfeld, Moshe,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Weippert, Manfred, – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , – n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Weiser, Artur,  with n. ,  Wellhausen, Julius,  n. ,  with n. , , ,  n. , ,  n. ,  Wenham, Gordon J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. , – with nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Westermann, Claus,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with nn. , , and ,  nn. 




 

and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. , , – de Wette, W. M. L.,  n. ,  Whitley, C. F.,  n. ,  Whybray, R. N.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Wiggins, Steve A.,  n. ,  nn. , , and ,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  Wildberger, Hans,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  de Wilde, A.,  n. ,  Wilfong, Marsha M.,  n. ,  Williams, David T.,  n. ,  Williams, Ronald J.,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and , ,  n. ,  n. ,  Williamson, H. G. M.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Willis, John T.,  n. ,  Willoughby, B. E.,  n. ,  n. ,  Wilson, Robert R.,  n. ,  n. ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. , – with nn.  and ,  n. , 

Wilt, Timothy,  nn. , , and ,  n. ,  n. ,  Winter, Irene J.,  with nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  with n. ,  nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  with nn.  and ,  nn.  and ,  Wöller, Ulrich,  n. ,  van Wolde, Ellen,  n. ,  Wolfensohn, Avraham,  n. ,  Wolff, Hans Walter,  with n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  with n. ,  n. ,  van der Woude, A. S.,  n. ,  Wright, David P.,  n. ,  n. ,  Würthwein, Ernst,  n. ,  n. ,  Wyatt, N.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  with n. ,  Zenger, Erich,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Zevit, Ziony,  n. ,  Zimmerli, Walther,  n. , ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  nn.  and ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Zobell, H.-J.,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  n. ,  Zoran, Yair,  n. , 