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 .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mélanges de la Faculté orientale.   JTS KAT KeHAT KHAT KUSATU LebZeug LeDiv Leˇs LouvSt LT MARI MFOB MUN NCBC NIBC NZST OBO OBT ÖBS OLA Orien OrSu OTL OTS OTWSA PLO POS QD RA RB RHPR RLA RScR RSO  The Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Lebendiges Zeugnis Lectio Divina Leshonenu Louvain Studies Linguistic Typology MARI. Université Saint-Joseph. Beyrouth Mémoires de l’Université de Neuchâtel The New Century Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Österreichische Biblische Studien Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientierung Orientalia Suecana The Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika Porta Linguarum Orientalium (neue Serie) Pretoria Oriental Series Questiones Disputatae Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale Revue Biblique Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses Reallexikon der Assyriologie (und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie). – Revue des sciences religieuses Rivista degli studi orientali . Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al.

Fisher and Stan Rummel. RSP RST SBAB SBB SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBS SBT ScEs ScrB ScrH SEL SHCANE SHR SJLA SJOT SOTSMS ST STAR SubBi TAPS Tarb TBü TD TDNT TDOT ThAr ThSt    Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Loren R. Johannes Botterweck et al. Bromiley. Green et al. – 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. – [–] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. – [– ] Theologische Arbeiten Theologische Studien . Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Translated by David E.  vols. Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. AnOr –.  vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Edited by G.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

  GOD AND THE GODS .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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

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

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

134





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

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



 

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

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

.

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

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





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



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

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

äåäéì

by Yahweh of Samaria172 and by his

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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

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

  ë  á



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

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

65



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

úåöîáå

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

åá­òâôéå

struck him, and exe-

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

êìäàá áø÷é

touch your tent.

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

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

  ë  á



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

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

éãù ìà-á

as El Shaddai.

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

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



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

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

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

íãà-á

human and

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

  ë  á
.. ë and



á

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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

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

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

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

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

  CREATING THE WORLD .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even after the last creative act. 115 See also Dillmann. God overcomes these restive waters and controls them like any other creation of his.. 119 See. As the Priestly writer depicts it. For like the case of the sea monsters.118 P’s God dis-integrates and dissipates his powerful archenemy. Die Genesis (–d ed. present and future (§ . perhaps. Like the deep.Mose3 . . Talmon. Cf. God’s rule is not simply a fact. are unnoticed.113 Delitzsch disagrees.–.. Genesis . 116 Delitzsch. Paul H. Genesis6  (= ET . and perhaps. Later.121 It begins when God emerges the victor of a highly sublimated clash with the deep. Like the sea monsters and the deep before them. .–).”115 Still. “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis :. 114 See also Driver. .119 He incorporates it into his orderly world as a product of his creative objective. It begins very early. as it were. Whether explicitly or implicitly. KAT . 121 See Humbert.). Jacob. appoints heavenly spheres to ‘rule’ the day and night.. Cf. and Otto Procksch.120 He then deems its fractured body ‘good’. this symbol of unGodly aquatic chaos poses a “singular and intensive” threat to God and his cosmic order117—a threat which is undone or unmixed. it informs his own ability to allocate vegetable food among humans and animals. and the Bible  (= ‘Al Kanfei Yonah . “The sea in its origin is represented as a connected whole. the sea has “been not only neutralized but demythologized and even depersonalized” (see above). 117 See Zimmerli. It is an achievement. especially the rivers which it receives unto itself. Seebass. ExAu  (): .. the theme of God’s rule punctuates the entire Priestly cosmogony.). countable plurality. God’s rule is firmly ensconced in the Priestly cosmos.”116 and the mythological background of the ‘sea’ suggests why. Without bloodshed or violence. “the plural is here conceived of as singular and intensive.114 in respect of which the lesser reservoirs. and creates sea monsters.” WTJ  (): . Genesis . .. ) . in Language. Leipzig/Erlangen: A. Genesis . Genesis2 .. A New Commentary on Genesis . Deichert/Werner Scholl. the plural is not strictly referential. as vv.   God assigns plural nomenclature to the newly pooled water (see also v. Seely. It is repeated when he disintegrates 113 Skinner. his rule is shared with the human race.. then. Theology. It is expressed in different ways when he names the world’s seas. König. 120 Greenfield. ) even though. suggest. in Interpretationes … Mowinckel  (= Opuscules d’un hébraïsant ). the referent is probably not a true. BetM  (): . Genesis12 . when he confronts and subdues the evil deep. 118 Peleg.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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