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 .

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Form-Critical Analysis of the äáä Clause . . . 95 96 104 111 117 118 132 165 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pragmatic Character of the äáä Clause . . . . . íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . äáä . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . úåîã and íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 23 23 27 28 33 38 45 51 51 65 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods in the Yahwist and Elohist Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  -  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Prepositions ë and á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gods Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gen : . . . . . The Plural Pronouns . . . xiii Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Isolating Nonliteral äáä . . . . . . . . xi Abbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . äáä and Gen : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ë . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     . . . . . . . . . . . . The Nouns úåîã and íìö . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . úåîã . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Note on Translations and Citations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ë and á . . . Interpretations of Nonliteral äáä . . . . . . Gods . . .. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Word Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 241 Indices Text Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imposing Rule. . . . . . . . 291 Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 293 . . . The Gods and Their Demise . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Priestly Cosmogony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 179 181 183 186 191 201 202 212 219 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    .. Harmonic Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Victory over the Gods. . . . . . . . . . . . Exercising Creative Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imitatio Dei et deorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and the Elevation of the Human Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Separation and Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

 Ägypten und Altes Testament Annuaire de l’École pratique des Hautes Études. d ed. see p. New York: Doubleday.  vols.  vols. xi.ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS The following is a list of abbreviations and sigla not explained within the text. For Assyriological abbreviations. IVe Section: Sciences historiques et philologiques Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (–). Edited by David Noel Freedman et al. – 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.  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 . Edited by Wolfram von Soden. Edited by James B. 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. Pritchard. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Edited by Ignace J. S. J. Briggs. Gelb et al. R. – Catholica Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Coniectanea Biblica. 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. Driver. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Augustin. and Charles A. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.  [] 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. Old Testament Series The Catholic Biblical Quarterly . Chicago/Glückstadt: Oriental Institute/J.

Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: E.  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.  Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. E. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edited and enlarged by E. Hinrichs. J.  vols.  pts. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.  vols. Leipzig: F. – J.K. Kautzsch. – Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. – . d ed. Cowley. Bob Becking. Grammatik mit Benutzung der von E. d English ed. Brill. Bergsträsser. C.   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. U. Kautzsch bearbeiteten . Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ hebräischer Grammatik. and Pieter W. Hoftijzer and K.: Brill/Eerdmans. Leiden/Grand Rapids–Cambridge. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.  Comptes-rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Etudes ChamitoSémitiques Carl Brockelmann. C. Revised by A. W. HdO //–. van der Horst. Edited by Karel van der Toorn. Jongeling. Vogel/J.

E. J. J. 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 . Edited by Walter Baumgartner et al. Richardson. De Regt. and L. Leiden: E.  vols. Translated and edited by M.  vols.  Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation. J. A Journal of Bible and Theology Interpretation. – [–] 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. G. Brill. 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. Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press. J. Jongeling-Vos. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick.

Edited by Erich Ebeling et al. 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). – Revue des sciences religieuses Rivista degli studi orientali . Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mélanges de la Faculté orientale.   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.

Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck et al. Edited by Loren R. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans. – [–] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.  vols. Green et al.  vols. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 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 by David E. – [– ] Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Studien . Fisher and Stan Rummel. 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. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W.

Peabody.   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. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.  vols. Edited by G. – 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.  vols. Johannes Botterweck et al. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Stuttgart: W. Biddle.: Hendrickson. Kohlhammer. Translated by Mark E. Edited by Hans Wilhelm Haussig.  [–] Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Quartalschrift Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. – 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 . Mass.

ALASPM . n. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Rudolph. sc.  vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.    Texts. repeated. Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti . Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. based upon (poetically) parallel to identical. Versions. Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: second. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Röllig. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. n. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. KTU2 LXX Meg. – H.d. Vol. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.  New Revised Standard Version Miscellaneous ET lit. th corrected ed. Donner and W. s.  Biblical manuscript collection of Benjamin Kennicott (cited by MS number. p. < || = + English translation literally no date no place (of publication) personal communication sub voce scilicet derived from.  Septuagint (Talmud) Tractate Megilla Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. NJPS NRSV Babylonian Talmud Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.v.c. reprinted in in conjunction with (of texts) . BHS HaE KAI Kenn. corresponds to.lix–xciv) Manfred Dietrich. : Texte. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit. as listed by De-Rossi. enlarged edition). and Manuscripts b. d ed. and Joaquín Sanmartín.p. Oswald Loretz. Elliger and W. Edited by K.  Johannes Renz and Wolfgang Röllig.

the second. WC. with n. on humanity. “a more intense reflection upon the implications of creation for the destiny of humanity. ] –). )  (italics original). we are vouchsafed a sublime vision of the totality of creation. Cassuto.”3 An interest conspicuously prominent in the entire narrative is the desire to explain the origin of existing facts of human nature. the temporal and the finite. iii. Long. as “The Priestly Creation Story: A Stylistic Study. ) – (repr. ) . See also §. and the institution of marriage. existing customs and institutions.PREFACE The book of Genesis begins with two distinct though interrelated narratives. and the toilsomeness of agriculture. Israel Abrahams. Philadelphia: Fortress. for instance. 3 Walter Brueggemann. Thus among the facts explained are. The Book of Genesis (th ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. 4 S. we perceive there. Minneapolis: Fortress. Balentine. which unifies into a clear and comprehensible order all the endlessly changing categories of existence. R.4 The first narrative focuses on cosmogony.. ii. The Torah’s Vision of Worship (OBT.2 The second is the Yahwist story of the human race (Gen :b-:). Minneapolis: Fortress.  []) . Jerusalem: Magnes. God reveals Himself … as a transcendental Being dwelling in His supernal abode. Genesis (Interp. Atlanta: John Knox. .” in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT. . The first is the Priestly cosmogony (Gen :–:). in ch.5 1 For this delimitation of the cosmogony. … the gait and habits of the serpent. especially those which were regarded as connected with the loss by man of his primaeval innocence. ) . 5 Samuel E. portrayed with great synthetic power. the subject condition (in the ancient world) of woman.1 In this first section. the distinction of the sexes. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures (trans. the Idea that rises above the accidental. see Bernhard W. and depicts for us with complete simplicity of expression the vast expanses of the universe to their utmost limits. London: Methuen. enthroned on high. the pain of childbearing. 2 U.” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (ed. and in ch. Anderson. “A Stylistic Study of the Priestly Creation Story. Driver.

Paul Beauchamp. BJS . is far more than a conceptual bridge between two documentary sources.”8 Each of the two underlying sources has its own linguistic character. Hans-Peter Mathys. “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis . Wenham. … [W]e have only the indefinite statement that they were created. only in general terms. it explains in detail how man and woman were formed respectively. The Documentary Hypothesis  (italics original). Yahwist narrative. This is … a case of … a general statement followed by a detailed account. in the simple phrase. See also James Barr. which is a customary literary device of the Torah. On the one hand. themes. a. and Balentine. ) . ) . and. and theological identity. the two accounts are complementary. Frerichs (ed. these two accounts of human creation “live in uneasy tension. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. the 6 David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox.. Yet in the final redacted text. “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn . the manner of his creation is described. Atlanta: Scholars Press.” VT  (): . as “Genesis  in Modern Biblical Scholarship. ) –. To begin with.  . whereas Gen :b- dallies over details.. Gen : serves a proleptic function. “Genesis  in der gegenwärtigen biblischen Forschung. Gen : is a quick preview within a Priestly. see §. s. when the Bible comes to elaborate the story of mankind’s origin.9 the Priestly text foreshadows the Yahwist focus on human history. LeDiv . Gordon J. ) . –. See also Phyllis A. Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux. Cf. Biblisch-Theologische Studien . however. The creation of humankind. Congrès de l’ACFEB.” JBTh  ():  (repr.10 . Afterwards. 8 Brueggemann. Bird. male and female He created them [Gen :].” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. The Torah’s Vision of Worship –. “The Priority of P.6 On the other hand. Genesis . 7 Cassuto. but we are not told how they were made.” in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT. cosmogonic context of the story that will unfold in the adjacent. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.” in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. .. or All Humanity?” in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin.. of course. Carr. “Adam: Single Man. Paris: Cerf. 9 See Barr. Lille () (ed. 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 two accounts of human creation are distinct: Gen : summarizes this event with punctuated yet parallelistic terseness. The single most important topic linking these two narratives is the creation of humankind. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn . Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed.. ] ). compositional style.7 As a result. 10 For another example of this Priestly redactional character. For the Yahwist. in this context.

and over everything that moves on the earth. von Rad is justified to infer that “God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. ) . åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image.. and overriding significance. 12 Nahum M. the Priestly writer (P) assigns this event distinct. Kari Elisabeth Børresen. and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts.. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. and. and over the whole earth. )—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account. it is the very foundation of the narrative. Sarna. ) . 14 Hans Walter Wolff.  pts. Mark E.11 Then God said. “Image of God (OT).”12 Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person. Wolff notes that “the man and the woman in Gen. supreme.. ] ). human creation is for P an event sui generis. Oslo: Solum. too.16 11 See Phyllis Trible. and over the birds of heaven.” in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed.  unique importance of this event is self-evident. “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts. and over the beasts. Biddle. male and female he created them. nonagentive verb form. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. greater control. P’s God anticipates a more active role. I … are … created … by God’s own personal decision (v. HKAT I/. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. 16 Bird.]). Cassuto. – [–]) .  []) . Philadelphia: Westminster. rev. Israel Abrahams. OTL.” in ABD . and Edward M.. the cohortative is both first person and agentive. and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM. John H. Unlike the jussives. (Gen :–) “The creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat.”15 As the cohortative form suggests.  [])  (= Genesis [trans. Hermann Gunkel. Curtis. ed. Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary. 13 E.”14 Similarly. Genesis (trans. Jerusalem: Magnes. ..” So God created humankind in his image. according to our likeness.  []) . Genesis (th ed. then. Macon: Mercer University Press.a. as signaled by the replacement of the simple … Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal.13 With justification. in the image of God he created it. Philadelphia: Fortress. So too. 15 Gerhard von Rad. Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. the cohortative does not itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. Margaret Kohl. ) –. Marks.g. differently. Right from the start.. strongly expressed resolve (the cohortative [see §.

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

Seybold. von Rad. ) . . as “Das Bild Gottes im Menschen [Gen. in all circumstances. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik.” JBL  (): . ) . H.” in TDOT . 28 Friedrich Horst. ] ). Genesis . Shamir Yona. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Bialik Institute. indirectly.. then. Schmidt. and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind?24 The responses are often unsatisfying. Una somiglianza fisica?” Bib  ():  (repr. 26 Sarna. .” JTS  (): . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Baker. Werner H. P.. “äîc  d¯am¯ah. and Johnson T. “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God. in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts. “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God. “äîã dmh to be like. Leo Scheffczyk. Mayer Gruber. Walther Eichrodt. TynB  (): – (= On the Way to the Postmodern . See also J. “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi. ] ).a und . and Daniel Sivan. See also Walter Groß. WdF . Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J.” Int  (): . Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis .” in TLOT . Maxwell Miller. K.]. For in most of its occurrences. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk... A. . Mettinger. it refers to a repreSee Clines. That is to say. Bruce Vawter. Munich: Kösel. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen .b. And as such.–).  vols. E. Preuss finds that “very little distinction can be made between the two words. (d ed. “"k k e.” in TDOT . The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. úeî"c d emûth. On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City. “The Image of God in Genesis—Some Linguistic and Historical Considerations. like “prototype” and “original.” essentially equivalent expressions. testify to the problem. but only a single one. Genesis .”26 Horst adds bravado. 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. . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. D. ) .” BN  ():  (repr.28 These statements. Zipora Talshir.. A. ) –. Duncker. See also Barr. Çî"k k emô. øÖà # k  ka’ asˇer. and. Eine physische Ähnlichkeit?” in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. Sawyer.  does it compare to the divine ‘image’.”25 Sarna’s language is somewhat stronger: “The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately.” OTWSA  (): . New York: Doubleday.). “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht. [O]ne has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are. íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun.b-. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen Gottesbildern [SBAB . 24 25 . G. Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis –  (BZAW .27 They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship. )  (in Hebrew). OTL. “L’immagine di Dio nell’uomo (Gen. Lim. Preuss. the uniqueness of God will be guarded.. 27 See also Tryggve N. it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that. and K. Philadelphia: Westminster. Many others agree: e.. –  [–]) . Curtis. WMANT . Oswald Loretz.. John F. D. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.” ZAW  (): . in ABD . Jenni.–. “‘In the Image of God’— What is It?” in Hommage to Shmuel. Studies in the World of the Bible (ed.g.

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

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

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

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

It is the most easily recognizable.” Prooftexts  (): . 51 Brueggemann.54 The integrity and unity of the Priestly source have also been challenged. unlike the scholarly mood of two generations ago. A. See also the cautionary remarks of Childs.55 As a result. “Analytical Outline of the Pentateuch. and its different strands isolated.. by Anderson. with slight changes. The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (d ed. Propp. as “The Priestly Narrative and History. to retroject linguistic or theological coherence to the underlying Priestly source. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp. Brill. Greenstein. VTS .52 The independence and continuity of the Priestly source have been questioned. On a small scale.48 This presumption finds substantial support. Rolf Rendtorff. 53 Frank Moore Cross. the older. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture . it is necessary to re-argue source-critical parameters.  ods. P’s creation story is hailed as “comprehensive in its intention and design. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . or Norbert Lohfink. ) . Atlanta: John Knox. and. 55 See. CRBS  (): .” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly .). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. … It prefers its own vocubulary [sic] and style and projects its own scheme for understanding world history and the history of Israel.”50 On a grand scale. “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies. )  (repr. ) – . J. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs. Emerton et al. e. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities –).  (repr. Leiden: E.51 The presumed coherence of P seems justified. e. 52 See. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress. “Presenting Genesis . however. Whereas earlier scholars celebrated source criticism and its results with enthusiastic confidence.” in Congress Volume: Göttingen. Carr.g. … As von Rad has rightly emphasized. the Priestly tradition is the most distinctive and self-conscious tradition among those in the so-called documentary hypothesis. ) –. . It is problematic.49 only what is essential is here.” in Martin Noth.. both the exuberance and confidence are now somewhat muted. critically. and Rendtorff. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.53 and. Mass. Reading the Fractures of Genesis –. 56 As. expansive lists of Priestly material56 48 Cf. Genesis ..” CRBS  (): –. can be recovered.g. )  n. nothing is accidental or included merely because it stood in the received tradition... See also Clines. “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT  (): –. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte.  (ed. Edward L.. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cambridge. Brevard S. 54 So William H. 49 Von Rad. ) –. C. J. –. Constructively and Deconstructively.g. e. 50 Bird. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM. Childs. from ZAW  []: ).” in idem and Wolff.: Harvard University Press.

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

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

Geburtstag (ed. See also Speiser. and. Genesis xxiv.. on H. Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary.76 is thoroughly harmonic with P. and it links God’s blessing humanity with Adam’s more specific manifestation of this blessing in having a long line of children. and Crüsemann. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER . in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt . ) –. and to make it the subject of a theological treatment. New York: Doubleday. The Pentateuch (IBT.78 The several layers constitute kindred parts of. the texts of PT are essential to P. 73 Terence E. See also Robert R. Reading the Fractures of Genesis  (italics original). Nashville: Abingdon. 76 Wallace.–. in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought  (= From Creation to New Creation ). J.b. :– links the overall creation of Adam/humanity in God’s likeness to Adam’s more specific passing on of this image to his descendants.. Anderson. Carr. ) –. Günter Mayer.73 More than a structural device. –.” CBQ  (): –. differently. Brill. in this context. “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis. and Smith and Bloch-Smith. and. Stefan Beyerle.79 72 Philip Peter Jenson. and Hans Strauß. however. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. “Die Toledot-Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis. Joosten. Robert B.–. .–. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS . Weinfeld.”74 Even Gen :–. tangentially. in Studies in the Pentateuch. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. ) . . ) . 79 See. ) xxvii. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Leiden: E. 74 Baruch A. “Priestly writers were particularly interested in genealogies—in establishing the connection of the generations and in emphasizing the bonds uniting all Israelites. esp. Reading the Fractures of Genesis  n. 77 Cf. Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum . See also Klaus Koch. Leviticus . People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus – (VTS . J. whose composite nature has been studied by Hinschberger75 and Wallace. . Wilson. Robinson. “providing its most basic structure” in Genesis. See also Milgrom.72 Similarly. Fretheim. and. The Torah –. Scharbert. Westermann.  is sufficient continuity and unity of outlook to continue calling this body of diverse texts the ‘Priestly Writing’. “Image et ressemblance dans la tradition sacerdotale Gn . a theologically common.77 The reflections of the P creation account could not be clearer. Genesis . . 75 Régine Hinschberger.” RScR  (): –. Levine. … Gen. Priestly tradition. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus –.” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung. 78 Carr. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. ) . Deuteronomy – (AB . ) . as well as feed.

This page intentionally left blank .

  GOD AND THE GODS .

This page intentionally left blank .

Many passages indicate that each pentateuchal tradition does the same: e. Then God said. “Since they are one people. and this is only the beginning. åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image.. singular pronouns—whether independent or affixed—regularly substitute for nominal designations of God. In four passages.  THE PLURAL PRONOUNS With few exceptions. But this grammatical feature is not limited to J. no way then should he stretch out his hand. :–). J’s God. and over the whole earth..g. nothing then that they consider doing will be out of their reach. Ex :– (P).g. “Me. Gen :. for example. One text falls outside of the Pentateuch and is embedded in Isaiah’s prophetic commission. and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea. knowing good and evil. In J. éðçìù Send me. so that they shall not understand one another’s speech. Then I heard the voice of my Lord saying. : (E). according to our likeness. the Israelite deity is a grammatically singular entity.g. Dt : (D). :. God is a singular pronominal entity in Biblical Hebrew. and over everything that moves on the earth. or Ex : =Dt :–. Regardless of documentary source or grammatical person.. :.” (Gen : [P]) Then the Lord God said. :). and third person singular pronouns (e. second (e. :). God apparently identifies himself as ‘we’.” (Is :) The other three are clustered in the primaeval history. take from the tree of life as well.” (Gen :– [J]) The divine ‘we’ is attested in three different biblical traditions. Gen –. though.. is almost invariably represented by first (e. then. and over the beasts. and over the birds of heaven. “Whom çìùà shall I send? Who will go åðì for us?” And I said. Let’s äìáðå äãøð let us go down and confound their language there. and eat and live forever!” (Gen : [J]) The Lord came down to see the city and tower that the human beings had built. .g. “Since the man has become like one åðîî of us. and they all have one language. The Lord said.

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

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

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

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Cambridge.” NZST  (): – (repr. Otto Kaiser. Mass. and Gunnlaugur A. and theological rationale. Frank Moore Cross. and Co-Creation in Genesis – . the consensus position has yet to instill confidence. ) .    Despite the theological turmoil that it entails. Absent decisive evidence. Cf. Harrisville (ed.. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell. Cheney. Juel. Lim. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press. This opinion is also correct. Hultgren. Willem A. Smith. “Creator. CBOT . 16 Mark S. See also Terence E. Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden. Beuken. ) – . ) . The phenomenon is J’s expression äáä  . “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights. )  n.16 . M. Arland J.” LouvSt  (): . one of the sources of P and the Priestly tradition. Creature. ) . It is a phenomenon that appears in J. New Translation of the Torah (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. this linguistic phenomenon intersects with one instance of God’s plural ‘we’ (Gen :). Gesammelte Aufsätze [BZAW . there is evidence that provides a credible basis for interpreting the divine plurals of Gen : as references to God’s attendant beings. The Image of God: Genesis :– in a Century of Old Testament Research (rev. Kingsbury. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. this latter opinion remains the consensus. K. Donald H. trans. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary. Michael S. Grace in the Midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis – (BZAW . . Jónsson. )  with n. St. Further.: Harvard University Press. and Jack D. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. corroboration. Lorraine Svendsen. “Der Mensch. This evidence is linguistic in nature. Nonetheless. Fretheim. . . in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit.” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. and Johnson T. But it has not advanced beyond educated opinion or speculation. Word & World Supplement Series . ] –).

This page intentionally left blank .

Blau. see A.” BASS / (): . Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser /. the verb has literal as well as nonliteral meaning. Shraga Abramson and Aaron Mirsky. Like all imperatives. .2 He said.” (Gen :a [J]) But other verbs lose their penultimate vowel consequent to the accent shift.” JSS  (): . and J. however.  [])  (= Genesis [trans. eáä¢ “Give (me) your livestock. Isolating Nonliteral äáä The imperative of áäé is morphologically regular but phonologically irregular. Jerusalem: Schocken Institute for Jewish Research. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. as in çK ‘take!’ > é!çO ‘take!’ ( Kgs :. As Ru : and Gen : indicate. apart from the Yahwist tradition. the form participates in a sound change that shifts the accent onto the ultima when that final syllable ends in a monomorphemic. Revell.3 More1 See Hermann Gunkel. HKAT I/. in Studies in Hebrew Linguistics [Jerusalem: Magnes. is used only in its literal meaning. Macon: Mercer University Press. Genesis (th ed. thematic vowel is retained and lengthened instead. ] ).1 Only J employs äáä as an interjectional. Über Akzent und Silbenbildung in den älteren semitischen Sprachen (Det Kgl. especially. é!áäá “Present the wrap that you are wearing. ] – [in Hebrew]). “Notes on Changes in Accent in Early Hebrew. In J. Mark E. Like all inflected imperatives. ) – (in Hebrew) (repr.  (continued from ). Biddle.. the verb’s penultimate. :) and eçO ‘take!’ áäé does not. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. . 3 Sarauw. and E. and I will give [the food] to you in exchange for your livestock.  äáä áäé is an uncommon synonym of ïúð ‘give’ in Biblical Hebrew (see. 2 For this change. Chr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. See also GKC §o. Sarauw.” (Ru :aα) Joseph said. “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix. ) –.” in Hayyim (Jefim) Schirmann Jubilee Volume (ed. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. J. it is inflected for gender and number. Jdg :) and. “Zum hebräischen Verbalsystem. and GKB  §c. Ungnad.. pragmatic particle. long-vocalic affix. Über Akzent und Silbenbildung  n. Is :.

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

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

please.” (Num : [J]).” LT  (): –.” (Gen : [J]) Early in the morning. äîå÷ “Up. “Your curse be on me. O Lord. at the break of dawn.   Come. no? äëì êçìùàå Come.” (Gen :a [J]) ä÷ùð äëì When the ark went out.15 Nonliteral äáä functions as a purely interactional. so that you may bless me. to the city of Nahor. I will send you to them. If he calls to you.’ ” áëùéå ìàåîù êìéå So Samuel went and lay down in his place. in KUSATU  ():  n. (Gen : [J]) So äëì come. my son. åöôéå May your enemies be scattered åñðéå and may your foes flee from before you. (Num :aαa [J]. Another difference lies in discourse genre. see also v. Lord. äìëàå äáù àð­íå÷ Now. ) –. Santa Barbara.16 It is dialect-specific. “Your brothers are pasturing at Shechem. 15 Cf. His mother said to him. “áëù êì Go lie down. ‘Speak. syntactically circumscribed. êçìùàå äîå÷ “Up! I want to send you off. morphologically frozen. äëì and äîå÷ are not. ( Sam :) Then the servant took ten of his lord’s camels and departed. let us make our father drink wine. “*yhb in the Bible from a Grammaticization Perspective” (master’s thesis. please.” ç÷éå êìéå So he got them and brought them to his mother. see also : [J]) So they made their father drink wine that night too. äøà curse this people for me. Perspective. and nonreferential. for your servant is listening. (Gen :a-bα [J]) Nonliteral äáä is restricted to direct speech. (Gen :–a [J]) Eli said to Samuel. your firstborn. you should say. pragmatic particle. (Gen :. b) Israel said to Joseph.” ( Sam :a) One difference is syntactic. … êìéå í÷éå He up and went to Aram-naharaim. äáëùðå and let us lie with him so that we keep the lineage alive through our father. see also Jacob said to his father. “I am Esau. Diehl. í÷úå then the younger up áëùúå and lay with him. I have done as you told me. University of California. Just obey me êìå ç÷ and go get them for me. sit and eat some of my game. Moses would say. Samuel called to Saul on the roof.  (on êìä). its execution is not reported in the ensuing narrative. Whereas nonliteral äáä is restricted to asyndetic combination. 16 Jill Snyder. .

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

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

and. . viz.37 When the imperative is “followed by a verb in the imperfect. äáä clauses are structurally bipartite and consist of two related verb forms: äáä. A comparison between Gen : and : also belies the notion that the morphological interpretation of the final aleph verb is uncertain. I come to you. the second and third persons will be jussive” (e. Cf. Joüon and Muraoka.g. . . Another J text also deploys the long imperative of this root (äàéáä ‘bring’ [:.38 The combination of desiderative clauses is not only semantically harmonic. but its constituent verbs may be morphologically harmonic as well. It is possible to specify the morphological category of àåáà in Gen :. the first person (singular and plural) will be cohortative in form. Orlinsky. please. In semantic terms. it is a first person singular form. Gen : deviates from the norm. every nonliteral äáä clause abides by this combinatory expectation.. as in final weak roots. J’s 36 n. Also. then. Ex :. Clearly. For with the exception of Gen :.36 Of the five attestations of nonliteral äáä clauses. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §a n.” The principal verb of this äáä clause is not plural. 39 See above with n.. see also v.. a following cohortative verb. äàåáàå so that I may come to her. the two verbs usually exhibit modal congruence. : [J]). the two desiderative clauses overtly participate in modal congruence.” JBL  (): –. In a text whose structure is almost identical to that of Gen :. The principle of modal congruence confirms the peculiar nature of Gen :. which originated as a long imperative (§. the morphological status of this singular verb seems uncertain. see also Gen :–. each verb in a äáä clause is usually volitional (desiderative). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §b 37 Harry M. . usually.. 38 Idem. see Joüon and Muraoka. ]). and the principal clause has a long imperative (äáä).39 Jacob said to Laban. cohortative and imperfect forms are frequently indistinguishable in final aleph roots.). . . For a discussion. “On the Cohortative and Jussive After an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew. äáä “Give me my wife for my time is up.äáä  He said. àåáà àð­äáä “Let’s. “On the Commonly Proposed l¯ ek wena‘abo´¯ r of I Kings  . the constituents of combined desiderative clauses tend to contain verb forms that are grammatically identical or semantically related. J uses the cohortative form of the final aleph verb ‘come’.” (Gen : [J]) Since the complementary clause has a marked cohortative (äàåáàå). Moreover.” JQR  (): –.

àåáà in Gen : is nothing other than its obvious grammatical form: the imperfect. long derivative. modal congruence is upset. It is the clitic àð. the short verb form of either constituent may be selected over its usual. The syntax of àð is not problematic. for you own all the nations. In both Gen : and :. In fact. For when àð is inserted between two verb forms that would otherwise participate in modal congruence.. :a. The Lord said to Abram …. albeit in a different direction. When àð is attached to the initial converb of a modal sequence. or Num :a and Gen :. In contrast. I have done as you told me. 40 41 . where clause-initial äáä is followed by an imperfect rather than a cohortative. please. its length and its breadth.   language includes morphologically explicit cohortatives and morphologically explicit long imperatives of final aleph roots.” (Gen :– [J]) äîå÷ Now. (Ps :. But this clitic may have grammatical and/or semantic repercussions. See also Joüon and Muraoka. cf. àð regularly displaces the constituent that would otherwise follow its head (compare Gen :a and :a. Cf. so that you may bless me. the combined verbs do not necessarily appear in their expected forms.” (Gen : [J]) In Gen : and Ps :. another feature distinguishes Gen : from other nonliteral äáä clauses. then.40 . The principle of modal congruence is also violated in Gen :. Waltke and O’Connor. . O God. Orlinsky. when àð is introduced. GKC §b. :a [J]). Its following constituent is not verbal. for I shall give it to you.. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §c. Syntactically. Cf. àð is “always placed after the expression to which it belongs”41 and often coincides with postpositive position. sit and eat some of my game. your firstborn. :) äèôù judge the earth. the initial verb is not replaced by the long imperative but remains short. àð is associated with the violation of combinatory norms. “I am Esau. respectively. But in Gen :. Biblical Hebrew Syntax  n. JQR  (): –. postpositive àð is not unusual in Gen :. êìäúä íå÷ “Up! Walk about the land. the collocated imperatives are formally and modally identical: regular (short) and long imperatives. Jacob said to his father. In addition to its form. äìëàå äáù àð­íå÷ Now.

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

46 See Hans-Peter Müller. Edinburgh: T. it expresses the speaker’s desire that the speaker-inclusive group perform the proposition expressed by the verb. of whom the “superior speaker requests an action for himself. Maarav –.  []) §. it asserts the speaker’s desire that the addressee perform the proposition expressed by the verb. Cf. twice. R. and reluctance. 50 So Stephen A.: Eerdmans. Inasmuch as àð communicates politeness. uncertain. and implies its imposition. Affixed to desiderative verb forms. There are two conversational participants.   Within each pair. and even pessimistic terms. the unmodified desiderative is a simple expression of speaker will.” in Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz [ed. toward him or as a ser- 44 For a broader discussion.. .45 In each case.  pts. (on the mand). VT  (): –. “Driver’s Treatise and the Study of Hebrew: Then and Now. the desiderative verb—the semantic core of the request—does not head the speech but is embedded and bracketed. – ()] . [italics added]). Moreover. àð advances the speakers’ goal. .46 Pragmatically. Kaufman: “àð does mean ‘please’ and related nuances in all of its contexts” (“An Emphatic Plea for Please. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. It is wedged between a pair of compelling reasons that motivate. Zum sprachgeschichtlichen Hintergrund des Althebräischen. & T. in negative. “A Sociolinguistic Analysis of n¯a’.K. HS  (): .50 it reinforces the other strategies and mitigates the force of its utterance. Fassberg. 49 See Shulman. B. these desideratives are relatively bald directives. in conjunction with Timothy Wilt. Hebrew Syntax (d ed.44 When it takes the form of the plural cohortative. In the attempt to coopt their addressee. VT  (): .. Calif. the second of the two reasons is offered.” in S. the proposal. Driver. Studies in Biblical Syntax –. Semantics .47 When àð appears. 45 A. Rolling Hills Estates. ) lxiii–lxiv. Davidson. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (th ed.” VT  (): –. àð is compatible with the surrounding conversational strategies that hedge and attenuate directives. to manipulate the addressee. 47 See Lyons.” ZAH  (): . and justify. Ratner et al. When the desiderative takes the form of the imperative. U. too. .. “Das Bedeutungspotential der Afformativkonjugation. 48 Wilt.. the unmodified desiderative presents speaker will. repr.: Western Academic Press. see Garr. Robert J. See also GKC  n. the conversational context changes and becomes more elaborate. The Biblical Resources Series. The interpersonal situation depicted in Gen : jibes with its pragmatic markers. uncertainty. and Wilt.. Clark.49 these characters explain themselves as well as speak with tentativeness. widely defined.48 In the texts above.

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

they too will join our foes. the disaster will be Jacob’s above all (‘I [and See also Snyder.   He said to his people. The plural pronoun may also appear in the clause preceding äáä (‘than us’ [Ex :b]). in the event of war. It’s but nothing.aα. øôñî éúî éðàå Since my men are few in number.. I’d like to cross by foot. or else they will increase and. benefactive component of the äáä clause itself (‘[for] ourselves … [for] ourselves’ [Gen :a]). Kampen: Kok Pharos. One time.. John H.aβ. éúéáå éðà éúãîùðå I and my household will be destroyed. Revell.” (Ex :–) For example. It is strategic as well. and Gerhard von Rad. should they gather against me and attack me. it is plural. I will pay for it. OTL. “You have brought me trouble by making me odious among the inhabitants of the land. The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (CBET . the clause following äáä (‘we will be scattered’ [Gen :b]. eight times. 54 55 .aβ. Jacob’s grammar indicates that his sons’ revenge is focused on him. fight against us. that the loss will befall his grammatically singular self. 56 Cf. As its principal member. this pronoun is singular (Gen :).aα. and repeats. Wilt. The significance of the plural pronoun is more than statistical. Jacob’s family (‘my household’) is only an ancillary casualty. Though implicated in the aftermath. äáä Let’s let us deal wisely with them.aβ. Genesis (trans. and as the singular subject of the predicate implies. ed. states that the negative fallout of their action will affect him personally. or as an indirect. the plural form may connote equal involvement and participation by two different parties. “We shall stay on the highway. and go up from the land. He equates his family with himself. there are fifteen tokens of the first person pronoun in (close proximity to) the five nonliteral äáä clauses: one in the singular. for it implies an alliance or partnership between speaker and addressee in the proposed event. The cohortatives are pragmatically inclusive. éð÷îå Jacob said to Simeon and to Levi.56 The Israelites said to him. Philadelphia: Westminster. too (e. “*yhb in the Bible.g. Marks. the Israelite people are more numerous and robust than us. Elsewhere. And if éðà äúùð we—I or my livestock—drink any of your water. rev. the Canaanites and the Perizzites. ‘our foes … against us’ [Ex :b]). and fourteen in the plural. )  [on Gen :–]). VT  []: .54 All told. cf. It often heads the appositive verb (‘let us’ [:aα.” – (on  Sam :). ) –.55 In particular. “Look.” (Gen : [J]) In Gen :.” (Num : [J]). Ex :]). äáä always co-occurs with a first person pronoun.

For like the mildly manipulative particle äáä. Deichert/Werner Scholl. Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press. J. “The ‘Feminine Takes Precedence’ Syntagm and Job . Genesis ( vols. L. De Regt. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics . A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §q.  [/]) .. It may result from a shared cultural trait and/or a common history.63 Even though 57 For the interrelationship between character salience and grammar. 58 See Wilhelm Caspari. and a common goal. In some cases. 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’). there is “an original universal human language.58 It serves the same pragmatic function in the äáä clause.62 as in Gen :– where Judah believes Tamar to be a prostitute (v. perhaps. the activity is clearly joint and involves multiple participants (‘We shall stay … And if we drink’). Genesis . the verb forms are plural and agree with the sum of the compound subject (‘I and my livestock’). Cf. .”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. . n. Joüon and Muraoka. The Designation of the Individual –. and participation. The plural pronoun expresses the inclusion and solidarity of all participants in the event under discussion. Genesis . a common objective in the future activity. ) . the speaker politely tries to coopt the addressee.57 But in Num :. in conjunction with Penelope Brown and Stephen C. “Imago divina Gen I. Assen: Van Gorcum. a common enterprise. The Designation of the Individual –.äáä  my household] will be destroyed’). the first person plural pronoun rhetorically attempts to prod the addressee to act as the speaker desires. Wenham. . Wilhelm Koepp. The plural pronoun therefore implies inclusivity.. Genesis . Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator (Studia Semitica Neerlandica .” ZAW  (): –.. 62 Gordon J.  vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.. involvement. Moshe Greenberg.. see Robert Ratner. a common bond is preestablished or preordained. Genesis .” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. Levinson. Accordingly. ). involvement is shared. Waco/Dallas: Word. See also Westermann. perhaps. Nevertheless. in greater detail. 60 Sarna. in a different context. Pronoun and particle combine to enlist the addressee’s cooperation. Implying that both speaker and addressee share a common bond59 and. 61 Westermann. In Gen :– for example.”61 Another common bond may be part and parcel of a certain business arrangement.. Revell..–. Leipzig: A. 59 See. WBC –. –) . and Revell. ) –. and. ) .. 63 Westermann.

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

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

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

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



 

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 &

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

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

Nonliteral äáä consistently foreshadows malevolent behavior. Pss :. 14 Snyder. äáä spells trouble. This feature recurs in all texts where äáä retains its literal meaning. it is implied. … Thus the tower and city are attempts at self-serving unity which resists God’s scattering activity.13 In the same vein. the beneficiary is an explicit first person indirect pronoun (‘Let’s let us build åðì ourselves a city’). In Gen :. “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 Hebrew). or simply wrong. J. and Saul requests that he receive a divine oracle (cf. and idem. J. ) –. God’s own äáä in Gen : is retributive.15 Jacob said to Laban. äáä does not instigate benign behavior.” VT  (): –. and P. Elsewhere.”  (with the examples extending to ). Studies on the Book of Genesis (OTS . Atlanta: John Knox. nefarious. “The Lengthened Imperative äìè " J in Biblical Hebrew. Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem: Magnes. Harland. . Brill. .   “[S]preading abroad” … is part of God’s plan for creation and the fulfillment of the mandate of [Gen] :. the fear of scattering expressed in : is resistance to God’s purpose for creation.16 In nonliteral äáä clauses. more generally. In each attestation. the speaker is likewise the semantic beneficiary. Gemser. either llî ‘to me’ [: (E). 16 See. “God in Genesis. . the indirect object is implied. announcing the end of the project and this form of human disobedience. See also B. äáä “Give me my wife for my time is up. The contexts in which nonliteral äáä appears are hardly neutral.” HS  (): . “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel.. In 13 Walter Brueggemann.  Sam :). äàåáàå so that I may come to her. Steven E. :a [emended after LXX]) äáä “Present Thummim!” ( Sam Jacob tells Laban that Rachel is now his (‘my wife’). Jdg :] or ll¯anû ‘to us’ [Gen : (J). Leiden: E. whether objectionable.”14 In the other two cases. Genesis (Interp. In five of these. an explicit first person indirect object (dative) pronoun.” (Gen : [J]) Saul said to the Lord God of Israel. :] immediately follows the verb. 15 Ibid. Whether by design or coincidence. disobedient..” in idem et al. Literal äáä therefore governs or implies a first person beneficiary or recipient. “*yhb in the Bible. … Seen from this perspective. The peoples do not wish to spread abroad. . ) . Fassberg. Yet another feature may place Gen : within the orbit of the other äáä clauses.

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

7 An angel acts on the authority it receives from God Carol A. their members are grammatically masculine (e. 6 T. with hesitation. : [E?]) and åëàìî ‘his angel’ (Gen :. and rev. In all likelihood.3 Its deverbal nominal pattern. The angels form a group whose individual members are male. and.” in TDNT . :– [E?]). And they have gender. A. Paul Joüon. “_àì " î  in the OT. Gerhard von Rad. divine angels’ (: [E]. bear a uniform generic label. Gen : [E]). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.” in DDD 2 b.. The suffixes on éëàìî ‘my angel’ (Ex : [J]. in speech (e. 7 David Noel Freedman and B. They occasionally appear in the plural: íéëàìîä ‘the angels’ (Gen :. : [J?]). )  §Ld. oracle’. Gaster. It may express a (process-and-) effect. Muraoka.g. ìâî ‘sickle’. plague’. it is an envoy. êàìî is a nominal derivative of the verbal root ‘send’. 2 3 . T. [J]) can indicate a possessive relationship between an angel and God.. . and. SubBi /I–II. “Angels. Joüon and Muraoka.. “Angel. *maqtal may represent a semantic patient. 5 So S. 4 Cf.4 Or it may represent an instrument. see also Ex :a [J] as interpreted by v. Angels belong to God. as in êìäî ‘journey’. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §Le n. The relationship is already implied by the grammatical form of êàìî äåäé and related construct phrases. Angels respond to God. connotes one of several nonagentive relations to the situation expressed by the underlying verb. Newsom.a. and òñî ‘breaking camp. Meier. Cf. are somewhat indistinct from one another. He commissions and despatches them (e. An angel is grammatically controlled by God..g. BDB . àùî ‘burden. :– [E?].g.. as in ãöòî ‘axe’. in which the angelic nomen regens is dependent upon the divine nomen rectum. H. a êàìî ‘angel’ is not an independent agent but falls under another’s control.2 Hebrew terminology may also betray the general character or nature of these beings. then.  vols.” in ABD . E. see also v.. Ex :a [J].6 Angels have a close relationship with God in the J and E traditions. Willoughby. They do God’s bidding. àøåî ‘fear’.5 From a semantic viewpoint.  [J]) and éëàìî íéäìà ‘angels of God. too. or ïúî ‘gift’.g. God’s control has another grammatical expression. Etymologically. “Angel I êàìî.a. journey’.   ‘God’s angel’ (:. “_àì " î  mal’¯ak. b [E]) or in deed (e.” in TDOT . Ex :a [E]). as in ìëàî ‘food’. Gen : [J]).” in IDB . Gen : [J].. *maqtal. and perhaps äëî ‘strike. thus. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans.

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

úa bat daughter. . Handy. When humankind began to multiply on the surface of the earth. E. Their ancestors are expressed lexically by their different nomina recta: íéäìàä ‘God. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 18 For a source-critical discussion.. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.18 which reports an intermarriage of divines and mortals. Graham Harvey.” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. For the most part. . the Nephilim were on the earth.g. in the J tradition at least. the gods’ (vv. Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. They bridge the divine and human realms. . men of fame. good). God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTS . Jon Davies. They were the warriors of old.–. Grand Rapids/ Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos. angelic delegates. they have angel-like traits. JSOTS . when íéäìàä éðá the divinities would come to the daughters of humankind. Their time should be one hundred and twenty years. and daughters were born to them. In a certain sense. J also mentions íéäìàä­éðá ‘divinities’ who belong to God’s world16 and. they are flesh. and Wilfred G. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis :–. A. Combined. after all.   have human mobility (Ex : [J]. perhaps in conjunction with Marc Zvi Brettler. “All They Need is Love: Once More Genesis .” in TLOT .). ) – (despite his conclusion on ). interact with the human. Hendel. : [J]) and accept other offers of hospitality (:– [J]).” in Words Remembered. “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm . Their sexual distinction is expressed grammatically: éðá ‘sons’ and úåðá 16 Matitiahu Tsevat. the two marital parties are distinct in ancestry and sex. (Gen :–) As the story explains. “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah. The Lord said. Kühlewein.” HUCA – (–):  n. humanoid theophany in certain divine-human settings.) and íãàä ‘humankind’ (vv. 19 See Ronald S. . . They also eat (e.17 The most detailed account is Gen :– (J). : [E?]). But. .  []) –. Diana Vikander Edelman.” At that time.. íéäìàä­éðá the divinities saw the daughters of humankind—that they were beautiful (lit. are grammatically masculine. and later too. “ïa b¯en son. see Marc Vervenne. So they took themselves wives from all they chose. like the angels.. they are hybrid: theomorphic as well as anthropomorphic.. Watson. The J and E traditions depict the angels as a male. Sawyer (ed. they behave quite differently from God’s cooperative. “My spirit shall not persist 19 in humankind forever.” JBL  ():  with n. and constitute a generic and internally undifferentiated group.. 17 See Lowell K. ) . although they cover superhuman distances (see Gen : [E]). the attributes of angels reflect and participate in both worlds they traffic. and J. and they would bear them children.

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

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

40 41 . the punishment of humanity serves to separate the human and divine spheres a degree more than they already were. is transpar- See Childs. in conjunction with von Rad. WC. 44 See Bernd Janowski. God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A.42 By implication. There is a purpose in telling this story. The punishment is a form of death— a form that restores and fortifies a boundary previously violated.43 Finally. Stellvertretung. see also the title íìåò ìà in Gen : [E]).g.44 Yahweh makes humanity more finite and impermanent. a shortened life span also limits the potential for human reproduction and. yet the human accomplices are not.. for realizing God’s mandate of Gen : (P).. “Gen . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.g. for complicity in the divine indiscretion. canonically. and the punishment reinforces these boundaries and distinctions. The crime violated fundamental boundaries and distinctions. and von Rad. Myth and Reality2 .. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS . R. The divine provocateurs are spared retaliation. Genesis . bα. e.  he had shared of himself with all human beings (see Gen : [J]). JBL  (): . London: Methuen.45 The purpose of J’s story. see also ‘flesh’ in P) and that much less godlike (see.40 Human life is now truncated.41 human life expectancy (:b) is limited (v. Knopf.–: Babel oder das Ende der Kommunikation. Cf. Hendel. Jer :a and Ps :b. then. the merger of divine and human realms produces deadly results. See also Ulrich Berges.” BN  (): . ) . It is judged to be evil in its entirety (Gen :a) and in its every scheming thought (v. The Book of Genesis (th ed. Genesis . iteratively. quantified terminus. Vervenne. Texts Renewed . and human beings become more mortal and more distant from God. 45 S. 42 Sarna. Whether inflicted on the children or the species from which the brides were chosen. Yahweh makes humans that much more mortal (e. In Gen :–. Yahweh preemptively curbs the expansion of human population.  Sam :a. Driver. the punishment for the cosmic transgression is appropriate to the crime. 43 Jack Miles. in Words Remembered. see also :aβb [J]). The semidivine offspring are eliminated. When he withdraws his çåø ‘(divine) spirit’ (see  Kgs :a = Chr :a). ) . Humanity accrues ever more blame for violating the natural order. aα) to a fixed. ) –. Genesis . They also become less capable of fulfilling God’s goal of overflowing human fertility and abundance (Gen :).

”48 All of humanity pays an insuperable price for participating in the divinities’ scheme. Cf. U. The cosmic imbalance is resolved by a great destruction. 50 E. Garden City.). Harland. Genesis6  (= ET ..47 “The natural conclusion of Gen :–. take from the tree of life as well. according to the logic of the myth.. ) . Speiser. Cassuto.   ent. in which the whole group is said to be affected by the immediate situation (see also §. – [–]) . “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel. Leiden: E. and eat and live forever!” So the Lord God drove him out of the garden of Eden. Winton Thomas.49 Conversational strategy supports this assessment. The setting is consistent with the manifestation of angels (§. is the deluge—the destruction of humanity and the concomitant annihilation of the disorder. to work the soil from which he was taken.. The addressee is invoked in a setting where divine and human realms meet. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol. J. Genesis (AB . New York: Doubleday. out of which a new order arises.).  []) . Noth and D. see also : [J]). The Value of Human Life . “Since the man has become like one åðîî of us. 48 Hendel.. “This is recorded as an example of human depravity. M. as evidence of cosmic disharmony between 46 Westermann. at least by J’s God. and Harland.. together with himself. I. . Jerusalem: Magnes. in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays [JSOTS . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Robert H. and trans. Israel Abrahams.” BA  (): b. In addition to ‘angels’ and ‘divinities’.”46 Its undoing requires a global solution: the extermination of human and faunal life (:a.g. “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –.” VT  (): . or forges. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans.. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Gen : presumes.” HBT / ():  (repr. )  n. constitutes a nonsingular entity (§. ] ). “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story. A. The addressee seems to be (part of) God’s allied confederate. Miller. J may obliquely refer to gods in Gen :. Then the Lord God said.” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (ed. a relationship between God and his addressee. Boyd. J’s God employs a self-inclusive. Brill. 49 Dillmann. . See also. knowing good and evil. and E. Handbook to the Old Testament (ed. JBL  (): . 47 See Tikva Frymer-Kensky. (Gen :–a) As elsewhere. Gen : also describes a palpable breach in a boundary that God established between heaven and earth50—a breach which is viewed. VTS .). Engnell. He expelled the man. with marked confidence. . no way then should he stretch out his hand. first person plural pronoun in an appeal to an addressee which.).  pts.

ZB.. see also the prospective statements in :aα and :b [J]).51 To this extent. Genesis2 . in conjunction with Sarna. See Walther Zimmerli. 53 Bruce Vawter. JBL  (): .  the human and divine precincts (see § . see Cassuto.Mose ( vols. Dillmann. (a representative of) the human race forms or will form a union in defiance of God’s will. which in turn restore balance as well as control (see below).). HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). see. Both stories result in a type of human exile.52 And both episodes place a new limit on human longevity (:b. and Skinner. each episode Driver. Yahweh responds to the confusion by initiating and imposing corrective measures. 54 Sarna. Yahweh alone implements punishment (see also :–). Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild .a) or obliteration from earth (: [J]. In both narratives.53 In this comparative context. the language describing each situation is correspondingly panicked (see §. –) . Genesis  (on Gen :–). and Waschke. and Wallace. Genesis . which He controls as He wills. Each time too.–). :a).).55 God’s speech in both passages begins with the affirmative clitic ïä (:a. Second.).57 Even the achievement is similar. Each situation is thoroughly unusual and exigent (see §. New York: Doubleday. Genesis6  (= ET . “[T]here is only one God who passes judgment and makes decisions. inter alios. . Gen : shares interpretive indicia with Gen :– and :–.58 Then.. and Hendel. then.”54 Gen :–a may also be compared with :–. ) . Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. arguing for its assignment to RP. The source-critical status of Gen : is uncertain.). in Studies in the Pentateuch . d/st ed. 55 See Vawter.56 The ïä clauses jointly introduce a present situation that can. the confusion within the cosmic order explicitly involves gods. 56 For the function ïä. First... Whether they oppose or collaborate with God. . Both episodes blame humans for the incursion into divine space. whether eviction and expulsion from Eden (:a. Gen :–a may be compared directly with :–.. endanger the divine speaker as well as his addressee. gods are present in the melee. On Genesis –. the speaker attributes the threat to a human achievement that crosses the boundary between divine and human jurisdictions (see § . On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City.AT /–. Genesis . then. 57 See Miller. these texts also share two more important features. :). and will. … The one God is recognized as holding sole title to the breath of life. 51 52 . Genesis12 . 58 For Gen :.

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

” in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. See also C. Leah said. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum .”66 So she named him øùà Asher. finds Asherah in Gen :. on one occasion. They are also unnamed. Reed’s rejoinder: “As the text now stands the word for ’ asˇ¯er¯a is written ’ˇsry. Absent a cooperative partner in this instance. a goddess Asherah may appear in the J tradition. New York: Ktav. though they desist from any further transgression of the divine-human divide. . 64 William L.”64 But the Masoretic text (MT) does not support this claim. Yahweh acts unilaterally.63 Reed. Verse  may be translated: “Leah cried. “Asherah äøÖà. The Book of Judges (. The Asherah . Gad and Asher. “Das Beth existentiae im Althebräischen. ) –. Nevertheless. The gods themselves are not destroyed (see :). repr. for some interpreters. Wyatt.62 having only generic descriptors like ‘angels’ and ‘divinities’ (J). Geburtstag am . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag. Gad and Asher. as will the Nephilim.. see Olyan. He can not productively take counsel from those who defy him. He acts on his own behalf.  But not in Gen :–. ). éøùàá “As my happiness. for example. This apparently pleased Leah who expressed her thanks to the two deities. and named the sons for them. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications . Humankind will be an object of God’s reductive and lethal force. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz.65 for éðåøùà the young women will call me happy.” in DDD2 –. See also the more reserved discussion in ibid. F. and Judith M. ‘With Asherah’s help! for maidens must call me happy!’ so she called his name Asher.. this interpretation of éøùà appeals to an unattested For named angelic classes. 66 For the reading of the perfect. 65 For the grammar of this prepositional phrase. sexually male. AOAT .). The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. –.”67 Even so. Yahweh can not consult those who are violating the cosmic order that he established. see N. 67 Reed. see Dillmann. Nor can he ally himself with the human collaborators of ungodly corruption. 62 63 . Juni  (ed. For recent discussions of this goddess. ) .. Reed. A Thousand Thousands Served Him . ) –. Genesis6  (= ET . The gods that appear in the J and E traditions are exclusively masculine and. It is said that Leah’s maid Zilpah bore Jacob two sons. The emergency depicted in this text is incompatible with divine consultation. Hadley. see Hans-Peter Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burney.

“In the mouth of Leah it [sc.75 The plural 68 Cf. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman. viz. . )  n. where a divine name Gad in ãâá (ãâ àá §§÷) allegedly underlies the name of the child there. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. and Hadley. Waco: Word. Asherah: Goddess of Israel (American University Studies VII/.. Pettey. For you shall not worship another god. they are aligned with cultic objects. Look. 69 Dillmann. 70 Sarna. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs.. Hadley. åéøùà­úàå and their asherim cut down. and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Fawcett Columbine.74 Grammatically. ) . esp. Hoboken.K.g. see Jeffrey H. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. See also Westermann. ) . the Perizzites. The Biblical Resources Series. You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS . the Hittites. The Cult of Asherah .. 72 The traditional assignment of this passage to J is now disputed.73 Syntactically. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women. altars and pillars in v. Genesis6  (= ET .. Richard J.). Culture. Beware that you not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land against which you come.69 is tenuous at best.72 He [sc. these asherim are concrete objects.71 Nor is Ex : (J?). . ‘luck. Durham. Beiträge zu literarischen. Genesis . Exodus (WBC . and. Alan Cooper and Marvin Pope. ) . 73 E..: Eerdmans. John I. Tigay. ) –. )  n. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. For ’atrty in Ugaritic.   form of Asherah’s name. their pillars smash..68 And the support that Reed finds in :.’ ”70 Textually and exegetically..” in RSP . and Skinner. See also the lists in Frymer-Kensky. .. New Jersey: Ktav. BBB /–. the Lord] said. esp. religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion ( vols.–) Despite the mention of ‘another god’ in their discourse vicinity (v.” (Ex :aα. “I hereby make a covenant. … Their altars you should tear down. they are affected patients of a prototypically transitive verb úøë. “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts. 71 See Christian Frevel. Smith. and. Genesis . the Canaanites. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Asherah . New York: Peter Lang. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed. a). U.. Gad] is simply an abstract noun. the Hivites. then. Gen : is hardly a compelling attestation of a goddess Asherah in the Israelite realm. 74 See Benno Jacob. 75 Pettey.–a. Genesis2 . The Cult of Asherah –. .  []) . because the Lord—having the name Jealous—is a jealous God. … Observe what I command you today. See Mark S. I will drive out before you the Amorites. and the Jebusites.

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

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

. When they appear. or invidious predicament that provokes God’s punitive response.g. or.”82 As in J and E. ) . íéäìàä êàìî ‘God’s angel’ Cf.g.. they complement J and E. though. human beings—or their prototypical representative—always represent a clear and present danger to God’s order. Baruch A. äåäé êàìî ‘angel of the Lord’ (e. they can be angelic: e. Hos :)... their organization. they act in concert. CBQMS .. Philadelphia: Fortress. differently. 82 Baruch Halpern. is the narrative or situational correlation between nonangelic gods and humankind. Gods Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible Nonforeign gods appear in many other biblical texts as well. violate God’s stipulations. 81 . Bernard F.81 . “Sons of (the) God(s) íéäìà(ä)/íéìà/ïåéìò éðá..). “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions [ed. They also establish a wider context within which P’s lone divine ‘we’ can be evaluated (Gen :). who labels J’s gods “functionless figures” (“Creation Theology in Genesis. Jacob Neusner.  Far more striking. Richard J. They therefore present a detailed and holistic characterization of the gods. Unsurprisingly. êàìî ‘angel’ (e. Frerichs. See also ibid. these latter texts tend to confirm the precedent set by J and E. and they provide much additional information about the gods: their designations. “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. exigent. Gods exist throughout much of the Hebrew Bible. Clifford and John J. and God himself (see §. God’s community. In either case. . D. For when gods appear as ‘divinities’ or under the guise of the first person plural pronoun. as well as their several functions.: Catholic Biblical Association of America.. Batto. Zec :). Levine. and infringe on God’s domain. Unsurprisingly too. their relationship to God and to humans. It is irrelevant whether human beings initiate (Gen :– a.g.C. Washington.).” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. the very appearance of nonangelic gods entails a present or imminent human disaster in the form of irreversible and abundant punishment. ] ). Collins. :–) or join the transgressive behavior (:–). however. the repercussion for humanity is devastating.” in DDD2 b. and Ernest S. human beings each time (help) create the ominous. Parker.. From this perspective. From another perspective. Gods spell horror for human beings (see §.

g. The many gods can coalesce into unions.g.   (e. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Morgan & Scott. in ABD . they are also a countable plurality (§.g. in ABD . Gottes himmlischer Thronrat. the gods terminologically resemble their J and E counterparts. Zec :.” in TDOT .. tentatively. Jer :). Job :). and åéëàìî ‘his angels’ (e..g. íìà ‘gods’ (Ex :). God is King . comprise a mass ‘totality’ (e. They have internal composition. Or they can be identified by an intrinsic property: e. Stuttgart: Calwer. if these gods follow the pattern of those in Gen :. 86 BDB a (ad . . esp. congregations. Is :). Montgomery.g.  ()] –)..g.83 In these texts. Tigay: “Ribeboth-kodesh … must be the name of a place …. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM ... though. D. ) ..b). H. ICC. like all the terms parallel to it” (Deuteronomy [The JPS Torah Commentary. 88 Although ÖCS ú&áá " X in Dt : has also been understood to register the gods’ number (e. altogether. 87 See Brettler. Mayes. they are a plural entity whose members are relatively generic and indistinct.b).87 All of their designations. H.  ()] –. like the grammatical structure of íìà and íéìà éðá.. assemblies. Die Bücher der Könige (HKAT I/. Ringgren.86 Gods can form a variety of collectives. Cf.. E. :). Edinburgh: T. Cf...g. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. & T. A Thousand Thousands Served Him –. e. Theodore Mullen. see Olyan. ). Ps :).. Ps :).g. ) .. Edinburgh: T. ICC.g. Jdg :).84 They may form a ìä÷ ‘gathering’ (Ps :) or äãò ‘assembly’ (:).: Scholars Press. Pss :. çåøä ‘(divine) spirit’ ( Kgs :a = Chr :a).. 85 Heinz-Dieter Neef.). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. Deuteronomy [NCBC.g. Jr.g.  []) . ] ). Terminology also shows that gods can organize into groups. and they may even number in the thousands (Dan :. companies.. Ps :). and Newsom. Calif. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [d ed. Henry Snyder Gehman. On the one hand. “àáö  s. –. and A. Newsom. are referentially compatible. Clark. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik. e. Clark.. or squadrons.89 83 See. & T. see also Ps :). Munich: Kösel. 89 For ramifications. and íéäìà ‘gods’ (e. They may constitute a ãåñ ‘council’ (e. They may be expressly divine: íéäìà éðá ‘divinities’ (e. Rudolf Kittel. these divine beings may aggregate into an undifferentiated or homogeneous group and. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. íéìà éðá ‘divinities’ (e.85 or they may muster into a àáö ‘army’ (e. Hintergrund und Bedeutung von sôd YHWH im Alten Testament (AzTh . and. On the other hand.. Chico.. gods are plural. this interpretation is weak (see the discussions by Driver. 84 Oswald Loretz. ¯ab¯a’.g.88 Further. ) –. James A..

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

(Dt :a-bα. “Do you belong to us or to our enemies?” He said.. in this context. van der Woude. Philadelphia: Fortress. 105 Brettler. In one setting.: Harvard University Press. The Early History of God 2 .). A Thousand Thousands Served Him . A. and the awesome God. Rather. Joshua went to him and said to him. But the gods are not all equal.” in TLOT . Olyan. then. Keith R. àøåðäå øáâä ìãâä ìàä the great. in rank order. I am äåäé­àáö­øù commander of the Lord’s army.102 In like fashion.. See also Miller. esp.98 When Joshua was in Jericho.101 But. in the military arm of the divine world: Yahweh. Cf. Weinfeld. 100 Miller. ¯ab¯a’ army. Cambridge.   David’s wisdom and knowledge are shared only with the gods (see Gen :. Brettler. “Ps :–: Mythology and Exegesis. he looked up and saw a man standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand. the army ultimately falls under the leadership of God. Cf. 98 99 .99 Though he may look like a man (see below). “Negative. there is evidence of differentiation. Smith. and his soldiers. God is King –.g. … The woman came and told her husband. the commander-in-chief. ) .” Then Joshua fell face down to the ground. the íéøåáâ ‘(divine) warriors’103 are grammatically possessed by God (e.g. The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings (trans.” JBL  ():  n. Hans Walter Wolff. 102 See Cooper. he is an angel. . and Mullen. The Divine Council – (on Dt :–). There appeared äåäé­êàìî an angel of the Lord to the woman. 103 See Miller. deuteronomistic passage. A final attribute of the gods can be gathered from another.  []) .–. Cf. see also Jer : and Neh :) There is a tripartite division. 101 See. and said to him. Is :. “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. his army’s commander.g. the warrior. )  n. ZAW  (): . Cooke. a military setting. “àáö  s. The Divine Council –.100 and he commands God’s forces. and. bowed.104 who himself is the divine warrior par excellence (e. 104 See Mullen. íéäìàä ùéà “A man of God came to E.. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). God is King .105 For the Lord your God is the God of Gods and the Lord of lords. The Divine Warrior –. Crim. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM . S. I have now arrived.. Mass. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press. . Jl :). as the title äåäé úåàáö may also suggest. Ex :a). .

a. Their angelic title connotes dependency (§. Daniel (Hermeneia. HUCA – (–):  n. He came to ùéàä the man and said to him.. while she was sitting in the field without Manoah her husband with her. Their grammatical relation in construct phrases and suffixed nouns suggest dependency or. they are morphologically (am-) bivalent. “Are you ùéàä the man who spoke to my wife?” He said. her husband].. 107 See John J. very awesome. Bless the Lord.). åéëàìî O his angels. the visitor is a deity... The Divine Council .107 Angels can be recognized as divine and/or human. the visitor is also a man106 and speaks with a human voice (see also Dan :).  me. Tsevat.g. perhaps.. Manoah understood that äåäé êàìî he had been an angel of the Lord. and are part of his divine species. (Ps :–) See von Rad. Collins. most of which reflect their status vis-à-vis God himself.g. His appearance was like that of íéäìàä êàìî an angel of God. Like their predecessors in J and E (§. “We shall certainly die.). :) and åéãáò ‘his servants’ (Job :). taxonomic assignment: e. As an angel.b.108 as well as äåäé ãåñ ‘council of the Lord’ (Jer :) and äåìà ãåñ ‘council of God’ (Job :). he can be characterized as a god and project an awesome appearance.110 For example. they show obedience to Yahweh. íéäìàä éðá ‘the sons of God’ (Job :. “Yes. obeying his utterance. . At that time. and.” Manoah up and followed his wife. manifesting properties of the two worlds they straddle.–) On the one hand. more widely. Minneapolis: Fortress. åðåöø éùò åéúøùî his ministers who perform his will. all his hosts. gods are even characterized as subservient or servile personnel: e. åéëàìî and åéðá ‘his sons’ (Dt : [emended after QDeutq]).109 Sometimes. God is King . ... :). Bless the Lord. On the other hand. åéúøùî ‘his ministers’ (Pss :. ) –. 108 DJD . 106 . Israel’s gods are subordinate to God. powerful warriors åøáã éùò who enact his utterance.” (Jdg :a. 110 Brettler. Old Testament Theology . “Look! ùéàä The man who came to me the (other) day has just appeared to me. … She said to him [sc.b-. God’s gods perform many other functions as well.” … Then íéäìàä êàìî the angel of God again came to the woman. for íéäìà a divine being have we seen. belong to God. So Manoah said to his wife.. 109 See Mullen. Gods are subordinate to God. íéäìàä êàìî and.” … Not again did äåäé êàìî the angel of the Lord appear to Manoah and his wife. in greater detail.

Old Testament Theology . their God. that is. (Dt :– [emended after QDeutj])116 God worked the gods into his cosmic design. … 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. Habel. Deuteronomy (trans. C. 119 Rudolf Meyer. He departed from this general arrangement in one case alone: Israel was chosen by Yahweh for himself and subordinated directly to himself. Deuteronomy xiii. For discussions. Geburtstage (ed. with supportive evidence.. Chr. and he shared with them jurisdiction over the world’s population..113 warfare (e. 116 DJD . 112 Miller. ) – (repr. 114 Mullen.g. ) – (on ãåáë and øãä). vis-à-vis the human race.. Thus it was in this way … that God at the beginning carried out the division of the world according to its nations. they minister unto Yahweh. 117 Tigay.g. see Urbach.   They bow down to him (e.g.117 At that time. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology –). Mohr [Paul Siebeck].118 In fact. See also Preuss. Wilhelm Rudolph zum .g. Zec :).g. Jahrhundert v. Trier: Paulinus.. Jacob his own allotment.” in Lex Tua Veritas. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im . and Tigay. 113 See Heinrich Groß.  (Q) für die Auslegung des Moseliedes. whether royal attendance (e. They serve another role too. idem and Franz Mußner. when he separated humankind. Still. und . Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. in Beiträge zur Geschichte von Text und Sprache des Alten Testaments. The Sages 2 . like a guardian angel.112 They tend to him (e. 118 Von Rad. see also  Chr :) and applaud him with words (e. Gesammelte Aufsätze [ed. :–. Deuteronomy –. The Divine Council  (despite his evaluation). gods serve the same basic role..115 When the Supreme One allotted the nations.g. and he installed them in the administration of the world.” in Verbannung und Heimkehr. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. f. Ps :–).119 The 111 See Norman C. “Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium . For the Lord’s portion is his people.  Kgs :.. Arnulf Kuschke.. he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of éðá íéäìà divinities. Dan :–). HBT / (): – (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ).. Job :). B.g. 115 Miller.. Philadelphia: Westminster. The Book of Job (OTL. )  (on Job :). Philadelphia: Westminster. OTL. Tübingen: J.  []) –. Dorothea Barton. Waltraut . or a courtroom (e. see also QDeutq :). God tailored the parameters of human communities after the gods. at the beginning of all history … he subordinated one nation to each of the heavenly beings who had to take care of it.. :)111 and praise him (e..114 . The particular setting may vary..

so that you won’t hit your foot on a stone. When God made his divine assignments. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Deuteronomy . A task which. ] –). in their capacity as angels. Miller. Yahweh also intends that gods imitate him. HUCA – (–): . (Ps :–) Yahweh intends that gods responsibly participate in the human world and enact his plans equally for Israelites and non-Israelites. . again. . below. let the numerous islands be glad! … èôùîå ÷ãö Righteous and justice are the seat of his throne. Yahweh validated the gods when he assigned them their task.) Mighty king. HUCA – (–): . See also Meyer.  n. to protect you in all your ways. save (them) from the hand of the wicked! (Ps :. (Ps :). justice and righteousness have you performed in Jacob. Tsevat. they are also responsible for God’s faithful. BZAW . justice you love.120 It is their duty to execute God’s will (see Ps :–) and. 122 See ch. You have established íéøùéî equity. (Dt :a. pertains to the human population. 121 Tsevat. On their hands they will carry you. provide escape for the weak and needy. Since he is “the author and guarantor of the norms of justice. For åéëàìî his angels will he order for you. Stated differently.b. 120 Mayes.”121 Yahweh is the prototypical agent of justice. íéäìà áø÷á among the gods he executes justice.123 God takes his position ìà­úãòá in the assembly of God.–) èôùé Bernhardt. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology –). 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. (Ps :. in Verbannung und Heimkehr  (= Beiträge … Alten Testaments ). … Heaven proclaims his righteousness.) God expects his divine representatives to follow suit. and all peoples see his glory. in this case. The Lord is king!122 Let the earth rejoice.  gods are permanent fixtures subordinate to Yahweh. more generally. he determined that the nations each have a protector and patron. … åèôù Judge the weak and fatherless. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). vindicate the lowly and poor. 123 See Miller. and who loves the stranger by providing him food and clothing. In another case. care for non-Israelites. and.

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

. ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. ‘You will entice (him) and prevail. 132 Miller. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS . it is executed as if from Yahweh himself. though. expressing the activity of divine government in political terms. God may accept their advice. Conversely. as in  Kgs :b= Chr :b. Job :).’ So the Lord did put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours. their disobedient offense is Baltzer zum . The gods can function as an assembly which God can consult and where divine discussion takes place (see. that is. the spirit] said. . ‘How?’ He said. As the Bible describes it. Go out and do it. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. hear the word of the Lord! I saw the Lord seated on his throne. The Lord said. Geburtstag (ed.132 The relationship between Yahweh and the council. Yahweh agrees and orders the plan’s execution. ) . as having to do with the affairs of the human world and the divine world. At other times. Ps ) or challenge his seat at the head of the council (see Is :–). Cf.’ The Lord said to him. 131 Newsom. in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel . Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. In which case. the gods may simply obey him (see Ps :– ) or defer to him (see Gen :–a.”130 The organization of the human race reflects that of all the divine beings. Thomas Krüger. :–). HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). it is “fundamentally a sociopolitical [symbol]. after which one of their rank comes forward.” ( Kgs :–. the gods may defy him (e. The divine council is also a deliberative body.b. íéîùä àáö­ìëå while all the host of heaven were attending him to his right and to his left.131 Then he [sc. let me entice him.’ He [sc. ) –. and Helmut Utzschneider. Whybray. ) . e.. too. “Alright.g.  God and the gods constitute a divine council. see also  Chr :–) In this episode. Yahweh sits on his royal perch and confers with his divine entourage. OBO . is not always harmonic. another saying that.g. Rüdiger Bartelmus. He formulates a plan and solicits a volunteer. Micaiah ben Imlah] said. the Lord] said. ‘Me. 130 Miller. and John Day. in ABD . when a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). But after the divinity makes his case. the Lord expressed disaster upon you. He [sc. See also Halpern. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. though. Yahweh questions whether the volunteer is prepared. The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl –: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS . ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ One said this. The divinities consult one another.



 

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 , ).

180 Though they may have been “an Israelite phenomenon.179 In its nonreferential capacity. We shall do absolutely everything that we uttered—burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring libations to her. See also Halpern. in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte . .” in Ancient Israelite Religion  (repr. “The Queen of Heaven—Who Is She?” in Prophets and Daniel (ed. Grand Rapids/Cambridge.. and did not experience calamity. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh – with n. ‘the Ashtarot’ is also replaced by another generic term of similar origin: ‘the Asherot’ (see. the two are mutually exclusive.184 “[O]ne cannot combine the service of YHWH with that of the other gods. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ . U. ] . in Prophets and Daniel . Sheffield: JSOT Press. … They abandoned the Lord and did not serve him. (Jdg :. Hadley. He does not form an alliance with them. . John R. see Hadley. 183 Freedman. Huddlestun. just as we—we. We had enough food. “‘Who is like Thee among the Gods?’ The Religion of Early Israel.” ZAH  (): –.”185 Under such a circumstance. 181 Smith. 180 See Olyan. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies. and our officials—had done in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. See also. is a deindividuated and generalized term for ‘(foreign) goddesses’..   the gods of Sidon. True. for example. ) –. 182 For her identity. .  vols. Jdg : vs.K. (Jer :. Athalya Brenner.) But these goddesses hardly resemble the beings that constitute the divine court or characterize God’s attendants. and Wiggins. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTS . 179 Delbert R. in this context. 184 Mary Douglas. God works to remove the other divine being(s) from the Israelite sphere (see  Sam :). London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press.g. The Early History of God 2 . our ancestors. :). see also vv. . she is also a menacing competitor. The Queen of Heaven182 also angers God (see Jer :bβ). ) –.”181 their worship is ‘evil’ and anti-Yahwistic. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman [ed.”183 Yet from a biblical perspective. “Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Bible. e. the gods of Moab. ‘Ashtarot’.). 185 Jon D. “worship of the Queen of Heaven … persisted in Israel (Judah) right to the end of the kingdom. Feminist Companion to the Bible /. Minneapolis: Winston. Hillers. were well. Levenson.: Eerdmans. ) . our kings. see also  Sam :) Jeremiah quotes Judean refugees in Egypt who worship the Queen of Heaven.

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

Leiden: E. the gods are real and important. “Israel cannot worship them. in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure. and Text [ed. Cf. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos. in a somewhat different context. subordinate allies in the world. See also ibid. 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. HUCA – (–): –.”189 There seems to be no inherent. Rather. Theme. 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.” TD  ():  (repr. For wider implications. 192 H. 194 Freedman. Miller. the Lord took you … to become his allotted people.196 These Cooke. Gods. The Divine Warrior . or should be. “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens. and Mullen. Emerton. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh . Is :.193 They are.   ence on earth and among human beings. Mordechai Cogan and Israel 189 190 . Gods.”194 Although gods exist and are acknowledged in much of the Hebrew Bible. then. .  []) . A. ) . “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” in Ah. ] –). or necessary. see Schmidt. in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel . conflict between God and gods in Israelite theology.  (ed. in Ancient Israelite Religion  (= Divine Commitment and Human Obligation . 191 Halpern. see Tigay. Deuteronomy .”195 When you look up to heaven and see the sun.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.’”191 Whether the proof text be Gen :. the moon. “totally subject and subservient to the will of the one God worthy of the name. (Dt :–) God was responsible for assigning gods to the non-Israelite nations and kept Israel for himself (see already Dt :–+QDeutj :). VTS . ZAW  (): .190 “The strongest testimony remains that which suggests Israel’s gods were understood to lie within YHWH’s ‘suite.192 But they are not independent agents. They represent and imitate God in several respects. and Images . Goddesses. and Tsevat. Assyria … Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ed. J. 193 Levenson. 196 For the historical implications of Dt :. Patrick D. The Divine Council . are more than Yahweh’s loyal.” JTS  (): . See also Keel and Uehlinger. 195 Olyan. “The Council of Yahweh. as is the case today.” in Congress Volume: Paris. They are a theophany. Wheeler Robinson. or Ps :–. Dt :–+QDeutj :. Walter Brueggemann. “Old Testament Theology as a Particular Conversation: Adjudication of Israel’s Socio-theological Alternatives. J. See also Miller. and Peter Machinist. Brill. Minneapolis: Fortress.

TD  (): a (= Old Testament Theology ). ) – (repr. ] ). . 198 Levenson. Sinai and Zion –.  gods were not to be worshipped in Israel (see also Ex : =Dt :). Israel’s very election precludes non-Yahwistic service. Greenspahn.198 Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Magnes. 197 Brueggemann. The Incomparability of Yahweh –. In fact. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East [ed. ScrH . but Israel must worship only Yahweh. and God’s own jealousy (see Ex :) virtually defines these other gods as potential rivals. New York/London: New York University Press. Frederick E.197 Gods exist. See also Labuschagne.

This page intentionally left blank .

and Ex :.” So God created humankind in his image. and over the birds of heaven... In form-critical terms. åðúåîãë åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image. when P’s God proposes the creation of humankind. in the image of God he created it. this form is ambiguous. P’s story of human creation is not an isolate within a larger biblical context.. It shares a basic form-critical structure.).2 but a comparison with the jussives that engaged other acts of creation reinforces its desiderative sense. and over the whole earth. respectively). that Gen :– exhibits every formcritical component of J’s nonliteral äáä clause (see §. To this extent. . W. pre-Priestly model. Then God said. and over the beasts. male and female he created them. And it may share an awareness that gods exist in God’s realm. in fact. G. Gen : “begin[s] with direct speech. It shares linguistic features that include the semantic. by implication. according to our likeness.” in which “a speaker formulates … (i) a directive or assertive utterance (represented by a cohortative or imperfect. with a desiderative proposition. he opens his speech with äùòð (v.  []) .. discourse. (Gen :–) Such an analysis shows. 1 2 . Technically. the imperfect and cohortative of final weak roots are usually not distinguished in the morphology but are expressed by the selfsame ending ä -.. Not only does the clause-initial position of the verb suggest the cohortative reading. Form-critical analysis indicates that Gen :– conforms to an older..  GEN 1:26 Although Gen : may be an isolate within the Priestly tradition.” See § . Alviero Niccacci. Watson. :. Sheffield: JSOT Press. To begin with. intro. with n. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. JSOTS . . . . however.1 The interpretation of äùòð. aβ). and over everything that moves on the earth. it shares much in common with non-Priestly texts. is clear enough. This speech therefore begins like that of Gen :. and pragmatic. and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea. E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

26 Or it is an intentional component of P’s creation story that specifies the relationship between humanity and God.24 Yet a third contingent claims that God’s chosen words in Gen :a are deliberately obscure. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik. “Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Postmodern Age. Either the allusion to the divine council in Gen : is a historical and theological accident. Henry T. and Oswald Loretz.)..25 The theological impasse of Gen : has therefore resulted in two competing and irreconcilable hypotheses. D. Philadelphia: Fortress.  n. §§. Mettinger. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. Sun et al. 26 Yet see Hans Walter Wolff.” ZAW  (): . U. Long. see Tryggve N. in this latter case.   acterize humanity as partaking. Munich: Kösel. defines the nature of the human race.g. in the divine (e. C.. see von Rad.. . in conjunction with Burke O.. ) –. . Old Testament Theology .K.  []) –. ) . For an example. Keith R. “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht. 25 In addition to the references in ch.). Crim. and perhaps even inaugurates Israelite monotheism.” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed.: Eerdmans. the plural pronouns ambiguate any intended comparison between humanity and God (see §. in some functional way. 24 . The Old Testament: A Guide to Its Writings (trans.

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

This page intentionally left blank .

.. newborn. Walter Baier et al.. Ottilien: EOS. Hence. ) . Wallace. and syntax as in :aβ.g.. differently. a conforms to grammatical expectation. ) –. and contextually less salient entity than the fathering agent2—is viable. Neither phrase is semantically or grammatically required. Gen : is often adduced to prove the contrary (§. “Let us make humankind [P]) åðúåîã-ë åðîìö-á. Geburtstag (ed. and human. A.  vols. generic. though. Cf. then. Thereafter.). ) §. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax (th ed.1 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years. v. the differential marking of each nonobligatory phrase suggests that each phrase has distinct meaning. . Leiden: E. The proposal to create humanity is introduced by a desiderative predicate (äùòð) and is then followed by an undetermined direct object (íãà). ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. ) . Howard N. . Josef Scharbert. At first. St. L. Emerton. and. Hendel. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Brill.  THE PREPOSITIONS ë AND á The grammar of Gen :a is unusual (see §. 2 See J. two different prepositional phrases appear in immediate succession.” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. similative nouns. (Gen :a [PT]) Then God said.. J. he fathered (a son) åîìö-ë åúåîã-á. at least in relation to one other. “The Toledot of Adam.). These two passages are clearly similar. J. The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibson. 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. in conjunction with GKC §f. the final constituents in :aβ are a pair of nonobligatory prepositional phrases that recycle the same prepositions. So too. C. “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen . Rem. :aβ is headed by a highly transitive verb of creation (ãìåéå). The direct object—omitted as an obvious.” (Gen :a Like :aβ.. Ronald S. VTS . even though the prepositional phrases themselves 1 E.” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed..

–) . dissertation. “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph. )... O’Connor. measure. See also the other references in Preface n. similarity. one verb covers both phrases.” in ABD . Kohlhammer.  vols. Ind. brought them into the hall. ) .).4 The comparison between Gen : and : thus tends to blur their unique grammatical character. “Note that. ïî (e. whose height äáâë was like the height of cedars.   are different. Stuttgart: W.8 Samuel took Saul and his attendant. In fact. John J. University of Pennsylvania. . – [–]) . “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte. Scullion. … [W]e have here one expression which further determines the creation of humans. Minneapolis: Augsburg. for example. and.. As Curtis describes it. Both the nouns and the prepositions are interchangeable …. WBC –... Die Präposition Beth (Die hebräischen Präpositionen . their similarity seems to outweigh their difference. ) –. Waltke and M. Genesis ( vols. Lothar Ruppert. Curtis. íéðåìàë àåä ïñçå (as) strong as oaks. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake. Kohlhammer. “Image of God (OT). 4 Claus Westermann. Cf. Edward M. see Jenni.”5 . by implication. we have not two but one expression. 8 For examples and discussion. it may liken a nominal to a quantity. .” Cath  (): . it is “clear that the interpretation” of Gen :– “cannot be built on the meaning of the prepositions. ë is the less controversial. and gave them a place at the head of the guests—comprising ùéà íéùìùë about thirty.”3 The two phrases are even said to be wholly synonymous. GKC  n. Wenham. suggesting their semantic interchangeability when used with the nouns ‘image’ and ‘likeness’. vornehmlich von Gen –. ë Of the two prepositions in Gen :a. Waco/Dallas: Word. or standard. All agree that it expresses correspondence6 or.g.: Eisenbrauns. (Am :a) 3 Gordon J.7 In verbless clauses. the prepositions á ‘in’ and ë ‘according to’ are reversed.” ScEs  (): . åðúåîãë and åðîìöá. Die Präposition Kaph (Die hebräischen Präpositionen . 7 Ernst Jenni. ) §. See also Walter Vogels. There is widespread agreement about this today. Genesis (trans. Any difference between the two prepositions seems irretrievable.D. )  n. “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn . compared with :. more accurately. . 5 Curtis. ( Sam :) Yet I destroyed the Amorite before them.b.a. 6 Bruce K..–. Stuttgart: W.

11 Williams. (Num : [P]) By the fury of the Lord of Hosts. was a fine flaky substance. (Ex : [P]) Even darkness does not become too dark for you. when you eat of it. the earth was scorched. (Hos :a) serves the same function throughout.  vols. ) § (in part). your eyes will be opened. and so we seemed to them. éäðå We seemed to ourselves íéáâçë like grasshoppers. replication.  ë  á The construction of the wheels chariot wheel. on the surface of the wilderness. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.. äøåàë äëéùçë Darkness and light are alike. because his hands úøòù åéçà åùò éãéë were hairy like those of Esau. ( When the layer of dew lifted. 10 Paul Joüon. SubBi /I–II. Judah and Israel Kgs :a) ìåçë íéáø were as numerous as the sand on the sea. ë éúîùå I will make your offspring :a [J]) øôòë like the dust of the earth. Hebrew Syntax 2 §. ( Kgs :a) äùòîë  was like the construction of a The similative structure may be expanded by an adjectival or stative predicate (see Am :aβb). having knowledge of good and evil. (Ps :). or (re-) production (see Gen :aβ). Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (d ed.. This preposition also appears in transitive clauses. his brother. éäéå The people were ùà úìëàîë like fire fuel: no one spared another.. and rev. there.  [J]) íéäìàë It was there we saw the Nephilim … . such as those expressing transformation. Toronto/Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. night øéàé íåéë becomes light as day. T. see also But he did not recognize him.”9 “similitude. (Gen :. . It “[e]xpresses likeness. íúééäå and you will be like gods. Williams. (Gen 9 Ronald J. See also BDB b. Muraoka. )  §g. (Is :) äéäå The number of the people of Israel shall be ìåçë like the sand of the sea.”10 or “approximation. øôëë ÷ã (as) fine as frost on the ground. see also v. For God knows that. (Gen :a [J]) Or the similative clause may include a prototypically stative verb. without measure and without number.. resemblance.”11 .

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

. then.–. 21 Heinrich Ewald. or both (e. see also Judah approached him and said...  ë  á  You must not be partial in justice: ìãâë ïè÷ë small and great alike should you give a hearing.” DS-NELL  (): –.  [])  (italics original) (= Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes [th ed. (Dt :aα) It will befall ïäëë íòë laity and priest alike..” “similitude.” or “approximation” (see §.b. kÃ-X kÃ-Y signifies a reciprocal comparison: X is comparable to Y to the same extent as Y is comparable to X. Die Präposition Kaph .. äåìë äåìîë lender and borrower alike. e. Jeffrey H.” whether as conceptually polar opposites (e. Louvain: Peeters. åá àùð øùàë äùðë creditor and debtor alike. exactly similar … in order to express our as … so. AuOr  (): –. Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament (trans. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. . Edinburgh: T. 20 Cf..20 The formula kÃ-X kÃ-Y is used “[f]or connecting different things. repr. Clark.18 The extent is also complete: X and Y are thoroughly similar. äúøáâë äçôùë maid and mistress alike. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. intro. or analogy between semantically different and referentially distinct entities. . A related function of (the morpheme underlying) ë can be discerned from cognate evidence in other Semitic languages. & T.”21 The likened entities are “different. In each case.22 . Jongeling. see Jacob Barth. Tigay. Cf. øëåîë äðå÷ë buyer and seller alike.. James Kennedy. Biblical Hebrew Syntax §. )  n.. Dt :).). (Is :). 22 See n. and may you not be angry with your servant.g.).g. ) §§. Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary. in a certain manner.. Die Pronominalbildung in den semitischen Sprachen (. “The Hebrew Particle êà. Göttingen: Dieterich.” (Gen : [J]) Whereas X kÃ-Y forms a unilateral comparison. Biblical Aramaic is one. for äòøôë êåîë you and Pharaoh are alike. del Olmo Lete. 23 For comparative evidence..23 18 See Jenni. for X and Y are comparable to one another. Waltke and O’Connor. the reduplicated preposition expresses an approximation. Like its nonreduplicated counterpart. . ] §a.19 But X and Y are not identical. Is :). åéðãàë ãáòë slave and master alike. similarity. 19 BDB a (ad ). as being. ´ Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (OLA . k-r. ) §§. my lord. Edward Lipinski. “Please. and K.g. may your servant speak a word into my lord’s ears. the two nominal halves of the reciprocal comparison are distinct yet interconnected with a preposition that registers “likeness. physically unique entities (Gen :).

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

Amharic kä/kà signals conceptual and/or physical boundedness.32 This description leads to a conclusion that may apply. Mandaic ka ‘here’ and related Aramaic forms. ‘Stop doing’ is setting a boundary. In each language. .  vols. . Reference Grammar of Amharic §§.v. It further entails the notions of separation and (relative) distinction. the element compared to is supposed to contain a definite amount or degree of the attribute compared. for example. and those with him in the ark. to Hebrew ë. –) . Crossing a boundary in either direction.” AJSL  (): –. kä) (= idem. ‘stop doing something’. leaving the confines of a place or entering them. (Gen : [J]) Every creeping thing that lives shall be yours for food. “The Interrogative Particle à in Hebrew. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.31 … It is also used in the inherent negative senses of ‘be missing from’. 34 Ibid. Cf. In this context.35 He wiped out all existence on the surface of the ground—from human beings to beasts.. çð­êà øàùéå Only Noah remained. Studies in African Linguistics  (): . creeping things. Disrupting continuity means creating a boundary. Leslau. Traité de langue amharique .34 Accordingly. all require kä-. Studies in African Linguistics  ():  n. 35 For the derivation. *k can serve a separative function. a limit to an action.v. ]  [s.–. Amharic kä/kà is related to the (Hebrew) similative preposition ë and the (Aramaic) distal element *k. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (ed.33 The common denominator of all these uses is that the complement marked by kä. Reference Grammar of Amharic §. Ferdinand Mühlau. e. Cf. 33 Cf. … must not eat flesh with its own blood in it. in êà (< *k). 32 Hetzron.. See also Cohen. n. [P]) êà But you 31 See. Hebrew Cognates in Amharic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. and Leslau. see also Leslau. albeit indirectly. they were wiped out from the earth. Semantically and pragmatically. There are occasional reflexes of this separative *k in Biblical Hebrew. In the comparative. . Ethiopic and South Arabic Contributions to the Hebrew Lexicon [University of California Publications in Semitic Philology . It appears. . and passing that amount or degree in either direction is the essence of the comparative (but not of ‘as…as…’!). (Gen :a. .constitutes a boundary of some kind. then.g.. äë]). and birds of heaven.. Friedrich Böttcher. ‘Absence from’ indicates the confines of the area within which something is not found. Hetzron. it may designate a place reached. or even staying within them.  ë  á  tion with the ablative meaning. Blake. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth. Frank R. ‘stay away from’. )  (s.

I shall make a covenant with you. would that. Harland.   ‘(Ephron answered Abraham.40 êà also implies that its utterance will run counter to expectation. Series Practica .) “No. and I give you the cave that’s in it—in the presence of my people.36 It can mark an exception (Gen :).–. since I want to bury my dead there. “Old Hebrew Particles and the Interpretation of Old Testament Texts. 38 Francis I.39 It can introduce a counterproposal (Gen :). . Methode und Grammatik  n. Andersen. Hubert Irsigler. when you come to see me. J. in Text. Cf. and.” VT  (): –. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose. Wolfgang Richter zum . êà Just one thing I ask of you: you shall not see me (again) unless you bring Michal. daughter of Saul. my lord. The Value of Human Life . [P]) When the men of the place asked about his wife.d. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum. without any one to provide relief. Biblical Hebrew Syntax §. she is actually your wife! So why did you say. Revell. (Dt :) He said. Cf. “The Old Hebrew ‘particles’ ’ak and raq (in Genesis to  Kings). or antithesis (Dt :).” (Gen :. he said. Geburtstag (ed. 39 N. J. 40 See van der Merwe.38 contrast (:). DS-NELL  (): –. (Gen : [J]) You will be groping at noon just as a blind man gropes in darkness. esp. –. listen to me! I give the price of the field.” HUCA  (): . – ) . êà “On the contrary.a [J]) After Isaac had finished blessing Jacob. I give you the field. Snaith. and Theodor Seidl. St. H. ) –. and Jongeling. A. 37 David J.41 whether it be a correction (:a) or a reengagement of demands after an agreement has been reached ( Sam :). when Esau his brother came from his hunt. Accept (it) from me. somewhat differently.. I give it to you. Ottilien: EOS.” … Abimelek summoned Isaac and said. 41 E.37 exclusion (:).” in Text. êà is pragmatically pliant. You shall êà rather be extorted and robbed all the time. êà “But. van der Merwe. ) . if you. Waltke and O’Connor. êà Jacob had just left the presence of Isaac his father. Methode und Grammatik. listen to me. Methode und Grammatik  (§.” ( Sam :) As these texts indicate.). H. Walter Gross. The Hague: Mouton. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.. ‘She is my sister?’ ” (Gen :a. . van der Merwe.” … Abraham … spoke to Ephron in earshot of the people of the land. in Text. see C. “She is my sister.” JSOT  (): –. You shall not have your ways succeed. Yet these many readings 36 For discussions. Clines. ed.. Bury your dead. “Good. “The Meaning of the Hebrew _à. summarizing idem.

” (Jos :) Rehoboam.  ë  á  can be subsumed under a single functional category. he left not a single soul belonging to Jeroboam until he destroyed it. see BDB b (ad ). .. these minimal pairs are nonetheless different. Rehoboam was forty-one years old åëìîá when he became king. at the same time. 46 BDB a (ad V. 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. For lists. See also ibid. a (italics original).. he would tear it [sc. 44 Davidson and Gibson. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §l.42 it signifies that the following discourse is. (Jer :a) Although each pair of temporal clauses may be translated alike (‘when’). §. 45 See Joüon and Muraoka. there is greater temporal separation between Cf.c.45 coeval ( Kgs :a). “Many temporal statements are formed with a prep[osition] and infin[itive construct]. … When is expressed by "a. DSNELL  (): . the scroll] up with a scribe’s knife and throw (it) in the fire in the brazier. ( Kgs :a-bαa) åëìîë éäéå When he became king. in some way. êà marks an adversative relationship.43 Another reflex of the separative *k appears in subordinate clauses.47 When it is governed by ë. For the restrictive reading of this term. 42 43 . íëàáë “When you come to the edge of the Jordan waters. you should stand in the Jordan. ( Kgs :a). 47 Waltke and O’Connor. Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.46 or otherwise temporally proximate to the main event (Jer :a). and idem. Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax §§. êà marks disjunction.”44 You shall not see me (again) unless you bring Michal. its clause depicts a situation that is contemporaneous ( Sam :b).). BDB b (ad ). Like its underlying separative morpheme. however. reigned in Judah. related or responsive to the preceding context yet.b. daughter of Saul. respectively. ( Sam :bαb-β) You shall order the priests who carry the ark of the covenant. he struck down the whole house of Jeroboam. "k with infin. (Jer :) àåø÷ë éäéå So when Jehudi read three or four columns. When the infinitive is governed by á. êàáá when you come to see me. or divergent. and Jongeling. Die Präposition Beth –. see Jenni. son of Solomon. and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem. Die Präposition Kaph –. contrary. unexpected.

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

Pope (ed. Hagar? Don’t be afraid.  sˇ¯ama‘. Die Präposition Beth . 58 . Conn. Vienna: Herder. ) –.’ cursed is the ground because of you. I will not let Israel go. ‘You must not eat of it. or oblique. for instance.” GLECS  (–): . has a predictable interpretation. òîÖ äòeî"Ö sˇemû‘¯ah. and an angel of God (or: divine angel) called to Hagar from heaven and said to her. Good.” (Ex :– [J]) These passages illustrate typical semantic and pragmatic characteristics of differential object marking. The direct object. Good. But he said.” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H.” (Gen :. for øòðä ìå÷­ìà íéäìà òîù God has noted the boy’s cry where he is. In pain. Augustinus Kurt Fenz. he said to Moses. you will eat of it all the days of your life.’ ” Pharaoh said.” in TWAT . John H.b [E]) Afterwards. nor the sound of a weak response. “A sound of war is in the camp.” (Ex : [J]) íòä ìå÷­úà òùåäé òîùéå When Joshua heard the shouting sound of the people. Cazelles. ) –.. its relation to the verb may be direct. Rüterswörden. the effect on the subject is variable: though the content of the indirect object often influences the subject’s behavCf. “Thus says the Lord God of Israel. Ex :–. Moreover. The nondirect object is more nuanced and pragmatically explicit. “Who is the Lord that òîùà åì÷-á I should heed him by letting Israel go? I do not know the Lord.59 As a perceived object. “What’s wrong. “Because êúùà ìå÷-ì úòîù you listened to the voice of your wife and ate of the tree (about) which I commanded you. “It is not the sound of a mighty response. in TWAT . Eine biblische Begriffsuntersuchung (WBTh . Guilford. “ˇ sm‘ qôl et sˇm‘ b qôl. 60 See Rüterswörden. respectively). It can affect the grammatical subject. Jenni. indirect.” (Ex : [J]) To the man he said. Robert M.–. the simplest reading of the direct object takes the nominal to be the object of involuntary perception (Ex :). … For I shall make him into a great nation.: Four Quarters. Whether it is marked or unmarked.  ë  á  matical relations. Marks and Robert M.” (Gen : [J]) øòðä ìå÷­úà íéäìà òîùéå God heard the boy’s cry. when the object is indirect (ì òîù). ‘Let my people go so that they may make a festival for me in the wilderness. òîù éëðà úåðò ìå÷ — (It is) the sound of intense singing58 I hear. The object may be either unmarked or marked. it also has sufficient salience or referentiality to be (re-) deployed in the discourse as an entity with literal content (Gen :–.60 For example. Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh. 59 H. Auf Jahwehs Stimme hören. and U. “òîÖ  sˇema‘. “Exodus :.



 

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.

the complex nominal phrase is initially limited to a quantitative measure (beth normae.86 Or in  Kgs :. Jenni. and W..g. then. and my bones hearth are scorched. and its successor is governed by ë. Commentar über die Psalmen (ed. Aleppo codex (ã÷åîë). 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. These pairs. substitutable. they demonstrate that ë marks a comparison between two distinct entities. Other texts reveal the same syntactic and grammatical pattern. 88 So. Die Präposition Beth . Their cereal offerings and libations for the bulls. (Dt :) For my days waste away ïùò-á as smoke. Gustav Baur. Instead. rams. Leviticus (KHAT . see also vv. in conjunction with Jenni. B. . de Wette. (Num : [H?].. “Jacob” and sheep. in their particular functional capacity. –)88 and then judged to conform to the imposed regulatory ruling. e. too. etc. ) . (Jdg :bα). C. and that á specifies the members. th ed. Similar distinctions are registered in the other minimal pairs. the casualties are identified as members of a particular group (partitive beth)89 85 See Alfred Bertholet. Breslau: Herrmann Kelsch. the messenger hopes that Micaiah’s own speech will conform to that already spoken by the prophets. Dt : presumes that the ‘men’.   Lev :. In Jdg :. whereas the man of God in  Kgs : claims that ‘the word’ represents a divine communication (see also v. L. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri . But in Gen :a. though. a). are leaders. ùéà íéùìù-ë ìàøùé­ùéà-á Israelite men (numbering) about thirty. see also :) ã÷­åîë87 like a In Num :. specifies the internal composition of ‘any (offending) person’ (see Ex : [P]). 89 See BDB b (on  Sam :). rather. Mic : compares truly separate entities. 87 Cf. Tübingen/Leipzig: J.. The first is governed by á. do not demonstrate that the prepositions ë and á are interchangeable. or synonymous. 86 See Harland.. ) . Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. there are two prepositional phrases that qualify a single antecedent. Die Präposition Beth . it identifies the parts that together comprise the whole. and Baentsch. The Value of Human Life .85 It does not contrast one constituent group with another. or content of a coreferential head.) íèôùî-ë íøôñî Benjamin had begun to strike them dead. function. M. (Ps :. . and lambs -á by number as prescribed.

the Vogels.” ZAW  (): . the nominal core of the phrase is not coreferential with its head. constituent. Structure..a (on Ex :). when a nominal is governed by ë. . 92 See William P. “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht. The former is marked with the locative-proximate á. In contrast. The two prepositions. the two prepositional phrases express a double characterization of their head. 91 Waltke and O’Connor.: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut. The syntactic relationship between åðîìö-á and åðúåîã-ë in Gen :a offers confirmation that these two phrases jointly qualify their antecedent. Beuken. §. qualification of a shared antecedent. In the Septuagint and Samaritan versions. in the past.). they each supply a conjunction between the two phrases92 and thus suggest that the phrases are potentially unrelated constituents. then. the prepositional phrases appear in separate yet parallel clauses. two prepositional phrases immediately follow. and Willem A.. 90 . was as innumerable as the heavenly bodies. the Israelite addressee (‘you’) is characterized as a future pittance (beth essentiae) which. See also Tryggve N. In each case. In Dt :.” JBTh  (): . while the latter is marked with the similative-separative ë. and ë a distal. “Gen .  ë  á  and then assigned an approximate number. Biblical Hebrew Syntax §.. Brown. Once God’s quoted speech begins with a transitive predicate and an unmarked direct object. Mettinger. Atlanta: Scholars Press. M. attribute. They “stand side by side”91 in asyndetic combination. 93 Cf.. and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS . or form (see Ps :). the proximate phrase leads the distal qualifier: åðúåîã-ë åðîìö-á. So too. like all the preceding examples. .90 The coreferential phrase comes first.” LouvSt  (): . The same is true for Gen :: åîìö-ë åúåîã-á. The one marked with á presents a measure. Role. The two prepositional phrases present different yet aligned characterizations of their head. the similative phrase only approximates or resembles the head in a certain way. they do not. D. Gen :a adopts this pattern as well. its nominal core is coreferential with its antecedent. the noncoreferential comparison comes afterwards (cf. ScEs  (): . Walter Groß. )  n. each effectively serve a deictic function: á marks a proximate. “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights. .93 In the MT. though.

95 Their two similative nouns represent “some measure of semantic overlap.   two phrases are not formally connected. e. Karl Ludwig Schmidt. Leo Scheffczyk. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT. and. Biblical Hebrew Syntax §. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ) .).. 101 See. Bird.” TynB  []:  [repr. in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung – (= Studien … Alten Testaments ). 96 Andersen. ). Cath  (): . §. on Gen :. Julian Morgenstern. and.” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. they have a common referent. the prepositional phrases resemble an appositive structure. Deichert/Werner Scholl.” HTR  ():  n. Minneapolis: Fortress. Weippert. among other things he seeks their support to create a human race that will represent the divine community. “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §a. perhaps.98 A preliminary reading of the prepositional phrases in Gen :a is now possible (cf. 99 See Wilhelm Caspari. these phrases are arguably. . “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :– :.”97 In combination.” AJSL  (): . on Gen :. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed..100 In one respect.101 In 94 See Dillmann. “‘À l’ombre d’Élohim. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew . then.” ErJ  ():  (repr. – ( vols. When P’s God addresses his councillors. then.  vols. they are simply juxtaposed.” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays. ) .”96 Also. “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament.. Genesis6  (= ET . to a limited degree. and. and Phyllis A. See also GKC §a. albeitly grossly. in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . ]  n. Ruppert.’” RHPR  ():  (in part).g. Edinburgh: T.  []) . “Imago divina Gen I. humanity and divinity will be separate and distinct. God also specifies two similative characteristics or attributes of the human creature: one proximate (‘image’). & T.c. the two parties will be close and almost inseparable. human beings will be similar and dissimilar to the divine crew. See also Clines: “to be human and to be the image of God are not separable” (“The Image of God in Man. Pierre Bordreuil. Wilhelm Koepp. almost “in the same case. 98 See Jenni. 100 See.–). They reflect a bipartite qualification of a single head. In another respect. 97 Joüon and Muraoka.]). somewhat differently. WdF .  (repr. Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. God wishes that humanity correlate with both divine branches. ] ). 95 Waltke and O’Connor.–. JSOTS –. humanity will intimately participate in divinity. Walther Zimmerli. Clark.. Leipzig: A.. as “Humanity as the Image of God.99 and the other distal (‘likeness’).’ Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec ‘L’Imago Dei. Green. God and his gods. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.94 Further. David E.

yet somewhat unlike. Gen :a is tantamount to a double comparison (see §.. God and the gods.  ë  á  sum. the human creature will be very much like. .) or double-barreled relationship between humanity and the gods: in two similar ways.

This page intentionally left blank .

M. – [ vols. humanity is envisioned to be. Davies. 2 Philip R. .  THE NOUNS úåîã AND íìö íìö ‘image’ and úåîã ‘likeness’ are strangely suitable characterizations of the divine-human relationship in Gen . Davies. is (like) a theophany. Bird.’” ThTo  (): –. The nouns suggest that.. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. “Making It: Creation and Contradiction in Genesis. and created as. and Philip R. Humanity.” in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (ed. 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. [Sheffield:] Sheffield Academic Press..” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays. then. According to some scholars. in two respects at least..). JSOTS . elem) and “likeness” (d˘emût) … suggest … noncorporeal resemblance and representation. the theophany is not physical. JSOTS –. “The Image of God in Man.” TynB  ():  (repr. or mimic God and his divine community. inspired by the presence of a theological agenda. according to our likeness’ … I can see only overinterpretation.2 1 Phyllis A. They are semantically alike. Ostensibly. But whenever in the books of the Hebrew Bible there is a reference to the body of the deity.1 Others argue that the theophany is concrete. the deity is described as having a human form. See also Clines. as “Humanity as the Image of God. the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content (see §. They imply.). David J. “‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh. . [M]indful of the huge volume of writing about the phrase translated as ‘in our image. replicate. a token of divine presence and participation in the world (§§. or seem to imply. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. The parallel terms “image” (s. 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. Daniel Carroll R. two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. A. Clines.). ] . humanity will resemble. ) .

Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman (ed. Daniel (:). .. . (Ez :b-)8 3 See Jeffrey H.5 úåîã King Ahaz sent Uriah the priest çáæîä úåîã­úà a likeness of the altar and a model6 of its whole construction.. úeî"c d emûth.3 The crux therefore persists. It may. Shapiro and Burton I.  vols. for example. Each interpretation finds textual support (see §. 4 James Barr. Preuss. Brill.. The remaining few are scattered throughout a variety of sources: the deuteronomistic history ( Kgs :). Israel Abrahams.7 see also She saw men etched on the wall.. – [–]) . Cohen. Cohen. Alexander M. 7 Note H. above. Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUN . and. . Moshe Greenberg. Most attestations are found in Priestly writings. or Ezekiel (:a.” in ãîììå ãîìì. Jacob Neusner.  n.. Psalms (:). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. in this context. )  (repr. ) .   The dispute is not easily adjudicated.. Tigay. Shaye J.. J.a. úåîã ‘likeness’ appears twenty-five times in the Hebrew Bible. SHR . “On the Shape of God and the Humanity of Gentiles.” in TDOT . 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.bα. 8 See. U. Cassuto. New York: Doubleday. second Isaiah (:).). :. :). :. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. “äîc  d¯am¯ah. Leiden: E. in Studies in the Cult of Yahweh [ed. whether they be attributed to P (Gen :).... “The Image of God in Genesis—Some Linguistic and Historical Considerations. first Isaiah (:). ] . all of them with the appearance of officers— ìáá­éðá úåîã a likeness of Babylonians whose homeland was Chaldea.. D.. 5 Note Paul Humbert. in ãîììå ãîìì  n. See also Morton Smith. differently.). Nor must these interpretations be mutually exclusive. Ezekiel (AB – . ( Kgs :b). having belts girded to their waists. bβ.” OTWSA  (): .  pts.” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (ed. and Chronicles ( Chr :)..b. Garden City. or that he exists in two sexes destined for communion? For such questions there is no answer to be found.). ) . . The interpretation of ‘likeness’ varies considerably in nonPriestly writings. 6 See ch. – ) . D. Brill.. flowing turbans on their heads.4 . (íéãùë §§÷) íééãùë éîìö images of Chaldeans etched in vermillion... Jerusalem: Magnes. “The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments. refer to a physical entity.. quoted by Tigay. PT (Gen :. New York: Ktav. Leiden: E. J.

Wilson.” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. the likeness can be real yet referentially unspecific or inexact.  [])  (ad  Kgs :b). aβ). and altar’s likeness cum facsimile guide Uriah’s building project ( Kgs :).b. “My Lord. cf. Philadelphia: Westminster. v. Kohlhammer.. I opened my mouth to speak and said to the one standing opposite me. ) –. Listen! An uproar of kingdoms.. each measuring ten cubits.  [])  n. ) . set all around it. James A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (d corrected . and Otto Kaiser.). G. M. Because of the vision …” (Dan :. úåîã can combine with ë and form a semantically empty extension of the comparative preposition.. d (on which. 11 See Jon D. ) –. )14 It can even be nonreferential and express relative similarity or resemblance. ICC. Childs. in conjunction with H.. Williamson. ) . in TLOT .  and  Chronicles (NCBC. see the competing opinions of Caspari.” in TLOT . E. a). Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall. (Is :a-bα)15 In which case.. & T. esp.10 Similarly. 15 In addition to the references in n.  vols. Freiburg: Herder. R. 10 See Preuss. . Für Walter Beyerlin (d ed. íãà éðá úåîãë someone human touched my lips. Listen! A tumult on the mountains áø­íò úåîã like a great troop. Edward M. Wilhelm Caspari. ( Chr :a). HBS . “Image of God (OT).. in TDOT . Cf. For ballast variants. Brevard S. Jenni. Beat Huwyler and Klaus Seybold. Curtis.16 9 E. in Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Testaments [ed. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications . in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift . Watson. Clark. “Imago divina Gen I.13 see also Then. ]  n. 14 See the discussion by John Day.. encircling the sea around. 12 Note. Edinburgh: T. Henry Snyder Gehman.” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed. ] ). OTL. Minneapolis: Winston. in TDOT . Isaiah – (trans. Levenson. Wilhelm Koepp. Morgan & Scott. and E. Stuttgart: W. “Pleonastische Ausdrücke für Vergleichbarkeit (Ps . see Wilfred G. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies. Montgomery. nations assembling. .  [])  (repr. Jenni. Deichert/Werner Scholl.g.  úåîã  íìö  Since the likeness of the Babylonians can be seen (v. cf. A.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. Isaiah [OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed.. “äîã dmh to be like. 13 Preuss. Leipzig: A. See also BDB a (ad ). 16 Jenni..–. these representational likenesses must be two-9 or three-dimensional..” in ABD .

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

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

SBLSP . and John F. Ezekiel is a priest (Ez :). Stand Up? The Image of God in the Book of Ezekiel. and.”26 Ezekiel and the Priestly tradition on which he draws27 “are closely related to each other. in this context. The prophet’s priestly background is clearly reflected in his language. ) .”31 God 25 See. ). Arthur Green. Ezekiel describes what he sees—“the self-revelation of the God who invested Ezekiel with his prophetic commission. ed. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann. esp. out of it. 26 Robert R.” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed. briefly. see Avi Hurvitz.. below (on íéäìà). New York: Crossroad. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress. ) . Propp.. BETL . ) –. Kugel. A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. with its historical foundation in P(T). 28 Johan Lust. ) . is a case in point. 27 For discussion.” VT  ():  (his own evaluation. 31 Leslie C. supernatural vision that will consume his attention.”28 úåîã. something like amber. Kutsko.. C. “Topics in the History of the Spirituality of the Psalms. and enl. ) –. in the fourth (month). when a stormy wind came from the north: a large cloud. (Ez :. . Ezekiel . A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CRB ..–) Once he introduces the celestial. úåîã is a constituent feature of the prophet’s vision of God. And out of it. James L.   is associated with baldly petitionary language.” in Society of Biblical Literature  Seminar Papers ( pts. It is a physical token of piety offered in tribute to Hadad.. in TDOT .” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction— Reception—Interpretation (ed. inter alios.. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW . the conclusion on . Louvain: University Press/Peeters. flashing fire. on the fifth day of the month … heaven opened. Of its several first-millennium attestations. though each one had four faces and each of them had four wings. Allen. 30 See Greenberg. Paris: J. which has close ties with the Holiness Code … and with other Jerusalemite literature. úåéç òáøà úåîã a likeness of four creatures..25 .– and Ezekiel. Its appearance there is hardly a surprise. William H. Atlanta: Scholars Press. “Exodus . … I looked. World Spirituality . “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT  (): –. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. out of the fire. and I saw an awesome vision30 of God. brightness around it. “The Structure and Intention of Ezekiel I. “Will the Real selem ’˘el¯ohîm Please .29 In the thirtieth year. úåîã appears most often in the book of Ezekiel. notwithstanding). ) –. and this was their appearance: they had íãà úåîã a human likeness. Cf. in conjunction with the analysis in §. both in the topics discussed and in the phraseology used. Marc Vervenne.. 29 See Preuss. Georg Fohrer.–. Gabalda.. He has “deep roots in the priestly traditions of the Jerusalemite establishment. Wilson.

–a) úåîã is therefore a feature of God’s self-disclosure in its different manifestations. … Their appearance: ãçà úåîã the likeness of one applied to the four of them. For Ezekiel’s rejection of the older. Something like the appearance of àñë úåîã a throne’s likeness appeared above them. Each had four faces.’” RHPR  ():  (on the Cherubim).). his royal seat. “‘À l’ombre d’Élohim. culminating in the prophet’s realization of all he had witnessed. For with a single exception (Ez :). when the prophet describes God’s throne and cherubic attendants.33 The distribution of úåîã in Ezekiel confirms this theophanic interpretation.a. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis—A Study of Terminology. It was the appearance of äåäé­ãåáë úåîã the likeness of the Lord’s glory. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag. on the dome above the heads of the Cherubim. ) –. íìö in P (§. where it is supported by other language reminiscent of chapter . each part of which is qualified as a úåîã. Ezekiel’s úåîã signals a theophany. see . I looked. something like amber. úåîã reappears four more times in the same vision. all of which rely on the depiction of chapter . and from its loins up was something like a gleaming appearance. First comes a group of ten attestations.” BJRL  (): . I looked when. Priestly term.  úåîã  íìö  reveals himself to Ezekiel as an other-worldly mixture of humanoid yet animal-like features.32 From the beginning. When I saw (it). and each had four wings íãà éãé úåîãå and the likeness of human hands beneath their wings. I knew that they were Cherubim. I fell on my face. Ezekiel’s úåîã implicates God.34 32 Cf.. and I heard a voice speaking. (Ez :) Finally. the referent of úåîã is always a representation or representative of God. there was something like a sapphire stone. and his thronebearers. something like the appearance of fire: from the appearance of its loins down was fire. 33 Barr.. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament (ThSt . Pierre Bordreuil. … (They were) each the creature that I saw beneath the God of Israel at the river Chebar. (Ez :aβ-b) úåîã next appears at the head of Ezekiel’s temple vision.’ Le thème de l’ombre protectrice dans l’Ancien Orient et ses rapports avec ‘L’Imago Dei. íäéðô úåîãå And the likeness of their faces: they were the faces that I saw on the river Chebar—their appearance and themselves. (Ez :. See also Johann Jakob Stamm. his divine presence. when there was ùà­äàøîë úåîã a likeness. 34 Cf.

38 Nevertheless.. In one instance. Ez :).. In a related manner. :).. Maxwell Miller. then.. v. the theophany has two parts (see v. ..g.. In chapter . Ezekiel’s representation of God is a hybrid composition. Ezekiel (trans. are anthropomorphic as well as zoomorphic (e. Theology of the Old Testament .. ). :). . úåîã can be grammatically possessed by terms which themselves express physical objects or visually real matter: ‘throne’ (e.. in sympathetic fashion. :). Ez :). See also. –. :a). It is alive. J. too.–). “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild.g. of course. Philadelphia: Fortress. or God’s own presence (:). for example. 37 See Walther Zimmerli. Clements.g. … Men. and even majesty (Ez :). Christoph Dohmen. The representation is strikingly heterogeneous. –.37 Formally and grammatically. see also :).  vols. Thus “YHWH dwells in heaven.g. For Ezekiel’s preference for úåîã.. in SBL  Seminar Papers . It has an ‘appearance’ (:). Ezekiel .g. One is its lower section which contains the strange multiform creatures (vv. see Gen :b. ‘face’ (e.. ‘creatures’ (e. and Kutsko. can qualify an ‘appearance’ (e. ). 36 See ibid. and it is mechanical (see v.” JBL  (): .. – []) . It occupies space.” LebZeug  (): . the theophany is a functional unity. :). ruled them all (Gen :.”35 Ezekiel represents God in heaven and on earth.g. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes. “In the ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ of God. Martin. ibid. úåîã seems to be identified with a daunting sparkling firmament (:.36 The theophany. whether two. .. and its úåîã. the eagle the most imposing … of birds.–. 38 Eichrodt. James D. The theophany represented by Ezekiel’s úåîã has form. :).39 “The lion is proverbially the fiercest of beasts …. and Greenberg.g.g. The other is its upper section wherein God and his throne are located (vv. The quoted passages already show that úåîã is the object of visual perception (e. … The bull is the most valued of domestic animals. ‘a human’ (e. see Kutsko. his majesty covers the heavens and fills the earth. :). or can resemble an entity that has an ‘appearance’ (e. superiority..or three-dimensional.   But Ezekiel’s úåîã is not simply a divine symbol. 39 Greenberg.g. et al. Hermeneia. The following quotations are Greenberg’s as well. 35 Greenberg.–.  (on the phrase äàøîë).. Ronald E. Its different lower components each symbolize a type of preeminence. It is even assigned masculine as well as feminine gender (e. It is formal as well.. Ezekiel . Ezekiel . –).

) . . “Mythology and Myth-making in Ugaritic and Israelite Literatures. Brooke.”41 Smith might agree. enthroned God (vv. Adrian H. Then God said. dominates in royal majesty. Bloch-Smith. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.40 himself.. and John F. ) –.  úåîã  íìö  Ps :). Gen .” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. 42 Mark S. Smith. . –). Ezekiel (trans. 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 . Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. W. with Elizabeth M. U. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. George J. . Healey. then. “At this point. “we might recall the creation of humanity in Gen :–. … Gen  achieves exactly the opposite effect as Ez .K. See also idem. Eichrodt.. and above it is the heavenly. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed.: Eerdmans. Philadelphia: Westminster.. ) . åðúåîãë according to our likeness. – magnifies the human person in divine terms. Here God appears in the likeness of humanity (demut kemar’eh ’adam) [Ez :]. and. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press.  is most pertinent to the interpretation of human creation in P. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS . ‘image. … Some manner of anthropomorphism is nonetheless implicit in Gen . 41 Blenkinsopp. Although the attestations of úåîã in the early Priestly tradition are few. Cosslett Quin. “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion. ) . Ezekiel (Interp. God is in humanity’s image—a mysterious connaturality.’ in Ez . ) .  [–])  (on Ez :). Louisville: John Knox. “That is to say. Humanity is in God’s image.  conveys the prophet’s vision of God in the likeness of the human person. … There humanity (’adam) is created in the likeness (demut) of God. Ezekiel’s vision. úåîã is a logical focus for comparing Ezekiel and the earlier phases of the Priestly tradition.” Blenkinsopp remarks. ). they are restricted to one recurrent context. OTL. ultimately represents God’s supreme rule—a world under the unitary control and aegis of God.42 Either way.” ZAW  (): –. .. The Biblical Resources Series. UBL . Curtis. The word d emût. Whereas Ez . God and humanity are morphologically similar.” Above them is the dividing ‘firmament’ (Ez :.–.” (Gen :a [P]) 40 Cf. the most lordly of creatures are merely the bearers of the Lord of lords” who. although how the human person is in the divine image and likeness is left unexpressed. see Gen :– ). “Let us make humankind in our image.

“Wieviel Menschen sind am letzten Tage des Hexaëmerons geschaffen worden. Marks. . :b-a).. by implication.—When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years.” BN  (): . male and female he created them.46 Next.43 It first appears when God proposes the creation of the human race. God takes the initiative (see also :a [RP]): he makes the human race. Julius Boehmer. ) –. Leiden: E. . Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (ThAr . íãà úIìåú (Gen :a). more specifically. Emerton. TynB  ():  n. Shemaryahu Talmon.–. “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ’¯ad¯am in Genesis I–V. (d ed. Schmidt. At first. in this context. WMANT . Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot (Paris: Desclée. VTS . “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn . OTL. 45 See Clines. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press. ) . De l’Ancien .47 And. Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild der Urgeschichte.” ZAW  (): .” in La vie de la Parole. ) . “Be Fertile and Increase.   This is the genealogical record of Adam: When God created humankind.a und . The genealogical nuance of úåîã is more than contextual. úåîã is involved in íãà úIìåú thereúåîã 43 Henri Cazelles. rev. (Gen :– [PT]) is uniformly associated with human genealogy. its first male (Adam). In PT. It next appears when this creative act is recapitulated (:). íéäìà úåîãá in the likeness of God he made it. Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. )  n. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift. J. “Selem et demût en Gn . Hess.” in Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (ed. Adam continues the process and produces a son. ) –. ) . and he named him Seth. Kari Elisabeth Børresen. he fathered (a son) åúåîãá in his likeness. in a summary that also serves to bridge the creation of the human species (íãà) and the creation of Adam’s individual lineage. úåîã appears for a third time on the occasion of Seth’s birth (v. J.45 úåîã is included under the heading of úåãìåú or. and Richard S. and Walter Vogels.” in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie. P’s God wants human beings to have úåîã like that of the gods (Gen :a).–. Ernst-Joachim Waschke. Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis . He blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created.” ScEs  (): . n. See also Dohmen. “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment. 47 See. Jeremy Cohen.  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.. ) . ) . “Die Statue von Tell Fecher¯ıye und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. A. Philadelphia: Westminster. ). and Bird. 44 Werner H. See also Gerhard von Rad. 46 See Levenson. “Sexual Differentiation and Divine Image in the Genesis Creation Texts.” ExAu  (): . ed. Oslo: Solum.). au Nouveau Testament. it is explicit.44 Then. according to his image. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Genesis (trans. Brill. and its first female (:. John H. ).b-. Cf.

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

in Tehillah le-Moshe . Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. íéäìà úåîãá in the likeness of God he made it. Their creation occurs simultaneously.. Hess. See also Humbert.. Bird. “’¯ad¯am is the generic Hebrew term for human being which consists of both male and female species. differently. in Kultur. ).” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. repeated in eadem.55 Adam successfully replicates God’s first act of human creation56 and. Jodi Magness and Seymour Gitin.. “Alttestamentliche Anthropogonie in ihrem Verhältnis zur altorientalischen Mythologie. Geburtstag [ed. ) . ) –. Zum . de Moor. and. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck.58 … No differentiation is made between male and female in terms of temporal priority or function. and Victor Maag. . HTR  ():  with n. Genesis (trans. “Adam: Single Man. “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible. Atlanta: Scholars Press. or All Humanity?” in Hesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Leiden: E..  vols. Phyllis Trible. ] ). . in this respect.  n. HTR  ():  with n. When God created humankind. Cf. Brill. . in Studies in the Pentateuch . God: A Biography (New York: Alfred A. inter alios. J.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  with n. inter alios. ). Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. As Childs explains. . London: Lutterworth. BJS . God (:b)..AT /–. Barr. Genesis . Tigay. 57 Cf. and.  []) . and human beings (v.   divine creator and human procreator is homological. 56 See Bird. in Image of God and Gender Models . – [–]) .” AsSt  ():  (repr. Beal. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. ] ). Claus Westermann.57 Although ‘likeness’ belongs to gods (Gen :a). Humbert.Mose ( vols.  []) –. 58 See also.. idem. imitates God. and.” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM. . Zimmerli. Kulturkontakt und Religion. RScR  ():  with n. in Image of God and Gender Models  n. äá÷ðå øëæ male and female he created them. and idem. A. d/st ed. Scullion. )  (repr. 59 Childs.”59 Andersen offers a more grammatical reading: “The third clause is a nice instance repeated in eadem. See also Ludwig Koehler. “Trois notes sur Genèse I. )  (on Gen :). Hinschberger. ) – with n. . Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting …  (ed. esp. John J. OTS . ) –.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities – with n. Frerichs (ed.. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London: SCM. ZB. Johannes C. (Gen :b-a [PT]) The sense as well as syntax suggest that human úåîã is expressed sexually. in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN .. Minneapolis: Fortress. –) . Cassuto. Old Testament Theology (trans. Knopf. S. :– as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account. Göttingen/Zurich: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. the early Priestly tradition elaborates only on its human nature.” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae (Oslo: Land og kirke. a). “The Duality in God and Man: Gen. 55 See Jack Miles. perhaps. Cf. Todd. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Études sur le récit du paradis .

Athalya Brenner . ]  n. male and female. and fill the earth. ] . 63 Bird.. . Levine. in Image of God and Gender Models . n. According to the Priestly tradition. Hirzel. the phrase ‘male and female’ specifies the two sexually differentiated categories61 included within the scope of the antecedent. B. :–). Andersen. “Genesis I–III as a Source for a Contemporary Theology of Sexuality. )  (on Gen : and.  vols. Jacob Neusner.  vols. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). and Schmidt. ) – (= Genesis [trans. very differently. be numerous. in The Motherhood of God and Other Studies [South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism . Geburtstag (ed.64 The addressee of God’s speech in :a is 60 Francis I. Gen :b and :a already state that.a-a. – ) .” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. followed by Gordon J. Linda M. )  n. and Ernest S. . humankind consists of a heterosexual pair. secondarily. “Die biblischen Schöpfungsberichte. Walter Baier et al. Genesis ( vols. KeHAT . See also Bird. St. See also eadem.” (Gen :aα–βa) åáøå åøô “Be In the beginning. . Friedrich Schwally. Wenham. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (Janua Linguarum. Waco/Dallas: Word. ExAu  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ).” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans... Baruch A. Maloney. “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen . Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . Leipzig: S.. See also Hinschberger. Frerichs. “Gen . 64 Barr. ). & T. “One Man. Groß.: Statue oder Ebenbild Gottes? Aufgabe und Würde des Menschen nach dem hebräischen und dem griechischen Wortlaut.” ARw  (): –. Clark. úåîã and its genealogical transmission require the joint involvement and joint participation of both gendered segments of the population. åàìîå fruitful. Edinburgh: T. as differentiation and union. it is not a single person. is intended for procreation. too. eadem. and Lohfink. at this early stage. and Josef Scharbert.  (repr. 62 August Dillmann. Human úåîã presumes heterosexuality. The Hague: Mouton. Atlanta: Scholars Press. the population is small.. in apposition with the preceding sentence. and.. “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’?” Orien  ():  n. as “‘Subdue the Earth?’ [Genesis :]. or All Humanity? A Question in the Anthropology of Genesis. ).. Wm..”63 God blessed íúà them and God said íäì to them. RScR  (): . Stevenson. WBC –. after God creates humankind.. ) . 61 See Mayer I. ]  n. heterosexuality has a definite purpose. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2  n.” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. In the Priestly tradition. “Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code. “P declares that sex. Minneapolis: Fortress. Die Genesis (th ed.” in Recycling Biblical Figures: Papers Read at a Noster Colloquium …  (ed.–).  (repr. collective pronoun ‘it’. Ottilien: EOS.” JBTh  (): .”60 In particular. For among human beings at least. Philadelphia: Fortress.62 úåîã is part of the mix.  úåîã  íìö  of specifying apposition.” ExAu  (): – (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). Gruber. Series Practica .

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

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

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

 Kgs :. were looking. Genesis . see Greenberg. may have a concrete meaning in v. ( Sam :a. It can. and killed Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley: University of California Press.. Apart from P(T). and value. the golden mice. and give glory to the God of Israel. Milgrom. –] .... It can have number.. . Psalms (:.g.. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel [SJLA . too (see Num :). 80 E. … íëéøáëò éîìöå (íëéøçè §§÷) íëéìôò éîìö íúéùòå You should make images of your tumors and your mice that are destroying the land... Levine. øëæ éîìö êì­éùòúå and you made yourself male images and whored around with them. Cf.. “Once Again. Baruch A. íìö has multiple interpretations in the Bible. his altars åøáù åéîìö­úàå and his images smashed up. Leviticus [ vols. whether singular or plural. 79 See the discussion by Westermann. O king.. material composition.. (Num : [H]) They said. (Dan :–) An ‘image’ can have characteristics like any concrete entity. Cf. (Ez :)82 Then all the people of the land came to the temple of Baal. They tore it down. color. HALOT .81 see also You. ‘image’ accrews another seventeen attestations. for example. “The number of the Philistine lords—five golden tumors and five golden mice. (It) was standing in front of you. with the chest.a. J. refer to an object that exists in the real world.. . ] . The rest are randomly scattered in the deuteronomistic history ( Sam :aα [bis]. :. too.g. It can be fabricated (see  Sam :) or destroyed.” … They put the ark of the Lord on the cart.. It can have size. New York: Doubleday.). Ezekiel .). The Expiatory Sacrifices. its breast and arms of silver.  (e. “What is the reparation that we should make to him?” They said.. (made) of my gold and silver that I had given you. shape. Leiden: E. :). Vogels. àîìö That image was huge and its brilliance excessive. :. 81 íùà. whether in the form íìö " (Dan :.80 You will dispossess all the inhabitants of the land from before you.). You took your beautiful things.” JBL  []: . when there appeared àéâù ãç íìö one great image.a. íìö  (:.79 and Amos (:). 82 For discussion.. ) . ScEs  (): . In Biblical Aramaic. destroy all their figured objects.b.). see also  Chr :). àîìö àåä The image: its head was of fine gold. and its middle and thighs of bronze.–. or àîìö (:. íäéøçè éîìö úàå and the images of their tumors. AB –B. íúëñî éîìö­ìë úàå destroying all their molten images and demolishing all their high places. and its appearance was frightening.).  úåîã  íìö  :. Brill. :). and Adrian Schenker.

83 . (Dan :) Yet íìö can be nonconcrete83 or abstract. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. the Wisdom of Serpents and the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Fox. (íéãùë §§÷) íééãùë éîìö images of Chaldeans etched in vermillion. not with hands. and crushed them. 86 Following NJPS and NRSV. She saw men etched on the wall. ‘idol/statue’. A. see also  Chr :). or a nonphysical.). you have made my days handbreadths.. my longevity is as nothing before you. (Dan :a)86 Or.  []) .b) The interpretations of íìö are therefore varied. like úåîã (see §. íìö signifies a representation.” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical. ) . “The Image of God. completely swept away by terrors. O. the priest of Baal.. U. W. esp. JSOTS .. ) .C. and metaphorical nonentity (‘impermanence’. A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids/Cambridge. ‘mortality’). ‘model’). or facsimile.K. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oesterley. hit àîìöì the image on its feet of iron and clay.)85 How they become ruined in an instant.K. Meshach. Like a dream after waking. )  (on ìáä).” ZAW  (): . Sheffield: JSOT Press. éäåôðà íìöå and the image of his face changed. ( Kgs :a. “úåî"ìö und íìö  .: Eerdmans. He erected it in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. in front of the altars. ‘image’ need not conform to one or the other of these referential extremes. F. see also Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with rage at Shadrach. … ìáá­éðá úåîã a likeness of Babylonians whose homeland was Chaldea. It may refer to a threedimensional object in the round (‘image’. (Ez :b. Cf.. sixty cubits high (and) six cubits wide. The Psalms (London: S. Regardless of formal degree. (Ps :a.84 Look.   Mattan. ed. The Value of Human Life –. Th. something two-dimensional yet physical (‘sketch’. and Abed-nego. O Lord. Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden (ed. Harland.P. amassing yet not knowing who collects them. nondimensional. The Book of Psalms (CBSC. E. see also King Nebuchadnezzar made íìö an image of gold. Kirkpatrick. 84 See John F. Nöldeke. when rousing íîìö you despise their “image. Sawyer. and. copy. Only (as) a breath one buzzes about. See also Michael V. 85 See A. (Dan :) You were looking when a stone was cut out. … Only íìöá as an “image” does a man go about.” (Ps :–). the syntax of the original has been altered for greater clarity. It can simply be an imprint. ‘drawing’).

Daniel (NCBC. and Ralph W. Pss :.g. The biblical ‘image’ tends to represent a man. Ez :.91 It acts as an instrument which conveys power. “s.. the cultic ‘image’ has at least one human. Daniel (Hermeneia. :) and. ) a. (Ez :).”93 The Hebrew Bible does not offer a single evaluation of the ‘image’.  Sam :–. Am :. ) . Alternatively. their despicable things. In  Sam . 90 See the references in n. ) –. that we will not serve your god íìöìå nor bow to the golden image that you erected. . Garden City. rev. Minneapolis: Fortress.. The texts agree. on occasion. 92 E.. New York: Doubleday. that which is depicted is itself present. éîìöå they made their abominable images. Waco: Word. the ‘image’ is often mocked.. P. then.” in TLOT . or John J. elem is thus more than ‘image’ …: in it. In one instance. the ‘image’ also tends to be associated with cultic expression (e. It offers several. Bordreuil. above. perhaps. RHPR  (): . Redditt. The referent may be human (e.  Samuel (WBC . In the Presence of the Lord –.  úåîã  íìö  The referents of a biblical ‘image’ are limited. Am :. The Book of Daniel (trans.g.. the ‘image’ is an object by which plagues. Therefore. biological feature (Ez :). symbolized by their animal carriers. Ez :–.g.–87). ) . Collins. ) –. ) . Dan ). Jr. (Dan :aβ-b) àáäã Whether it represents Nebuchadnezzar himself or his god. inter alios.g. in which they took pride. that the ‘image’ is a manufactured representational surrogate in a cultic domain. Within this context.. see André Lacocque. David Pellauer...88 In Dan . Die Theologie der Bilder –. Num :. Cf. Out of their beautiful adornments. 89 Paul L. Atlanta: John Knox. 88 For this interpretation of  Sam :–. Charles. elem image. H. 93 H. I will transform them into an unclean thing of theirs. Klein. “íìö  s.. 91 Berlejung. or rejected. see also.92 In this setting. sovereign ( Sam :. and Berlejung.89 Let it be known to you. denounced. see Levine. it is an object which constitutes idolatry. I Samuel (AB . Most are negative (see Dan :–). see also íäéöå÷ù íúáòåú 87 On the latter text. vilified. . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. for example. –a). or a cultic object. English ed. R. O king. Wildberger. Die Theologie der Bilder  n. Dan :. .90 the three speakers refuse to treat the statue as an object of religious piety and worship. see also Dan :– as interpreted by vv. a god. are magically banished from the community. however. the referent is divine or cultic (e. Kyle McCarter. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

” BN  (): –. Hinschberger. “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. Philadelphia: Fortress. “Der Mensch. See also Bird. The ‘image’ can depict the refer- 100 Some. See also Weinfeld. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). Renger. almu provides an unusually compelling and detailed correlate to the biblical ‘image’. Kaiser. J.t¯aru ‘inscribe’. however. S. –. J. in the vast majority of its attestations s.. Hebrew relative.103 The s. among others. 104 See Angerstorfer. Gesammelte Aufsätze (BZAW . Emerton. Its degree of objecthood notwithstanding..¯eru ‘draw’. Stendebach. “Kultbild. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. favor an Egyptian prototype (e. “íìö  s. 103 See. Winter. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament [ÄAT . and Renger. William W.  (ed. Brill. in the round.” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem. VTS . Statues and the Cult of the Divine King. Verbs such as kunnu (D) ‘erect’. almu ‘image’. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. J. “Texts. almu can “refer to any representation. Patrick D. whether in relief.” in TDOT . “‘Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia. F.” Tarb  []: – [in Hebrew]). SBS . almu also share a number of “functional equivalences”101 which have been comprehensively studied from many different perspectives. the discovery of an Assyrian-like ‘image’ at Fakhariyeh suggests a route along which the eastern ‘image’ may have traveled west.104 . Paul D. plant’ also show that the ‘image’ can be free-standing.” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Other verbs. RScR  (): .  úåîã  íìö  most fruitful. Jr. εlεm and s.b. Highly transitive verbs like banû ‘make. political.. or painted. ) –].–. ]. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte [d ed.. Cf. suggest that the ‘image’ is not always three-dimensional: es¯equ ‘draw’. and Dohmen. A. obliquely. ) –. 102 See. the ‘image’ is two-dimensional. Dean McBride. “The Graven Image.” JRS / (): –. elem. es. .”105 Textual and glyptic evidence indicate that the ‘image’ can represent its referent in a number of ways. Hallo. In these latter cases. and sˇa. J. in RLA . “Ebenbild eines Gottes in babylonischen und assyrischen Keilschrifttexten. s. Hanson. and cultic. Erich Zenger.” in RLA .g. perfectly cognate to its later. and zaq¯apu object. Boyo Ockinga. 101 Kutsko. sˇuzuzzu (S) ‘erect. Gottes Ebenbild und Staathalter auf Erden. Philologisch.. Thorkild Jacobsen. social. ] –. . A. The Mesopotamian ‘image’ can be generally defined by the verbs that control it. 105 Winter. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. in SBL  Seminar Papers .102 Further. manufacture’ or ep¯esˇu ‘make’ identify the ‘image’ as a three-dimensional ˇ ‘set up’. esp. LebZeug  (): . and Irene J. Leiden: E. in Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit... including the formal. Miller. ) –. and S. however.100 Not only is the Akkadian expression. JRS / ():  with  n.” NZST  []: – [repr..

Moyer. 113 For similar examples.a. James C. Die Theologie der Bilder –. 115 Winter. 118 See Weidner. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies . –.. 114 Curtis. . Mattingly.116 . Asb. need not copy its referent exactly. see TCL   (cited in CAD S a).g.. See also Renger. see CAD K b. 116 Renger. and Weidner. The ‘image’. William W. The referents themselves vary. Asb. (cited in CAD S b). in RLA . . s.. 106 107 .. b). Hallo. JRS / (): –. in RLA . Hallo.. almu may be followed by a descriptive. :. in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature .. s. –.g.. “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study. 119 SAA   rev. . and Curtis.  L ff. Note too the translation of AKA  ii  in CAD E a.109 The ‘image’ may bear ‘insignia’ (sim¯atu) that identify the referent. then. b). For examples. JRS / ():  n. s. e. .. (cited in CAD S. Streck.115 Whether symbolic. see BBSt :. in conjunction with eadem. or literal. differently. below. .. ). in RLA . 111 For the lexical equivalence of salmu and kakku. self ’ (bunnannû). and. and Leo G. and OIP  : (cited in ibid.g. OIP   vi  (cited in CAD S. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.112 Finally. rev..” in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III (ed. AfO  – obv. “Images in Mesopotamia and the Bible: A Comparative Study.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.107 it can be generally representational or more detailed and portrait-like. La statuaire du proche-orient ancien].” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed.  [cited in CAD E a]). and Gerald L.g. For instance. either See. AKA  i –.114 It uses signature elements—that is. these elements are sufficient to identify the referent. See also Renger. 109 For examples.a. Winona Lake. 117 E. and ˇ s b¯eli rabî ‘the image of the great identifying genitive (e. defining.117 when its appositive head118 or genitive nominal119 carries the determinative . See also § .: Eisenbrauns.  ii  (cited in CAD S. . ) –. k¯ıma sim¯at¯ısˇu ‘representing … in the appropriate way’ (KAV  rev. AKA  i . Perdue.  iv  and . and Streck. and AHw  (ad a).” JCS  (): . e. 112 Hallo. Ind..   ent’s ‘likeness’ (tamˇs¯ılu)106 and/or ‘appearance. CAD S b. It can have a priestly referent. pictorial. “[Review of Spycket. 108 Berlejung. AfO  – obv....  iii  (cited in CAD S a) as well as the expression . see Layard :. :ff. ) –.110 or it can bear a (divine) symbol (kakku ‘weapon’)111 that effectively specifies the referent. . see YOS   i  (cited in CAD S –). almu can have an astral referent. Bruce William Jones. Winter. “selected significant characteristics”—to “signal salient aspects” of its intended referent. b).  (partially broken). 110 For examples. William W. alam dSamaˇ 113 ˇ Lord Samaˇs’ [BBSt  iv ]). See.

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

Winter. in wax. the image has a functional component which is described in the inscriptions that adorn the icons of Gudea and Ur-Ningirsu.). “The Substitute King and His Fate. if needed. is characterized as a landowner (b¯elu) whose domain is godgiven (nadin d[ ]) (Face A –). These texts tell us that each statue was dedicated to a particular deity in the Mesopotamian pantheon. BBSt  with n. in dough. in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature . in particular.”137 A bond would be formed between ‘image’ and referent. Already in the late third millennium. provided with messages to be communicated to the god through direct discourse. then.  Face A .”134 which [the field marshall] bears here is also attested for Samˇ These nonroyal human images. 133 134 135 . in tallow. Like the others. Each was to be the recipient of regular offerings. almu) in clay. Mesopotamia: Writing. or in wood were used. 137 Jean Bottéro. The similative ‘image’ may be more than a plastic representation. in Congress Volume: Jerusalem.. its physical presence serves a ceremonial role. … This had the advantage of being able to represent.” in idem. And in these settings. Die Theologie der Bilder –. the representational ‘image’ is replacive. . King. or another carrier who could even be the bearer of the evil himself. . To this extent. It represents a votive as well as commemorative object in the temple.136 In exorcisms especially. They also state that the statue was intended to be placed in a temple or shrine. Grayson explains: “The elaborate titulary ˇ si-ilu.. A third exemplar is the “monument” of (s. RIMA . this ‘image’ also has clear royal associations.  – 136 Curtis. A. For accompanying a depiction of a woman and her brother standing before the king.   broken condition. See also Hallo.. Kirk Grayson. alam) an Assyrian field marshall (turt¯anu) and the general’s several titles that it lists (RIMA  A. and Berlejung. “[v]ery often figurines (s. JRS / (): . Face B ). sometimes in conjunction with divine ones as well. L. the ‘image’ substitutes for the king himself. W..133 the text identifies the portrait of (s. either an enemy to whom one wanted to pass on the evil one suffered. Thus in its functional capacity.. in fact. the brother. . alam) each participant (ibid.135 The royal image can appear in explicitly cultic settings. it can function as the referent’s surrogate. index royal leitmotifs. The replacive ‘image’ can serve a homeopathic purpose in magical rituals.. more or less accurately..

On the one hand. and substitutes for. see TuL :. with a frequent combination of the two. Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. . and Christopher Walker and Michael B. the distinction between representation and referent may disappear. nor drink water. Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press. in RLA . Dick. Astral Magic in Babylonia (TAPS /. Erica Reiner. Die Theologie der Bilder – . it is fundamentally altered.142 Before the ritual.: Eisenbrauns. Unless otherwise noted.145 . Thus the image. . Jacobsen. Das Era-Epos]. 146 E.141 A divine image may be completely transformed into its referent through the performance of ritual. s. the image is a representational artifact that is fabricated from (in-) organic materials146 and manufacReasoning. Leo Oppenheim. 143 For the reading. see Berlejung.  []) . in Ancient Israelite Religion –. For detailed discussion and relevant texts. in Scripture in Context II .” AfO  (–): a. see Walker and Dick. Like magical figurines. It too is a surrogate. alam!143 annû This image without its mouth opened cannot smell incense.. (STT :–)144 Consequent to the ritual. Michael B. or by resemblance. Die Theologie der Bilder –.g. 139 For the possible identification of the ‘image’ and p¯uhu ‘substitute’. 145 W. rev. Winona Lake. s. The divine referent of divine images poses a formidable theological problem. in Born in Heaven. . Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. almu ellu the pure image was fully formed. “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian m¯ıs pî Ritual. Dick.140 ˘ When an ‘image’ represents a deity. G. ˘ 140 For examples. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. . 138 Ibid. JRS / (): –.. ed.g. )  n. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. ) .139 is ritually identified with. A. which can occasionally be a human being (p¯uhu). cannot eat food. representing the god incarnate.a.′). JRS / ():  n. see CAD S a (ad d. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (compl. See also Hallo. translations relating to the mouth-opening ritual are derived from the latter study. Winter.  R  iii –) In the course of the ritual.. the ‘image’ is an inanimate object.. the divine image assumes the identity of its referent. “[Review of Gössmann. 142 E. [A]t the time ilu ibbanû the god was created. . Astral Magic in Babylonia . Made on Earth  n. thereafter. Lambert. 144 See also Erica Reiner. and Winter. (STT :. the actual patient.. eliminated.  úåîã  íìö  “either by contact. Ind.. 141 See Berlejung.” in Born in Heaven.”138 by which a malady is transferred to the image and. cf. ) –. the ‘image’ becomes a god. and Reiner. and Renger. and the Gods (trans.

152 See Jacobsen. and. [ib banûma “created” in Aˇsˇsur. Aaron.g. according to their command. Made on Earth –).g. e. 149 BM : (see Walker and Dick. in Born in Heaven. 157 Translated after Borger. BBSt  iv –. .. ) –. Esarh. B¯eltiyya. Paris: J. in Born in Heaven. Aaron. see also B¯el .154 the ritual transubstantiates the material image and brings it to life. lifeless as well as potent and vital. Through a collaboration of divine and human creative forces. “Statue born in a pure place. in Ancient Israelite Religion –. OLA . Biblical Ambiguities . e.. in E. JRS / (): . it represents ‘a living thing’148 which can. Esarh.151 It is a material object and a transcendent god. the statue was only a dead product of human artisans. inter alia. “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia. Quaegebeur.. in greater detail. in Ancient Israelite Religion . 150 Lambert. b. 156 See. 153 Walker and Dick. ).  n. in comparison with B¯el and B¯eltiyya—the loving gods—were. David H. 158 Oppenheim. (Borger.  rev. “Without this ritual. JRS / []: ). as translated by Jacobsen (in Ancient Israelite Religion ) and Walker and Dick (in Born in Heaven. See also Curtis. (Borger. see149 and eat. it be- 147 E... Semantics and Divine Image (BRLAJ . (ibid. ad loc. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor. “Statue is born in heaven. 154 See.147 On the other hand. J. the temple of their father (Aˇsˇsur). Made on Earth –.  rev. Agnès Spycket. the ‘image’ requires the necessary “care and feeding” to sustain it. ). ) –. Made on Earth ).150 The image constitutes an intrinsic dilemma. Renger. v.   tured by workmen.” the incantation. Louvain: Peeters.152 The transformation is effected by ritual (see above).g. see also l. Les statues de culte dans les textes mésopotamiens des origines à la re I dynastie de Babylone (CRB . Ancient Mesopotamia2 . 155 Jacobsen. –.156 The incantation.”153 But with this ritual. … Mand¯anu—the great gods—k¯eniˇs immald¯uma ceremoniously (lit. Leiden: Brill. ). STT :.” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference …  (ed. Winter. ′–′ (cited by Winter. inert as well as alive.. Walker and Dick. ) –. . in Born in Heaven. the once-lifeless ‘image’ becomes an animate entity. in The Bible … Cuneiform Literature . Cf.158 When the image attains life. –)157 And once ‘born’ as a ‘living thing’.” (BM :. k¯eniˇs immald¯u they were truly born. 148 RIME  E. in RLA . Gabalda. truly) born in the Eˇsarra. Made on Earth .155 The ‘image’ is thereby ‘born’.b. 151 Cf.

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

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

181 But in the third text. though. The first text identifies the exorcist’s spell as Marduk’s own. s. in Festschrift Eduard Sachau –. the exorcist represents Marduk. who acts as the conduit through which the authority and power of a divine patron is realized. Tigay. the king of the gods. 175 176 . He “should not remain indoors for days on end.” Centaurus  (): . more positively. – )176 ˇ Who (now) stays in the dark much longer than Samaˇ s.  (on s. ). the ‘image’ also imposes a divine charge. 180 Bird. ¯asˇipu s.”180 In each text. – rev. Centaurus  (): . to divine anger and mercy. HTR  ():  n. Jacobsen. 177 Tigay. alam dMarduk the exorcist is the image of Marduk. almu sˇa dSamaˇ He (should) keep in the dark for only half a day! (SAA   obv. O king of the world. 181 See. and. come out of the dark. the royal addressee is also compared to Marduk and. –). s. apud Henri Frankfort. illu ‘shadow’ and muˇssˇulu ‘likeness’ in SAA   rev. 179 See Oppenheim. (SAA   rev. See also Hehn. ). (B¯ıt M¯esiri ii )175 More often. the writer and those like him are as dependent on the king as they are on a deity. HTR  ():  n. in this context. king. the ‘image’ is a human being. but like the Sun. it is a royal figure. F.”177 The priest is thus the instrument and expression of Marduk and his efficacy. “the preeminent exorcist among the gods. in ãîìì ãîììå . See also Oppenheim. Likewise.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. is the same nonetheless.  [])  n.  úåîã  íìö  The incantation is the incantation of Marduk. we suffer the anger of the king our lord. particularly. Moran. alam dMarduk att¯a you are the image of Marduk: when you are angry with your servants. b. W.178 Consequently. 178 William L. Geers and T. the lord of the world.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. It requires the king to behave in a manner Cited and adapted from CAD S. In the second text. stays in the dark a whole day and night. whose image he is. ). HTR  ():  n.  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  n. “Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire. and again two days? The ˇ ˇ s sˇ¯u is the very image of Samaˇ s. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. of significant status. but we also experience the mercy of the king.179 The third text reminds the king of his solar status and encourages him to emulate his divine prototype. then. apud Bird. in ãîììå ãîìì . ) The interpretation. as well as Bird.

yet it is directed at the people (ll. “Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible. ′).185 His role is god-given (l.183 his [sc. ′).–. ′–′).. above. the king has divine attributes: e.” AfO  (–): . (i/A obv. By fiat of the lord of lands. Angerstorfer. 187 All translations of RIMA texts follow those of the editor. and §. see n. One is related to divinity.:–) Cf. For suggested etymologies. A. divine form (l... The king also reciprocates the favor by paying allegiance to the one who empowered him to administer his flock (ll. then. He is a leader (l. in conjunction with Lambert. .187 Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur is king. like other features. authority. CBQ  ():  n. and parents (l.g. The human ‘image’ expresses as well as abides by its divine referent. he was successfully cast from the womb of the gods. Before the Muses2 .. . a king performs two distinct yet interconnected roles.   befitting a god. Silulu is the vice-regent of Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur. and Peter Machinist. Because the lord of lands appointed him to lead the troops. after his firstborn son. and jurisdiction (the ‘image’). favor (ll. the counsel of the land. 182 183 . BN  (): . In this position.. 184 The translation is adapted from Foster. he praised him with his very lips.186 By virtue of divine investment. ′). attentive to the people’s voice. he represents and executes these attributes.” CBQ  (): –. ′–′). 186 See Machinist. ′– ′)184 In this text. does not merely embody divine attributes of power. sˇ¯uma s. Tukulti-Ninurta’s] form is that of the gods’ flesh. genealogical feature. “Three Unpublished Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic. ′–′).182 By the fate of Nudimmud. Tukulti-Ninurta. ′. 185 On the latter. BN  (): –. (RIMA  . see Angerstorfer. Enlil raised him like a birth-father. ′) unrivaled (ll.′). alam dEnlil d¯arû It is he who is the eternal image of Enlil. He effectively holds a position intermediate between the divine and human spheres. . The Tukulti-Ninurta epic illustrates yet another dimension of the ‘image’. his greatness is not intrinsic but conferred (l. ′). although..

– B. offspring of Babylon. and sovereign.  qardu valiant vicar (and) governor of “Babylon. who worships the gods— to make justice prevail in the land. to destroy the wicked and the evil.C.). ) –. see also ˇ Salim-ahum. 189 Translation adapted from Foster. a man belonging to kings. who makes his people prosper. Nebuchadnezzar is ‘vicar’ or ‘vice-regent’ (). as a deity (l. in greater detail. the Babylonian king can bear two titles. “The City and Its King: On the Old Assyrian Notion of Kingship. the pious and noble prince. son of Ilu-ˇsumma... Whether Aˇssˇur refers to the god (dAˇsur) or the city (Aˇsur ki).E.  úåîã  íìö  Eriˇsum. Meek. (RIMA  A. One characterizes him in relation to his city and his gods: affiliative.. the king is portrayed as a devout subordinate of the gods: He offers them deference (worship). Atlanta: Scholars Press. and dependent. WAW . as in the case of Hammurabi (ca.. built for Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur.:–) As Old Assyrian inscriptions indicate (ca. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (d ed..C.” And inasmuch as Ashur is king. The lineation follows Roth. vice-regent of dAˇsur Aˇssˇur. commanding. vice-regent of Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur. he is ‘king’ (ˇsarru). “The Code of Hammurapi. vice-regent ki of Aˇsur Aˇsˇsur: dAˇsur Aˇsˇsur requested of him a temple and he built forever a temple … (RIMA  A. ) of enormous power. idem. vice-regent of Aˇsur ki Aˇsˇsur.E. ) –. Hammurabi. (BBSt  i –)189 As this text states. – B. effective. a valiant hero whose strength prepares for warfare.188 The ruler’s other role is related to his own community. As a divine descendant. “Assur was one divine entity.). .:–). When Nebuchadnezzar. The other characterizes him in relation to his people: supreme.” in Le palais et la royauté  (italics original). Before the Muses2 .” in ANET 3 –. ˇ to prevent the strong from wronging the weak.. his lord. . … the temple area of Aˇsˇsur. This double royal office also has a judicial application. “Assur alone was ‘king’” (ˇsarru). protects boundaries … sˇar k¯ın¯ati a true king who renders a just verdict. son of Puzur-Aˇsˇsur. subsidiary. and Martha T. Anu and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people—me.190 At that time. his title is secondary to 188 Mogens Trolle Larsen. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (Mesopotamia . Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag. to illuminate the land. (CH i –) When he is introduced. Roth. and. See also ibid. defensive.” the sun god of his land. the pious prince. to rise like Samaˇ s over humankind. “a man ruled the city as Assur’s representative or vicar” (iˇssˇakku = ). 190 The following translations of the Code of Hammurabi are adapted from those of Theophile J.

for his life and the life of his city. and let him hear my precious words. In addition to the judicial arena. sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice. and by doing this properly he ensures the welfare and wellbeing of his city. … to administer the law of the land. Cf. alm¯ıya the statue of me. (CH xlviii –). Hehn. :–.. he solely exercises this sovereign and protective authority over the people like a god. in Festschrift Eduard Sachau –. Roth. The Babylonian Laws ( vols. The ‘image’ of Hammurabi expresses his god-given authority (to act) as ‘king of justice’. alm¯ıya the statue of me. see also ˇ I am Hammurabi. Eriˇsum. the temple (and) all the temple area for Aˇsˇsur. G. let him read my inscribed stela.”193 When the king makes an offering to the gods. 193 Larsen. The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies .) As this early text shows. eds. and his ‘image’ represents (communicates). sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice. . Miles. through the power of words. (CH xlviii –) Not only is Hammurabi characterized as ‘the king of justice’.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. see also :–.. Hammurabi embodies and enacts divine attributes. . I wrote my precious words on my stela and erected it before s. son of Ilu-ˇsumma.191 his concrete and public display of legal authority is too (s. to render verdicts of the land. vice-regent of Aˇsˇsur. to provide justice for the wronged. Driver and John C. royal justice in the public domain. 191 . “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. built for Aˇsˇsur.. the king’s dual role extends to the cult. in this context. –) . the king’s cultic duties are directed at two audiences: the gods and the people. (RIMA  A. his lord. Law Collections2  n. The person and ‘image’ of Hammurabi are equivalent. the beneficiary includes his people.:–. sˇar m¯ısˇarim the king of justice. and trans. (CH xlvii –) Let any wronged man who has a case come before s. whom Samaˇ s has granted the truth. Like an ‘image’. etc. and may my stela show him the case. alm¯ıya sˇar m¯ısˇarim). vice-regent of the god Aˇsˇsur.. 192 See.   theirs (‘prince’). At the same time. R. and they grant him legal jurisdiction over the people.192 They each represent justice: Hammurabi proper represents (personifies) divine justice on earth.

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

But like the companion Nerab inscription.” IEJ  []: ). éòñéãä íìö The image of Had-yit‘i. Phoenician. see DNWSI .. Jewish (Oxford: Oxford University Press. –) This is his image and his sarcophagus. see Fitzmyer and Kaufman. (ll. (B. 200 For bibliography. –) Before Hadad. àîìö appears in both funerary inscriptions discovered at Nerab in northern Syria.   . Aramaic.. then. (KAI :) äúöøàå äîìö äðæå see also ll.. followed almost verbatim by John C. An Aramaic Bibliography [Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press. the ‘image’ is a pictorial representation of a ranking priest ministering to his deity. àáöð ‘stela’. –) .. . this text is contextualized by a relief which “represents the priest … with hands raised and joined in prayer. “The Old Aramaic Inscription from Buk¯an: A Revised Interpretation. Kaufman.”202 The other text differentiates between the decedent’s bas-relief ‘image’ and his burial place. ).. (ll. 204 See Franz Rosenthal. Nonetheless. –) A. A. . in bas-relief form. (s.–. Gibson. 202 G.).200 äîìö äðæ This is his image. 203 Cooke. resident of Sikanu. therein (esp. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions . Hebrew. At Nerab at least. L.v. Nabataean. ] – with n..”203 The two monuments.. in the act of offering a libation before an altar” while “[f]acing him from behind the altar stands an attendant. the piety as well as status of a priest.. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. One text establishes the decedent’s piety (KAI :) and the benefits he reaped (ll. àáöð and àîìö may be governed by the same transitive verb in Old Aramaic (see Bukan  as compared with KAI :) (Michael Sokoloff. Cooke. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic [AS .]).). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions . holding a fan. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite. – ] .” in ANET 3 b.204 It commemorates. The inscriptions and their stelae commemorate a deceased priest (øîë). . àîìö refers to a similar sculpted object from Tell Fakhariyeh (see §. ) . which refers to the object itself. An Aramaic Bibliography .). ’rsh) and the references . followed by Gibson. suggest a single interpretation of àîìö.. king of Guzana and of Sikanu and of Azaranu. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions ( vols. Palmyrene. Fitzmyer and Stephen A. Kaufman.. [B. Its accompanying relief accords with the text. Cf. “Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions. lord of the Habur.201 (KAI :–. 201 For a discussion of the latter term.. íù äîìö he placed his image. It depicts the “priest … sitting.

then. Had-yit‘i claims sufficient power to control the food supply (ll. ). According to his inscription. with its trappings of sovereignty. Headed by ‘image’. Zipora Talshir. The representational term ‘image’ suits its context. It is an artistic representation of the dedicant. ). Shamir Yona.205 It defines the dedicant as a royal figure. the Weihinschrift (ll. ) The two representational nouns each introduce a different section of the text. . In a word. ‘likeness’ describes the statue as a votive offering to Hadad. –) and facilitate an epidemic (l. like its complement àúåîã ‘likeness’. ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ are nevertheless distinct. –). The first section. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press/Bialik Institute. this representational noun is an appropriate choice. the Kommemorativinschrift (ll. . He can even direct the gods to enact his will (ll. –. see also l. Had-yit‘i is a ‘king’ seated on a throne (see l. and his ‘image’ is explicitly royal and sovereign. and it describes the awesome ways that he can use his terrific power. ïæøà éæå ïëñ éæå ïæåâ êìî éòñéãä íìö éòñéãä éæ àúåîã (ll. –) (l. commemorating his capacity to exercise virtual omnipotence. signifies the portrait-like statue bearing the ruler’s inscription. dressed in traditional garb. and placed in a temple. fulfills its self-promoting goal. As the inscription itself indicates. is headed by ‘likeness’. . 205 See Gruber. The second section. it is power. his name.  and ). –). and preeminent status. and Daniel Sivan. he has a name like anyone else. Thus the ‘image’ of Had-Yit‘i. “‘In the Image of God’—What is It?” in Hommage to Shmuel. it continues with an elaborate characterization of the dedicant: first. Another attribute is repeatedly ascribed to the king in the Kommemorativinschrift.  úåîã  íìö  It is a representational term that. It depicts the ruler in a cultic setting in godlike terms. Studies in the World of the Bible (ed. unassuming manner by which the petitioner is identified. He commands the power to arrest the life cycle (ll. ‘king’ Had-yit‘i has authority and power tantamount to a god’s. and third. power. )  (in Hebrew). begins differently. see also ll. Also appropriate to the supplicative purpose is the simple. his executive title. Since the section functions as a ‘prayer’ (l. the several separate districts over which he alone rules.). ).

   .. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. åîìöë according to his image. at the same time. (Gen : [PT]) In the early Priestly tradition. Leo G. BN  (): . and surfaces one last time in the tenth generation (:). M. historical feature that distinguishes the early Priestly ‘image’. Preuss. Stamm. “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King. Bernhard W. for íéäìà íìöá in the image of God did he make humankind. male and female he created them. brings that earlier event to bear upon the current situation.: Greeno. (Gen : [P]). Anderson. Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger. Samuel E. The first.. specifically. in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT: Minneapolis: Fortress.” ZAW  (): .” in Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Literatures [AOAT . Then God said. “Man as Image and Son of God. Mass. íéäìà íìöá in the image of God he created it. One is historical. OTL. in Image of God and Gender Models  n. John van Seters. Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary. he fathered (a son) in his likeness. and he named him Seth. “The Human Person . Angerstorfer. åðîìöá íãà äùòð “Let us make humankind in our image. Miriam Ward. see also When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years. – [–]) . “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament.” in Humanität und Glaube. Perdue.” Tarb  ():  (in Hebrew) (repr. Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt. its roots in the first two generations of humankind. and Willem A. it cross-references Gen : and. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bird. There are two features that immediately distinguish the ‘image’ of P(T) from its congeners in biblical and nonbiblical traditions. ] ). (Gen :– [P]) Whoever sheds the blood of a human being.  vols.” in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought (ed. …” So God created humankind åîìöá in his image. It crops up in the first generation of human beings (:–). ] –). See also. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/ Neukirchener Verlag.. the ‘image’ is restricted to the earliest period of human history. Its third attestation. inter alios. “Human Dominion over Nature. Hadden. The idea of presenting a human person as the image of God is not unique to the Bible. as “Beloved is Man in that He Was Created in the Image. ) . Old Testament Theology (trans. Beuken. Loewenstamm. . ScEs  ():  (italics added). is not altogether new. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg (ed. … The statement that every human person is created in the image of God … remains therefore a real exception. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos. Somerville. The second is its referential scope. ) . Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Levenson. is its primaeval setting or. then.  []) –. though.206 206 Vogels.. Nahum M. Sarna. ) – (repr. by a human being shall his blood be shed. recurs in the second (:).

). and especially al¯adu ‘be born’ (N) (§. Hallo. then. . almu can express a highly affected patient of banû ‘make. To this extent. “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God.. Wallace. free-standing. The ‘image’ of the early Priestly tradition shares other formal traits with its ancient Near Eastern cognates. Weinfeld. visible. or progeneration. Tarb  (): –. even after the Fall and the Flood it continues to endure.). intuitively at least. see also §... s. dominium terrae in Genesis . the very sequence of Gen :–.. In fact. in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights. as well as an inalienable legacy. in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt ... In spite of all that may be said concerning the “sin” … of man. and ‘make’ (:a... and.207 The ‘image of God’ is primordial. Sawyer.. on the Mesopotamian model. in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East . Inherent in the human race from its very inception. it is associated with verbs of creation. the early history of the ‘image’ demonstrates that it is perdurable as well. In Mesopotamian texts. ‘father’ (:aβ). ‘image’ is (compatible with) a product of creation. manufacture’. it qualifies an entity that exists in the world. . Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. See also.). The Value of Human Life .208 It has other identifying characteristics. Scharbert. –. generation.. … it nevertheless by no means infringes directly upon the divine image which is in him.. :. the ‘image’ resembles the statuesque.  úåîã  íìö  Every person descended from Seth (:) is created in the image of God (see §.” LouvSt  (): . In each textual group. 208 For different yet referentially compatible interpretations of this ‘image’. the ‘image’ is an oblique dependent of ‘create’ (Gen :a). in A Walk in the Garden . Alongside its distinctive features.. It is (compatible with) an inert creation or human creature. and Harland. it is corporeal. Zum sog.” Int  (): ... in Studies in the Pentateuch . the Priestly ‘image’ shares features with its extra-biblical cognates. :b) (see §).” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt.. inter alios. Manfred Weippert. “Tier und Mensch in einer menschenarmen Welt. Inasmuch as it qualifies human creation. the biblical ‘image’ is. Cf. For example. Biblisch-Theologische Studien . almu and àîìö.). having sculptural as well as representational properties (see also §. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen –. Like the s. 207 Friedrich Horst. or production. innate. and similative (§. Hans-Peter Mathys. a “representation … in the round” (§. In the early Priestly tradition. Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. procreation.). ep¯esˇu ‘make’. see Stamm. and : suggests that the character of the divine image in man holds equally in all generations.

the referent of P(T)’s ‘image’ is a parent of the child (see §. Unlike the comparative evidence. Philadelphia: Fortress. human creature. in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes ). see also íéäìà in v. as registered in plural suffix of ‘our image’ (Gen :a)..  []) . 212 See Oswald Loretz. :b). and living (e. The referents and representatives of the ‘image’ recall ancient Near Eastern precedents. in Festschrift Eduard Sachau . Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. In most texts. ZAW  (): . and the representation—the ‘image’ of the referent—is the created. :)..). however. The representation itself. and Adam (:a). In one. God. the semantic relationship between referent and representation is also consistent in the early Priestly tradition. the referential source of the ‘image’ is divine or human (see §. then. its referent is the originator of the human representation. both as a species (e. :b). the ‘image’ of P(T) is represented consistently and only in human form (see §. the ‘image’ not only has a formal referential interpretation. viable.. BN  (): . indirectly. the ‘image’ can imitate. Margaret Kohl. 210 See Smith. in Hommage to Shmuel . ) . The ‘image’ can have a ) .).. aα. It can also have one or more nonformal interpretations. however.g. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (Schriften des Deutschen Instituts für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik.. The gods will make the human race (Gen :a). is always the same. Karl Barth …   (= idem. aβ and :b). in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought  (= From Creation to New Creation –). :a). In the ancient Near East.g. and symbolize its referent. though. It has sexuality. In the early Priestly tradition. Therefore. 209 See Hans Walter Wolff. The grammatical possessor of the ‘image’ in P(T) varies among three parties: the gods. and Angerstorfer. vital. Gen :b) and as individuals (:). :). and Adam fathers Seth (:). This ‘image’ is anthropomorphic.). Each time. the referent is the (pro-) creative agent.. 211 See Hehn.211 In effect. :a) or proper name (e.212 . then..g. . Anderson. as in ‘his image’ (v. See also Stamm. and. As elsewhere in the ancient Near East. then. and Gruber. Munich: Kösel. Whenever ‘image’ is mentioned in P(T). Formal similitude aside.210 It is also quintessentially identifiable by its generic designation (e.209 It is born. encoded as male and female (:b.. it is humanity (:–... in Antwort.. it is Adam’s son Seth (:). God creates the human race (:.. embody.   too. the ‘image’ accords with a formal entity that has a cluster of identifying signature elements.g.

See also Weippert. Cf. and Barr. Cf. Festgabe zum . 215 Driver. See also Harland. Études sur le récit du paradis . see Christo H. Clark. For the reading of the prepositional complement. at least in part. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. “Genesis :–: as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis. Stellvertretung. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. or. Der Schöpfungsbericht 2  n. Clines.” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. in Studien zur biblisch-ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [SBAB .216 God therefore characterizes the ‘image’ in terms which are harmonic See Harland. perhaps Steck. or. åãøéå and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea.–. humankind will both rule and dominate with an enormous power. “Alles hast Du gelegt unter seine Füße. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. the verse speaks of a particular role that the human race will play. ] ).  úåîã  íìö  functional component. ä@T II r¯ad¯ah II. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ScEs  (): .  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities  with n. See Zimmerli.” BJRL  (): . “Man and Nature—The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.” (Gen :) Absent the genealogical and (pro-) creative ‘likeness’.” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference  (ed. Cf.. and Bernd Janowski. Then God said.). )  n. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. J... JBTh  (): . BIS .215 In the idiom of v. Bordreuil. “The Alleged Final Function of the Biblical Hebrew Syntagm <waw + a Volitive Verb Form>. ) §. & T. by the context of its first attestation. Genesis12 . and over the birds of heaven. (iii).a (d ed. and over the beasts. Green. b (-á äãø). )  (repr. ) . Naudé. Barr. RHPR  (): . Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.-J. “ä@T r¯ad¯ah. Manfred Görg. .” in TWAT . Ian Hart. H. 213 214 . . Jackie A. in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt –. Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. 216 Bird. and Vogels. and over everything that moves on the earth. Kroeze. Steck. the exegetical objections of Humbert. FRLANT . ). David E. and Jan H. ) –. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. combining the two. . Ellen van Wolde.213 A nonformal interpretation of the ‘image’ is suggested. The Value of Human Life –. Edinburgh: T. ãAT r¯adad. BJRL  (): – . van der Merwe. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen.. Beobachtungen zu Ps . SBB . and Groß. HTR  ():  with n. and over the whole earth. serving to express its divine or human referent in its particular setting. Zobell. in the extreme.  []) –. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichten Problematik von Genesis . A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Biblical Languages: Hebrew . the grammatical objections of Takamitsu Muraoka. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS . and Bird. The Value of Human Life .214 God envisions and/or intends that humankind exercise mighty control over the earth and the many creatures that inhabit it. “Let us make humankind åðîìöá in our image …. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ).b im Vergleich mit Gen .” TynB  (): .

” BN  (): –.–) That party is often royal. äãø have dominion over your enemies! (Ps :–) implies a relationship between victor and vanquished. åãøå your foes will have dominion over you. Janowski. Freiburg: Herder. “Sit at my right hand while I make your enemies your footstool. as ‘image’. On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City. Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung (BZAW . the human race will embody and assert the power of its referent over the natural world. Williams.218 One nuance bears upon mastery.   with its non-biblical correlates. 220 E. Randglossen zur hebraïschen Bibel ( vols.– und die Semantik von äãø.219 Another nuance bears upon the identity of the victorious party.220 äãø can express the power that a king wields over his subjects (see also Is :). especially as an expression of victory or punishment. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ (ed. it is a royal prerogative (see also  Kgs :. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments  [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. “Lynn White und das dominium terrae (Gen . (Lev :. ) –. and Steck. Hinrichs. … ãøéå May he have dominion from sea to sea. :. Schmidt. ) –. Janowski. He had peace around all his borders.” The Lord sends your mighty scepter from Zion. 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..221 In this sense. C. Dominium terrae . and his enemies lick the dust. ). New York: Doubleday. 219 See David T. [H]) Oracle of the Lord to my lord. and Sean McEvenue.” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy . in La vie de la Parole . ] ). Georg Braulik. “Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment.” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. 218 For recent discussions. and Heike Baranzke and Hedwig Lamberty-Zielinski. “‘Fill the Earth and Subdue It’ (Gn :): Dominion to Exploit and Pollute?” Scriptura  (): . Wildberger. May the desert-dwellers kneel before him. give the king your judgements..217 äãø itself is an evocative verb.g. and. the king’s son your righteousness. Der Schöpfungsbericht 2 –. … I will set my face against you: you will be struck down before your enemies. in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel  n. 221 Bruce Vawter. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 – .  (= Die rettende Gerechtigkeit  n. Gen . from the river to the ends of the earth. –) . differently. Walter Groß.  Chr :). )  (repr. Cf. “Herrschaft über die Tiere. Cazelles. (Ps :. äãø For he [sc. and you will flee though no one pursues you. see Udo Rüterswörden. For the reading of 217 Arnold B. Ehrlich. But if you do not listen to (and obey) me and not perform all these commandments. in Die rettende Gerechtigkeit. ( Kgs :) O God. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter..b). Leipzig: J. Ein Beitrag zu einer doppelten Wirkungsgeschichte. James Limburg. TZ  ():  (= Jahwe und sein Volk ). Dominium terrae. and Rüterswörden.

the ‘image’. Cf.. ] ). )  with n. 226 See. Juel. and. Green.” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Kingsbury.  úåîã  íìö  in Gen :. Through its ‘image’. it is too. The source. … The king is therefore backed up by the effective power of God. in TWAT . executive. and legitimation of a king’s rule lie with God. F. Genesis . or Terence E. Nashville: Abingdon. God calls upon the king to occupy the place of honour at his right hand. The Pentateuch (IBT. M. authority. 224 A. the human race will master the world as a majestic. the human race will A.. God expressly gives dominion to the human race (Gen :b). 222 Wolff. Herbert Hartwell. JBTh  (): . J. B.  []) . In Ps . Word & World Supplement Series . H. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall. and Wildberger. R. By this his kingship is authorized by God. New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row.: Eisenbrauns. Huffmon. J. Roberts.–. the earthly ruler is shown to be the viceregent of God. and his office is proved to function in virtue of the divine will. .. Stalker. by implication. A. Zobell. and Jack D. ‘dominion’ is an expression of God (see also :– [H] and Ez :). Groß. Anthropology of the Old Testament . OTL. W. in The Bible and the Ancient Near East [Winona Lake. 225 Artur Weiser. D. . Clines. esp. in this context. Spina.. It is only as Yahweh’s representative that the King has a claim to dominion over the world. Regardless. The Book of Psalms ( vols. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern .226 Conversely. for instance. Bird. Morgan & Scott. M. ) .. Sarna. Old Testament Theology (trans. Donald H. Arland J.: Eisenbrauns. and triumphant power. Winona Lake. these two nuances suggest that humankind is empowered to hold dominion over the world and rule its inhabitants as a king. G.223 These passages suggest yet another nuance of ‘dominate’ and.225 The same is true of Solomon as well (see  Kgs :–). Fretheim. Hultgren. Mendenhall (ed. then. NCBC.–). In Gen . .g.  vols. von Rad. Anderson. 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. The Psalms (trans. failure to obey Yahweh may turn rulership over to one’s enemies (Lev :). and A.224 Likewise in Ps . A. Philadelphia: Westminster.222 Through its ‘image’. Ind. ) . in TLOT . “The Divine King and the Human Community in Isaiah’s Vision of the Future. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). – [–]) .. Harrisville (ed. )  (repr. St. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken2  n. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary. See also Zenger. Ind.. 223 E.

the king’s son your righteousness.232 . Geburtstag (ed. as it applies to the ‘image’. Edinburgh: T. … As the one who defended the divine will for justice against men of violence. he redeems them.”230 And as such. and Kaiser.” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum . and Thomas Podella. & T. –). Theology of the Psalms (trans. and the lowly who have no helper. … For he saves the needy who cry out... Clines..  []) . Jörg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt.). In this context. “[e]ach human person is. by implication. “It was his commission to judge the people in righteousness. “Ein Mann oder die Menschen? Zur Anthropologie von Genesis . or. differently. Minneapolis: Augsburg. their life (lit. and your lowly with justice. and he saves the lives of the needy. in Congress Volume: Jerusalem. as it were.231 they each (should) represent divine justice on earth (see §.. and. There.” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt  (moderating Boehmer. –). Bird. May he judge your people with righteousness. 229 Vogels. ) . TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . Levenson. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). NZST  ():  (= Gottes und der Menschen Weisheit ). . Stellvertretung  n.227 The human race will be the vessel. repeated in eadem. the king was to carry out the office of judge. in Image of God and Gender Models . Its first section discusses “[m]an’s power over the 227 Zimmerli. Creation and … Evil . Tübingen: J. C. in the description of the “new world-order.   ultimately represent divine rule. the king is clearly responsible for upholding justice. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. “The Message of P. Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT . 231 See Weinfeld. ICC. see also Hallo. ‘dominion’ by the king entitles him to receive obedience and tribute (vv. 230 Hans-Joachim Kraus.–) On the one hand. From oppression and violence. Clark. RScR  (): . ) . . O God. He takes pity on the weak and the needy. a king or a queen. . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.). the Israelite king is not unlike his Mesopotamian counterpart (§. ) – . 232 Levenson. 233 John Skinner. is clearest in Gen .   with n. Cf. followed by Janowski. ) . The royal duty to champion divine justice. Sinai and Zion –. See also Klein. 228 Hinschberger. B..”229 Dominating rulership also has its attendant duties.”233 the Priestly writer elaborates on the topic of human power (vv. ScEs  (): . of divine lordship on earth. (Ps :–. or personification. blood) is precious to him.. On the other.Mose3 . Keith Crim. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Das Lichtkleid JHWHs. give the king your judgements.228 For P. ZAW  []: ). Barr. ..–.).. as Ps  illustrates. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem/ Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress.

:) (see §. 236 Wenham. In comparison with Gen . From every animal I shall require a reckoning for it. for íéäìà íìöá in the image of God did he make humankind. differently. )  (= ET . For discussion. . Quaegebeur.” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference …  (ed. Genesis6  (= ET .  []) . see Tigay. see Delitzsch. –). and Horst Seebass. P’s God expands and restricts the power that humankind can exercise in the world. :). The Value of Human Life . Louvain: Peeters. cf. See also Janowski. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. and Sarna. But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood. cf. – ) . A New Commentary on Genesis (trans. OLA .–). Zimmerli.–. in greater detail. “‘The Blood is the Life and the Life is the Blood’: Blood as Symbol of Life and Death in Biblical Tradition (Gen.. Franz Delitzsch. 238 In addition to the references in ch. 241 See Harland. and Westermann.  úåîã  íìö  animal kingdom” (vv.  n.). Genesis2 . 240 For the connection. 234 235 . Genesis . Kedar-Kopfstein. see also B.241 The expanded power of human beings to take life is now checked. Neuer Commentar über die Genesis (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke.240 human bloodshed is prohibited. see Dillmann. by a human being shall his blood be shed. Genesis . The Priestly writer therefore addresses two issues of human mastery (‘image’). Skinner.”235 with considerable attention to the breach of that relation through the use of deadly power (vv. –). and from a human being. I shall require a reckoning for human life.) God asserts that animals cannot be eaten alive. “íc d¯am. Whoever sheds the blood of a human being. nor can their blood be consumed. 237 See Michael Fishbane.). repr. .. In this context. . Scharbert. in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt . the perpetrator is to be punished in kind. in ãîììå ãîìì  n.Mose3 .239 All the more. .–. ) .). from each one’s fellow (human being).234 The second includes a statement about “the brotherly relation existing between all men. Genesis –.” in TDOT ... God legislates a death Sarna. 239 E.236 and all green plant life will too (:b. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sophia Taylor. Genesis . J. . … But you must not eat flesh with its own blood in it. (:a.–. Vervenne..238 Every creeping thing that lives shall be yours for food. and.. Genesis ( vols..  vols. M. in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel  (= Die rettende Gerechtigkeit ). and.237 But this increased power is also tempered.. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock. ) .g. All animal life will fall under human control (Gen :a. (Gen :–) Whensoever an act of bloodshed is committed against a human being.

Westermann.243 humanity can not violate blood laws or. . “Philologische und linguistische Probleme bei den hebräischen Präpositionen. Frymer-Kensky. 249 Driver. take human life. in conjunction with Harland.” JSOT  (): .   penalty for homicide. The Value of Human Life –. v. Miles. ).  (ter)]). b). legitimated. 246 See also Sarna. Genesis . and. Steck. in conjunction with Harland. b empowers and authorizes a human agent of punishment (íãà-á [v. The Value of Human Life .244 As all commentators agree. In this latter case. The murderer may be put 242 Bordreuil. especially. 243 See Jenni. in nuce. “Genesis  and the Priestly Agenda. For some.242 At this point in time. 248 Tigay. God permits humanity to rule over nature but within legal limits. “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. The additional phrase “by man. esp. b explains the death penalty itself.” ZAW  (): –. Studien … Alten Testaments . focusing on the punishment rather than its executor.” BA  (): b. Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary. ) –. the divine image implies a functional similarity of man to God as governor and executor of justice in the world. aβ]) who will share punitive responsibility with God himself (‘I’ [v. in Interpretationes … Mowinckel – (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ). See also Clines.  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . in ãîììå ãîìì  (italics original). following Humbert.246 … Because man is made in the divine image. and/or explained in the subordinate éë clause (v. See also von Rad. 244 Humbert. and. RHPR  (): . In other words. however. Genesis ..245 The specific interpretation of that clause.. 247 Tigay. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. Edwin Firmage.247 This shared role would also be appropriate to the crime. The Value of Human Life –.. but also against God Himself. Genesis .249 Murder is the supreme and capital crime because the dignity. n. justified. sanctity. stresses that the punishment is to be executed by man. 245 Cf. Cf.”248 Others opt for a different interpretation. Ulrich Wöller. in Veritas Hebraica –. “Zur Übersetzung von kî in Gen   and  . and. is disputed. then. and inviolability of human life all derive from the fact that every human being bears the stamp of the divine Maker.” in idem. Harland. v. by inference. God: A Biography . “The Atrahasis Epic and Its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis –. and Cassuto. he is to punish murder. TynB  ():  n. Genesis . Genesis12 . Études sur le récit du paradis .” appearing in the emphatic position at the beginning of the second clause. the talionic punishment of human bloodshed (Gen :a) is motivated.

A. illustrated by Gen :– [J]. for similar exegetical reasoning. a) (cf.. Genesis .–. 257 For this reading of the verb.250 Either way. The Value of Human Life . See also Carr. Genesis . and Mayer Lambert. an attempt to obliterate God.254 The earth became corrupt (úçù) before God. ) –. or Jenni. “A Biblical Foundation for an Environmental Theology: A New Perspective on Genesis :– and :–. Gunkel argues.” ZAW  ():  n. See also Milgrom.–. and Seebass. in conjunction with Westermann. es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis .” (Gen :– [P]) As the Priestly writer describes it. Sharp.” ScEs  (): . “I have resolved to end all flesh. Leviticus . Genesis4  (= ET ).251 any attempt to obliterate humanity constitutes. “‘Und siehe. Genesis . Sarna. §... and the earth was filled with violence (ñîç).). for all flesh had corrupted (úçù) its255 way on earth. for P. God said to Noah. . see GKB  §d. Traité de grammaire hébraïque (. the prediluvian world is antithetical to that of Gen :256 instead of being filled with a bountiful population (:a). 252 Westermann. ) §.). ). in Veritas Hebraica –.  úåîã  íìö  to death because his unspeakable act effaces the divine image in his victim and within himself as well. in Studien … Alten Testaments . Genesis .258 God’s destruc250 Sarna. The second episode veritably repeals the first. and Carr. Cassuto. God judges it (self-)257 destructive.252 Whereas these interpretations emphasize the punitive aspect of Gen :. 256 Harland. so that his own life forfeits its claim to inviolability. –). Genesis . it is filled with violence (:b. there is a restorative and regulatory aspect as well which. I (will) hereby destroy (úçù) them with the earth. . 253 Gunkel.253 The first episode occurs in Gen : God creates the human race in his own image (v. God saw how very corrupt (úçù) the earth was.aβ). develops organically from earlier episodes in P’s story of human history. Gerstenberg. see Donald B. 254 For the pivotal nature of Gen : in this respect.–. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox. “ΒÝβλο̋ γενÛσεω̋ Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Patterns in Genesis as Part of the Torah. and he blesses it with the ability to multiply and control the natural world (vv. 251 See Steck. because the earth is filled with violence (ñîç) because of them. everything was ‘very good’ (v. Klopfenstein.. 255 For this interpretation of the suffix.. Genesis . repr. Hildesheim: H. At that time. see. Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . 258 See Martin A. and instead of judging it ‘very good’ (:a).

Sheffield: JSOT. human (vv. he even augments it (v. though the responsibility for countering violence is shared.259 Yet in the third and final episode of Gen . extending slaughter beyond the need for food. God offers Noah and his descendants a much-expanded version of the preservative.). Zimmerli. broadened. in the case of animals. One draws on the correlation between vv. ). ). God promises not to exterminate sentient life and destroy the world. P’s God repeats his original blessing (:a) of multiplicity and global expanse (:b). (Gen :. There are several reasons to restrain human dominion. Grand Rapids/ Cambridge. P’s God restores and reinvigorates the world. and. “What They Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Them: Genesis –. Astrid B. Gen :b implies that because (éë) Patrick D. later. Miller. life-ensuring measure that he offered before the flood (:a [P]). 259 . . Vervenne. ) . on which cf. The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. divine retaliation is rejected and is replaced with regenerative promise.. the text-critical remarks of Halpern. human control over the natural world is reestablished.) as well as divine (v. Jr. see also : [J]). in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East . [P]) Accordingly. . tempered (vv.Mose3 . and humans are likewise forbidden from taking another’s life or. … I shall maintain my covenant with you.260 He collaterally rescinds his earlier promise of destruction (:b) by offering a covenant and promise not to destroy the world again. )  with n. 260 Cf. and. And herein lies the third reason for God’s postdiluvian restraint of human power: just as that antediluvian offer required Noah’s collaboration (: [P]. Never again shall all flesh be cut off by flood waters. Each draws an analogy between divine and human behavior. –. Beck et al. where God and humankind are to execute their own punishments for the crime of homicide. then. A third reason for restraining the human exercise of power lies in P’s restorative vision of the world. From this perspective.. . I hereby establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you. So too. it is nevertheless commensurate to the agent.–.: Eerdmans. Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS . differently. < :a). ) –.” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. and Ronald S.   tive response. U.K. never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth. so does its postdiluvian counterpart. coincidentally. is appropriately talionic (:b). In it. Another reason lies in the new restrictions placed on the execution of lethal power. renewing his old blessing of infinite and boundless fertility (Gen :. Hendel. b and .

in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel . Der alte und der neue Mensch. and. BA  (): –.267 In addition. For the classical formulation of this analogy. based upon idem. “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. power simply destroys.. the human community shares God’s own sovereign responsibility not to extinguish the very vehicle that expresses his presence on earth.264 The ‘image’. in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought – (= From Creation to New Creation –). concrete meaning which first offers itself in our biblical expression … certainly is not to be denied. 264 Von Rad. Hinschberger.268 the human race intimately represents performative aspects of God and the gods in the world: viz. Dohmen. absent protective safeguards.  úåîã  íìö  God made the human race in the ‘image of God’. Genesis (Interp. The human race. “The realistic. in conjunction with Harland. though not his physical. and protect the self and community alike. in La vie de la Parole .g. LebZeug  (): –.). 263 Frymer-Kensky. legal guardian. ) . See also Cazelles. E. Aufsätze 261 262 . then. humanity shares in God’s own authority to punish lawlessness and...”266 To a limited degree (§. Genesis . divine power.). less robustly. 266 Horst.). see von Rad.”269 For in the Bible. . includes the divine authority to punish. and justice. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . the See Tigay. Cf.261 From this perspective. Int  (): .. 267 See de Moor. presence there. and Sarna.. Genesis  (on v. the divine image is the vehicle through which humanity is legally empowered to police itself. 268 See Anderson. These interpretations of the biblical ‘image (of God)’ are compatible with its parallels elsewhere in the ancient Near East. §. The Value of Human Life . RScR  (): . 265 See Humbert. then. in ãîììå ãîìì –. 269 Clines. “The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi. dominion. and executor of justice. is comparable to a statue which a “king puts … in a conquered land to signify his real. Études sur le récit du paradis .265 Because God made it in his image. curb and counteract violence. because (éë) God made the human race in his image.” in idem et al.”270 Like a statue. aβb). “Vom Menschenbild des Alten Testaments. 270 Walter Brueggemann. correct. the anthropomorphic human race shares in the anthropomorphism of God and the gods (cf..262 But the postdiluvian context also demonstrates that.... the human race is a sovereign power.” JTS  (): . Genesis .263 Therefore Gen :b also implies that. Sawyer. Atlanta: John Knox. thus.

271 It represents a theophany (see §. respectively. n. Haralds Biezais.273 äðåîú­ìëå ìñô êì­äùòú àì You shall not make yourself an idol or any form that is in heaven above. Just as the ‘image (of God)’ is not forbidden per se. dissertation. ) . ZAW  ():  n. ) –. “äëq  î  mass¯ekâ.. 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. the judgement is contingent on something else. . See also Clines.” in TDOT . palpable divine presence on earth.. in turn. The Value of Human Life . which. 271 Sarna. .D. “The central issue” zur theologischen Anthropologie (BEvTh . §. :–a). Munich: Evangelischer Verlag Albert Lempp. when imagery is condemned in a Priestly text. the Sethite lineage of the human race—symbolizes and represents an active. 276 Anders Hultgård.. “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.274 In fact. or in the waters under the earth. see also Dt :–a and. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . 275 See Dohmen. the ‘image’ is explicitly classified as forbidden paraphernalia: íúëñî éîìö­ìë ‘all their molten images’ and íäéöå÷ù íúáòåú éîìöå ‘their abominable images. Weinfeld.). for example. .). Nevertheless.276 it does not violate the stipulations of the second commandment.   human race—i. in brief. 274 Schmidt. in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt . You shall not bow down to them or serve them.e. see Curtis. 273 Scharbert. Scharbert.. or on earth below. “Man as Symbol of God. Die Theologie der Bilder . ) . (Lev :a [H]) íéìéìàä nongods or make Neither the second commandment nor Priestly texts specifically label ‘image’ taboo (see also Lev : [H]). there is no evidence that the ‘image (of God)’ is either cultic or idolatrous in nature (cf. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 272 See Berlejung. and Harland.). LebZeug  (): . (Ex :–a. in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt . is traceable to Caspari.275 Idolatry is not an intrinsic feature of the ‘image’.” in Religious Symbols and Their Functions Based on Papers Read at the Symposium on Religious Symbols and Their Functions …  (ed. with expansions. University of Pennsylvania.272 It is not included among the many terms that express an unqualified and prohibited icon. in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift . The Promise of the Land . and Dohmen. For a list of terms. their despicable things’. Genesis . In Num : (H) and Ez :. (Lev :a [H]) Do not turn to íëì åùòú àì äëñî éäìàå yourselves molten gods. intro. or.

LouvSt  (): . Greenberg. M. Brill. The commandment also precludes Israelites from manufacturing (äùò) an item that provokes such behavior. in related manner. Tigay.). from different perspectives. ] ). Engnell. and Text [ed. 279 Brian B. It is incorrect to conclude that “[t]hey do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship. :. Miller. J. The Book of Exodus (OTL.280 It is certainly erroneous to assert that Childs.” as Sarna claims (§. ) . Thus. “The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel. 277 278 . VTS . nor does that second member (‘likeness’) mitigate. Cf. several can be dismissed offhand. in SBL  Seminar Papers . But the commandment does not apply to Gen :–. Rather. BJRL  (): . and. Philadelphia: Westminster. Leiden: E. Wallace. (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 §.). Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos.  úåîã  íìö  of this commandment “is the nature of legitimate worship. in The Ten Commandments – (= Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought –).279 . attenuate..278 It clearly bars the idolatrous behavior described in Dan . differently. Nor is the issue of manufacturing an ‘image’ relevant to P(T): this ‘image’ per se is not manmade. and. or limit the force of the first (‘image’). and it condemns the description in Ez :.”277 It bars gestural deference (äåçúùä) as well as performative submission (ãáò) to a divine facsimile.  []) . Schmidt. weaken. and Brueggemann. in Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure.). but only a single one”: in Gen :.. and. Barr. Deuteronomy . For instance. Old Testament Theology . Patrick D. it is hardly true that “[t]he two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately.” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. I. Theme. Kutsko. The ‘image’ of P(T) is neither an object of worship nor a potential replacement of God. Minneapolis: Fortress. “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story... See also Preuss. the second commandment is inapplicable to the ‘image (of God)’. in Studies in the Pentateuch –.” HBT  ():  (repr. 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. Diana Vikander Edelman. P(T) mentions no obeisance or veneration to be offered to this ‘image’. “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts. or :. 280 Beuken. úåîã and íìö Among the many interpretations ascribed to ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ in the early Priestly tradition. Noth and D. Winton Thomas.” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley (ed.

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

  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

315 ‘Image’ entails kingship of a domain.311 At this postdiluvian point. ) –. the early Priestly tradition favors Shem. Abraham is told that he will be transformed into nations. For eight generations after Shem. Groß.” in TDOT . : [P]).. . Terah’s genealogy splits into three branches. Moreover. perhaps. intro. His lineage is also the only one in which P recognizes ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. 314 See Ruppert. a. . aα). 312 Note Bird. Abraham will be ‘very very fruitful’ (v.b. see also vv. indirectly guarantees that Noah and his sons will have ‘offspring (lit. ATANT . after you)’ (:). In plain yet complementary political terms. “íò/éÇb ‘am/gôy people. see also : [P]) and... ZAW  (): .. in a harmonic move. a. Hulst. until the next critical genealogical (Gen :aα. God promises that Abram will be ‘very very numerous’ (Gen :b [P]). in Image of God and Gender Models  n. and that the patriarch will have ‘offspring thereafter’ (vv. b. íéëìîå and kings will come forth from you (Gen :aβ-b. Hans Joachim Stoebe.. God re-issues his primordial blessing of úåîã (vv.  úåîã  íìö  abundant offspring (:aβaβ) and royal domination over the natural world (vv. 315 See Ronald E.b [P]).b... ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ develop along a predictable and unremarkable path. a) and. Cath  (): . Johann Jakob Stamm. of which only Abram’s is effectively designated as rightful heir.). Geburtstag (ed. “éÇb gôy. ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ survive the flood (§. . Like the survivors of the flood. R. see also v.312 God’s speech literally indicates that.” in TLOT .aβb-b). Thereafter. Yet unlike his ancestors. unlike much else in the world. 311 For the unusual nature of Gen :– within the Priestly genealogical tradition. b. Clements. Cf. and A. 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. . Zurich: Zwingli. see Carr. seed) thereafter (lit.. God reasserts that ‘image’ belongs to the human community (esp. JBTh  (): . see also v. these human legacies are funneled through Adam’s youngest child. b). Seth... Of Noah’s three sons. [PT]) and historical juncture. 313 Scharbert. Eichrodt zum .313 His lineage alone is genealogically productive (Gen :– [PT]). in Wort—Gebot—Glaube . and Ernst Jenni.314 The designation is partly familiar and partly new.. By Priestly fiat. offspring everlasting (v.

êéúúðå and I shall make you into nations. McEvenue. Rendsburg. éúøôäå I shall make you very very fruitful..   With the advent of Abra(ha)m. For a father to a multitude of nations êéúúð I make you.” Semitics  (): . through the son of Abraham and his legal wife.316 But his involvement may be greater still. Adele Berlin.. and David Biale. Despite Sarai’s infertility and the seemingly insuperable obstacle that it poses against realizing God’s promises (: [J]. See Zimmerli. deliberate. Through his deliberate intervention. åàìîå åáøå åøô Be fruitful. P’s God becomes more involved in implementing his promises of Gen :. and fill the earth. In the Wake of the Goddesses . see also :a [P]). God remedies the situation himself. God: A Biography . In fact. . proliferate. Levenson.” HR  (): –. and she will become nations. agentive. –.318 The promise of ‘image’ can now be achieved. his role is active. “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible. another new factor comes to the fore. (Gen :bβ–a [P]). “Biblical Literature As Politics: The Case of Genesis. (Gen : [P]) God intervenes. (Gen :aβaβ. See also Frymer-Kensky. Studies and Texts in Jewish History and Culture. At this time. and Brueggemann. [P]) God assumes personal responsibility for fulfilling his promises of ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. Sarah]. 319 Note Sarna. An ever-narrowing branch of male descendants from Seth share the (cap-) ability to reproduce.. and ultimately fulfilled.” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East (ed. 320 Gary A. 318 See Miles. S. . P’s God effectively chooses that Abraham and Sarah (‘Princess’)319 will head a dynastic line of royal rulers. 316 317 . Genesis . then. and causal (‘I’).317 éúëøáå I shall bless her [sc. Genesis . éúúð I will give you [sc. and Klopfenstein. in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . see also :..320 God ensures that both blessings of Gen : will be maintained. Bethesda: University of Maryland Press. He reverses biological nature and singlehandedly transforms Sarah into Abraham’s procreative partner (see also :b [P]). The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son –. ) . be numerous. cf. Abraham] a son from her. äéúëøáå I shall bless her. The early Priestly tradition presents a consistent picture of human ‘likeness’ and ‘image’. “Word and Fulfillment: A Stylistic Feature of the Priestly Writer. íéîò éëìî kings of peoples will come from her.Mose .

and das ist der Mensch” (TZ  []:  [= Jahwe und sein Volk ]) (italics original). The priority of God and the lateness of the creation of human beings make the term ‘cocreator’ or ‘partner in creation’ inaccurate.325 The beth essentiae in Gen :. control the land. These same descendants of Seth are depicted as co-regents of the earth’s domain. William P. humankind is creator minor. Likewise. They characterize the human race as a (Priestly) theophany. The Ideology of Ritual . as executive co-regents. co-participants in its maintenance.: Eerdmans. Brown.. the degree to which human beings imitate divine dominion is limited. as co-creators. Creation and … Evil . The degree to which human beings imitate God’s capacity to generate úåãìåú is restricted. durch das Gott sich in der Welt manifestiert. William P.321 They are depicted as co-creators of the world. citing Wildberger: “Es gibt nur ein legitimes Bild. then. M. the degree of representation is qualified and limited. Hayes (ed. Sibley Towner (ed. 322 Gorman. In fact. they are God-like and godlike. Ackroyd. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time. ) .K.”324 Although humankind may be presented as God’s representative on earth. The same branch also holds royal power to rule the world’s creatures. See also Harland. 325 Levenson. Sheffield: JSOT Press. the gods are domini. and Status. . ) . God is creator maior. Space.. Philadelphia: Westminster. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B. God is Dominus.  (on Ps ).”326 But unlike 321 See Peter R. The Value of Human Life . “Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch. It is. 326 Ibid. ) . “just a bit less than a god … in their sovereignty over the rest of creation. Dean McBride Jr. As Levenson argues. enacting the rule (of law) that God and his sovereign community hold over the world. Brown and S. In the latter respect. the verb translated in Genesis : as ‘create’ (b¯ar¯a’) occurs nowhere in the Hebrew Bible with a subject other than God.” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Sethite men are God-like.” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. and humankind is dominus. and co-executors of justice. (OTL.  úåîã  íìö  and maintain an ever-lasting human genealogy. and Jeffrey K. Dean McBride Jr. God’s creative activity takes precedence. Kuan. and regulate human behavior by administering justice. still appropriate to speak of a certain subordinate role that humanity is to play in the cosmogonic process. 324 Harland. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. however. JSOTS . U.323 “There is only one legitimate representative of God: man. warrants the same conclusion. 323 See S.C. Patrick Graham. are perpetual and complementary characteristics of Sethite humanity.322 In the former respect. and idem. ‘Likeness’ and ‘image’. The Value of Human Life .

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

  CREATING THE WORLD .

This page intentionally left blank .

and Nahum M. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. The primordial state of the world is graphically described in Gen :.. 3 Jon D. “chaos”). Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS . Genesis (th ed. ) – . . ) –. Sheffield: JSOT Press.. 4 Hermann Gunkel. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. OTL. Gloucester. Mass. 2 Julius Wellhausen.g. quoted in §.–. êùçå darkness was upon the surface of íåäú the deep.. … [C]haos being given.: Peter Smith. systematic construction.. Macon: Mercer University Press. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos. In the beginning is chaos.  vols. HKAT I/. See also Smith. Philip Peter Jenson. Biddle. .. Mark E.  []) . (Gen :) 1 E.’ if we may call it that. ] ). below. brooding spirit. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. It acknowledges a “ ‘world. It also recognizes a creative result that is antithetical to its original state (“the ordered world” originating from “primal stuff … as yet undistinguished”). by a process of unmixing. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ) .  [])  (= Genesis [trans. and Rainer Albertz. íéäìà çåøå and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of íéîä the water. It establishes a paradigm. the paradigm is complex.. all the rest is spun out of it: all that follows is reflection. Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. water. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies.  THE PRIESTLY COSMOGONY The Priestly cosmogony not only establishes a physical environment. J. just before the cosmogony began”3 (“primal stuff”.1 The Bible begins with the account of the Priestly Code of the creation of the world. darkness. as yet undistinguished: from it proceeds step by step the ordered world. repr.4 äúéä õøàäå The earth was unformed and void. Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary.  []) . It presents an emblematic creative method (“unmixing” which “proceeds step by step”). Levenson.2 For Wellhausen. John Bowden. … The primal stuff contains in itself all beings. Sarna.

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

. more broadly.” ZAW  (): –.. ).16 It announces God and his active role in establishing a paradigmatic world from a primal environment of chaotic indistinction. Stevenson.. )  (= Genesis [trans.. Wm. 17 Driver. ). citing August Dillmann. “çeø rûah spirit. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Edinburgh: T. Cf. Clark. God’s wind. Things do not emanate from Him unconsciously. Each stage in His creative work is the realization of a deliberately formed purpose. agentive. ] .. From a semantic perspective. esp. it is somewhat separate from its opposing ‘deep’. . ) . ìéãáä ‘divide. … He works consciously and deliberately. Walther Zimmerli. Atlanta: Scholars Press.” in TLOT . and Weimar. Not only does he produce 14 Robert Luyster. 16 See Albertz and Westermann. separate’ (v. and. is dynamic.. B. :). of which the concrete word is the outward expression. Brown.. God’s role in the world is now transparently willful. Leipzig: S. He governs other highly transitive verbs too. God’s wind foreshadows the agent and onset of the first creative act (v. God’s control of the world is registered often in the Priestly cosmogony. ZB. –) . . and.Mose ( vols. von Rad.    God and chaos are different in Gen :. 15 William P.–). “Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament. Inasmuch as God creates by a word.AT /– . .17 Unlike Gen :. in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt . . see also v. Genesis . He exclusively governs the verb àøá ‘create’ (Gen :. God is the controlling agent throughout the cosmogony.18 and ïúð ‘give’ (vv. 18 For the subject of ìãáéå in Gen :.. .14 It even serves an anticipatory function in context. [ter]. the description is relatively static. Role. the discussion by Brown. and interventionist. ) . Hirzel. see also v. The tokens of chaos constitute the preexisting stuff and state of the world. however. )15 and all creative acts thereafter. Die Genesis (th ed. and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS . . see Ronald S. and it engages the deep as if in a face-to-face confrontation. Hendel.. Role. Exercising Creative Control The commencement of the first creative act marks a transformation of God’s activity in the world. and Ideology – (on co-agents of creation).. Genesis12  (italics original). Structure. The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. d/st ed. & T. It moves. such as äùò ‘make’ (vv. nor are they produced by a mere act of thought … but by an act of will. KeHAT . .. Structure.  vols.

Harrisville (ed.–. In this context. 23 E. and M. úåãìåú refers to the creation of cosmic domain and the (pro-) creation of human life. God ‘creates’ the world. õøàäå íéîùä úåãìåú äìà This is the “genealogy” íàøáäá when they were created. Roland Mushat Frye. Genesis . (Gen :–a [PT]. Anderson.” in All Things New: Essays in Honor of Roy A. Westermann. ) . 22 See ch. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS . ) . ). Peter R.b. Légasse. Mathias Delcor (ed. Minneapolis: Fortress. Creature. Kingsbury.”21 After the cosmos has been created.23 God 19 Christopher Wright Mitchell. naming “exerts control.” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Josef Scharbert. ] ).” in From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT.” in . Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag.Mose3 .  n. see also :a)22 In one. A. when he creates by “divine fiat” (see §. “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment. v. Arland J.) “the divine word is itself sufficient to effect what it states” (e. Cf.. Tardieu. In the other. “The Earth is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation. “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift. They are also assigned a common Priestly denomination.a). Caquot. Zimmerli. Priestly references to creation per se are limited to two. including humankind (:b [PT]).’” JBL  (): .   (äùò). “expresses the authority which the one who gives the name … exerts over the one who is named. and provide (ïúð). a. as “The Earth is the Lord’s. and Sarna. See also von Rad. See also Bernard W. and Jack D. and Alexander A. Terence E. Atlanta: Scholars Press. assign.” in Is God a Creationist? The Religious Case against Creation-Science (ed.”20 A demonstration of “the power to direct the … creation toward its proper function” (vv.a.. Genesis –. . (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. male and female íàøá he created them.g. “Genesis :–: A Formal Introduction to P’s Creation Account. 20 Otto Eissfeldt. 21 Baruch Halpern. he ‘creates’ the human race. see also v.” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas (ed. The common verb suggests that the two events are related. Paul: Luther Northwestern Theological Seminary. S. God’s act of naming created entities (vv. ) . )  with n. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. . Di Lella. Hultgren. “Renaming in the Old Testament. St. see also Shemaryahu Talmon. “Creator. Donald H. “The New Names of Isaiah :: Jeremiah’s Reception in the Restoration and the Politics of ‘Third Isaiah. Cf.g. ).” ExAu  (): –. Likewise.. Genesis . Fretheim. ) – (repr. Word & World Supplement Series . Juel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . –. and Co-Creation in Genesis –. AOAT .19 God’s speech effects creation. in the likeness of God he made it. Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars.

God said. (Gen :b) It also asserts the purpose of a created entity. (Gen :a.Mose3 . Seebass. Geburtstag (ed.26 and the dry land will appear. According to these texts. “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. Das erste Buch der Tora. “The Structure of P. see Hendel. Genesis (Berlin: Schocken. “Let the waters under heaven be collected to one place. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. íéäìà ìãáéå God divided between the light and the darkness.” ZAW  (): – (repr. then. ZAW  (): . the world progressively develops into an ordered cosmos by the systematic application of God’s creative power. 28 Zimmerli. 27 For äàøúå. The placement of the genealogical formula draws a closer relationship between creation and human/Israelite history: when the former closes (Gen :a). “Let there be luminaries in the dome of heaven ìéãáäì to divide between day and night.”27 And it was so.”25 God said.). Zurich: Zwingli. . It characterizes a divine activity. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. James Barr. itself.” CBQ  ():  n.    controls creation.” … God set them in the dome of heaven to shine over the earth … ìéãáäìå and to divide between the light and the darkness.28 This creative principle finds explicit expression in the Priestly cosmogony. and David Noel Freedman. The Text of Genesis – – . does not end (ibid. . Role. . ATANT . Hans Joachim Stoebe. 25 See also Luyster. Huddlestun. creative Priestly events. and Ideology  n. ) . U. In Wellhausen’s terms. the construction of the world and the construction of human lineage are analogous. if not kindred or correlative. in this context.–a. see also vv. Structure. see Brown. Separation and Differentiation Originating as an undistinguished mass. and God effects úåãìåú in its two capacities. ) . John R. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman [ed.K. and Ernst Jenni... Tod Linafelt and Timothy K.  vols.. a. 26 For text-critical analyses of íå÷î in v. Jacob. Johann Jakob Stamm. it inaugurates the latter which. –) Wort—Gebot—Glaube. differently. ] . Genesis .: Eerdmans. Beal. (Gen :) In this particular case.. –). . ) . Joseph Blenkinsopp. the world is constituted “by a process of unmixing. “Notes on Genesis.24 .” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. Walther Eichrodt zum . two entities emerge out of one. 24 B. and. and.

by implication. in greater detail. The earth brought forth vegetation: seedproducing plants åäðéîì according to their kind.   Within the six days of creation.31 So too. ) –. like any taxon. “Let the earth make vegetation: seed-producing plants. Création et séparation . Levenson.30 By nature. . a) The limitation is registered by ‘kind’. “Separation. God Created the Heavens and the Earth. Structure. The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books. ] –). It is a classificatory term which. Aubier Montaigne/Delachaux & Niestlé: Cerf/Desclée De Brouwer. and everything that moves on the ground åäðéîì according to its kind. Robert Alter. Création et séparation. fruit trees making fruit åðéîì according to their kind. externally distinctive and discrete. “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation. and.32 God provides that all 29 Sarna.  []) . and Talmon. Bird. or rather differentiation. this expression recurs more often than ‘create’ and as often as ‘make’. (Gen :–a) God created the great sea monsters. Creation and … Evil –.” And it was so. 32 See Henri Cazelles. and Phyllis A.’” BetM  ():  (in Hebrew). “Myn= espèce. and trees making fruit with their seed in it åäðéîì according to their kind. Étude exégétique du chapitre premier de la Genèse (BScR. See also Phyllis Trible. Genesis . is the second modality of creation” in the Priestly text. Paris: Bloud & Gay.” HTR  ():  (repr. in God in the Fray –. God said. Yizhaq (Iziq) Peleg. with their seed in it.29 In a related move. and the beasts äðéîì according to their kind. Neuer Commentar über die Genesis  (= ET . Barr. See also Beauchamp. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (London: SCM. God creates floral and faunal life according to internally coherent categories that are. see also v.g. limitation. (Gen :a-bα) God made the earth’s wild animals äðéîì according to their kind. and Brown. ExAu  (): . Gen :a). and thus does he ensure that life will be reproduced and sustained in perpetuum (vv. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT. ) . and Ideology .. race ou ressemblance?” in Mémorial du cinquantenaire – [de l’École des langues orientales anciennes de l’Institut catholique de Paris] (TICP . at the same time. Role. Minneapolis: Fortress. the distributive preposition governing each token of ‘kind’ suggests categorical separateness and. P’s God places limitations on his creation. ) . in fact. Thus does God make new life (e. –a). 31 See Delitzsch. and every winged bird åäðéîì according to its kind. over the earth. 30 Paul Beauchamp.). “‘In the Beginning. it also distinguishes one taxonomic aggregate from another. (Gen :a. is a category that subsumes an observable set of characteristics shared among certain entities (see Lev : [H]). and every living thing that moves with which the waters swarm íäðéîì according to their kind.

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

41 Sarna. A New Commentary on Genesis . in Opuscules d’un hébraïsant [MUN . The world is … conceived of … as something divided and ordered and comprehensible only in this framework.”41 In either case.40 . )  (repr. “[t]he marvelous order of creation. to fill the dry land now provided with herbage for their nourishment. is consistent. on the sixth land animals. on the fifth the birds of heaven and the animals of the waters.. Sarna.bα [åúëàìî­ìë-î dence. and. Genesis . and man. Genesis . On the first day light was created. emphasizes the process.. See also Paul Humbert. The evi- [A] state of separation and so of order are basic to [the world’s] existence. later.” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel septuagenario missae (Oslo: Land og kirke. úáù … åúëàìî­ìë-î … úáùéå]). Dillmann. in brief. Harmonic Order God’s creative power produces order. The Hexaëmeron of the account of creation as now extant falls into two groups of three days. receives the Cosmic Artist’s imprimatur: ‘very good’ ([Gen] :). “Relation between the Human and Nonhuman Creation in the Bibli40 . celestial and terrestrial. Genesis .   (vv. however. Delitzsch provides the classic exposition. ] ).. 43 Anderson.. Gunkel. the vegetable world. Instead. on the third day. “The systematic progression from chaos to cosmos unfolds in an orderly and harmonious manner. too. after the appearance of the dry land. and it comprises order.). then. Genesis6  (= ET . Genesis4  (= ET ). See also. “Trois notes sur Genèse I. “Be Fertile and Increase. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. although this “orderly and harmonious manner” is not named. … Separation … is itself creation. 42 Delitzsch. in which every creature. so arranged that the days’ works of the second group accord with the corresponding ones of the first.”43 Westermann. on the fourth the heavenly light-giving bodies. in whom the whole animal creation reaches its climax.42 The world of internal dependency is therefore founded on order. order effects order. on the second day the vault of heaven dividing the waters from the waters. Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press. and Cassuto. )  (on covenantal epochs). “the ordered world … proceeds step by step”. As Wellhausen states so evenhandedly. plays a role in a harmonious whole. bα. See also Jeremy Cohen.

By implication. Paris: Cerf. in conjunction with Hans-Winfried Jüngling. of each. Genesis . 45 See Steck. God safeguards the turf. ) . & T. 47 Dillmann. … By the use of the phrase ïë­é!äéå in ver. animals and human beings will not directly compete for survival. ) . “Création et fondation de la loi en Gn . Würzburg: Echter Verlag. but peace among His creatures.” in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise (ed. –. as well as every thing that moves on the earth— in which there is living breath—all green plants for food. God assigns vegetarian foodstuffs. and therewith. Edinburgh: T. 44 Dillmann. ver. (I give) all the earth’s animals. then. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.47 cal Primeval History. a.). God institutes “paradisiacal peace” and ecological balance among the world’s living creatures... Accordingly.    Under the rubric of this ‘very good’. 46 Von Rad. Genesis6  (= ET .). ) . At the same time. . and Beauchamp. Le don de la nourriture végétale en Gn . “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen . Clark. at the same time. Philipp Schmitz. orderly.” And it was so. Genesis . [P] gives it distinctly to be understood that he actually assumed the maintenance of this peace of God as existing during the earliest age. From Creation to New Creation  (repr. (Gen :–) For each life-form created on the sixth day. . He determines that animals will consume one category of flora: green vegetation.46 The Creator did not desire war and the thirst for blood. f. were intended in especial to give to mankind the divine and fundamental law with respect to the life of the creatures. But note the qualification argued by Groß. “I hereby give you [sc. from AJTP  []: ).” in idem. with corrections.44 neither of which completely exhausts the food supply.. Lille () (ed. Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung. and harmonious world is the provision that God makes for terrestrial life. LeDiv . and sanctity.45 As the Priestly writer depicts it. By divine decree. JBTh  (): . and every tree that has seedbearing fruit. and all birds of heaven. Der Schöpfungsbericht 2 . It shall be yours for food. Fabien Blanquart and Louis Derousseaux. and John Skinner. ICC. Congrès de l’ACFEB. animal and human consumers will share the earth’s floral resources in relatively distinct ways.” in La Création dans l’Orient ancien. human beings] every seed-bearing plant that is upon the surface of the whole earth. s. whether animal or human. God said. a characterisation of their original condition. he determines that human beings will consume another: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees.

Studien zu Würde und Auftrag des Menschen (ed. Hans-Peter Mathys. B. b implies that all living things willfully and intentionally produced the current degraded mess. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum . who had created ‘all flesh’ and thereby designated the ‘way’ 48 See also Norbert Lohfink.50 including the environment (‘earth’) and all living creatures created on the sixth day (‘all flesh’). of course. 50 Eric E.e.. “Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg. and P. see Jacob. ) . )  (repr. 52 See Harland. 53 Delitzsch. QD . Leiden: E. ... Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament (ed. Genesis . for all flesh had corrupted its way on earth’ (v. See also Ernst Würthwein. i. )  (repr.   But God’s plan is eventually corrupted. Geburtstag (ed. Das Alte Testament zum Zusammenhang von Schöpfung und Heil.51 The cause of the corruption is clear. Genesis .’” HBT  (): –. Klopfenstein. ) –. See also Gen : (P). es war sehr gut!’ (Genesis . Maloney. )  with n. the Priestly writer records a stark counterexample of God’s original plan (§..” in Günter Altner et al.. Harland.” in Ernst Haag et al. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. “Der Schöpfergott und der Bestand von Himmel und Erde. a].49 When this degeneration occurs. and Martin A. Linda M. Corruption is widespread.” in Theology of the Pentateuch  with n. Freiburg: Herder. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ] ).”53 It is this same God. Erich Dinkler and Hartwig Thyen. “It was corrupt íéäìàä éðô " ì ! [v. Norbert Lohfink. P explains that. and to call forth His judicial interposition. “Creation and Tabernacle: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Environmentalism. “‘Und siehe..  (repr. ).52 The target of their behavior is also clear enough. Minneapolis: Fortress. A New Commentary on Genesis . Tübingen: J. as “The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War. The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis –) (VTS . Genesis . the entire world is damaged: ‘God saw how very corrupt the earth was. Sind wir noch zu retten? Schöpfungsglaube und Verantwortung für unsere Erde (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet. translated in §. Lohfink. Studien zum Alten Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. as “God the Creator and the Stability of Heaven and Earth: The Old Testament on the Connection between Creation and Salvation.. The Value of Human Life .). See also Jacob. so as to become an abomination to God. in Wort und Existenz. the highly transitive clause in v. J. J. in the wake of Gen :– (J). Elnes. ] ).. C. above. “Chaos und Schöpfung im mythischen Denken und in der biblischen Urgeschichte.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. Biblische-Theologische Studien .” in Zeit und Geschichte. 49 Dillmann.). Worin besteht die Güte der Schöpfung nach dem ersten Kapitel der hebräischen Bibel?” in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt. Brill.” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. ). 51 For the inclusive reading of ‘all flesh’. The ecosystem of Gen  has broken down.

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

b < :).g. 64 E. see Levenson. M. in La Création dans l’Orient ancien . see idem. while animals (will continue to) attack people.. P’s God concedes the violence in the world. Stalker.).. … But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood. )  (repr.”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. JBTh  (): . in greater detail. Leiden: E. J. by a human being shall his blood be shed. . human beings bear the inalienable duty to maintain and restore 62 Beauchamp.a) God plainly notes that “the natural relationships between created beings are in desperate disorder. VTS .b-a) Violence is now entrenched in the world. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte.. in ãîììå ãîìì . bloodshed and homicide (will continue to) exist. Lohfink. G. too. over everything that moves on the ground. Indeed. Stellvertretung. 65 Lohfink. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. ). For a Priestly effort to mitigate this background. ) .. and Tigay.  (ed.” in Theology of the Pentateuch – ). ) . Genesis . Wenham. sympathetically. (Gen :. and Harland. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press.62 There will be fear and terror of you [sc. (Gen :aα. From every animal I shall require a reckoning for it. in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  with n. relations within the human community have deteriorated.65 Likewise.66 But I shall require a reckoning for your own life-blood.” in Congress Volume: Göttingen.. but it is neither unrestrained nor unremedied (see §. in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  (= Theology of the Pentateuch ). A.. as “The Priestly Narrative and History. … From a human being. and..   The Priestly writer acknowledges that the cosmos of Gen  has changed in other ways. – [–]) . into your hand shall they be given.  (= Theology of the Pentateuch  with n. Groß. See also. Waschke. because God made humankind ‘in the image of God’ (v. 66 For antediluvian background. Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff (SBS .  vols. Among other things. New York: Harper & Brothers/Harper & Row. It is a legal responsibility inherent in the human design. God assigns the postdiluvian survivors the responsibility to protect the community and punish violent offenses. 63 Von Rad. I shall require a reckoning for human life. Brill. Noah and his sons] upon all the earth’s animals and upon all birds of heaven. after the flood. D. Old Testament Theology (trans. Bernd Janowski. from each one’s fellow (human being). and over all the fish of the sea. J. Emerton et al. The Value of Human Life . Whoever sheds the blood of a human being. Untersuchungen zum Menschenbild .

69 Brown. Gen :). with the mandate to dominate animate life (v. 70 Knohl.. ) (Jacob. the cosmogony “provides a reflection of an orderly. 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. The many components of the cosmos neither conflict nor collide. Role. Zimmerli.71 Even “human governance of the animals was certainly intended as something altogether … nonviolent. Each occupies a distinct zone. The Value of Human Life . and Janowski. he makes the two great luminaries—the greater luminary íåéä úìùîîì to rule the day. In the Beginning: Creation and the Priestly History (Minneapolis: Fortress. in La Création dans l’Orient ancien –. above). see also v. . . humankind must mobilize against outbreaks of ‘violence’ in the world. Coote and David Robert Ord.”70 But it also exemplifies a world devoid of corruption and violence. 71 Since the insects and fauna created on the sixth day are not blessed with reproductive abundance (cf. and there is no competition for space. b. 72 Lohfink. The relationship among the different forms of animate life is nonadversarial and noncontentious. and the lesser luminary äìéìä úìùîîì to rule the night—and the stars. harmonious creation. See also Robert B. God set them in the dome of heaven to shine over the earth ìùîìå and to rule over the day and the night.67 God’s ‘very good’ cosmos of Gen  is the antithesis of its subsequent degeneration. Order and separation are instituted and maintained.. and Beauchamp. he also establishes rule. aβb. see also v. The 67 For the antymony of ‘violence’ and ‘image of God’.”68 True. ) –. bαbβ) (see §. . 68 Fishbane. Text and Texture . For example.    the world as God first constructed it. cited in n. P’s cosmos is “a pure and perfect age”69 that is “regulated by principles of justice and righteousness. Created in the image of God. Stellvertretung . .Mose3 . the human population has unfettered license to ‘fill the earth’ (v. Structure.. Imposing Rule Within the harmonic order that P’s God forges in creation. respectively. (Gen :–aα) He also creates humankind ‘in the image of God’. see Harland.. Genesis . .). they are interdependent and mutually beneficial. Theology of the Pentateuch . The Sanctuary of Silence . and Ideology . True. Cf. and Jüngling. b) and wield control over the natural world (v.

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

: Eerdmans. prior to the creative act of v. SBT /. Curtis.  vols. Prolegomenon . Grand Rapids/Cambridge. Dean McBride Jr. “The Israelite Epic. Bloch-Smith. U. distancing the battle farther away (The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts [Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westermann. . Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel. of the beginning of the world.” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. Sibley Towner [ed.–. Theology of the Pentateuch . God said. (Gen :–) At this time. W. ) –. ) . “íÇä"z t ehôm. “the whiff of battle is not all that far distant. darkness was upon the surface of íåäú the deep. C.83 It is a figure of chaos and. The Exegetical Imagination: On Jewish Thought and Theology (Cambridge. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis  and : A Linguistic Investigation (JSOTS .” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. ) .”82 God’s first confrontation with an aquatic foe occurs in a now-familiar setting (see §. ]  n. sermonically.–.”81 Yet as P’s God makes the transition from chaos to cosmos. See also Wellhausen. ExAu  (): .” in TLOT . 84 See Cassuto. with paradigmatic intent. Susan Niditch.). Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (d ed. God’s dynamic wind encounters an uncreated preexisting watery deep. denying it altogether (“Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch. – []) .” in TWAT . intro./London: Harvard University Press. 82 J. UBL .. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. George J. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS . “The Kingship of Yahweh against Its Canaanite Background. London: SCM. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Jerusalem: Magnes. it can and Mythmaking. .    does conflict erupt. ) –. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Healey. For even apart from its attestation elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. L. Smith. Adrian H. ). Text and Texture .84 the deep has undeniable mythological associations in Ugaritic and Mesopotamian literatures:85 at Ugarit. Cf. Schöpfung und Chaos2  (= idem. and Waschke. and. See also idem. and Gunkel. ) . Israel Abrahams. Mass. Childs. Cf. and John F. Brown and S.– . See also Talmon. Smith and Elizabeth M. in Creation in the Old Testament –).. Brevard S. has an ancient Near Eastern background. 83 E. and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of íéîä the water. “íÇä"z t ehôm flood. See also Fishbane. Sheffield: JSOT Press.80 The Priestly narrative “eliminated war from the story it tells.. ] ).” And there was light.K. ) –. Genesis . The earth was unformed and void. or McBride.” in idem.” in idem. and Westermann. Gibson.–. 80 See Mark S. William P. like the sea. in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit  (= Theology of the Pentateuch ). 85 See David Toshio Tsumura. Brooke.. Biblical and Oriental Studies (trans.g. “Let there be light. 81 Lohfink.

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

98 Levenson. Isaiah (trans. BN  (): –.95 In the Hebrew Bible. Pitard.98 In the future as well. Greenstein. and let the birds become numerous on earth. the monster was ‘pierced’ by Yahweh (Is :). and. “CT . and every living thing that moves with which the waters swarm according to their kind. 94 Cf.. “Presenting Genesis . are attested in biblical and non-biblical literature alike. esp. Thomas H. and every winged bird according to its kind. 95 For a summary of opinions on this Ugaritic verb. – [–]) . iii – ). and fill the waters in the seas.. and birds fly over the earth across the surface of heaven’s dome. on Ez .. Then God blessed them. God contains the deep against outburst. Hallo and K. it represents a once- 92 Weimar. In the Ugaritic texts. like the deep.” JAOS  (): –.” ZAW  (): – (on Ps :). ihr Seeungeheuer und all ihr Tiefen!’ Seeungeheuer in der Bibel. Minneapolis: Fortress. Yahweh ‘will kill the Dragon in the sea’ (Is :. “Be fruitful. be numerous. –. differently. Text and Texture . In the past. God said. “Ugaritic Myths. Lewis.. binds) it (cf. Görg. When Baal defeats this aquatic deity.. Lawson Younger.96 It is always under attack. placing it under his control. tunnanu (tnn) ‘(the) dragon’ is a mythological being included among the vanquished marine and serpentine enemies of Baal:94 viz. in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt . the second lacks a confrontation. Trapp. ïéðú(ä) ‘the Dragon’ is comparably troublesome.).. he imposes the force of rule over this potential counteragent. and.. Theodore J. 96 Fishbane. “The Binding of Yamm: A New Edition of the Ugaritic Text KTU . and.. KTU2 .. ) . HKAT III/.97 so too.:).” JNES  (): –. . Leiden: E. . J. Dennis Pardee. Yamm (‘Sea’) || Nahar (‘River’) and the crooked serpent || the seven-headed “sultan” (KTU2 . Constructively and Deconstructively.. :).  vols.93 Whereas God’s first theomachy lacks bloodshed.  vols. n.” Prooftexts  (): –. “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living things.” (Gen :–) The sea monsters. 99 See Hans Wildberger. see also Ez :. Jr. Creation and … Evil –. Brill. –) .    moment at least (see § . “‘Lobet den Herrn. And God saw that it was good. 93 See Christian Brüning. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.” God created ­úà íéìãâä íðéðúä the great sea monsters. see Wayne T. William W.99 Whether in the Ugaritic or biblical texts.92 Without fanfare.–  and Ezekiel : Lion-Dragon Myths.” in The Context of Scripture (ed. he contains (lit. Das Buch Jesaia (d ed. Edward L. sea monsters’ heads were ‘smashed’ long ago (Ps :–) (see below). 97 Note Bernhard Duhm.

they are stripped of their primaeval autonomy. See also Zimmerli. they are ascribed fractured identity.–. Zimmerli. then. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 . “Leviathan. the Priestly writer pointedly tames this representative of uncreated evil. P’s God quiets these potential enemies of God before they undo (him and) his cosmos. bβ.101 Like all of God’s other creatures and creations. Levenson.104 By inference. NJPS ad Is : n.102 They are also included in the approbative formula of v. these monsters are the intended result of God’s creative activity in the world.. Smith. 102 Talmon. bαaα.b (on Pss :. Without a hint of violence.bαa).. and Brüning.100 Yet in the Priestly cosmogony. to prevent Baal’s E. the sea monsters are unlike God’s creatures. 103 Cassuto. ZAW  (): . Further. All told. marine opponent of the active head god whose continuing life threatens the god’s life and the world’s order. and. Gen :). But in other ways. they are deprived of the (cap-) ability to reproduce.103 In Priestly hands. idem. 104 Cassuto. Day. the sea monsters are not destroyed. b. See also.g. and. They are ‘created’. –. They are the only life form created as a plurality of distinct entities and not as a taxonomic species. Hence.–. It is as though the Torah said. 105 In addition to the references in nn.   vital. perhaps forever (see §. P’s God does not create them ‘according to their kind’. unsuccessfully.. the “reference to the tannîn¯ım in Genesis :” is hardly “generic” (cf. briefly. 100 101 . The Origins of Biblical Monotheism ).” in ABD .. 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. . and Schmidt. cf. Creation and … Evil . in greater length. somewhat differently.Mose3 . :). in order that they might fulfil His will like the other created beings. God’s Conflict . see Day. He places them under his creative control and subsumes them within the structure of his created order (see also vv. they were as natural as the rest of the creatures. Hence. It symbolizes chaos. Genesis . In the Ugaritic texts. ExAu  (): . This nemesis is Yamm (‘Sea’). he is the aquatic enemy of Baal who tries. Biblical and Oriental Studies . Old Testament Theology in Outline .105 There may be one more instance in which P’s God engages an olden divine nemesis. Genesis . and were formed in their proper time and in their proper place by the word of the Creator.

) – (repr. agent of salvation amidst the earth. “Let the waters under heaven be collected to one place. in ‘Al Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. see Harry P. it was you who burst with your might íé the sea. Paul. 107 Alan Cooper and Marvin Pope. you who dried up the ever-flowing rivers. ) –. Smith. above.110 the allusion to this mythological figure—if there is one—is more subtle. who presented him as food for the denizens of the desert. Yamm’s legacy has been found in a number of texts.K. ) –.” in Language. and Avital Pinnick. God. and N. Die Psalmen (–th ed.. Deichert/Werner Scholl. For discussions. F. and. “Sea íé.    rise to kingship. 111 Cf. briefly.: Eerdmans. Wyatt. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. ) –. and the collection of waters he called íéîé Seas. ] . Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS . Rudolf Kittel. KTU2 .–). it recalls how God dissevered Yamm/the sea just as Baal had dismembered108 Yamm (esp. in Creation in the Old Testament –).  vols. Greenfield. (Ps :–) This text celebrates God’s multiple victories over his ancient watery foes. . God called the dry land Earth.112 and the dry land will appear. Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/The Hebrew University Magnes Press.” And it was so. Schöpfung und Chaos2 – (= idem. Leipzig: A. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. iv –). . Grand Rapids/Cambridge. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan. 108 For philological justification of this translation. KAT .” MARI  (): –. Balentine and John Barton. 109 Cf. –. Atlanta: Scholars Press. In particular. (Gen :–) 106 See Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee.106 In the Hebrew Bible. 110 For connections between Ps  and Priestly material. Stone.” in DDD2 –.111 Its polemical force takes a grammatical form. ExAu  (): –. ) –. 112 See n. “Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (d ed. see Gunkel. “’att¯a p¯orart¯a b˘e‘ozk¯a yam (Psalm : a). God said. and Talmon. Samuel E.. Nasuti. the alternate analysis of Day. Greenfield on Semitic Philology [ed.–. . Text and Texture –. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL . Michael E. reargued by Jonas C. It was you who split the springs and wadis. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (BiSe . who smashed the heads of the sea monsters over the waters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.109 But in Gen :. and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (ed.  and  (which he rejects). And God saw that it was good. U. Theology. my king from of old.107 of which Ps  is perhaps the most transparent.” in RSP . ) – nn. Shalom M. God’s Conflict  n. “Le combat de Ba‘lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques. see Wyatt. Stolz. Fishbane. The Biblical Resources Series..

Cf. 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. It is an achievement. God’s rule is firmly ensconced in the Priestly cosmos. 116 Delitzsch. when he confronts and subdues the evil deep. Seebass..118 P’s God dis-integrates and dissipates his powerful archenemy. “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis :.. . . 118 Peleg. are unnoticed.–). and perhaps. It begins very early.113 Delitzsch disagrees. Genesis12 . perhaps. the theme of God’s rule punctuates the entire Priestly cosmogony. Theology. as it were.. 120 Greenfield. and creates sea monsters. it informs his own ability to allocate vegetable food among humans and animals. Without bloodshed or violence. . 117 See Zimmerli.. Die Genesis (–d ed. Genesis .120 He then deems its fractured body ‘good’. Leipzig/Erlangen: A. and the Bible  (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah . Talmon.”115 Still. as vv. ExAu  (): . Whether explicitly or implicitly. Seely. Cf. As the Priestly writer depicts it.” WTJ  (): .). Paul H.114 in respect of which the lesser reservoirs. 119 See. A New Commentary on Genesis . in Language. Later.”116 and the mythological background of the ‘sea’ suggests why.. suggest. BetM  (): . KAT . Even after the last creative act. in Interpretationes … Mowinckel  (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ). his rule is shared with the human race.–.   God assigns plural nomenclature to the newly pooled water (see also v. ) even though. “The sea in its origin is represented as a connected whole.). Genesis6  (= ET . the sea has “been not only neutralized but demythologized and even depersonalized” (see above). present and future (§ . Genesis . appoints heavenly spheres to ‘rule’ the day and night. It is repeated when he disintegrates 113 Skinner. Genesis2 . . the referent is probably not a true. It is expressed in different ways when he names the world’s seas. Deichert/Werner Scholl. then. ) . Like the sea monsters and the deep before them. countable plurality.Mose3 . 114 See also Driver. especially the rivers which it receives unto itself. and Otto Procksch. Jacob. König.. the plural is not strictly referential.121 It begins when God emerges the victor of a highly sublimated clash with the deep.. Genesis .119 He incorporates it into his orderly world as a product of his creative objective. 121 See Humbert. Like the deep. 115 See also Dillmann. For like the case of the sea monsters. God overcomes these restive waters and controls them like any other creation of his. God’s rule is not simply a fact. “the plural is here conceived of as singular and intensive.

122 Whereas the Priestly cosmogony describes the rule of order that God imposed on the world. ) and rules them from his throne (vv. with your mighty arm you scattered your enemies. ) –. Cf. John Gray. . my king from of old’ (v. The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. the Psalms texts participate in a larger. the divine king appears in the context of the world’s creation (:–. CBOT .126 While God is creating the world and See. see Schmidt. you are from eternity. the world and its contents—it was you who founded them.: Harvard University Press.125 The implication for the Priestly cosmogony is therefore clear. And in Ps . the victorious master of watery chaos (vv. demonstrating that/how he earned his dominion over the world. P’s God performs a bloodless.a). (Ps :–) These texts assert God’s kingship. Your throne is established from old. 124 See Görg. Jerusalemite tradition of “the motif of the chaos battle” (The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies [trans. –) is entitled ‘God. 125 Day. so too the earth is yours. Patrick D. Lund: CWK Gleerup. the rivers raise their crushing sound.a) The Lord has become king. The world is established. … Righteousness and justice are the seat of your throne. For this proclamation and its different translations. God vanquishes old aquatic enemies (v. the Lord is majestic on high. Creation and … Evil xxiii.. Heaven is yours. Frederick H. In Ps . e. P’s God thus overpowers proven or potential enemies.. and nonviolent coup. when its waves rise. In each theomachy. Cryer. In a series of preemptive measures. you still them. a). noncombative. The rivers raise. the rivers raise their voice.g. Clark. a. . O Lord. Jr. God’s Conflict . BN  (): –. he suppresses the primordial waters (vv. :b-a.124 In Ps . more majestic than the breakers of the sea. and Levenson. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 . (Ps :–a. 122 123 . Mass. More than the sounds of the mighty waters.a). You rule over the grandeur of the sea. Di Lella. girded with might. and good creation. other texts take the next logical step (see already Ps ). in Mélanges … Delcor . It was you who crushed Rahab like a corpse. it is unshakeable. 126 For Mettinger. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel [HSM . & T. ] ). ]  with n. sterilized. North and south—it was you who created them. Miller.    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. –) and is enthroned as king (vv. In each text too. Cambridge. :bβ). The Lord is robed.123 robed in grandeur.

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

and. after our likeness.” in idem et al. he is situated in his divine community. J.. he is hardly in “divine isolation. See also Moshe Weinfeld. 2 Timothy Lenchak. “The Divine Compound Name íé!äÀ$à äåäé and Israel’s Monotheistic Polytheism. and with whom he holds conversation”5 (§).). Tigay. The appearance of gods in Gen : might seem to prove that the Priestly writer holds a liberal interpretation of monotheism. vornehmlich von Gen –.  a plurality of heavenly beings may be understood. idem. “Zur Anthropologie der biblischen Urgeschichte. and. See also Jeffrey H. Genesis –: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTS . Brill. ) . J..” in Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. Mayes. Old Testament Theology (trans. .3 “In the plural of vs. “Let us make man in our image. “Cosmology and World Order in the Old Testament: The Divine Council as Cosmic-Political Symbol. H. – [–]) . Miller. A. Jr. whose “members … are invited in Genesis : to participate in the last and most important act of creation”2 (see §§.”’ (Genesis :). ) –.  GOD’S VICTORY OVER THE GODS. They rise to the occasion and support their leader. too. T. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. “God the Creator in Gen I and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah. Lothar Ruppert. commands. ] –). “God in Genesis. Indeed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. L. ) . . But unlike those many biblical 1 See Horst Dietrich Preuss.. Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary.” HBT / ():  (repr. in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays [JSOTS . ) .. AND THE ELEVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE When God reveals his intention to make the human race. Perdue. Leiden: E. Sheffield: JSOT. “Puzzling Passages: ‘Then God said. Mafico. but there is not a hint of diversity of will or purpose.” Tarb  ():  (in Hebrew). 3 Cf. Leo G.” Cath  (): . Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Studies on the Book of Genesis (OTS . Patrick D.” BT  (): .” JNSL  (): –. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. with qualification. Gemser. 5 Miller.  vols..”1 On the contrary. J. 4 B. ) –. Day. more generally. “The Religion of Israel.”4 God’s divine court agrees to his proposal. 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. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press. OTL. D.

“The Image of God in Man. the gods play a serious role. Der Schöpfergott des Alten Testaments. JSOTS –. J. the anonymous gods. The other divine party. then. Though the Priestly writer refers to the gods only in this one text. however. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications . ] . when the worlds of divinity and humanity are about to meet (§. Clines. and in relationship to. A great deal is accomplished during that moment. Rather. First.– ).   authors. . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. the gods are informed that 6 See also Andreas Angerstorfer. Priestly tolerance of a divine plurality evaporates. . If the author of Genesis  was in every other instance able to remove all trace of polytheism from the traditional material he was handling. There is no sign that human beings will disobey God.” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays. Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung des hebräischen Terminus àøá (bara) ‘schaffen’ (RST . the Priestly writer defines human character. 7 D.. the constituents of the cosmos. The Gods and Their Demise The gods are invoked in a conventional setting. See also the other references in Preface n. – [ vols.).–). The human race will rule and create. P describes divine character.. God and gods. P’s recognition of gods lasts only a moment. . agrees to God’s terms. why did he not manage to expunge the plural of ‘let us’?6 … If the plural is here. Day. it will be a creature sui generis yet placed in the context of. in all probability the reference is not unimportant yet alone accidental or unconscious (see §. After all. Cf. ) –. Nor is there a sign that the gods will collude with God and punish humankind (cf. In particular. But this Priestly episode is also nonconventional. in a different context.7 The plural and its referent seem purposeful. Second. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.” TynB  ():  (repr. at least in part. cf. it is here deliberately. A.. as “Humanity as the Image of God. the human creation will reflect them too. and their appearance conforms to form-critical and theological expectations. )  n. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. and he seeks the counsel of fellow immortals to make a creature that will ultimately be related to the divines. §§. §. the human race will represent as well as imitate the divine constituents in the cosmos. God is the incomparable creator. as he is generally agreed to have done. In this circumstance. . at least in part.).

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

Walter Baier et al. . and. ) . “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes in der neueren Auslegung von Gen . this power-based interpretation of v.”14 As he takes charge of his troops. Wilhelm Koepp.” in idem. the sole maker íéäìà úåîãá in the ‘likeness’ of God. The gods’ fate is also reflected in their other would-be contribution to the human race. ]  n. See also Weippert. subsumes the gods’ úåîã under him. Deichert/Werner Scholl. and not to a lower order of divine beings. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift. in Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel [OBT.. ). Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis (d ed. in Ebenbild Gottes—Herrscher über die Welt . 15 Josef Scharbert. the gods and their ‘likeness’ fade away. albeit distantly. Leipzig: A. In an act of God. 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. “Imitatio Dei. Notwithstanding its suitability in context. “The reflexive singular suffix … requires that the image be referred directly to God. n. Walter Groß.” TQ  ():  (repr. the gods’ ‘image’ disappears as well.13 And Gen  explains why.   v. In one case. just as their (cap-) ability to ‘make’ was trumped by God’s (cap-) ability to ‘create’... 14 Phyllis A. Bird.. a. It simply does not survive beyond v.. in nuce. and. see also :b) Despite God’s acknowledgement that his divine addressees possess a measure of íìö. Minneapolis: Fortress. Wilhelm Caspari. it too does not survive beyond v. a has rivals. as the grammar indicates. ) .  vols.” HTR  ():  n. As soon as God creates the first human beings. in the human creature. “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen :b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation. . Ottilien: EOS. ) . the relationship between åîìöá and the adjacent 13 See Martin Buber. . St..15 In another.” in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift (ed.” in Weisheit Gottes—Weisheit der Welt. “Imago divina Gen I. New York: Schocken. Festschrift für Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger zum . the suffix on åîìöá is said to correct a referential unintelligibility or ambiguity in the plural suffixes in v. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und zu alttestamentlichen . åðîìöá íãà äùòð åúà àøá íéäìà íìöá åîìöá íãàä­úà íéäìà àøáéå (Gen :a) (Gen :a. perhaps. ‘Our’ inclusive image is replaced by ‘his’ exclusively. Geburtstag (ed.  vols. the sole and single actor.  (repr. God.  pertains to the gods’ ‘likeness’ which was to be registered. the divine leader imposes his ‘image’ over theirs.

“The Meaning of íé!äÀ$à íìö"a (‘in the image of God’) in Genesis i–xi. He confronts them as he had confronted other primaeval cohabitants of the world. dominates them. Ahlström. Genesis ( vols. Gleerup. Sawyer.” in Humanität und Glaube. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2  n. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Mythos. See also Johann Jakob Stamm. Levenson.. God does more than invoke gods in Gen :. “A Biblical Foundation for an Environmental Theology: A New Perspec- . then. in Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift . and Willem A.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sharp. “Abbild oder Urbild? ‘Imago Dei’ in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht.). however. 16 See H. “The Human Person in the Vision of Genesis –: A Synthesis of Contemporary Insights. Eric J.” AJSL  (): –. 18 Gordon J. any referential difficulties posed by the plural pronouns in v. their appositive syntax signals coreferentiality.18 As in åîìöá. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. A. . and John F. HSoed . Mettinger. in the process. For a complementary analysis. As before.20 For instance. releasíéäìà íìöá íéäìà íìöá Gottesbildern [SBAB . the possessor in íéäìà íìöá is necessarily a singular entity. is allegedly congruent with the plural pronouns of v.. see Caspari. the gods are under his control.” LouvSt  (): . 17 Julian Morgenstern. .16 its nomen rectum is to be analyzed as a semantically plural noun.. a.” in TLOT . Beuken.. see Alviero Niccacci. ) .19 So. diffuses the threat. Wildberger. In the first case. Nonetheless. Wenham.’      is questioned: whereas åîìöá unambiguously refers to God. and Donald B. Ulrich Neuenschwander and Rudolf Dellsperger. W. elem image. God’s enemies can persist in different ways (see §. Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (trans. And as before. Waco/Dallas: Word. they are ultimately incorporated into the cosmos of God’s design. M.” ZAW  (): . he takes preemptive yet nonviolent action.  []) . See also Tryggve N. “The Sources of the Creation Story—Genesis :–:. and neutralizes the once-mythological enemy. WBC –.. D.  to v. “íìö  s. ] ). 20 Jon D. Lund: C. In the movement from v. ) . miss the exegetical point. As before.. 19 In this context. At this point in time. . G. Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt. “Zur Frage der Imago Dei im Alten Testament. Schmidt. Gedenkschrift für Kurt Guggisberg (ed. he does not wait for his opponent to erupt and disrupt the cosmos of his creation. .” JTS  (): . the prepositional phrases åîìöá and íìöá íéäìà cannot be dissociated from each other. “Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence—Coherence of the Hebrew Verbal System. P’s God dominates the gods’ ‘image’ with his own and. According to this description. a are clarified by form-critical background. K. the ‘deep’ of Gen : later bursts open.17 These two grammatical analyses. too. Sharpe. –) ... In the second case. not grammatical repair (§.” ZAW  ():  with n. the original interpretation stands. W.

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

J. H. . úéçùî is an abstraction.” in Martin Noth. then. the divine Destroyer is itself destroyed.” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. ) –. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (ed. William H. Propp. Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall. 27 Propp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C.30 It does not even refer directly to God (cf. – ) .. Walter Jacob and Yaakov Elman. God reckons with former mythological beings that line of the Pentateuch. and Schmidt. )  with n. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HKAT I/. “Exodus ..28 Yet according to P. B.– a. it is not an angel or quasi-independent vehicle of God’s will. VTS . quasi-independent aspect of Yahweh”27 that functions as a destructive instrument of God’s will (see also  Sam :a. Exodus (rev. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. New Jersey: Ktav. .. R. Vervenne and J. I shall pass over you. (Ex :) úéçùî is not a concrete entity. . d ed. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. In the cosmogony. 32 See Jacob. ) .” in DDD 2 b. and Van Seters. Exodus . New York: Doubleday. . the Destroyer does not exist. 33 Cf. “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Ausschliesslichkeit des alttestamentlichen Glaubens. Childs. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (trans. Hoboken.” in Congress Volume: Paris. J. . Tübingen: J. )  n. Ein Zusatz nachdeuteronomischer Provenienz aus der Hand der Pentateuchredaktion. Brekelmans (ed. Exodus (AB – . C. Emerton. ) .32 In the hands of P. it is depersonalized and demythologized out of existence. ) . Lust. When I see the blood. The Book of Exodus (CBSC. “Destroyer úéçÖî. Exodus .). ) – . and Propp..31 P’s úéçùî is an attribute of ‘plague’. 29 Saul M. In v. Meier. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ) . Leiden: E. Gen :b [P]).. and.33 The Priestly writer seems more than casually aware that gods exist. Shimon Bar-On. See also S. W. A. Victor Ryssel. “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex .  (ed. 31 Cf. A.–. J. ed. Bruno Baentsch. Philip Hyatt. BETL . Brill. ) . Exodus . NCBC. Cf. No plague shall come against you úéçùîì for (your) destruction when I strike the land of Egypt. . M. S. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Hirzel. the different opinions of Peter Weimar.’      It is “a personalized. KeHAT . 30 See August Dillmann. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs.” ZAW  (): –. No longer an aspect of God. Driver. Festschrift C. )  n.29 and it does not act at God’s behest. Olyan. A Thousand Thousands Served Him: Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ . The blood of yours will act as a sign on the houses where you are. tentatively. 28 Hyatt. Leipzig: S. Exodus 2 .  []) . Louvain: University Press/Peeters. Morgan & Scott. Levenson. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

Some symbolize evil. “Sybil. the brief reinstatement of a sea monster in Ex  foreshadows the plagues that God will uncork against Egypt. Freiburg: J. Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell (me). Das Buch Hiob (HKAT II/. ) . Mass. Cf. or the Two Nations? Archaism..34 Although all these Urgötter suffer a common fate in the early Priestly tradition. and all the divinities shouted for joy? (Job :–) The gods celebrated God’s first creative act. Gloucester. . B.: Eisenbrauns. . ) –. and Karl Budde. On the sixth day. They quietly fall in a bloodless theomachy.. )  n. Also. Who set its measurements. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.35 Perhaps they participated in creation as well: Since the verbs expressing creation in this text are not exclusively controlled by God. Kinship. Duhm. chaos. One such being later loosens the flood. Yet his divine assistants suffer the same fate as their obstructive and destructive counterparts. Prolegomenon to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. Tarb  ():  n. if you have understanding. then. another being reappears yet under God’s firm harness. or harm.” in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference (ed. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies.C. 35 For the sequence of creative acts in this episode. it is also supported by non-Priestly traditions. For example.: Peter Smith. P and P’s God reckon with the legacy of divine beings. But other Urgötter are not conspicuously or recognizably evil. J. Similarly. and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the th-th Centuries B.E. God’s first three antagonists in the cosmogony define the potential undoing of the cosmos.   have the potential to upset his cosmos. Winona Lake.” RB  (): . Schwartz. and Michael V. 34 . Jerrold S. . “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ’ôt Etiologies. C. Job  corroborates that the gods were present at creation. God speaks only of positive attributes that they will share with human beings. Cooper and Glenn M. Ind.. repr. Das Buch Hiob (KHAT . these terms open the possibility of Weinfeld. Baruch Halpern. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. ) . At the same time. since you know. P’s God presumably solicits the gods because they will be cooperative and compliant. . see Bernh. In Egypt. Fox. P unplugs a destructive representative of God. See also Julius Wellhausen. 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. they are nonetheless not alike. Alienation. On several occasions. Just as the divine scenario of Gen :– is supported by other Priestly narratives..

furnished P with clear evidence that gods are capable of producing a (semi-) human population.. Bernhard W. and righteousness as the foundation of the cosmos is maintained. Jr.37 If Job  places the gods at creation. then. and early Hebrew sources. refutes the implication. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen  und Ap Joh  (d ed. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM .40 God shares the governance of the world with his godly subordinates (§. ). Theodore Mullen. –) Division A. Gen  demonstrates their úåîã.. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 37 Day.  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology  n. “They did not have the power of decree or of life.g. ] –). For Priestly as well as non-Priestly traditions. ) . in conjunction with Marc Zvi Brettler. refracted in the episode of cohabitation between the sons of God and the human daughters in Gen. IRT . The Book of Job (OTL. and abr. Sheffield: JSOT Press. *. Philadelphia/London: Fortress/SPCK. 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. HBT / ():  n.). Dt :–+QDeutj :).36 As in Gen :. Philadelphia: Westminster.”39 The Yahwist tradition. the gods serve an administrative function.  [])  (repr. however. Hermann Gunkel.” gods do not engender or produce human beings. “in Canaanite. high god ’El/Yahweh. the nations and peoples of the earth are established and governed. also quoted by Miller. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor (JSOTS . HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). Calif.. Cf.. 38 E. Mullen implies that. as “The Influence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story. :–.. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. Greenstein. Habel. .’      co-divine involvement under God’s direction and leadership. The Priestly writer registers this trait as íìö. Chico.” “[T]he notion of divine procreation is reflected. This belonged only to the ¯ 38 Greenstein. Other writers describe the setting in which their íìö comes to the fore (e. God’s Conflict . 36 See Miller.: Scholars Press. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Job’s God was not alone at creation but was accompanied by divine ministers. or if you wish. and Norman C. ) . 40 Miller.” in Creation in the Old Testament [ed. Phoenician. ) –. “The God of Israel and the Gods of Canaan: How Different Were They?” in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies ( vols. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). Anderson. 39 Edward L.

):46 as a plaintiff. among the gods he executes justice. Zur Herkunft der Königsprädikation Jahwes (d ed. 44 H.. 46 Simon B. and achieves victorious kingship. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. He confronts them in court (v. 43 Miller. E. (Ps :– [emended]) For this psalmist. Der Tod der Götter. you will die like humans and fall like any prince. In Ps .K. They each depict a “dynamic monotheizing drama. “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm  as Myth and Liturgy. and.C. For another. God confronts his enemy. See also Jüngling. Parker. it provokes more than an indictment. ) –. with discussion.” RB  (): –. ) ..41 do you pronounce justice? do you judge humanity equitably? Even so. One by one.   But non-Priestly traditions also assert that the gods can fail to execute their divine mission.. and Schmidt. having championed the antithesis of God’s fundamental design. See also Tsevat.” HUCA – [–]: –).. Der Tod der Götter –. Hilton C. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Oesterley. God sentences his subordinates to death.g. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann.. Wheeler Robinson. n. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ). Creation and … Evil . see W. Cf. with.P. their failure constitutes and breeds ‘violence’.  vols.42 Having failed to maintain the justice and righteousness that constitute the basis of God’s rule (:a)..44 To a certain extent. God takes his position in the assembly of God. God works to defeat once-divine enemies that threaten to corrupt the world of his creation.–) God revokes their innate immortality.  []) –. Sinai and Zion  (on Ps ). Truly. Gunkel (Die Psalmen [th ed. not so!). – ()] .43 Divine misdeeds are not tolerated. 45 Levenson. Matitiahu Tsevat (“God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm . . with a perverse heart you act on earth. (Ps :–. e. “You are gods. all of you are sons of the Supreme One.” JTS  (): . Hans-Winfried Jüngling. Ps  and Gen  have a common theological agenda. Eine Untersuchung zu Psalm  (SBS . For how long will you judge perversely and favor the wicked? … I had said. he charges them with their 41 Reading í!ìà  for MT íìà  . O. “The Council of Yahweh.”45 In Gen . ] ). Hans-Joachim Kraus (Psalms [trans. O gods. HKAT II/. and Levenson. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 42 For interpretations. and Tsevat. b). HUCA – (–): –. God likewise punishes gods whose deeds betray their un-Godly evil. Oswald. HUCA – (–): . you mete out violence (with) your hands. Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel. The Psalms (London: S.” Alas (lit. neutralizes his enemy. BZAW .

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) .” JNES  (): a (repr. Greenspahn.52 Now. HUCA – (–): . . New York/London: New York University Press. Zur Einheit von Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit im Gottesbild des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. 55 For another example.).” ZAW  (): . New York: Doubleday. Garden City.. O God. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press. “The Sons of (the) God(s).  and . –). Calif. Charles Fensham. SBS .  n. and Bernd 52 See John T. Psalms . 50 Cf. Deuteronomy  (ad Dt :).55 And like any suzerain. b). judge the earth. . 51 Gerald Cooke. R. HUCA – (–): . … The God of Israel is regarded as the only true judge and protector of the weak. justice is his responsibility (§. 48 Halpern. 53 Parker. Chico. in conjunction with Tsevat. 54 F.-J. A Grammar of Akkadian [HSS .. exercise his own rule. differently. John Huehnergard. . AB –A. ] –). N. Atlanta: Scholars Press. ¯ YHWH. RB  (): –. H. ] §.48 Inasmuch as he holds the “ideal epithet” ïåéìò (v. 49 Tigay. . idem.. Studien zur biblischen Gottesrede und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte in Judentum und Christentum (ed. Schmidt.53 “The last verse of the psalm brings to God the victorious command to give justice to the world. ‘sons’) fall under his jurisdiction. 47 Tsevat. ) –. “ïÇé"ìò ‘elyôn. . for you own all the nations.51 he must intervene and restore a just order. “Der barmherzige Richter.. see Parker. God Mitchell Dahood. Willis. –. and Kraus. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. and restore justice. the superlative degree of the epithet ïåéìò is not morphologically marked but semantically inferred (see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander.”49 he exercises the authority that befits his rank. “The Israelite King as Son of God.). S. Psalms ( vols. See also Herbert Schmid. shared with Dt :.: Scholars Press.” in TDOT .’      crimes (vv.50 Since his divine subordinates (lit. Whybray. The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM . “Widow.” in Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes. or Mark S. “Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem. –) . )  n. and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature. ) –. above.: Max Niemeyer.” ZAW  (): .” ZAW  (): –. which “emphasizes His supremacy over the other divine beings. RB  ():  n. (Ps :) He must condemn his disloyal deputies.” JNSL  (): –. and. Smith. he pronounces their sentence (v. Orphan.”54 Ultimately. and the references in ch.. esp.. Königtum Gottes 2 . ] §p©. and. The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl –: A Study of the Sources of the Theology of Deutero-Isaiah (SOTSMS . Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes [Halle a.. “QÛMAH Janowski.  nn. Frederick E. Ruth Scoralick.47 as a judge. –. Zobell. in Essential Papers on Israel and the Ancient Near East [ed. Nonetheless. ).

60 And vice versa. and Martin A. … God created another self. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.57 “After God had make [sic] all the other creatures. He is the singular agent of will. The earth was unformed and void. Krapf. darkness was upon the surface of the deep.  []) .” in idem. ) . . Bern: Peter Lang. Creation and … Evil –.”58 As the form-critical background of Gen : suggests. Große Bibeltexte neu erschlossen (d ed. 59 Levenson. he makes it partly for his own benefit. and Rainer Albertz. Klopfenstein. so does God. including man. the topic of the Priestly cosmogony is God. Old Testament Theology . íéäìà çåøå and God’s wind was fluttering over the surface of the water. Thomas M. ) ..61 He assumes four different forms throughout the Priestly cosmogony. Walter Dietrich. in All Things New –.”56 The human creation.. reflects God. “Die Gottesstatue. as victor. Preuss. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken. “Elohim is the subject. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. 58 Walter Vogels.  vols..” in idem.. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. however. constructs a (new) domain in which he can reside and rule forever. . He has created everything. God must impose his íìö over theirs. “The Human Person in the Image of God (Gn . the configuration of the world reflects God’s handiwork as well as the character of God himself. Beiträge zum Alten Testament (ed.). (Gen :) 56 Michael Fishbane. God’s Rule From beginning to end. As the world changes. of course. Leben aus dem Wort. ) . SBS . the Priestly cosmogony tells of a god who triumphs over the forces of chaos and. See also Norbert Lohfink. Kreatur und Kunst nach Genesis . “Biblischer Monotheismus und vorexilischer JHWHGlaube. OTL. BEAT .. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken. Im Schatten deiner Flügel. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (d ed. 60 See Fretheim.). then.  []) . Like its ancient Near Eastern analogues. To remedy their failure. Even the cosmos reflects God.” ScEs  (): . See also Erich Zenger.” BTZ  (): . he made a creature similar to himself in whom he could recognize himself..59 Most of all. the first of which appears before the onset of creation. John Bowden. 57 Note. too (§.   has the right to depose errant vassals. Freiburg: Herder. “Was heißt: ‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’? Überlegungen zur Schöpfungsgeschichte der Bibel in der Umweltkrise heute. 61 Cf.

in conjunction with Ouro. d/st ed. London: SCM. “The Darkness of Genesis i . that in turn represents him in the world. ). and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit.). He is a self-defined.).. Philadelphia: Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning. 62 Childs. God becomes fully individuated. God said. Jubilee Alumni Issue (JQR /. God achieves a unique.Mose ( vols. God’s form is amorphous. Atlanta: Scholars Press. invisible. present and/or future..’      When the cosmos is yet unformed. and Ideology –. It shall be yours for food. AUSS  (): . In the end. the world begins to take shape. AUSS  (): . SBT /. 63 See Nicolas Wyatt.” (Gen :) The moment that God asserts control over human beings (see § . äùòð “Let us make humankind image. God’s Conflict –. and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis :–: (SBLDS . relative to others. meteorological phenomenon (v.) At this time. and Day. Role. Role. ZB.. and completely distinct entity. 65 See Brown. ) .” VT  (): . Thereafter. unique. Brown. when he assembles his nameless fellow divinities to undertake the joint task of realizing his wish. Role. “The Plain Meaning of ruah in Gen. God begins to assert—or reveal—an ego. On the sixth day. the earth is shapeless and desolate. self-reflecting partners in the world. Orlinsky. Structure. –) . éúúð “I hereby give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon the surface of the whole earth. God is as nebulous as the world that he confronts. ). generic entity like much else in the world. and Ouro. and Roberto Ouro. “Let there be light. Cf. .64 Then. Robert Luyster. William P. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. and indistinct. Structure.. )  with n. Then God said.” And there was light. abstract. concrete. When íéäìà àøá God began to create heaven and earth65 … íéäìà øîàéå God said.” ZAW  (): –. selfconscious singularity. (Gen :. according to our likeness. singular being (v.63 At this stage. 66 Harry M. ) –. intro.” (Gen :a) åðúåîãë åðîìöá in our When God conceives of his future.. . Brown.AT /–. God identifies himself as a member of a community. He next adopts a third identity. and Ideology . “Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (d ed.62 and there is seamless water all around (see §. Structure. .” in Dropsie College . God solidifies into a stable. “The Earth of Genesis :: Abiotic or Chaotic?” AUSS  (): . Once an indefinite. God takes one last form.66 God progressively transforms into a self-referential. 64 See Walther Zimmerli. .

).. and even úåöò ‘(any) counsel (whatsoever)’ (Dt :) (see 67 68 .. 73 Ember. Balentine. ) §b.72 expresses the same feature: great or intense power. úåøåáâ ‘might’ (:). íéðåà ‘strength’ (Is :)...   . are therefore subordinate to him. Muraoka. Königtum Gottes2 . :). Idem. )  §f. Creation and … Evil . See also Paul Joüon. íéîéà ‘terror’ (Jer :. 69 See Schmidt. see also Job :). J. 72 See the discussions in A. and Schmidt. God’s Conflict .”67 From a certain perspective.70 In this latter case.’” in God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann (ed. and Samuel E. .” AJSL  (): . “The Pluralis Intensivus in Hebrew. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes (th ed. It is an achievement “founded upon the demonstrated authority of the God who is triumphant over all rivals. ) . AJSL  (): . Königtum Gottes 2 . Leiden: E.” Prooftexts  (): . Minneapolis: Fortress. God disempowers his rivals and realizes kingship for himself.” CuW  (): .  vols. Beal. íéäìà. 70 See Heinrich Ewald. SubBi /I–II. like úåîäá ‘Behemoth’ (Job :).  Sam :).” It is the achievement of God’s victory over gods. They are imprinted on God’s standard Priestly name and title: íéäìà. whose “elimination … is the tangible proof of his lordship.. in which God attains his unique rank (see § . ) –. 71 For the list. Das Buch Hiob (OTS . . See also Day. . the morphology of íéäìà connotes the majesty that belongs to God (pluralis maiestatis) (see §§. that non-Priestly Levenson. This achievement is accompanied by another. moreover.). That You Make So Much of Them?’ Divine Disclosure from the Whirlwind: ‘Look at Behemoth. in conjunction with Greenstein.. Brill. “Der Herr ist König. and úåî÷ð ‘vengeance’ (Jdg :. power. or potent force. it is a mark of Israelite monotheism and one of its tenets—“that YHWH is king and that all other beings. Sinai and Zion . de Wilde.73 It is a feature. and rev.. But the theomachies and God’s other achievements over the course of creation suggest a complementary interpretation as well.g.”68 For throughout the Priestly cosmogony. Göttingen: Dieterich. “Presenting Genesis .69 These achievements are not only described in the Priestly cosmogony. úåçîù ‘(utter) gladness’ (Pss :.71 They each express (a type of) inherent strength. see Aaron Ember. as in úåòã ‘(complete) knowledge’ ( Sam :). T. Constructively and Deconstructively. including the other gods. in fact. íéäìà is similar to several other nouns whose plural morphology does not express numerical plurality: e. Compare the intensive plural (pluralis intensivus). Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. According to traditional interpretation. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (trans. See also Caspari. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. “‘What Are Human Beings..

Rendsburg. “Divine Protocol: Genesis :–: as Prologue to the Pentateuch. Ember. Philadelphia: Westminster. Herbert Niehr. Grand Rapids/Kampen: Eerdmans/Kok Pharos. OTL. Leviticus ( vols. these would-be rivals are ostensibly supportive—a divine phalanx that God deliberately assembles to help him make humankind.  []) –.. See also Susan Niditch. Dean McBride Jr. William P. Diana Vikander Edelman. and … it never clashed with monotheism.” in ABD . and achieve the status of king (see §. )  n.. –) .” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. Königtum Gottes 2 –. Philadelphia: Fortress. Sibley Towner (ed. Grand Rapids/Cambridge. Towards the end of the cosmogony.’      texts attribute to God at creation (e. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (POS . J. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.79 P. and Westermann and Harland. – [–]) . See also Dale Patrick. Yahweh’s entourage.–.80 GKC §e.. esp.” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. objects. ] . Brown and S.77 . Atlanta: Scholars Press. Leiden: E.). The conception of a host of heavenly beings. God repeats this achievement one more time (see §. intro. ).. ) –. “Divine Assembly. quoted in §§. On the contrary. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Library of Ancient Israel.76 create the cosmos as his domain. The Priestly theology … posits the existence of one supreme God who contends with neither a higher realm nor with competing peers. 78 C.. )  n. Pss :.  vols.. This threat might not exist in other traditions (see §. Dean McBride Jr.).. Cf. J. though. Baker. 80 Jacob Milgrom. AB –B. however.. his rivals are not intrinsically evil or hostile.K. But on this occasion. and Miller. A.. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms [SBLMS . and. They do not threaten to undo the harmonic order that God imposes on the world. U. God is specifically enthroned over his divine assembly. :. New York: Doubleday. ..78 In these other traditions. the phonological interpretation advanced by Gary A. ) ..b. Theology of the Old Testament (trans. . Brill. . was always present in the faith of Israel. “The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion: Methodological and Religio-Historical Aspects.. then.). 74 Fishbane. respectively. AJSL  []: –.. The Rendering of God in the Old Testament (OBT.g. intro. .: Eerdmans. 77 See Schmidt. but in fact emphasized Yahweh’s majesty and uniqueness. These gods represent a threat of a different kind. 75 See S.74 God’s name and title. see also :– ). quoted above in §. J. 76 See Walther Eichrodt. reveal what he himself demonstrates through the cosmogony:75 the application of intense power to suppress rivals. Text and Texture –. Labuschagne. 79 Mullen.

See also. Ps :).. They represent and attend to God (e. the Cherubim are mythological beings.” in DDD2 b. and deprived of any vitality whatsoever.”82 He defeats them as he defeated other rivals in the cosmogony: He neutralizes. The Heavenly Counsellor in Isaiah xl – ..  Sam :. or engulfs. P’s God does not have divine assistants or ambassadors. :). In most texts. Ez :–). 84 Propp (p. Sinai and Zion .. P’s God therefore achieves sole majestic rule over the world and. And “Yahweh the suzerain cannot tolerate rivals. in the process. and he stationed east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim and the flame of a whirling sword. “Cherubim íéáåøë.g. the Cherubim are protective beings associated with Eden (e. Garden City. “a host of heavenly beings” very much “clashed with monotheism. Thomas H. 83 For other developmental statements. They too are now deposed. 87 Benjamin D.  []) .” ZTK  (): .. and they never reemerge in the Priestly pentateuchal tradition. “Grenzen göttlicher Macht nach dem Alten Testament.87 He [sc. and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Aspekte der Entwicklung zum alttestamentlichen Monotheismus.g.g. Sommer. 86 Moshe Greenberg.”85 These beings are the Cherubim. Ps :). “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. And they too specifically express the “kingly deity. depersonalized. “Jahwes Unvergleichlichkeit und Unergründlichkeit. For P...g. Outside of the early Priestly tradition. P’s God has no divine peers.”81 Their existence is a theological affront.” BI  (): . them. establishes monotheism itself.   P’s God does not have a heavenly entourage. defining them as God’s rivals (see §.86 They can transport God through space (e. Old Testament Theology . the Lord God] expelled the man. Whybray.84 They too were once God’s assistants..83 . demythologized. Ezekiel (AB – . Trapp. Gods.. see Fritz Stolz. they are “celestial winged bearers of God upon which he was imagined as sitting enthroned” (e. and Walter Dietrich. New York: Doubleday.). 85 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger.).. Cf. Whereas God’s council disappears.” JSOT  (): –.c. (Gen : [J]) Cf. inter alios. another set of nonmalevolent divine beings has left distinct traces in the subsequent Priestly narrative. Preuss. and Mettinger. Levenson. 81 82 . Goddesses. In other texts. Edwin Firmage. “Genesis  and the Priestly Agenda. to guard the way to the tree of life. – ) . Edinburgh: T & T Clark.” WuD  (): –.

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

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. Creation and … Evil . :–). see also  Kgs :–. they pose a different kind of threat.98 . and he strips his co-creative peers of theirs (§. “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment. 98 99 . Nevertheless. God expresses his claim to exclusive and all-powerful kingship. God thwarts them.” ExAu  (): –. without assistance. The threat is contained and submerged under God’s control. Bird. And through this process. and Images . . the ‘image’ of the human race will be homological with God’s as well as the gods’ (§ ..). He quietly imposes his úåîã and. and Shemaryahu Talmon. God is and remains prime creator in the world.” ZAW  ():  (repr. Gods. there is one Priestly response. whether disruptive or supportive.). like everything else in the cosmos. disobey him. God demonstrates and then claims exclusive right to úåîã. God struggles to eliminate them from his world.). their ultimate disposition reflects “the uncompromised mastery of YHWH. P’s God also checks their potential to make miscreants like the Nephilim.. Levenson. The gods and their íìö succumb to “the essence of the idea of creation in the Hebrew Bible”.. even God’s divine servants may fail God.99 But their fate is also implicit in God’s proposal to make the human race. and the ark’s covering..). In the Priestly tradition. God exercises this power as the creator of the world (§. in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions [d ed.). But they also pose a prospective threat.. and provoke violence. They pose an immediate threat to God’s singularity in the divine realm. Priestly monotheism mandates that God have no competitors. ] ). over all else” (see §. successfully creates a selfsustaining human race. See also Walter Brueggemann. With the same stroke. What befalls the gods’ úåîã also befalls their íìö. In the cosmogony. HTR  ():  (= Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities ). God of Israel. how- See Keel and Uehlinger. or sound stage of God’s theophany (Num : [P].   vv. these Cherubim are ossified symbols of a God enthroned amidst royal splendor in his earthly sanctuary. 100 Cf. P’s God intends that the human ‘image’ reflect a divine counterpart.100 In the divine world... Atlanta: John Knox. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers. In the case of evil challengers. His timing is impeccable. Goddesses. In the case of other divine powers that cohabit his world.

It also represents the rule of God himself. W. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. (Ps :aα.101 For the Lord is a great God and a great king over all gods. God exercises his íìö yet again to neutralize even unexpressed threats to his exclusive majestic status.). see Stolz.” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible …  (ed. 101 102 . (Ps :. ‘the God of gods’ and ‘the Lord of lords’ (Ps :–) (see §. A theophany. UBL . It is a trait that God. Gibson. Imitatio Dei et deorum According to the Priestly writer. it represents both levels of divine authority that govern the cosmos..102 P’s God is altogether without peer. the absolute monarch. CuW  (): . humankind is a godlike and God-like creation. cited above in nn. George J. see also :. Healey. Adrian H. The Priestly cosmogony shows how God achieves kingship after overpowering legacies of evil. See Caspari.’      ever.) Not only is God incomparable among all his peers. including his traditional allies that comprise his pantheon. . In addition to Schmidt and Niehr.. Curtis. are supreme over the whole earth. humankind represents the Enthroned One as well as those surrounding His throne. The cosmogony demonstrates. :) The Lord is king! … For you. WuD  (): . C.. It shows how God predominates over his domain.  and . It is also a trait that God can impose on violators of his sovereign rule. ) . then. Humankind represents God’s community of co-rulers. L. Towards the end of the cosmogony. “The Kingship of Yahweh against Its Canaanite Background. how effectively God imposes rule over the cosmos. Brooke.). God and the gods do not share ‘image’ equally. and J. Created ‘in our image’ and ‘in the image of God’. wields over his co-regental subordinates. you are exalted far above all gods. responsible for performing the justice and enacting the sovereign will of God. O Lord. It is a trait that will allow P’s God to dismiss Cherubic guardians of the created world (§. and John F. at least as he demonstrates it throughout the Priestly cosmogony. respectively.

Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag.). Gen. The Book of Psalms ( vols.und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Erwägungen. all of them. . and Schmidt. Études sur le récit du paradis .. ] –). the work of your fingers. (whatever) crosses the paths of the seas. Januar  [ed. or subsequent to Ps  (Stamm. It has been suggested that the Priestly text is dependent upon Ps  (Sigmund Mowinckel. Anderson. Festgabe zum . Kaiser. ] –). Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.. see Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs.–). and the discussion by Sarah Stroumsa. the birds of heaven. ) – (repr. Axel Graupner. Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse (MUN . “‘What is Man’: Psalm :– in Jewish. see Gen :bαbβ. in conjunction with Kraus. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. . and marine life (vv.). ) . You laid everything at its feet: sheep and oxen. a human being that you take note of him? You made it less than íéäìà divine105 and crowned it with glory and majesty.. what is humanity that you would think of it. Ernst. NCBC. Wildberger. Zu seinem . and the fish of the sea.” in All Things New . The Value of Human Life ). Edinburgh: T. Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Alten Testament [ThSt . A. They collaterally hold the power to place everything under their control (v. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte2 –. Clark. ] –.” TZ  (): – (repr. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. TZ  ():  (= Vielfalt und Einheit . . “Urmensch und ‘Königsideologie’. “Gott und Mensch in Ps. Psalms .104 When I see your heaven. LouvSt  (): –. 106 Humbert. Christian and Muslim Exegesis in Arabic. Manfred Görg. Form. Holger Delkurt. Beiträge zur Theologie der Psalmen. åäìéùîú You gave it rule over the work of your hands. ) .). –.. 104 The tradition-historical relationship between these two texts is debated (Harland.b im Vergleich mit Gen . Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall. this psalm ascribes ‘image’ to human beings. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms ( vols. Morgan & Scott. 105 For this interpretation of íéäìà. Schmidt. & T. (Ps :–) Like Gen . in Studien zur biblisch-ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte [SBAB .aβb). SBB .’” ThTo  (): –.107 God even assigns 103 Levenson.. Creation and … Evil .   Ps  offers a “variant meditation on the creation of humanity”103 as it is depicted in Gen . Geburtstag von Heinrich Groß (ed. ] . Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. aviary. and Alexander B. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. and James Limburg.” TZ  (): – (repr. Bird. also the beasts of the field. –. b.. in Jahwe und sein Volk.b). “Who Cares for the Earth? Psalm Eight and the Environment.” Hen  (): –. ICC. 107 Schmidt. TBü . See also Humbert. “‘Bone of My Bone and Flesh of My Flesh.  vols. Hans Heinrich Schmid and Odil Hannes Steck. Cf. the moon and the stars that you established.106 God ensures that they dominate terrestrial. Geburtstag am . independent of Ps  yet derived from a common previous tradition (Preuss. “Alles hast Du gelegt unter seine Füße. Old Testament Theology .” ST  []: ). Beuken. in conjunction with A. Munich: Chr. in Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens [ed. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel. –) .” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn. see Gen :b. “Das Abbild Gottes. Cf. Beobachtungen zu Ps .

short of complete divinization” (v. 110 Wolff. idem and Franz Mußner. See also Peter C. Craigie. the psalmist deems humanity inherently diminutive (v. Ezekiel [trans.108 Nonetheless. its privileged position is more dynamic and replacive. Anthropology of the Old Testament (trans. v. in Biblical Theology in Crisis [Philadelphia: Westminster. See also. Psalms – . A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §Ee) and the phraseology of íãà­ïá (see Eichrodt. Mays. perhaps. and. ExAu  (): . see Mowinckel.. ] ). “What is a Human Being? Reflections on Psalm . Schmidt. In Gen . Psalms . ) . inter alios. He is the majestic Lord of the universe (vv. Festschrift für Hubert Junker …  (ed. and James L. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Leo Scheffczyk. –).” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Joüon and Muraoka.” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Philadelphia: Fortress. WdF . a).112 Humanity attests to God on earth. TynB  ():  (= On the Way to the Postmodern . Cosslett Quin. ] ).). . For when God ele- 108 In addition to the references in n. Psalms – (WBC . Waco: Word..).). b) and determines that it be his near-divine co-regent (vv.  (–)]  [on Ez :]). 109 Anderson. .111 Like the stars before them (Gen :–aα) (§.).  []) .” ThTo  (): . and Levenson. ST  (): . Talmon. Childs. by implication. Fishbane. ) .  []) . in greater detail. 112 Heinrich Groß. Trier: Paulinus. and. Psalms . 111 Clines.g. Herbert G. God gives it special protection (v. Marks and Robert M. Bernhard W. London: SCM. b)..”110 God chooses to elevate human beings “to the highest status conceivable. May. TZ  ():  (= Vielfalt und Einheit . Karl Ludwig Schmidt. God grants his human creation rulership of the world.” ErJ  ():  (repr.–). and certainly does not have its ground in man himself (vv. quoted in §. ).–.). John H. and. In Ps . in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes [ed. “Psalm  in the Context of the Christian Canon. above. Pope (ed. TZ  (): – (= Vielfalt und Einheit .109 As Wolff asserts. humankind is his underlord with whom he shares sovereignty.. “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. See also Schmidt. Anderson and Walter Harrelson. “the crowning of man to be steward over the world is (in view of his minuteness …) anything but a matter of course. f.” in Lex Tua Veritas. There are also linguistic tokens of this property: viz. and Tigay. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. ) . Guilford. “The King in the Garden of Eden: A Study of Ezekiel :–. Good. the morphology of ùåðà (see GvG  §cα.” Int  ():  (repr. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Margaret Kohl. Craigie. in Humanität und Glaube –.’      them royal status and royal rule comparable to his own (e.: Four Quarters. 113 Stamm. “Homo Imago Dei im Alten und Neuen Testament. “What is Man That You Have Been Mindful of Him? (On Psalm :–). Kraus.. Conn.113 Ps  and Gen  each affirm that humanity occupies a privileged position in the world. ) b. .

Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name. a). see also  Chr :– ) Whereas Ps  situates Yahweh in his divine court among his divine affiliates. Ascribe to the Lord. .”116 They are not Yahweh’s loyal servants. the functions of his divine comrades. P’s God elects humankind as the community with which he will enter into a special binding relationship. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Green. they are in reality nothing.. either. 115 Friedrich Baethgen.–. So God adopts a replacement (§ . A. without gods. they have no real existence and are not gods at all. Old Testament Theology in Outline (trans. they can do nothing.). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (d ed. Edinburgh: T. It is certainly an act that gives precursory protection to human beings against the dangers that the gods can pose (§§.. (Ps :–a. ascribe to the Lord glory and might. Cf. Die Psalmen (d ed.. Clark. Ginsberg.. all peoples should honor and glo- For this Priestly motif.. íéîò úåçôùî O families of peoples. ) a. Ps  relocates him in this world. bow down to the Lord in holy majesty. the gods are an insignificant trifle (v. Albright Volume (ed. Yet it is also an act of disruption.). & T. ascribe to the Lord glory and might. L.. It is an act of theological necessity (§. Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name. Psalms .” in W.114 . He creates a new cooperative that will imitate and replace.  []) . he counterbalances this act with another. n. see Zimmerli. 114 . Perhaps it is an act of self-protection. F.. The Constitution of the Monarchy . God loses an entire administrative stratum with which he would otherwise share the governance of the world. God demotes the gods that have hitherto served this co-regental role.).. and H. at least in part. See also Halpern. A History of Israelite Religion . David E. (Ps :b-) Ascribe to the Lord.115 Here. HKAT II/. “A Strand in the Cord of Hebraic Hymnody. .a. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Royal Van Gorcum. since God neutralizes potential challengers to his created order (§. .   vates the human race to the rank of co-regent. Imitatio deorum.. bow down to the Lord in holy majesty.). íéìà éðá O divinities. “they have done nothing for the people that worship them. and Albertz. EI . there is a vacuum in God’s world. Emanuel Tov. ) . 116 Briggs and Briggs. ) . Gen  is not the only biblical text to replace God’s divine community with a human entourage.. Malamat.. Instead.

) but is set in a wider divine context that includes gods. his people.. (QDeutq :. with him. lies in the “polytheistic misinterpretation” that the underlying. íéåâ O nations.  n.. then. when he separated humankind. b). Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum.g. he will bring vengeance back on his foes. )  with n. . and Johannis Bern. :. Deuteronomy .’      rify him as creator (e. .117 Text-critical analysis adds several other instances of this replacement pattern.. íéäìà ìë åì ååçúùäå bow down to him.. 117 118 . king (e. he is exalted above íéäìà ìë all the gods.120 see also Pss :. :]) The Lord is great in Zion. for åéãáò­íã the blood of his servants will he avenge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. De-Rossi. he is exalted above íéîòä­ìë all the peoples. pre-Masoretic text can promote. and judge (e. íéîù O heaven. he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of éðá ìàøùé Israelites. (Dt : a-bα). See above. cum Variis Lectionibus ( vols. For åéðá íã the blood of his sons will he avenge. ). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible2 ... (Ps : [with.” becoming God’s devotional community. The Constitution of the Monarchy . ed. v. v. See also Tov. they each recognize that God does not exist in “divine isolation” (see §. The problem. Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti ( vols. when he separated humankind.b. (QDeutj : [completed after LXX/MT])118 When the Supreme One allotted the nations.g. When [the Supreme One] allot[ted the nations. –) . e.. The former version of each doublet poses a theological problem. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTS . they each eliminate viable divine beings from God’s context.119 see also LXX) Celebrate.b. ch... Halpern.122 The second version of each doublet offers the Masoretic solution. (Dt :) Celebrate. Kenn. . see also The Lord is great in Zion. see also QPsk :121) They present the same issue as in the comparison between Pss  and .g. 122 Tigay. intro. restoring him to a more orthodox. Oxford: Clarendon. They should “assume the place of his council (in Ps ).g. (Ps :. –) . aαb). 119 DJD . v. and Day. 121 DJD . he set the boundaries of peoples according to the number of] íéäåìà éðá divinities. he will bring vengeance back on his foes. . Parma: Ex Regio Typographeo. all divinities. 120 See Benjaminus Kennicott.

 is preceded by øîàì.125 The blessing of v. Miller. 123 124 . Cf. One measure of the alliance between P’s God and his human creation appears almost immediately.). 130 See Horst Seebass. It indicates that. 127 Richard Elliott Friedman. when God speaks to the marine and aviary life created on the fifth day.126 in the Priestly world. See also McBride. and Israel writ small. in the process. and Brueggemann. See also the survey by Westermann. ) . unlike animals. The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A Linguistic Analysis (HSM . . . Atlanta: John Knox. they are each headed by a different introductory frame. 128 E.”124 . Atlanta: Scholars Press. the event is not a prototypical dialogue.. be numerous.   uncompromised “divine isolation. and fill …” (Gen :a.. in God’s first speech to the first human beings. Kaiser. ) . See also the discussion by Cynthia L.” Int  (): – (repr.129 They can replace his deliberative body in heaven.–. in God Who Creates . God blessed them íäì øîàéå and God said to them. and Ideology  n. replace the gods. “Torah (Pentateuch). 129 Ebach.” WPKG  (): . God blessed them :) øîàì. The frame suggests that human beings. be numerous.. Hans Walter Wolff. animals do not speak and do not engage in conversation.” in Gottes Recht. cf. Munich: Chr.g. . TBü . ] –).128 as the introductory frame conveys.”123 These Masoretic revisions protect God from peer rivalry and.. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.. Genesis (Interp. God’s addressees are human. Ursprung und Ziel . Friedrich Horst. Role. Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [ed. Überlegungen zur Anthropologie im Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift.” in ABD . Genesis ( vols. “Be fruitful. see also :b). The Text of Genesis –: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. can be God’s (conversational) partner in the world. speech-producing. “Be fruitful. Structure. øîàì is pragmatically appropriate. becoming “the functional equivalent of the pantheon.127 Hence. ) .. 126 Brown.. – ) .130 See Tigay. Each participant is fully capable of engaging in interactive speech. But in v.).a. Hendel. Ronald S. and finite in number (§. “Die Erschaffung des Menschen als Bild Gottes. Genesis . Humanity writ large. 125 Ebach. Levenson. –. “Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God. elevate (Israelite) humankind “to the highest status conceivable. short of complete divinization” (see §. . as “Der Mensch als Ebenbild Gottes. Deuteronomy –. Creation and … Evil  with  n. and fill …” (Gen Although these two blessings begin identically.

Kohlhammer. Genesis . As Milgrom describes it.-L. the Priestly ‘assembly’ “clearly appears as a political body invested with legislative and judicial functions. Kindl. and J. Within the Priestly tradition. commands. ) . Die Vorstufen von Kirche und Synagoge im Alten Testament. there is other evidence to show that the Israelite community replaces—or mimics—the divine court..” JQR  ():  (repr. . however.135 A third organizational category shared with the gods is the àáö ‘army’136 (e. ] ). In the Priestly tradition. this military designation is applied only 131 E. “La notion d’‘assemblée’ dans l’Ancien Testament. the Israelites are organized into the same collective categories as were the gods before them (see §. For the diverse functions of the Israelite ‘assembly’. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g (WMANT . People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus – (VTS . and Sages: Essays in Biblical Interpretation [Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press. Brill. Eine wortgeschichtliche Untersuchung (BWANT /.g.. Old Testament Theology .. Old Testament Theology . and F.. :. ). and commandments. Ex :. Sauer. see. This evidence is terminological. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. úìä  S q¯ohelet. 134 G. as “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Israel.131 particularly in relation to God’s blessings of Gen :. Ex :. Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH (ÖBS . Hossfeld and E.). Leonhard Rost. 136 Preuss. and Thomas Pola. “Democratic Origins ¯ ah. People and Land in the Holiness Code –. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift.” in TLOT .’      In later stages of the Priestly narrative.. 133 Milgrom. See also Robert Gordis. Milgrom. this term characterizes the community as a vast collective. inter alios. Joosten.g. in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology [SJLA . Prophets. Ex :. ) . in conjunction with Gibson. Stuttgart: W. ) . by implication. ) –. “ãòé y‘d to appoint. J.132 Another. .. JQR  (): – (= Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology –). – (repr.. One category is the ìä÷ ‘gathering’ (e. J. more specific category is the äãò ‘assembly’ (e.g. in Ugarit and the Bible –. Num :– [P]). älä ! O qehillâ. Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk. Brill. Ursula Struppe. 135 See. ] . Leiden: E. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift . Pierre Azzi. Gen :. Leiden: E.” in Poets. ) English Section. 132 See Westermann. “ìäJ q¯ah¯al.-M. Num : [P]).g. ìä÷ qhl. and Joosten.134 especially through the performance of his decrees. Pola.” in TDOT . Cf. :.. “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of PreMonarchic Israel. it has a Yahwistic affiliation or identity. IV.” Melto  (): .”133 Moreover. Preuss.. and. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Num : [P])..” in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of in Ancient Israel—The Biblical ‘Ed¯ His Seventieth Birthday ( sections.

137 And like the gods. ed.. : [P]). Genesis (trans.. see also Num :. Geburtstag (ed. see M.” in TDOT .” in TLOT . Leiden: Brill. tend) it.” in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel.. I–IV. “ä@ò ‘¯edâ. and restores order. non-Priestly lexical correspondence between God’s divine and human communities. Kohlhammer. rev. “The Secret Council and Prophetic Involvement in Mari and Israel. to work the soil from which he was taken. take from the tree of life as well.”139 the man damages it and disrupts God’s established order (§. and he stationed east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim and the flame of a whirling sword. 139 Gerhard von Rad. J assigns a version of ‘image’ to the man. .. Despite Yahweh’s intention that the man “preserve [the garden] from all damage. Festschrift für Siegfried Herrmann zum .. Sæbø. ] –). “ãÇñ sôd secret. OTL. From a lexical perspective. Rüdiger Liwak and Siegfried Wagner.. This feature is its godlike ‘image’ (§ .. as the situation demands (§. (Gen :– [J]) Yahweh punishes the disobedience. no way then should he stretch out his hand.138 and they serve as his ‘army’ (Ex : [P]. Philadelphia: Westminster. Levy and J. The Israelites are his ‘gathering’ (Num :. The context of the replacement is laid by the Yahwist tradition. [H]). He also rescinds his original assignment of human guardianship and posts 137 For another. Stuttgart: W.– .   to the Israelites. The Israelites are God’s subordinate community. ) .). At first. (Gen : [J]) But the role is soon reassigned. Then the Lord God said. in Mari and the Bible [SHCANE . The Lord God took the man and set him in the garden of Eden to work it äøîùìå and to guard (or: keep. They comprise his ‘assembly’ (:. øîùì to guard the way to the tree of life. they belong to God alone. ) – (repr.. and Abraham Malamat. He summons his array of divine councillors. and eat and live forever!” So the Lord God drove him out of the garden of Eden. John H. knowing good and evil.).). : [H]. . Milgrom. for the comparison. He expelled the man. “Since the man has become like one of us.. Marks. 138 Note D. ãåñ ‘council’. 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. the Israelites collectively substitute for the gods of non-Priestly traditions. see also : [P?]).

) . “Exodus and Liberation. see Rolf Rendtorff. Levenson. God will promise to become ‘God’ of his elect community (e. Margaret Kohl. against human ‘violence’ (§§.” in idem.. J’s Cherubim now do God’s work. Their role as protectors of the world is a human prerogative. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (trans. humankind will be a permanent fixture that reveals God’s active presence and participation in the world of his creation. it is a royal duty that God voices. P describes a theophany of human beings. P accepts a traditional administrative model of divine governance. b- [P]). “Humans are to be the feudal partner of God in his formation and administration of the creation. the creation of the human race is also a divine pledge of allegiance. enacting his will.aβbβ-b). .)... . See Caspari.”140 They are to be his vassal. Humankind replaces the gods. Instead of J’s active Cherubim. In the absence of gods or Cherubim. he chooses to ally himself with humankind. Gen : b [P]). Nashville: Abingdon...g.g. ).’      divine guards to maintain and preserve Eden. 140 141 .. Old Testament Theology . and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. P’s human race serves as God’s underlord on earth. Instead of a cherubic theophany. For the moment that God ousts the gods of Gen :a. representing godlike sovereignty and legal guardianship in/over the world. and mandates for all time (Gen :b-. CuW  ():  n. The Pentateuch (IBT. Created in the divine image and divine likeness. b [P]) and comply with his distinctive religious practices (e. on his own behalf. P thus defies Yahwist doctrine. in which God rules over all of the universe as the divine king. True.g.141 P’s God comes to rule a new community that is intimately related to him (v. .142 provided that it worship him alone (e.  []) . ) . In the Priestly tradition. ) . the lower administrative tier in the Priestly version is occupied by human beings. From this perspective. and he is to be their overlord. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem/Minneapolis: Magnes/Fortress. they do not.. 142 For a developmental interpretation of this formula.143 He will Preuss. the relationship will be defined as a covenant. vv. institutes. The Hebrew Bible. But rather than gods. 143 Fretheim. and Weinfeld. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. v. the Old Testament.. God empowers the human race to rule and police the world with vigilance.. In later generations.

   promise that his loyal subordinates will exercise sovereign control (e.’ 144 Brueggemann. ) . God’s new community imitates the internal organization of the gods. Social Justice –. It is an expression of his right as the (newly) enthroned king.145 In the cosmogony. It is a function of differential power and authority. 149 Eryl W. JSOTS .” CBQ  (): –. under his ultimate authority. these developments are only incipient. Jos Luyten. they must be “the functional equivalent of the pantheon” (§.) and represent divine rule in the world. ) –. People and Land in the Holiness Code –.–). similarly. And God will promise to claim Israel exclusively as his own ‘people’ (e. in God Who Creates .. Yahweh will be God of the Israelites (e.. Louvain: Leuven University Press/Peeters. 146 See. and it affects the divine rank. and Joosten. Exodus – (BKAT /. Among other things. See also Groß... and McBride. Within the human community.g. . He initiates this relationship. He replaces his precarious.. Within the pantheon. Ex :a [P]).g.. Gestalt und Botschaft (ed.148 For P. esp. Inter alia. Clements (ed. vv.146 Of all God’s creations. and he commits himself to it. 145 See Weinfeld. Norbert Lohfink. there is a comparably unequal distribution of ‘image. The relationship is not based on any intrinsic human merit but.147 It is cooperative and binding. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. The dominant ‘image’ lies with God. God chooses human vassals to be his godlike deputies and do his bidding obediently (§..144 At this later time. Davies. while the lesser ‘image’ belongs to the gods (§§. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. in Lex Tua Veritas .g. : [H]). intro. . Edward Ball. former partners and creates new ones who must strictly abide by the terms of the relationship. .. He will also acquire the Israelites as his slaves (: [H]). “Pharaoh as Vassal: A Study of a Political Metaphor.).. humankind alone has a special stated relationship to God (§. and. Schmidt.. not all gods share íìö equally. Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri .. too.” in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Roland E..). ) – (on Dt :–). however. like a blessing. is a gift of God.b [P]) over the land. for example. HBT / ():  (= Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology ).. “Walking in God’s Ways: The Concept of Imitatio Dei in the Old Testament. . 148 Miller. “Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Moses (Dt .” in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung. 147 Baentsch.). God’s divine subordinates owe him his due reverence. BETL . Lev :.149 .

obedience has its reward. Leviticus (WBC .150 as the gods glorify God (e. A child must ‘honor’ his/her parents. (Gen :a.g. see also You shall each revere your mother and your father. Sinai and Zion  with n. Ben-Zion Segal and Gershon Levi. on a nuclear scale.. even beyond natural expectations. ).). God promises Abraham abundant progeny as well as a dynastic John E. so are parents. see also : [P]) and continued exercise of ‘likeness’ (:b.  [])  n. “you have a duty to honour … your father and your mother … just as you honour your Creator”151 (e. Jerusalem: Magnes.152 For the gods and human beings alike. Honor your father and your mother. :). ]  n. the child-parent relationship should imitate a basic relationship with God. 153 Childs.’      When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years.  [])  (italics deleted). Cassuto. see also :b [P]) Although humanity as a whole intimately reflects and participates in the divine image. To honor one’s parents is to maintain. Israel Abrahams. . Then God said. the order of God’s cosmos. “Let us make humankind åðîìöá in our image …” So God created humankind åîìöá in his image. 152 See Greenberg. see also Dt :).g. When the gods are obedient. and. Lev :b [H]). A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans.. their harmonic relationship with God continues. in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought [JPS Scholar of Distinction Series.–... –. 150 151 . perhaps. Just as God is revered (e. According to the fifth commandment.” JSOT  (): .g. and he named him Seth. ) –. and Levenson. Ps :). íéäìà íìöá in the image of God he created it. male and female he created them.153 God rewards Noah’s perfect obedience (Gen :aβ-b [PT]) with life-saving protection against the flood (vv. Anselm C. Hagedorn. ‘image’ is expressed differentially between generations: a child’s ‘image’ only approximates that of the parent (§. Jerusalem: Magnes. (Gen : [PT]). “The Decalogue Tradition Critically Examined. “Guarding the Parents’ Honor— Deuteronomy ..” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition (ed. Exodus . Dallas: Word. (Lev :aα [H]) That is to say. God grants human beings continued existence. he fathered (a son) … åîìöë according to his image. [P]). so that your days may grow long … (Ex :. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. as stated in the fifth commandment and its analogues.  (repr.. Hartley. cf. God rewards human obedience with life.

. e. and Historical Criticism . Harland. see also Num :– [P?]) (§. 157 Levenson. The Hebrew Bible. “[m]an has stepped outside the state of dependence. Whoever slights (or: curses) one’s father or one’s mother shall be put to death. provoke conflict. The Value of Human Life .  [])  (on ritual performance). Yahweh … Gods and Goddesses –. :a) Within God’s community. above. 156 For the nature of this domain. a “speaks of some direct relation between the divine and human world where the human participates potentially in deity. it is also celebratory... Isaiah (OTL.– [H]).. . . . ) Anyone who slights (or: curses) one’s father or one’s mother shall be put to death.g. by their very existence. The Torah’s Vision of Worship –. V. . (Lev :a [H].” As that comparison is presented in Gen :. see the references in n.. Creation and … Evil –. ) .g. see Day. though. See also Erhard S. OTL.. see also v.). 159 Miller. He effects the flood on the world. In response to Helel’s challenge of God’s kingship. For a recent discussion.”159 By the application of his ‘image’. J recognizes that a “point of comparison between men and gods … really exists.. Douglas W. the Old Testament. Gerstenberger..158 He orders a death penalty for violations of the fifth commandment. see also Dt :–. ZAW  (): . God ejects him from the pantheon and banishes him permanently to the underworld depths (Is :–).. and. :. 155 Cooke.155 Yahweh likewise punishes human disobedience in Eden (§§. [P].. Obedience to God brings life and therefore inclusion in God’s community (see also Lev :. Stott. whether to gods or humans. in this context.157 God demotes his divine council to mortal status for judicial failure (§. In defiance of J..   line (e.. Levenson. He is also in the process of shedding himself of beings who. and Childs. he has refused obedience and willed to make him- 154 See. Balentine. The mood is triumphant.156 Yet disobedience can also be punished with death. 158 Sharp. ScEs  (): –. Genesis – . (Ex :.). Louisville: Westminster John Knox. the mood is very different. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.).154 Disobedience brings the opposite. Leviticus (trans.. God has neutralized several inherited obstacles to the order that he is creating (§ .).. disobedience of God guarantees punishment (see Lev :– [H]). But in Gen .

humankind is comparable to the lower level of the divine world (§.161 there is … a narrative tension and contrast between P and J.’      self independent.166 … What are present here [in Gen. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox.162 Whereas J condemns the comparison. 164 Miller. the Priestly writer “establishes a clear connection between the human world and the divine world in the creation of ’¯ad¯am. and whoever wishes to speak correctly about humanity must also speak about God. ] ). Macon: Mercer University Press. . Imitatio Dei. 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. inter alios. 167 Preuss. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (d ed.  [])  (= Genesis [trans. The guiding principle of his life is no longer obedience. See also. ICC. whose ‘likeness’ and ‘image’ are ultimately imprinted on that segment of the human race destined to become Israelite. it is comparable to the leader of that divine world..167 160 Von Rad. Edinburgh: T. and John Skinner. & T. Carr. 161 Cf. Genesis6  (= ET . Genesis .). Mark E. 162 Miller. ) –. 166 See § .–. Old Testament Theology . The kidmûtenû of P is a statement of God’s highest intention for the human being while being k˘e’ah.. Clark. in J to become ’˘el¯ohîm-like is to go precisely counter to the divine will. To be ’˘el¯ohîm-like is for P God’s will for his creature.. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ] are statements of relationship between God and humanity.165 On the other hand. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies.”160 P maintains otherwise. Preuss presses the comparison one step further. “Vom Gottesbild zum Menschenbild. . with n. HKAT I/. in God Who Creates .163 For P. [N]ot only is God imagined in anthropomorphic terms. Gunkel.” LebZeug  (): . . the divinehuman resemblance is a deliberate expression and act of God. Genesis – .. 163 Note David M. … Whoever chooses to speak of God must therefore speak at the same time of humanity. humans also are believed to be theomorphic.. Biddle. the latter reacts very negatively..”164 On the one hand. From the very beginning. Dillmann. Genesis (th ed. Aspekte der innerbiblischen Dynamik des Bilderverbotes. Genesis – . P applauds it. See also Christoph Dohmen. The former speaks quite positively of this similarity of the human to the divine. ) .). 165 McBride.

as Preuss and Brueggemann note.. Situated in a world that is undifferentiated. See Lohfink. He combats forces in/of the world that can destabilize his creation. ] ). Divinity implicates humanity. There is one way in which God is imaged in the world and only one: humanness! This is the only creature. Genesis . More narrowly. Minneapolis: Fortress. shapeless.. as “‘Subdue the Earth?’ [Genesis :]. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption. Mark S. Text and Texture . The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTS . P’s God institutes harmonious cosmic order in the universe. Yet the prototype of the human world lies in “the reality of God.” That reality changes over the course of the cosmogony. Bloch-Smith. P’s God attains complete control of the world. and McBride. “it is the task of mankind to extend and complete on earth the divine work of creation.168 The human and divine worlds therefore implicate each other.”170 Brueggemann. God himself is the paradigm for all future human behavior (§. in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.” in Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy [trans. in God Who Creates –.” From this perspective. as creator and as absolute king.”169 In the former case. In the latter case. Smith and Elizabeth M. See also Janowski. 168 169 . Linda M. These changes in the reality of God directly impact the world of human creation. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Maloney. .   The divine-human comparison is a mutual and reciprocal relationship. the cosmogony “may be regarded as a charter text that informs other priestly passages in the Pentateuch. “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’?” Orien  (): a (repr.” JBTh  (): – (repr. God implicates “the only creature … which discloses to us something about the reality of God. it is also a relationship of representation. For Brueggemann. “Tempel und Schöpfung. 170 Fishbane. the only part of creation. and chaotic. which discloses to us something about the reality of God. esp.). the celestial realm of the gods and the terrestrial realm of humankind. ] –). God moves step by step to build a world that satisfies him (‘very good’ [Gen :]). Thereafter. 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 (§ ). He exercises his right to unseat his morphologically kindred colleagues with whom he might share both realms of the universe: viz. ) .

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

As God had done before them.. restore the order of creation. and R.”177 They are his collaborators and cocreators. Hayes (ed. Patrick Graham. . The Ideology of Ritual . after ‘all the work’ is completed (see Gen :. “‘Chaos’ und ‘Chaosmächte’ im Alten Testament. ) . and Weimar. Kuan. Man in the Old Testament (trans. Armin Lange.” TynB  (): . 180 For a qualification.181 “maintain the order of creation. in History and Interpretation . Space. see Gen : [P]). exact measurements.g. Gregor Smith. Creation and … Evil . Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.” in ibid. Frederick J. 181 Note Ian Hart.” BN  (): . See also idem. and Status. by implication. Humankind also extends and completes “the essence of the idea of creation in the Hebrew Bible”: “mastery” (see §.178 Imitatio Dei. Geburtstag (ed.. Brown. and Diethard Römheld.b [P]). separate and dedicated space. Minneapolis: Fortress... .. ) .” BN  (): – (repr. The instructions are each executed immediately and perfectly. The Ideology of Ritual . Yahweh the Patriarch: Ancient Images of God and Feminist Theology (trans. JSOTS . ScEs  (): . Hermann Lichtenberger. among other things. the seventh day is dedicated to the Sabbath (Ex :–. The project. Brown. “Genesis :–: as a Prologue to the Book of Genesis.184 It will even develop into a dynasty of des letzten Jahrzehnts.179 . Then. SBT /. .).” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time.”182 It will combat eruptions of violence and chaos (§ . and. and Jeffrey K. see Gen :– [P]). William P. als Schlüssel einer alteren Fassung der priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungserzählung. 183 E.” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H.. and Sharp. multiple forms of order: viz. 184 See Gerstenberger. BZAW . and … when necessary..180 It will tend the world. the Israelites create “an ordered..  []) . see Eichrodt. 182 Gorman. in Studien zur Priesterschrift und … Gottesbildern –). Gen . Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum . and permanent fixtures. 177 Levenson.. internal (sub-) divisions. ‘just as the Lord had commanded’. “Divine Act and the Art of Persuasion in Genesis . supportive.). Görg. K. of course. Gaiser. through a heptad of instructions which impose. the project concludes with a voice of approval (Ex :.. 179 Gorman.).   is commanded by God. “Chaos und Kosmos. Sheffield: JSOT Press.183 It will impose and administer the rule of law (see also Lev : [H]). is the tabernacle. they extend and complete God’s creative work on earth in perfect obedience. and obedient environment … in which the reign of God is visible and unchallenged. M..  []) . 178 See Gorman. It will dominate the animals that inhabit the world (§§ . London: SCM.

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

which God works to tame and mold into a life-sustaining environment. with Harland.. Delcor. AOAT . human beings will dominate the entire earth. in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn – (= Studien zur … Religionsgeschichte –). Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel. and Weippert.” (Gen :) The program has several components.   indigenous enemies. intro. Genesis4  (= ET ). The Biblical Doctrine of the Reign of God (Edinburgh: T. Theology of the Old Testament . followed. See also Brueggemann. Blenkinsopp. Philipp Schmitz. Then it is mentioned again. 195 Wyatt. by Eichrodt. which is explicitly territorial (õøàä). esp. Clark. Der geschaffene Mensch und die Schöpfung. 196 Note Jacob. . and let them have dominion over … the whole earth. Lohfink. before creation. “… fill õøàä­úà the earth äùáëå and conquer it and have dominion over the fish of the sea. John Gray. The Text of Genesis – –. ) –. Priest. The transfer culminates in Gen :.” in Macht euch die Erde untertan? Schöpfungsglaube und Umweltkrise (ed. in the proposal to make the human race. 198 See Görg. Würzburg: Echter Verlag. and occupied by animals. without order or life” (§. ) . Louisville: Westminster John Knox. It includes conquest as well as kingship. Orien  (): – (= Theology of the Pentateuch –). ) – n. Yet a third (ed. & T. e. Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag. Genesis –. In its earliest stage. and over every thing that moves õøàä­ìò on the earth. Levenson. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL . ) –. Sage.196 õøàä.g. ‘the earth’ was “a chaotic mass. .”197 God blessed them and God said to them. in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions2 – ). ) .).198 Another is the region itself. and. “the paradigm of all victories. over a realm that God effectively selects as his domain. and. .). illuminated. each differently. ZAW  (): – (= idem. Sinai and Zion –. where P’s God presents “the program for the whole history of the culture of the human race. differently. it is ordered. 197 Gunkel.. Caquot and M. Next. in Ebenbild Gottes— Herrscher über die Welt  n. It is also fertilized. Hendel. A. It includes the demonstration of power. and achievement of victory. For the Priestly writer. . and over the birds of heaven. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. creation is only one outcome of the Chaoskampf. (Gen :bα [P]) In addition to wildlife. The Value of Human Life .”195 The setting of the paradigm is õøàä. on Gen . See also ibid. Cf. “‘Macht euch die Erde untertan’ (Gen .. is eventually transferred by him to human control. Jüngling. One is the directive that human beings wage campaigns and conquer their region (ùáë).

“Öøé y¯araˇ s.. I loathe them. Social Justice –.. sympathetically.”201 But it is also a reenactment. ) .. and division (§ . You will not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out from before you. I shall give it to you to possess. You will keep all my laws and all my judgements. extension. and completion of “the divine work of creation. You will not make yourselves despicable by beast or by bird or by anything that moves on the ground.’      component is the exercise of kingly power to dominate and subjugate those who dwell in their realm (äãø) (§. Since they did all these things. Geschenkpapier zum . You will appropriate the land and dwell in it. “Israel’s occupation of Canaan is the realization of the Creator’s blessing given to all the nations of the world. 199 . 201 Lohfink. and reclaim the area from a native nation whose practices are the antithesis of their own. “You will possess their land. Frans Breukelman. äÖTÇî môr¯asˇâ. íúìãáäå You should separate between the pure beast and the impure. a land with oozing milk and honey.). destroy all their figured objects. which éúìãáä I have separated (out) for you to hold impure. for I have given you the land to possess. äÖVé yer¯esˇâ. Geburtstag von Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt (Berlin: Alektor. differentiation. in fact. that will guide the Israelite effort to attain the promised land.” in Störenfriedels Zeddelkasten. in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn  (= Studien zur … Religionsgeschichte –). (Num :– [H]) The Israelites must obey God. (Lev :b- [H]) Just as God separated out the cosmos. destroying all their molten images and demolishing all their high places. . ..). I am the Lord your God who éúìãáä has separated you from the (other) peoples. and between the impure bird and the pure. and you will perform them so the land to which I am about to bring you to dwell in will not vomit you out.” (Lev :–a. “Das Buch Genesis als das Buch der úåãìåú Adams. 200 See Weinfeld. God created Israel as he created the world. Note Görg. See also. ÖTÇî môr¯asˇ. so he has separated Israel from its multifarious ambience.. äg\é yeruˇssˇâ.200 In other words. The continuation of God’s speech in Lev  recalls another creative “modality” that the Israelites must imitate and reenact: separation.” The Israelites should replicate that which God accomplished in the cosmogony.” in TDOT . see also :– [H]) You will dispossess all the inhabitants of the land from before you. des Menschens—eine Analyse der Komposition des Buches.. enact his directives. I said to you.199 It is a program.

too.203 Israelites must commemorate a separate period of time. and Milgrom. see also : [P]). 205 Greenstein. Yairah Amit. and Milgrom.. Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary. God’s holiness. See also Milgrom. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Prooftexts  (): . and imitate. without which a male will be ‘cut off’ from the community (Gen : ).g. respectively). in this case as well. Theology of the Old Testament . ) –. See also Joosten. and. People and Land in the Holiness Code –. the Lord. see also Lev : [P]). 203 For discussion.207 Imitatio Dei. Eichrodt. perhaps. Israelites] will be holy to me because I..205 You [sc. “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness. Lev :a. Baruch A. and.. (Lev : [H]) Inasmuch as God separated the Israelites from the world around them. anyone who violates the Sabbath—failing to abide by. JSOT  (): –. 204 For the centrality of the Sabbath to P. ) . The Value of Human Life . he sanctified them (:b- [H]). and Rendtorff. too.   For H. Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary.” in Tehillah le-Moshe *–* (in Hebrew).208 202 Levenson. during which God ceased all creative activity (Ex :–  [P]. Creation and … Evil . 208 Levenson. Genesis –. . Prooftexts  (): –. see Weinfeld. Israel must actively represent God.204 Most of all. God’s precedent—will be ‘cut off’ (:b. circumcision (Gen :b-. Israel is obliged to maintain this distinct identity in other ways. Leviticus . See also. Firmage. 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. and his separative modality of creation in the world.b [H?]. 207 E. Tarb  (): . Israelite males must bear a ‘sign’ of this relationship. God wills that Israel imitate him. the Israelites should follow suit. Creation and … Evil .–. at the week’s end.206 As agent and essence of holiness (e.g. the Israelites must maintain their holiness. Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society. Israel may worship only one God and be forever bound to him in an exclusive covenantal relationship. Levine. 206 Harland. The Covenant Formula –.. see also :–). despite his source-critical judgement. see Jacob.”202 Israel’s distinct identity is anchored in creation. and Greenstein. Ex :b [P]. more generally. Leviticus . source-critical assignment aside. am holy ìãáàå and have separated you from the (other) peoples to be mine.

Genesis . Driver. See. without peer.. 212 See the references in ch. and Israel. Creation and … Evil .’      Stated thus. 209 210 .. for example. LXX (James Barr. )  (ad Gen :).212 It is also possible that the climactic evaluative clause of Gen :a. . tames the terrain. God does not pronounce humanity ‘good’. To “extend and complete on earth the divine work of creation” (§ . WC. But they do not address the import of the omission at this juncture or elsewhere in the cosmogony.. It is possible.  n.. God provides more than one model for humanity. and makes this world his home. The Text of Genesis – . . Procksch..215 In this case. then.. either. the early history of God is a model of Priestly achievement (§. though. because the separation of the waters by a firmament was only Eichrodt.). 213 E. London: Methuen. P’s God does not pronounce the second creative act ‘good’. And he makes himself available to only one partner in a covenantal relationship. After all. Die Genesis 2/3 .”209 But they should also imitate God himself. includes the human creature. to follow. and Hendel. 215 Cf. But see Westermann. The Book of Genesis (th ed. ultimately. at the end of the sixth day. there is something missing from the Priestly account of human creation. “Was Everything That God Created Really Good? A Question in the First Verse of the Bible. True. intro. generally. the reason is clear enough: the approbative formula is “not placed here by the original writer. The Text of Genesis – ). He rules the world as king.g. But in the end. Theology of the Old Testament . 214 See Levenson. Davies. attempt to retrieve human goodness. P does not expressly celebrate the human creature.. He wrestles forces of opposition. as explained by Hendel. 211 Cf. 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. (italics deleted). is to imitate and represent God in the world.214 Such interpretations. undifferentiated context. and Schmidt. utilizes its resources.210 He begins as an amorphous entity in an inherited. he attains a completely differentiated uniqueness in an environment of his making. that humankind is a self-explanatory good.” in God in the Fray . Despite its celebratory tone. Die Schöpfungsgeschichte 2 .211 Commentators explain the omission. (on ‘darkness’).213 Or maybe the perfect heptadic repetition of áåè éë compensates for its absence elsewhere in the cosmogony. then.). in In Search of True Wisdom –.

Knowing tôb and ra‘. Batto. Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary. 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]). the Priestly and Yahwist stories of early humanity do not belie one another.220 P concedes that the story of human history is not necessarily good (see also :). See also Barr. AJSL  (): –. Role. For in their final forms. D. Praeger.  à II. . and afterwards: for the imagination of man’s heart is EVIL from his youth (viii  [J]). ) . Structure. in God in the Fray . the story of (human) creation is not yet over. Biblical Studies … Thirty Years After (ed.” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. ) –. Daniel Patte. ) ..  with n. Genesis . (italics and emphasis original). Washington. and Brown.”216 Like Yahweh in Gen : (J). Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.221 But P concedes something else. Cf. 221 Morgenstern. 217 Vogels.218 The absence of an approbative clause in the last creative act may serve a proleptic function as well. “Genèse I.’” in Thinking in Signs: Semiotics and . 216 Driver. P withholds (final) approval to humanity. “‘Like One of Us. 218 Note Mary Douglas. Westermann. Nahum M. too. van der Voort. .. Richard J. Genesis . Semeia . Genesis . 220 Bernard F. “Creation Theology in Genesis. Genesis . in conjunction with Batto. A. Genesis12 . See also Jacob. P also acknowledges that the story of human history is not completed (see also :–a).219 That is to say.” RB  ():  n.   a preliminary and imperfect stage in what was completed only on the Third Day. Collins. Simply put. . Sarna. Indeed it [sc. 219 Cassuto. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York/Washington: Frederick A. ) . CBQMS . Atlanta: Scholars Press.217 P’s God does not approve what is (still) incomplete. and Ideology . a et le Psaume CIV. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. ) .C. P makes a concession to J. Clifford and John J.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Cassuto. By omitting the approbative formula.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :–  :  :–  :–  .             .    –   :  :– : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :– : :– : : : : : : :–    . . . – :  :–  :  :  :–  :– .         . – n.  : : : : : : :– : : .        .     –         . .       .    .        :– : : : : : : :– : : : : :– :– : : : : :– : : : : : : :– :– :– : : : : :  n.    :  n. .     –     .  :–  :  n.

         .   .   : :– : : : –   – –  : : : : : : : : :– :– : : : : .      –      –      n.  . – –. : : :– : : : : :– : : : : : :   : :– : :– :– :– : : : : : : : :– : : : :– : : :– : : :      . .  .   .   n. . –  n. –.  and .     –   –  –  –   : : : :– : : :– :– : : : : : : :– : :   : :–  n.  .  –   : :– :– .       – –    nn.   with n.         : : :    .

  – –      :– : :– : : : : : : :– :– : : : : : –   .  – .  –  .    . .      :– : : : : :  n. . ..  : : : :– : : : : :– : : : : : : : : : : : :– :  : :– : : :            –  – – with n. . . . – . .  . .     n.  –   –.   n.    . .  .      : : : : : : : : : :   . –.   .  .  .   n.    .   : :– : :– : : : : : : : : :– : : : :    –      .     : : : : : : : : – –    – with n.    .   .

     –    .  with :– :– n. .    – . .  .  . . .   :– : : :– : : : :– :– : : : : : : :  .  .   . .     –  n. – with n. .   .         –.  – – .    .  :– : :– : : : :  :– : : :– : :– : : : :– : : : : :  :– :– :– :– :– :  :– : :– :– :– :– :   :  :– :    with n.   . .    :   : :– : .  n.   : –  :–   :  :  :  : .       .     .   n. –. .  –. – with n.  .  . .        : : :  .

  :– : : : : :– : : :– : : :– : : : :– : :– : : :– :  : : :– : : :– : : : : : : :– : : : : :  :– : :– : :  .  –.  .    :   :– :– : : : : :–  : : : : : : :– : : : :– : : :– :     .  .    .  .  . – . .     :  :  :   : : : : : : :– : :   .     –  . .    .     . –  –  – with n. – .       .  .    . .           . – – . .          .   .   : :– :  .         .

. . :  n..:–:  RIME  E. –:  n.. Esarh. .  SAA   rev.  AKA  i –:  n..  BBSt ::  n.  BBSt  Face A :  n..  BBSt  iii :  n...–:  KAR  i –:  n.  QPsk ::  Rabbinic b. –:  CH i –:  CH xlvii –:  CH xlviii –:  CH xlviii –:  En El i :  En El i –:  En El iv –:  En El v :  n.:–:  RIMA  A. Esarh. Esarh. :  Borger... : : :     .  Layard ::  n.:  RIMA  A. Meg a:  Sifre Deuteronomy :  n.  Biblical Manuscripts Kenn :  Kenn :  Qumran QDeutj :: .  BBSt  Face A –:  n.  BBSt :–:  with n.:  RIMA  A. .  QDeutq :: ...  Borger.:–:  RIMA  A. :  n.  :  : .  : – :–  :  : .  Lambert.  BBSt  iv –:  n.  :  :  n. ′–′:  n.  Borger. Esarh..  KAH   rev.  rev. –:  .  RAcc ::  RIMA  A. BWL ::  n.   :    :–  :–    : . .  BBSt  Face B :  n.  BM :  with n.:–:  RIMA  A.:–:  RIMA  A. ::  n.  Layard ::  n. . ..:–:  RIMA  A.:–:  RIMA  A.  AKA  ii :  nn. v.  KAV  rev.  Borger.  BBSt  iv :  B¯ıt M¯esiri ii :  n.  n.  and  BBSt  i –:  BBSt  i :  BBSt  Face A :  n. ..  OIP  ::  n. ....  OIP   vi :  n.   R  iii –:  RA   i :  n..  KAR :–.. .. . .  Akkadian AKA  i :  n.:–:  RIMA  A.  rev.  rev...

 SAA   rev. AfO  – obv.  SAA   rev. :  n. el-Qom :–.  Unger.  TCL  :  n.  Streck. :  n. Asb.  n.  YOS   i :  n.. Asb.  YOS   i :  n.  SAA   obv.:  K. –:  n.  Streck.  KAI :  Tell Fakhariyeh: –. – Epigraphic Hebrew Kh.  Tell Fakhariyeh . AfO  – obv.:  Tukulti-Ninurta i/A obv.  KAI :  with n.  iv –:  n. Ajrud Pithos :–:  K.  SAA   rev. –:  n.:  n.   Weidner.  Streck. :  SAA   rev.  – rev.:  n. :  n. Bel-Harran-beli-usser :  n.  STT ::  STT :.  Weidner.:  n.  SAA   rev.  STT ::  n.  L ff.  Epigraphic Aramaic Bukan :  n. :  n. rev.  STT :–:  TCL  :  n. . .::  .:  n. iii –:  KTU2 . iv –:  KTU2 . Ajrud Pithos :–:  Ugaritic KTU2 .:  TuL ::  n. .. :ff. Asb.

This page intentionally left blank .

. –. . –. – Amharic kä/kÃ.  íëçúä.  n. –.  íãà­ïá.  n. –.  (íéäìàä) ùéà. .  with n. – øùá.  s. – izuzzu. almu.  íéäìàä­éðá.  n. –.  n.  àøá. . ïéìà. –.  øîà øîàì. – êà.  íéðåà.  íéøåáâ. .  íéîéà.  ìëàî. –. –.  n.  Epigraphic Aramaic àúåîã.  úåîã. äìà. .  íìà. .  íéäìàä éäìà. –. –. –. – ñîç.  . . . . – íéîé. –.  with n. –.  íéäìà(ä). – ìà. – úåîäá.WORD INDEX Akkadian aˇs¯abu. . – ùáë. . – with n. . – ìéãáä.  íéìà éðá.  äøùà. – áäé äáä. – íé. – äàåáàå.  ùåðà. – ë.  àåá àåáà. äðã. – Tiamat.  ãâ. . – Biblical Aramaic êìà.  úåòã.  áåè.  äàéáä. – (à)îìö.  á. – íéøùà. –. .  Biblical Hebrew ìáàúä.  ìòá.  kakku.  õøà.  äåçúùä. – úåøùà. –. . êã.  àîìö.  iˇssˇakku.  íéáåøë.  sˇarru. –. – äðæ. – àáöð. –. – íéðãà.  íãà. – àã.  n. –. – úãùà. –. .  úåøåáâ. .  êìä äëì.  with n. ïëã.

–. –. .  Nudimmud.  íåäú.  –. – èôùî. – . . . . . –. . –. –. – íéùã÷. – thmtm. – øîù.  n. –.  Epigraphic Hebrew äúøùà. –. . – úåàáö (äåäé).  Ugaritic ’atrt.  çåø. .  ìôð.  ãåñ. – úåçîù.  n.  äåäé­àáö­øù.  êàìî.  úåøúùò.  íçøå íéãù. – øùòúä. . . – .  äùò.  íéäìà çåø.  ãáò. – äëî.  íéîùä úëàìî. –.  äãø. – ùã÷ úááø.  n. – ìùî. – àáðúä. – íéúøùî. – ïúî. .  n. – íéëàìî.  úåöò. – àáö.  ïåéìò. . – with n. –.  íéìôð.  íå÷ äîå÷.  n.  àøåî. –. .  ïéî. –.  n.  àùî. – Sumerian . –. .  àð. –. ïéðú. . –.  with n. .  tnn.  äãò. – úåãìåú.  n.  íéãáò.   ìâî.  ym. –.  úçù. – íìö.  òñî. –.  êìäî.  ìôð.  úåî÷ð.  (ä)÷ãö. . –.  n.  íéøùéî.  úéçùî.  ïî. –.  with n.  ìä÷. –.  ãöòî. –.

G. . Yairah.  Amit.  n. .  n.  n. Bruno. . . .  n. .  and .  n. A.  nn.  n.  and .  with n. Francis I.  n. .  nn. . .  n.  n. – n. .  n. Friedrich.  n. .  n.  n. Rainer. . .  n. A. .  Barr..  n. and . .  nn. – n.  and . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.  with n. .  BDB.  n.  n. Alfred. . xv.  Anderson. .  and . .  n. . .  n. .  with nn.  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. ..  n..  and . . .  Berges.  nn..  Andersen.  n.  n.  n. . . Samuel E.  n. . .  n. .  Bauer. .  n. – n.  Beuken. . . Walter et al.  n.  n.  n. Bernard F. .  with n. . Shimon.  n.. David H.  n.  n. F. .  n. . .  n.  Baumgartner. .  n.  n. M. . . .  n.  n. .  n.  n..  n.  Beck.  nn.  n.  n.  n.  Balentine. . . .  n.  n.  and . .  Bar-On..  n. . .  n. . . .  n.  n. .  n.  and . . .  and .  nn. – Barth. .  n. Robert.  n.  and . .  n.  n. .. .  n. – Angerstorfer.  n.  and .  with n. Andreas.  Baranzke.  n.  Berlejung. . . . . xvi. xiv.  n. .  n. .  and .  with n. . W. Paul.  n. .. .  n.  n. .  n. Willem A. . .  n. . . .  n. G.  n.  n.  n. .  Azzi. .  n.  n.  Ackroyd.  n.  nn. Leslie C. Hans.  n.  nn.  Baentsch..  n.  . – with n. . .  nn.  with n. .  nn. Pierre.  n.  with n. .  n. .  nn.  and .  Albertz. . . . Jacob. .  n..  with n. .  n. H.  Alter.  n. . . . Bernhard W. . . .  n.  n.  n. .  n. Heike. . . .  and .  n. Ulrich.  n. . .  Anderson.  Bertholet.  n.  n.  n.  nn. James. Peter R. .  n. . . .  Bergsträsser..  n.. . – n.  n. . .  n.  Ahlström. .  n.  Baethgen.  nn.  n.  with n. . . . . . . . Angelika.AUTHOR INDEX Aaron.  Allen.  n.  and . . . .  n. . . – nn.  Beauchamp.  Batto. .

. and .  n.  n. .  Budd.   Biale.  n. . . . . . . . .  n.  n. Penelope.  with nn.  with n.  n.  n.  n.  and . See also s. P.  n. . . .  n..  nn. . .  and .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.  Brettler.  and . F. Pierre. .  Bottéro.  n..  n.  n.  n.  with n.  and . .  n.. .  n. Frank R.  n.  with nn.  and .  n. Joseph.  Bordreuil. . .  n. . . . .  n.  n. xv.  n. .  n. .  n.  n.  Caspari. .  n.. . Emilie Grace.  n. – with n. .  n.  with n. .  n.  n.  n.  Breukelman. . .  Borger. Balthasar.  n.  Blau.  n. . .  n. ..  and . . .  n. . .  n. Philip J. .  Brown. .  n. .  n. – with nn.  nn. .  n. .  nn. . .  n.  n.  n.  with n..  Brueggemann. .  n.  n. . . . . .  n. .  and .  n.  n. .  n. W. . .  n.  Brüning. Christian.  Bickel.  n.  n.  n. . . .  n.  Budde. .  n.  and .  n. . .  with n. .  Böttcher. .  n. Joshua. . .  n. . . .  n.  n.  n. Jean.  n. . . – Birkeland. . David. . Frans.  n. . .  n. . Phyllis A.  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. BDB Brown.  n.  n. .  n.  Blenkinsopp.  n.  n. Julius.  n.  n. Charles Augustus.  n. . .  nn. C.  Carr. . .  n.  with n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. .  with n. .  n. .  Brown. .  and .  nn.  with n. .  Bird.  with n. . Karl.  with nn..  n. .  nn. BDB Briggs. . .  n.  Buber.  n.  and .  Burney. . . . David.  n.  with n. . .  n. .  n.  Boehmer.  n. .  nn. . H. .  and .  with n. Marc Zvi.  n. . .  n. . . R.  n. Carl.  n. .  n. Harris.  n.  n.  n.  n.  with nn. .  n. . Walter. Martin.  n.  and .  Blake..  with nn. . .  n. .v.  and .  n. Friedrich.  and .  nn. . . .  nn. .  n.  with n. – n. . .  n. .  with n. .  n.  and . .  nn.  n. . U.  n. . .  n.  n.  Brockelmann.  Briggs. Elizabeth M. . .  nn. .  n. .  with n. . .  n. .  with n.. . .  with n. A.  and . .  Cassuto. .  n..  n. . . William P. .  n. See s. .  n. . . . .  Bloch-Smith. .v.  with n.  n.  n.  n. . . . . . .  de Boer.  n.  n.  nn.  n. .  and .  with n. .  n.  and . Francis.  with n. .  nn.

. R.  Clements.  with nn.. .  and .  Derenbourg.  n. . .  n. . .  n.  Childs.  n.  n.  n. . Bernard.. Marcel. .  with n.. . . . .  with n.  n. . . Peter C.  n.  and .  with n.. . .  n.  n. .  n.  Davies.  n.  n. .. Wilhelm Craigie.  Cross.  and .  n. . Edward M. .  Clines. .  Dever.  n. Joseph. Frank.  Cooke. J.  nn.  n.   n. . . .  nn. . David J. .  n.  Crüsemann.  n. ..  n.  n. . . Johannis Bern. . .. .  n.  De Regt. . .  with nn. . .  n.  n.  nn.  n. . .  n. ..  n. .  n. . . J.  n.  nn.  n. .  n.. . .  Cohen.  n. . .  n.  n. .  with n.  with n.  Derenbourg. John J. A.  n.  n.  n.  and .  Currid. . Mitchell.  Charlesworth. . .  n.  and . . .  Davies.  Curtis. E. A.  n. .  and .  n.  n. . .  n.  with n.  nn. William G.  with n.  Comrie. . .  n.  n.  n.  with nn. . .  Cohen.  n.  n.   Cowley.  n. . .  n. . Henri. .  n.  n. . ..  nn. .  with n. .  De-Rossi. .  n.  and . .  with n.  n. Frank Moore. Jeremy. .  n. John D.  and .  n.  n. – with n. .  n. .  n..  n.  n. . .v.  n.  nn.  n. .  and . . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. .  n.  n. . .  and . .  n..  n. . Eryl W. .  n.  n.  Coote. . . – Cohen. .  n. Alan.  Dahood. . See s.  n.  n. – with n. . . .  n.  n. . H. . Naomi G. . . . .  n. .  n.  n. . .  n.  Cooper.  n. . .  with n.  n.  and ..  . Gerald. .  and .  n. . .  n. Hartwig. Ronald E. G.  n.  and . . .  n. . . . .  n.  n. .  and .  n.  nn. . Franz.  n. .  n. .  n. . .  and .  n.  n. A.  n. .  Cazelles. B.  n.  Day.  with nn.  nn.  Davidson. . .  n.  n. . .  Delitzsch.  n. . H.  n.. .  n.  Collins.  n.  with n.  with n.  with nn.  n.  n. . . Brevard S.  Charles. .  n. .  n. John. Robert B. . .  n.  with nn.  n.. . .  Cooke.  n. L.  n.  n. .  with n. ... .  n..  n. Gesenius.  and . A. .  n.  n.  with n. Philip R.  n. .  n.

 n. .  n. .  Driver. .  n.  and .  n.  n. . .  n.  n.  Diehl. .. . .  Fenz.  n.  n. .  Duncker.  Fox. Walther.  Dick.  with n.  n.  n. .  n.. Bernh.  . C..  n. – nn.  with n. . . .  n.  Edelman. .  n. .  with n. . .. .  Elnes. F. Loren R.  and . .  n.  Fohrer.  n.  Fisher.  n. ..  Fensham.  n..v.  n. Alexander A. . .  n.  n. .  n. . . .  n. .  n. R. .  nn.. .  Dohmen.  Ewald.  n.  n. . .  with n.   Di Lella.  n. P. . . . Walter.  n. .  n. . . G. D.  n. .  n. .  n..  n. .  n. ..  n.  Driver.  n. .  n.  n. . . Aaron. W.  n. .  n.  n. I.  Durham.  Firmage.  Ember.  n.  n.. . .  n. .  n. Diana V. – n.  n. .  Dillmann.  n. .  n.  Fitzmyer. . .  Douglas.  and .  Eissfeldt. – n. – nn.  n. Michael V.  n.  n. . .  n.  n.  Fassberg. . Howard.  with n. Augustinus Kurt.  Ehrlich.  n.  n. .  n. .  n..  n.  Freedman.  with n. Benjamin R. .  n. Terence E. . – Eilberg-Schwartz. .  n.  with n.  n.  n. . . .. . .  n. . F. .. . . . . .  n. . G.  n. Heinrich. . . . Otto.  n.  n.  n.  n. R. . .  n.  Edzard. . Eric E.  n.  n.  with n.  n.  n.  n. . Johannes F.  n.  nn. .  n.  n. .  n. .  n.  n. .  n. . .  n. . . .  n.  n.  n.  nn. J. Mary.  n.  Engnell.  n. ..  n. . . .  n. . . .  with n. .  Dietrich. Michael.  and . .  n. .  nn. .  n.  and .  with n. .  Fretheim.  n. John I.  Foster.  n. . .  n.  n. . .  n. .  Emerton. .  Dobbs-Allsopp..  n. Jürgen. .  with n.  n.  and .  n.  n.  n. .  n. .  n.. . . . David Noel. .  with n.  nn. . . .  Eichrodt. .  n.  and ..  with n. . .  n. . See also s. . . . . and .  n.  nn.  with nn. . . Joseph A. .  and .  n. .  n. Georg.  and . . . .  and . .  nn.. .  n.  nn.  n.  n. .  n. O.  n.  Fishbane. BDB Duhm. Edwin. . .  with n. ...  n..  Ebach. Arnold B. Steven E. . – with nn. A. S. .  and .  and . .  with nn. . .  n. .  n.  n..  with n.  n. . . Charles. Michael B. August. .  n.  n.  n.

. . .  n.  n.  n. .  with nn. Erhard S.  Greenberg. .  Gray. . . Wilhelm.  n. . and . . Robert M.  with n.  n.  n.  Gropp. and . . . . . G.  n. .  n. . Randall.  n.. .  Gordis. . .   Gorman. .  n..  n.  n.  n.  n.  Frevel.  with n. B. – nn. . Frank H. .  n. .  and . Mayer. . . – n.  n. .  with n.  n.  n.  n.  n. xv.  Good. . .  n. .  n. .  with n. –  nn. . . .  n. . . A. . . and . .  n. F. – n. Robert. Heinrich.  n.  Galpaz-Feller. .  Gerstenberger.v.. .  n. .  with n. . .  n. Stanley.  n.  . – Grabbe. . W.  n. Jonas C. .  n.  with nn.  n.  n.  n. Richard Elliott.  n.  with n. – Gaster. .  n.  n.  n.  with n. .  and .  n.  with n.  n.  n. . .  n.  n.  n. . . . Manfred. . .  with n.  n. H. .  n. . . . . . .  n.  n. . .  n.  Gibson. . . Walter.  n. .  n. .  n. . .  n.  Groß. . Hermann.  n.  n.  n. . . Jr. .  n. . . .  n..  n. . – Gruber. Pnina.  Greenhalgh. .  n. .  n.  n. . . John. .  n. Louis. . Bergsträsser. .  n. See also s.  n. . Edward L.  n. Kirk.  Gemser.  n. .  n. Moshe.  n. .  nn.  with n. .  and . .  Gevirtz.  n. . . . and . .  nn. W.  n.  nn.  n..  n.  Groß. .  nn.  n. .  n. . .  and . . .  and ..  Greenstein. Stephen. . .  n.  n.  n.. .  n.  Greenfield.  n.  n. .  n. . C. .. .  nn.  n.  n. . .  and .  Grayson.. . .  with n.  Gunkel.. .. .  n.  n..  n. .  with n.  n. .  nn. .  n. . . . .  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. .  n. .  n.  n.  n. and .  n.  with n. .  with nn. H. .  n.  n. . .  with nn. .  Ginsberg.  n. Christian. . . .  nn.  n.  Friedman.  n. Tikva.  n. . Lester L. . . . .  and .  nn.  n. . . . . .  nn. .  n. .  n.  n.  n.  and . .  n. .  n.  Geers.  and . . .  n.  n.  Garr.  n.  n.  n. .  n.  Gesenius.  n.  nn.  n.  with n.  with n. . .  Frymer-Kensky.  n. Douglas M.  n.  n. Görg.  and . T. . . . . L. J.  n.  and . .  n. .  n.  n.

. . . H. .  Henkin.  n.  nn.. . . .  n.  and .  n.  Heintz.  n. Victor (Avigdor). .. .  n.  n.  Holmes. . .  and . E. . Adelaide.  and . . Régine.  n. .  n. A. .  n. . .  n.  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. .  n.  nn.  Hulst.  n. .  n.  n.  Hossfeld.  n.. . Hans Wilhelm. .  and . . . . Anders.  with n. .  with n.  Herrmann.  n.  Handy. . John E.  n.  n.  and .  n.  n.  and . F. . Janet.  n.  n. .  nn. .  with nn.  n.  n.  nn.  n.  Hehn. .  n. .  and . .  n.  Hadley.. . Delbert R. Matthew.  n.  n. .  n.  and . John.  n. Paul. . . Thomas.  n. . William W. . . Norman C. .  n. .  with n.  nn. . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  Hopper.  n. Paul J.  n.  n.  n. . .  with n.  n. . .  n. R. .  n. .  with n.  n.  and .  Hasel. – Humbert..  Hetzron.  and . . . .  n. .  Huehnergard. Johannes.. – nn.  n. . . . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.  Hess. . – n. . . . Ian.  and .  nn. . .  Hinschberger. . Robert. . W.  Holladay.  n.  Hultgård.  n. . Baruch. .  n. .. . . Roni.  n...  n.  nn..-L.  n. . Richard S. .  and .  n.  n.  n.  Henry. Jean-Georges. . J. .  n.. . .  nn.  n.  n. .  n. M.  nn. . . ...  nn.  n. . . . . Lowell K.  nn. .  n. Friedrich. . . and .  Holtgraves.  with n.. . . .  Harland.  with n. . .  n.  n.  nn.  n. .  . .  Hoftijzer. . P.  nn.  n. .  n.  n. .  Hendel.  n. .  n.  n.  n. .  n.  Haran.  n. xv.  n. .  with n. .  n.  n. . . .  n.   Haag.  Hallo. .  n.. Anselm C. .  n.  and .  nn.  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.. . . .  and . . . and .  and .  Hurowitz..  n.  with n. . .  Hagedorn.  Habel. – with nn.  n. Judith M.  n. .  with n. . and .  nn.  Hahn.  n.  n. . . William L.  n.  n.  n.. . .  with n. .  nn. . . .  n.  n. Gerhard F.  with nn. . . . . .  n.  and .  nn.  and . .  n. . . – Halpern.  with n.  n.  n..  Hillers.  Horst.  n. J. .  n. . .  n. . . .  Hartley. Ronald S.  n. .  n.  n.  Hart. . and .  nn.  n.  Hertzberg.  n.  n.  and . . .  with n.

.  and . . .  Kittel.  n. . Avi.v.  n.  nn.  n. .  nn. . .  nn.  n. . .  nn. .  nn.  n.  n. . . . . Klaus..  Hyatt. .  n.  n. . . Wilhelm Kearney. Bernd. xv.  Kaufman.  n.  and .  nn.  and .  nn. . . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. . . . Hans-Winfried.  nn. E.   Hurvitz. Gunnlaugur A. Peter J.  and . . .  n.  Jenni. . and .  n.. .  with n.  n.  n.  n.  n. and . .  n. Menahem..  n.  nn. .  n.  Janowski.  n. . G. .  nn.  Klein. . . . – Koch.  n..  and .  n.  n. .  n.  Jongeling. . .  nn.  n.. . . . .  with n.  n.  n. Thorkild. .  n. .  n. . and . B. .  n. Othmar. . H.  n. .  n. J. . . .  n.  n. Martin A.  n.  and .  Keel. . and . . K.  n.  n.  n.  n.  nn. .  n. . .  n.  n..  n.  Kedar-Kopfstein.  Koehler. Philip Peter.  nn.  n. . . . . . .  n.  and .  n.  n. .  n.  n. .  n.  n. .  n.  n.  Joosten. .  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. Anne Draffkorn.  and .  n. . . . . . .  n.  and .  n. . and .  Jacob. .  King. F.  n.  n.  with n. . and .  n. . . J. See s.  nn.  n. .  Kister. Stephen A. and . .  n. Menahem Z. . . Paul.. E. . David. .  Joüon. . .  Jónsson.. .  n.  n.  n. Rudolf. – Kautzsch. .. .  nn. Ralph W. . .  Kaddari.  nn... .  n.  n.  n.  Jones.  n.  n.  Kennicott. .  n. Benjaminus. .  Kimhi. .  n. . .-M.. .  n.  n. Gesenius.  n. . ..  Jüngling.  and . . E. .  n. .  n. Otto.  n.  n.  n.  n. B.  n.  .  n.  and . .  n. W. . . . . . .  n. . – nn.. . . . . Israel.  n. .  Kindl. Ludwig.  n.  n. Philip. .  n.  with n.  and . .  Kaiser. . .  Klopfenstein. . – with n. . .  Kilmer.  n. .  nn.  n. L.  n.  nn.  Jenson. .  n.  nn.  Kirkpatrick. .. .  nn. A.  and . . .  and .  n.  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. . . .  Jacobsen.  n.  nn.  n. . and .  Knohl.  n. .  with n. . .  n. .  n. .

.  n. .  n. .  n. and .  Limburg.  and .. .  Lewis. .  n.  with n. .  nn.  Lee.  n. .  nn. .  with n.  n. Johan.  and .  with nn. .  n.  with nn. . . Johnson T. .  Lust.  n..  n.  n.  Kugel.  with nn. .  Larsen.  n.  n. .  n. . .  with n.  n. . . . .  Kunz..  with n.  n. – n.  Kraetzschmar.  with nn.  n.  n.  Lande. .   König.  and .  with n.  n.  nn.  with n. .  Lipinski. Jan H. .  and . . . and .  with n.  Krapf.  n. . Robin. – Long.  with nn.  and . Irene.  n.  n. James..  nn.  n.  n.  n. .  n. . J.  n. .  n. .  n. . . .  with n. . . .  n. . . .  with n.  n. . .  with n.  Levinson.  nn.. .  n. . . Baruch A. .  and .  and . .  and . ..  n.  with n.  n. Timothy.  n.  with n. .  n.  n.  n..  Lohfink.  Kroeze. Norbert. James L.  Lenchak.  n. . . . .  n.  Leech.  nn.  n.  nn.  n.  n. .  nn. .  nn.  with n. .  with n. John F. .  n.  n.  n.  and .  Loewenstamm.  n.  n. .  n..  Levy. . . . Burke O. .  Lim.  with n.  with n.  n. .  n.  n. .  n.  n.  nn.  n.  n.  n.  n. . . . .  n. .  Labuschagne. Andreas. Theodore J.  and .  Lamberty-Zielinski.  nn. Samuel E. .  with n. – n. .  n. ..  and ... .  nn. . . – Levine. .  n.  n.  Lambert. . .. Mayer. . Stephen C.  Kühlewein.  Loretz. ..  Lambert. D.  nn. J. G. .  n. . . . . . .  n.  n.  n. . K. . Mogens Trolle.  n. . . . .  Kraus. .  with n.  n.  n.  n.  nn.  n. . . . C. Oswald. . and .  n.  Leslau.  n. .  n.  n. Jon D.  n. . Hans-Joachim. .  n.  with n.  with n. . Thomas M.. . . .  with n.  Leander. .  n. . Geoffrey N. .  n.  n.  n. . ..  with n.  n.  n.  n. .. .  Lemaire. André. André. .  .  n. . .  n. . .  n. Hedwig. S.  n.  n. . .  Lacocque. . .  n.  and . Wolf. .  Kutsko. Pontus. .  Levenson. . .  and . W.. Eduard. and . ´ Edward.  Lakoff.  n. .  n.  n. .  and . . .  and . Richard.

 n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. . Julian. . . L. Sigmund. Stephen D.  n.  n. John. . . D. .  n.  n. .  n. Harriet.  n.  Miles. Jr. . . . .  Miller.  n. .  n. J.  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. . . .  McCarter. and .  n. . A.  n. Theophile J. . . .  nn. .  Luyten. .. .  n.  van der Merwe. .. Dean.  Malamat. J.  n. .  with n. .  and ..  nn. .  n.. J.  Miller.  n.  n.  n. . .  n. .  n.  n. ..  Luyster.  n.  Montgomery..  nn. . .  n.  McEvenue.  n. Takamitsu.  n.  with n. . Maxwell. . . Christian H. .  n. J.  Maag.  Morgenstern.  n.  n.  and .  n.  and .  Meek. .  with nn.  and .  n. ... . . .  Mitchell. – Moore.  n. and . . . . Yizhaq. . Kyle.  n.  n. .  Mayes.  n.  and .  n.  n.  Müller. . E.  n.  n.  n..  n.  with nn.  n. . Cynthia L.  nn. . Eric M. W. . James A.  n.  Lutzky. T. . Jr. . Victor.  with nn. . . .  n.. Jr. .  n.  nn.  n.  n. .  n. .  Muraoka. Robert. .  Machinist..  Mowinckel.  n. .  n. .  n.  McBride.  n.  n.  and .  n. – n. . .  and . . S.  n. .  and .  n. .  Mullen. . John C.  n.  Lyons. – nn.  n.. . and . . . . .  n. . . .  n.  with n. . .  . . Jr.  n. .  Moran. .  n.  n.  n.  n. . .  n.  n..  n.   Miles.. Theodore.  Mann.  n.  May.  Mays.  n. . . .  Martin.  nn.  n.  and .  n.  n. . .. . .  n.  n.  n. .  n. . . Jacob. P. – Mafico.  n. .  n. Jack. S.  n.  n. Rudolf. .  and . . .. . .  n. Herbert G.  n. . . .  and .  nn. . . J.  Meier. . . . .  nn. .  and .  n..  and .  n.  n. .  n. Tryggve N. William L.  nn.  n. .  n. . D.  n. .  nn.  n. . Hans-Peter.  with nn.  n.  n. James L.  Meyer.. Carol L.  n. Peter.  n.  n. .  Miller.  nn.  de Moor.  n. Sean E.  n.  n. Jos.  with n.  with nn. .  n. Christopher Wright. .  n.  n. .  Milgrom.  nn. .  n.  Meyers. . Patrick D. .  n.. .  and . .  n. .. and .  n. .  n. .  n.  nn. – Mettinger.. . H.  n.  Meyers.  n. . .  n.  with n. .  and .. . .  n.  n. . . . .  n. A. .  n.  n.  n. Abraham.  with n. . .  n. . . C..

 Pope. .  nn. .  n.  . . Saul M.  Orlinsky.  nn. . .  n. . .  with n. .  n.  n.  and .  n.  Olyan.  and .  n. – Peleg. Shalom M. .  Palmer.  Nöldeke.  n..  n. . Dennis T.  n. F.  n.  n. Dale. .  n. . Otto. Yizhaq (Iziq). .  n.  and .  n.  and .  n. . .  n.  nn. Thomas.. .  n. .  Porten. .. . . . . D.  Pitard.  n. . .  O’Connor. S.  n..  n.  n.  n. Heinz-Dieter..  n.  n. . .  n. . .  Provan. .  n.  n. . Jackie A.  n.  Nyberg. . .  n. . R.  and . .  n.  n. .  and . .  n.  Patrick. Barbara Nevling.  and ... .  n.  n.  n. .  n. . .  Noegel. . E.  with nn.  n.  n.  with nn. .  with nn.  with n.  nn..  with n.  n. C. .  Nasuti. . H. .  and . . – n.  n. .  Procksch.  with n.  n. . . .  Olshausen.  n.  n.  with n. W. .  and .  with n.  n. .  with n.  n.  Paul.  n. . .. . Harry M. . Th.  and . . .  n.  Naudé. Iain W.  n. .  and .  n.  n.  n.  n. Thomas.  n. .  n.. . . .  nn. Roberto.  n. .  nn. ..  n.  n.  n. ... .  and .  nn.  n. Wayne T.  n. .  n.  n.  Niehr.  n.  with n.  n. ..  with n.  Pardee. G.  Olson.  with n.  n.  Niccacci. .  n.  n.  del Olmo Lete.  Propp.  nn. . .  n. .  n. . . Richard J.  nn. . . .  with n. . .  Oppenheim.  n. .  with nn. David Robert.  n. . .  n.  n.  n. O. . M.  n. . .  n. Herbert.  n. .  Peckham. Susan. and .  nn.  Ord. .  Oesterley. . .  n. . Harry P. .  Newsom.  n.  Pettey. . .  nn. .  n. .  n. and . . .  nn.  n..  Podella. H.  and .  n. .  and . Dennis. .  n.  n. . . . .  n. . Simon B.  n.  n. . . .  n.  n.  n.  nn..  and .  n. . Boyo.  n. .  n.. .  n.  n. . .  n. . . . .  Ouro.  Niditch. Justus. Scott B. .  n. Marvin H.  n. . . .   n. .  Pola.  with n. .. .  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n. . .  n. A. William H. . Carol A.  Ockinga.  n.  n. Alviero. ..  nn. ..  Parker.  n. Bezalel.  Porter. .  n. . Brian. .  n.  n.  n.  n. ..  Preuss. Leo.  Neef. .  and .

 nn. .  n. M.. Adrian.. .  n.  n.  nn.  and .  n.  n.  n.  Robinson.  n.  and .  n.  n.  n. . William L..  with n.  n. . .  n.  n.  n. . Chr.  Sæbø. Anson F.  n.  and . . Josef. . .  nn.  with n. . . .  nn.  n. ..  n.  nn. ..  n. . Lothar. .  n.. – n.  Sarauw. . . .  nn.  Reed. J.  Rendsburg. . . .  nn.  Ridderbos.  n. .  and .  n.  n.  n.  n. Gary A. .  n.  n.  Sawyer.  and .  Revell. .  n.  Roth. .  n.  n. Wheeler. . Udo. – Schenker. . .  n. .  n. . .  n. .  Rendtorff.  and .  von Rad.  n.. . Hans. .  Reiner.. . H. . .  Schmidt. .  n. .  n.  n.  n. .  Rechenmacher. . .  n.  n. .  Ross.  n. .. Haiim B.  and . . Nahum M.  n.  n. . .  with nn. .  n. . H. . .  and .  Roberts.  with n.  n.  n.  n. .  and . .  and . .  n..  n. . .. . .  Rost.  n.   Rüterswörden.  and .  Sarna.  n. Herbert. .  n. – n. Nic. . . .  n.  with n.  n. and . – nn.  n.  n. .  and . – with nn. . James F. .  n. .  n.  Schmid. . Leonhard.  Renger. Karl Ludwig. . .  n. .  n. .. .  and . . J. . .  nn.  n.  n. . .  n. . .  n. .  n. and .  n.  and . A.. Robert B. Martha T.. .  n. .  n.  n.  with nn..  n.  n. . – with n.  n. . . .  n. . E.  n.  n.  n.  Ringgren. .  with n.  n. Rolf.  Rosenthal. . .  Redditt.  Ruppert.  with n.  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n. .  n. . . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.  with nn. .  with n. . .. . . Brian B. .  and ..  Robinson. . .  n.. Gerhard.  with n. . H.  n. .  n. J.  and .  n.  n. G.  nn.  and .  n. – with nn. – with nn. .  with n. and .  n.  n.  with n. .  with nn. .  n.  nn. . .  n. .  and . . . . – with n.  n.  Schmidt.  Rainey. . . . . .  and . .  n.  n. . John F.  with n. . . .  nn. . Erica. . . Robert. .  n. .  with n.  n.  n.  with n. J.  n. Paul L. . Magne.  Scharbert.  with n.  n. – Rashi.  n.  Sauer. . .  n. .  nn.  Schmidt. .  and ..  and .  nn.  nn.  n.  n. .  n. . . – nn.  n.  n. .  Ratner.  nn. W.  n.  n.  n. .  n. Franz.  and . H. . .  with n.  Rosén. .  n.  n.  nn.  n. . . . .

Ursula. . .  Thompson. .  n.  Streibert. . . .  n.  and . Pierre. .  nn. . . K.  Tigay.  n.  Sharp. .  Steinkeller.  n.  n.  Skinner. .  n. . A.  n.  n. ..  Sokoloff.  n. .  n. .  nn.  n. Mark S.  n. .  Sommer.  Snyder. Christopher R.  n. . . E. Fritz. – with nn.  n. – n.  n. .  n. .  n.  Speiser.  with n.  n. .  n. .  n.  Shulman.. Ahouva. .  n.  n.  Stroumsa.  n.  with nn. .  n. . John. .  n.  .  n.  n. and . .  n.  n.  and .  Struppe. . . H.  n. . Shemaryahu.. Benjamin D. – Sperling. .  with n.  Snyman.  n.  Sparks.. .  and . ..  n.  Teshima.  n. .  nn. . .  n. . .  Smith. Kent.  Smith.  with nn.  and . . Johann Jakob. . .  and . .  Stoebe.  n. .  n. . . Stefan.  n.  n.  n.  n. Donald B.  n.  n. .  n. .  Seitz. .  n. F. Jill. .  Seely.. .  n. . .  with n.  n. . .  n. . .  n.  n.  n.  n. . . .  with n. .  n.  Teixidor. .  n. . .  n.  n. .  n. . . . . . . .  Stamm. . .  Stendebach. .  n.  n. S. . . Carlota S. . Jeffrey H.  n. . .  n.  and .  nn. .  n.  n.  with nn.  Smith.  n. .  Seybold. .  nn.    n.  Seebass.  with n. .  Schneider. . .  n.  n.  n.  n. . .  n. Agnès.. . . . .  n.  n. xiii.  and .  n. .  n. Piotr.  n.  Snaith. .  n.  n. . .  n. .. Christian. Horst.  nn. S. N.  n. Morton... Odil Hannes.  n. David.  n. Javier. .  n.  with n.  with nn.  n. J.  n.  nn.  n. .  Spycket.  n. .  Steiner. .  n.  n.  Talmon. .  n. Michael.  n.  n. . Richard C.  and ..  Steck. Paul H.  with nn. .  n..  n.  with nn. . . . .  n. .  n.  n. . . .  n. Friedrich.  and . . .  n. . . – n...  n.  Schwally.  and .  n. . . .  n.  n.  n. J.  n.  n.  with n.  n.  n.  n. . H.  n. D. . . . . . .  Swiggers.  n.  n.  Stolz.  n. Sarah. .  n.  n. .  n.  n. Yeshayahu.  and .  and .  n. . . .  n.  n.  n.  n.  Spina. .  Schreiner.  n.  n. . .  with n.  n. .. . . .  n.  n.  with n.  von Soden. Wolfram.  n. Wolfgang. .  nn. Sandra A. .  n. . .  and . and . . . .  n.  n. .  n. . .  n.  n. . Frank Anthony.  n.  n.  n. .  with n.

 n. . . . . .  n. . . . Bruce.  Waschke. . .  n. Howard N. .  n.. – n.  Trible. .  n.  n.  n. .  and . – with nn.  n. . . . .  Wallace. . A.  n.  n. . . . .  n. . . – n. . .  Urbach. . Christoph. . . and .  n. .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n.  Weiser.  n.  n.  nn. .  n.  n.  n.  with n.  Uehlinger.  n.  n..  and .  n.  Vervenne.  with n.  with n. .  n.  n.  n. . . . Julius.  .. . . . .  and .  n.. .  n. . . .  n.  with n. .  and .  n. .  n.  n. L. S.  and .  n.  n. .  n.  van der Voort..  with nn. John. .  n. . .  n. . Artur. . . .  n. .  Tov... .  n. . .  n.  n. . Claus. . .  n. .  nn. and . Ephraim E.  n. .  n. . .  n. .  n. . . .  n. .   with n.  n. .  n. .  n. . .  with n. .  n. .  n.  Weimar.  with n. Gordon J.  with n. .  n.  with n.  nn.  n. . . . E. . J.  and . – Weinfeld. .  n. . .  n. .  n.  and .  n.  with nn.  n. . .  n.  n. .  n.  n. A. . .  with nn. Walter.  n. . Bruce K. . . .  n.  with nn. . .  n. Wilfred G.  n.  n.  and . and .  n.  n. . R.  nn. .  and . . Emanuel. Phyllis. .  n.  Waltke.  Van Seters. . Ernst F.  n. .  n.  n. .  n.  Westermann. . Manfred.  Weidner.  n.  n. .  nn.. E. . .  n. . .  nn.  Vollmer.  n.  n. .  n.  n..  n.  n. . .  n. .  n.  n.  Trask.  n. .  n. . . .  n. and .  n.  n.  n. .  Watson.  n.  nn.  n.  with nn. – n. . .  n.  n. ..  n. Norman. – Vawter. . Elizabeth Closs.  nn.  n.  with nn.  with n.  n.  n. .  with n.  n. .  and .  with n.  n. – n.  Traugott. .  n. .  with n. – n. .  n.  Vogels. . .  n. . .  n.  n. . . . . Matitiahu.  Wenham. .  n.  Ungnad. . .  with nn. .  Walker.  n. .  n.  n. Moshe.  n. .  Tsevat. .  n.. Christopher. .  n.  Walker. .  n. Peter.  n.  n. .  n. .  Wagner. .  n. David Toshio. .  Tsumura. . . .  n.  and .  n.  n. .  Weippert. .  with n.  n.  n. . .  n.  n. .  n. . . .  n.  n. . .  n. . . Marc.  n. . . .-J. . . .  n.  Wellhausen. .  n.  n.  n. .  n. ..  n.

. F. H. G.  n. .  n. . Marsha M. .   and . . Irene J. Robert R.  n. . .  and . .  n. .. .  n. .  n. .  and .  Whybray.  n.  n. .  Willis.  with nn. . .  n.  Willoughby.  with n.  n. . . Erich.  n. – de Wette. .  n.  n.  n.  n.  n. .  n..  n.  n.  n.  Williamson. . . ..  with n.  and . .  n. .  n.  n..  n. . . . . . Steve A.  n.  n.  and . .  n. .  with n.  and .  n. .  n. . .  n.  n. .  n.  van Wolde.  Wright.  n. . . David P. Walther. .  Wilt. .  n.  n.  n. .  n. . .  with n. . . R.  n.  nn. . . .  with n.. S. .  n..  n. .  n.  Whitley. .  nn.  n. . Ulrich. . . .  nn.  n.  n.  n. Ellen. . . David T.  with n. . . . E.  with n. . . John T. and . . .  nn.. .  and .  n.  Wöller. .  n.  and . .  n. .  n.  Wolff.  Zobell.. . .  with n. .  n.  n. N.  n.  Wyatt.  de Wilde.  n.  Wolfensohn.  n.  n. N.  n.  and . B.  n. Ronald J..  n.  Zenger.  n.  Winter.  Williams.  nn..  n.  Wiggins.  n. . . Timothy.  nn. – with nn.  with n. . .  and . M.  n.  with n.. .  with n. .. . . . .  Wildberger. . . Hans..  Würthwein.  and . .  .  n. .  n.  with nn. .  nn. .  n.  n.  n.  n..  n.  n. .  n.  nn. . L. . A. Hans Walter. Avraham.  n.  n. .  n.-J.  n. . .  and . .. . . .  n.  n. . .  n.  n.  Zevit.  n.  n.  Zimmerli. . . C.  n.  n.  n. Ernst.  n. .  Zoran. . . .  n..  n. . . .  n. .  with nn.  n. .  n. Ziony. .  n.  n.  with n.  n. . .  n. . .  with nn.  n. .  van der Woude. and . ..  and . . M.  Wilson. .  n. .  nn.  n. . . . .  n.  n. .  and . Yair.  n.  Williams.  n. . . . W.  n.  with nn.  n.  nn. . and . .  nn.  and . .  n.  n. .  n.  n.  n. .  Wilfong. H.  n.  n. A.