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 .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

– The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures American Journal of Theology and Philosophy Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Analecta Biblica Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by Wolfram von Soden. Pritchard. d ed.  vols.  vols. Edited by James B.  Ägypten und Altes Testament Annuaire de l’École pratique des Hautes Études. 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. New York: Doubleday. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. xi. Edited by David Noel Freedman et al.ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS The following is a list of abbreviations and sigla not explained within the text. For Assyriological abbreviations. IVe Section: Sciences historiques et philologiques Archiv für Orientforschung Akkadisches Handwörterbuch unter Benutzung des lexikalischen Nachlasses von Bruno Meissner (–). see p. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Analecta Orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Archiv für Religionswissenschaft Assyriological Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Asiatische Studien Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Aula Orientalis .

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

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

J. E. Leiden: E. J.  Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. J. Jongeling-Vos. Richardson. and L. J. – [–] 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.  vols. Edited by Walter Baumgartner et al. Nashville/New York: Abingdon Press.  vols. 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. G. Translated and edited by M. De Regt. A Journal of Bible and Theology Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Israel Oriental Studies Issues in Religion and Theology The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages The Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Ritual Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies . Brill.

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 . Université Saint-Joseph. Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter.   JTS KAT KeHAT KHAT KUSATU LebZeug LeDiv Leˇs LouvSt LT MARI MFOB MUN NCBC NIBC NZST OBO OBT ÖBS OLA Orien OrSu OTL OTS OTWSA PLO POS QD RA RB RHPR RLA RScR RSO  The Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt Lebendiges Zeugnis Lectio Divina Leshonenu Louvain Studies Linguistic Typology MARI. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mélanges de la Faculté orientale. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al.

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

 [–] Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologische Quartalschrift Theological Studies Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. – Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Writings from the Ancient World Word Biblical Commentary Weiner Beiträge zur Theologie Westminster Commentaries Weg der Forschung Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. Stuttgart: W. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. – Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaft und Praxis in Kirche und Gesellschaft Westminster Theological Journal Wort und Dienst Yale Near Eastern Researches Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche .  vols. Mass. Edited by G. Biddle. Translated by Mark E. Kohlhammer. Edited by Hans Wilhelm Haussig. Johannes Botterweck et al.: Hendrickson.   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. Peabody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

  GOD AND THE GODS .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lord said. She then said. “What will you give me for coming to me?” (Gen :–) 51 52 53 Shulman. “Since they are one people. The request in Gen : is introduced. He turned to her at the road and said. 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. See. HS  ():  n. I come to you.” They had brick for stone. “Adhortative. äáä is suasive and. As its association with àð already illustrates. and hortative. in Gen : (P). mildly manipulative. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew  §b. politely. Then they said.. . it will now be necessary to analyze äáä clauses in greater detail. äáä “Let’s. he considered her a prostitute because she had covered her face. .” according to Hopper and Traugott. . and this is only the beginning. äáä “Let’s let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in heaven.äáä  vice to him. Joüon and Muraoka. They said to one another.52 It attempts to impose speaker will over an addressee and move that addressee to act as the speaker desires. so that they shall not understand one another’s speech. then. desiderative.” because he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. like àð. as Tamar seems to recognize (v. äáä “Let’s let us make bricks and burn them well. by a term that is nonliteral. The two terms. are pragmatically harmonic. äáä Let’s let us go down and confound their language there. or else we will be scattered over the surface of the whole earth. bβ). thence. nonliteral äáä is not pragmatically isolated but may be accompanied by other suasive devices.53 . Grammaticalization . please.” (Gen :–) When Judah saw her. To accomplish this goal. 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.”51 àð functions as a verbal lubricant.  with  n. and they had bitumen for mortar.. directive. indirectly.” (Gen :–) The Lord came down to see the city and tower that the human beings had built. and they all have one language there. Likewise.. äáä softens the coercive force of its principal verb. and let us make ourselves a name. nonreferential.

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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 &

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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 , ).

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

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.

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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

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

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

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

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

  CREATING THE WORLD .

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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