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 .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mélanges de la Faculté orientale. Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Université Saint-Joseph.   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 Erich Ebeling et al. 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

  GOD AND THE GODS .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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 &

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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 , ).

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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.

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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

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

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

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

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

  CREATING THE WORLD .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Eckman.: Eisenbrauns. . Yeshayahu. Translated by Israel Abrahams.” Pp. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. . “A Discourse Approach to the Cross-Linguistic Category ‘Adjective. – in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Matitiahu. John. “The Image of God and the Flood: Some New Developments. ed. Emanuel. Ungnad. Hawkins. . A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. ———. London: SCM. CILT . d ed. and Michael Noonan. Winona Lake. – in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Marks and Robert M. .” BASS / (): –. . – in Linguistic Categorization. Good. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Tsevat. Let Us Deal Shrewdly with Them. Trible. Jeffrey H. Law.” BetM  (): – (in Hebrew). pp. Tigay. . Edited by Alexander M. –  in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical. Jerusalem: Magnes. Urbach. Jewish. Ind. “Zum hebräischen Verbalsystem. Tsumura. . ———. Shapiro and Burton I.  vols. JSOTS .’ ” Pp. repr. .: Four Quarters. R. Philadelphia/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. London/New York: Routledge. Tov. A. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. . and Near Eastern Ritual. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Barry L.” IEJ  (): . Teshima. . Ephraim E. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress/Royal Van Gorcum. “A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. David Noel Freedman.  []. Deuteronomy. Tigay.” ZAW  (): –. “What is Man That You Have Been Mindful of Him? (On Psalm :– ). 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 :). Edited by David P.” ExAu  (): –. and Avi Hurvitz. Edited by Mordechai Cogan. – in Explaining Language Universals. Phyllis. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis  and : A Linguistic Investigation. The JPS Torah Commentary. . David Toshio. Shemaryahu. Sheffield: JSOT Press. “ ‘Come. . Ind. d enl. Conn. New York: Ktav. HSS .” Pp. ———. Eichler. Wright.: Eisenbrauns. Edited by John H.” HUCA – (–): –.  Talmon. “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. Studies in Jewish Education and Judaica in Honor of Louis Newman. or They Will Increase’: Rashi’s Linguistic Evaluation of the Functions of äáä and the Hithpael Stem. “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm . Edited by John A. and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. “The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King. Sandra A. ———. L. . Thompson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. and Jeffrey H. Edited by Roberta Corrigan. Winona Lake. ———. “The Biblical Understanding of Creation and the Human Commitment. Trask.” Pp. – in ãîììå ãîìì. Cohen. Guilford. Van Seters.” Pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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