Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures) 9781575063164, 1575063166

Citation preview

Forming God

Siphrut

Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Editorial Board

Stephen B. Chapman Tremper Longman III Nathan MacDonald

Duke University Westmont College University of Cambridge

 1. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda  2. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr  3. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, by Konrad Schmid  4. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible, by David Frankel  5. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and Yhwh’s Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, by John E. Anderson  6. Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading, by Jonathan Grossman  7. From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Language and Ethics of Anger in Genesis, by Matthew R. Schlimm  8. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in Deuteronomy, by Jerry Hwang  9. In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Bernard F. Batto 10.  Run, David, Run! An Investigation of the Theological Speech Acts of David’s Departure and Return (2 Samuel 14–20), by Steven T. Mann 11.  From the Depths of Despair to the Promise of Presence: A Rhetorical Reading of the Book of Joel, by Joel Barker 12.  Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, by Anne K. Knafl

Forming God Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch

Anne K. Knafl

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2014

© 2014 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Knafl, Anne Katherine, author. Forming God : divine anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch / Anne Katherine Knafl.    p.  cm. — Siphrut, literature and theology of the Hebrew Scriptures) Based on author’s dissertation (doctoral — University of Chicago, 2011). Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-316-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. God—Biblical teaching.  2. Anthropomorphism.  3. God ( Judaism)—History of doctrines.  4.  Bible. Pentateuch—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  I.  Title. BS1192.6.K53 2014 222′.106—dc23 2014031282

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. 

For Gabriel Bizen Akagawa

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Topic and History of Scholarship  1 The Relevance of a New Study  13 The Approach of This Study  22 Structure and Argument  30

Chapter 2  Methodology and a Test Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Methodology 34 Creation and Divine Anthropomorphism: A Test Case (Genesis 1:1–2:4a)  44 Anthropomorphic Features of God in Genesis 1:1–2:4a  53 A Preliminary Typology  67

Chapter 3  The Divine Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Definition 72 God’s Bodies: Full- and Small-Scale Manifestation  73 Mental Activity: Bodily Idiom and the Inner Life of the Deity  134

Chapter 4  Divine Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Definition 158 Theophany: Earthly Presence  158 Divine Mobility  173 Sustained Presence  187

Chapter 5  Divine Action and Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Definition 215 A Survey of Divine Action in the Sources  217 Divine Action with Direct or Indirect Interaction  218

Chapter 6  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch  256 Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuchal Sources  266 Implications of this Study and Future Avenues of Research  274

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

vii

Acknowledgments This work is a revision of my dissertation, Forms of God, Forming God: A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, written under the direction of Michael Fishbane at the University of Chicago. I have many people to acknowledge for their help, guiding me through the revision process. I am very appreciative of Jim Eisenbraun and the editorial board of Siphrut for their enthusiasm over my work. I received a wealth of thoughtful criticisms from the editors, which have helped to strengthen and clarify my project. Thanks also to Jeff Stackert, who guided me through the initial process of finding a publisher for my manuscript and for the encouragement he provided through the revision process. Drayton Brenner volunteered crucial last-minute reformatting advice and guidance. Thanks also to my new family at the University of Chicago Library, especially Catherine Mardikes, Alice Schreyer, and Judi Nadler. As always, the lion’s share of thanks goes to my husband, Gabriel Akagawa.

ix

Abbreviations General D Deuteronomic source DtrH Deuteronomistic History E Elohist source H Holiness Legislation HS Holiness School J Yahwist source LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text P Priestly source PT Priestly Torah Sam Samaritan Pentateuch Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos Tg. Ps-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Reference Works AB ABD ACCS AThANT AOAT AUSS BBB BDB BI BJS BM BN BR BZABR BZAW CBQ CI

Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Alter Orient und Altes Testament Andrews University Seminary Series Bonner biblische Beiträge  Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906 Biblical Interpretation Biblical Judaic Studies Beth Mikra Biblische Notizen Bible Review Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Critical Inquiry

xi

xii

Abbreviations

William W. Hallo, ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. CTA A. Herdner. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiforms alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Mission de Ras Shamra 10. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 79. Paris: Imprimirie Nationale and Geuther, 1963. CR:BS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies DDD Karel van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999 ErIsr Eretz-Israel FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GKC Wilhelm Gesenius. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by Emil F. Kautzsch. 2nd English ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966 GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies HALOT Walter Baumgartner and Ludwig Koehler. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001 HB Hebrew Studies HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HS Hebrew Studies HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IIAL Israel and Its Ancient Literature IEJ Israel Exploration Journal JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBS Jerusalem Biblical Studies JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joüon-Muraoka  Paul Joüon. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 14. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996 JR Journal of Religion JRS Journal of Ritual Studies JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements JSS Journal of Semitic Studies MT Modern Theology NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta COS

Abbreviations RQ RS SAA SBLDS SCSS TZ UBL UF VT VTSup WUNT ZAW

Restoration Quarterly Religious Studies State Archives of Assyria Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Septuagint and Cognate Studies Theologische Zeitschrift Ugaritisch-biblische Literatur Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xiii

Chapter 1

Introduction The Topic and History of Scholarship The current study of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible is characterized by disagreement and contradiction. Discussions of anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible are typically found in three areas of study: ancient Israelite religion, as reflected by the compositions of the Pentateuch; comparisons with ancient Near Eastern religions; and comparison with ancient translation and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. 1 Contradictory arguments exist, both within each area of study and between them, about the intent of biblical writers, with respect to a theology of anthropomorphism. It is an assertion of this work that biblical studies has reached this impasse, in large part due to its approach to the study of this phenomenon. The prevailing approach has been to study divine anthropomorphism within an assumed framework of polemic and by associating it with a theological system. 2 By contrast, this work will analyze divine anthropomorphism as a literary-contextual phenomenon and seek to build a typology, from which secondary arguments regarding theology or history of religion may be built. This sort of typology will provide scholars in biblical studies, history of religion, and (systematic) theology with a means of evaluating divine anthropomorphisms and their relation to human-divine interactions, as a biblical phenomenon. The Graf-Wellhausen model attributes anthropomorphic depictions of the deity to early theology and religious forms. For example, the two creation stories can be distinguished, in part, by their different perceptions of God: 3 the first (Gen 1:1–2:4a, attributed to the Priestly writer, P) 1.  C. T. Fritsch, The Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943). For arguments against Fritsch, see H. M. Orlinsky, “Review of The Anti-anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch, by C. T. Fritsch,” The Crozer Quarterly 21 (1944) 156–60; T. Wittstruck, “So-Called Anti-anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy,” CBQ 38 (1976) 29–34. 2.  I use theology to refer to two separate phenomena. First, “theology” is the religious beliefs of the ancient Israelites who produced the biblical texts. Second, “Theology” is the contemporary study of constructive, systematic Theology. The theological beliefs reflected in the biblical texts are rarely systematic. 3.  When I speak of “God,” I mean specifically the deity worshiped by ancient Israel, named Yhwh. This deity was considered to be male, though certainly possessing traditionally feminine qualities. As such, I will refer to God, that is, Yhwh, with male pronouns, as is fitting his identity in ancient Israel (M. S. Smith and P. D. Miller, The Early History of God:

1

2

Chapter 1

as anti­anthropomorphic and transcendent; the second (Gen 2:4b–3:24, attributed to the Yahwist, J) as anthropomorphic and immanent. 4 Similarly, the J and E (Elohist) sources are in part distinguished by anthropomorphism. The presence or absence of anthropomorphisms is then related to sophistication: J’s anthropomorphisms are a sign of its folk origins, while E’s apparent softening of anthropomorphism (for example, God appears through dreams versus in person) is a sign of its theological consciousness. 5 These arguments are based on an assumption of chronological development and familiarity of each source’s author with earlier sources. 6 Thus, in the source-critical method, anthropomorphism serves both as a means for distinguishing sources by theology and of evaluating a source’s relative date of composition. Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Dearborn, MI: Dove, 2002] 146). My use of male pronouns is in no way meant to assert that God, as worshiped and discussed by contemporary communities, is male. 4.  Compare the following statements about the P and J creation accounts. “In the Hebrew narrative the immanent Spirit has yielded to the transcendent God, and the principle of evolution is put aside in favor of the fiat of creation” ( J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel [trans. J. S. Black and A. Menzies; repr., Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994; originally, 1886] 298). “In the first account we stand before the first beginning of sober reflection about nature, in the second we are on the ground of marvel and myth” (ibid., 304). And more recently, “The God of Genesis 1 is transcendent: he plans Creation with all its details, then calls forth the elements; everything he says come to be, while he himself remains invisible and separate from what has been created. However, in Gen 2–3, the divinity is more ‘anthropomorphic’. . . . This divinity does not seem to be ‘omniscient’ or ‘all-powerful’, and he differs significantly from the God of Genesis 1” ( J.-L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006] 55). I accept the source-critical theory that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four basic sources that existed independently until they were edited together by a compiler (that is, the Redactor). I will discuss this below. 5. “The second Jehovistic source, E, breathes the air of the prophets much more markedly, and shows a more advanced and thorough-going religiosity. . . . The Deity appears less primitive than in J, and does not approach men in bodily form, but calls to them from heaven, or appears to them in dreams” (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 361). Wellhausen, in general, does not separate the J and E sources but refers to them in their combined form, which he calls the “Jehovist.” For a critique of this method and its repercussions, see J. S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Gerhard von Rad is an exception when it comes to the folk origins of J’s anthropomorphism. He relates J’s use of anthropomorphism to the author’s mature style, “‘Yahweh is the God of the world, his presence is felt everywhere with profound reverence.’ (Pr.) [quoting Otto Procksch]. Yet precisely the Yahwistic narrative is full of the boldest anthropomorphisms. Yahweh walks in the garden in the cool of evening; he himself closes the ark; he descends to inspect the Tower of Babel, etc. This is anything but the bluntness and naïvete of an archaic narrator. It is, rather, the candor and lack of hesitation which is only the mark of a lofty and mature way of thinking” (Genesis: A Commentary [trans. J. H. Marks; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972] 25–26). Von Rad still dates J as the earliest of the pentateuchal sources (ibid., 25). 6. D. Knight, “Wellhausen and the Interpretation of Israel’s Literature,” Semeia 25 (1982) 26.

Introduction

3

Wellhausen’s stated goal is to prove Graf’s thesis that P is later than the other pentateuchal sources. 7 His method is mainly comparative, showing how the JE narratives reflect an earlier stage of religion, characterized by a noncentralized cult, an influence of Mesopotamian myth, and an interest in the details of the ancestor legends. JE reflects no knowledge of the cult laws contained in P, and as such must predate P. Wellhausen’s argument is ex silentio, admittedly so: JE and D do not reflect knowledge of P and thereby must predate P. In addition, it is based on the assumption that JE would be aware of P’s laws if they had been written before J and E were composed. Wellhausen’s defense of his ex silentio argument—that JE and D could not claim to not know P if it did not exist in their time—exposes the weakness of an ex silentio argument in general, because this sort of claim is unverifiable. Also, he does not allow for the possibility that P could have been in existence at the time of composition of the other sources but favors the idea that the J, E, and D authors either ignored P or were ignorant of its existence. 8 More damaging to his argument and relevant to the question at hand is Wellhausen’s assumption of a polemic on the part of the P author. Wellhausen set out to write a history of Israel and, in the process, presented an evolutionary development of its religion from spontaneous celebration rooted in agricultural cycles to dry legalism focused on sin and repentance. 9 Thus, each pentateuchal source comes to represent a stage of the development of religion, each reacting to what came before: We can trace first of all the influence on the tradition [of Israel’s history] of that specific prophetism which we are able to follow from Amos onwards. This is least traceable on the old main source of the Jehovist, in J. . . . The second Jehovistic source, E, breathes the air of the prophets much more markedly, and shows a more advanced and thoroughgoing religiosity. . . . Then the law comes in and leavens the Jehovistic 7.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 4. For an analysis and critique of Wellhausen’s methods, see Knight, “Wellhausen,” 21–36. 8.  “[B]y its very nature P is not intended to be made public. P itself is designed to serve as a book for priests alone” (M. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985] 143; see also p. 11). Israel Knohl notes that this argument does not account for the Holiness Code, which makes the holiness of the general public a main concern (The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995], 5; see also p. 4 n. 16). I will return to the issue of dating the sources below, but I note here that Wellhausen’s adoption of a de-evolutionary model predisposes him to date P late. That is, since Wellhausen comes to the text with an historical model of Israelite religion that progresses from a state of spontaneous expressions of thanks to rigid sacrificial laws, it is no surprise that he would place the P source, made up of sacrificial laws, at the end of that progression. In other words, Wellhausen’s dating of P is dependent more on the theoretical model he inherited from his intellectual forebearers than from any data internal to the text. 9.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 424.

4

Chapter 1 narrative­, first the Deuteronomic . . . while last of all, in the Priestly Code, under the influence of the legislation of the post-exile restoration, there is brought about a complete metamorphosis of the old tradition. 10

This sort of approach presumes each source after J is both aware of and reactionary to the preceding source or sources. This assumption of a polemic among sources leads Wellhausen to interpret features of each source, namely their depictions of the Deity, as intentional reflections of each author’s theology. 11 For instance, Wellhausen argues that divine theophany in P, for him the latest stage of development, is purposefully silent on the means and shape of divine revelation. This is part of P’s program to improve the tradition it inherits to the effect that “moral and religious culture is further advanced; and hence the removal of real or apparent offences against morality and of notions which are too childish, or superstitious, or even mythical.” 12 Where J describes God walking around the garden (Gen 3:8), E relegates divine theophany to dreams (Gen 20:3). D, instead, sequesters God to heaven (Deuteronomy 12). In the final stage, according to Wellhausen, P avoids describing the details of theophany, mentioning only its occurrence: If the Godhead appears, it must not be patent to the senses, at least it must not be seen in visible form. Jehovah speaks with Jacob, but not in a dream from the heavenly ladder; He reveals Himself to Moses, but not in the burning bush; the notion of revelation is retained, but the subsidiary incidents which must be added to make a concrete of the abstract are stripped off. It is a matter of indifference under what forms or through what media a man receives revelation, if only the fact stands sure; in other words, revelation is no longer a reality of the present, but a dead dogma for the past. 13

Setting aside for a moment his assertion that P offers no descriptions of theophany that are “patent to the senses,” 14 Wellhausen’s argument falters on the fact that differences in narration need not reflect polemic; that the four sources have four separate means of describing divine theophanies does not necessitate that one was a criticism of another’s methods. This is not to say that there are not instances of polemic within the sources. The D source in Deut 4:12 argues against an interpretation of 10.  Ibid., 361. 11.  This assumption continues into the present: “P was composed later than JE, that it was composed by someone who was familiar with J and E in their combined form, and it indicates that P was composed as an alternative to that JE version of Israel’s story. It was a retelling of the story in terms that were more suitable to the Aaronide priesthood” (R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003] 27). 12.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 337. 13. Ibid. 14.  My analysis of P on pp. 89–99, 125–130 directly refutes claims such as this.

Introduction

5

Exod 19:9 as a revelation of Yhwh’s form at Horeb. Instead, D insists that the people only heard God’s voice, but saw no form. The P source also shows a polemical thrust in Exod 6:2 when its author insists the ancestors called their god El Shaddai, the name Yhwh not being revealed until Moses. These texts are polemical because they reflect a different viewpoint than other biblical texts and use reactionary rhetoric to promote their view. Difference alone does not make polemic; a text must also show evidence of reaction to differing views. It must defend itself against detractors. 15 Wellhausen’s focus on comparison and assumption of polemic prevents him from identifying visual theophanies in P. While it is true that the P narratives of Genesis contain less description of theophany than J and E, P does not eliminate theophany, nor does it avoid presenting theophany as visual. In the quotation above, Wellhausen refers to the divine revelation to Jacob at Bethel when he states, “the subsidiary incidents which must be added to make a concrete of the abstract are stripped off.” P’s narrative lacks the detail of the means of revelation present in Gen 28:10–22, but this is typical of P narratives in Genesis, whose goal appears to be to set the stage for the Sinai revelation and not to dwell on narrative detail. 16 However, P’s Bethel revelation in Gen 35:9–13 states, “God appeared to Jacob [‫]וירא‬,” (35:9). This sort of language implies a visual theophany (used similarly in the J source, which Wellhausen considers to be more anthropomorphic) and argues against a discomfort on the part of the P author toward earthly appearances of the Deity. 17 Lastly, Wellhausen’s argument ignores P’s Sinai theophany (Exod 24:15–18) in which God descends in a cloud onto the mountain in the sight of the entire congregation and is visually present with the camp throughout the entire wilderness trek. 18 Thus, the use of divine anthropomorphism to distinguish between pentateuchal sources has obscured an evaluation of its nature and function in the individual sources. Wellhausen’s presumptions and methods for analyzing divine anthropomorphism persist long after him, continuing to influence biblical scholars’ characterization of the phenomenon up to the present day. Below, I will note the major developments in theories concerning divine anthropomorphism within biblical studies after Wellhausen. It will be shown that, whereas later scholars challenged many of Wellhausen’s arguments, they likewise perpetuated much of his flawed methodology. 15.  See pp. 40–42 for a discussion of the identification of polemic. 16.  This is not to say that P lacks literary artistry. On P’s literary style, see M. Paran, ‫ מבנים‬,‫ שימושי לשון‬,‫ דגמים‬:‫[ דרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה‬Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures] ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989); S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AB 50; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971). 17. See my full discussion of this passage on pp. 89–99, 125–130. For an instance of a similar description of a visual theophany in J, see Gen 18:1. 18.  On the specifics of the divine glory (‫ )כבוד‬in P, see my discussions on pp. 89–99, 125–130, and 177–184.

6

Chapter 1

I will focus on the most influential scholars, important recent works, and paradigmatic works. History of Scholarship Challenges to characterizations of divine anthropomorphism in source criticism have focused mainly on issues of dating and the theological outlook of individual sources. 19 In the mid-20th century, Yehezkel Kaufmann challenged Wellhausen’s model, arguing that biblical religion (and popular Israelite religion) was monotheistic and anti-mythological from the onset. Kaufmann also reversed Wellhausen’s dating, arguing that P represented early religious forms. Israel’s deity was anthropomorphic but nonmater­ ial. 20 Like Wellhausen, Kaufmann was primarily concerned with describing the history of ancient Israelite religion; he describes divine anthropomorphism only as it is relevant to that pursuit. He uses anthropomorphisms to support his early dating of P, noting, “In every detail, P betrays its antiquity. Its narrative preserves bold anthropomorphisms.” 21 He also identifies two early stages of the composition of Genesis (Genesis 1–11, then 12–49 before they were incorporated into J, E, and P, respectively), which likewise reflect their antiquity through their use of divine anthropomorphism; namely, God interacting with humans either without a mediator or without outward theophanic phenomena. 22 Kaufmann rightly critiques Wellhausen’s argument that each source is a conscious evolution from its predecessor. 23 At the same time, Kaufmann preserves Wellhausen’s presumption that divine anthropomorphism is a marker of earlier religious belief and was a matter of polemic for the biblical writers, while he shifts his focus to the break between ancient Israel and the rest of the ancient Near East. Gerhard von Rad’s work on Deuteronomy has had immense influence on approaches to divine anthropomorphism in biblical studies. 24 He famously argued that Deuteronomy attempts to spiritualize earlier cultic traditions, which conceptualized the tabernacle as the dwelling place of Yhwh by replacing it with a name (‫ )שם‬theology. Deuteronomy demythologizes the 19.  I discuss dating the sources in the conclusion and dating P specifically below. 20. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (ed. and trans. M. Greenberg; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) 21, 175–200. 21.  Ibid., 206. He argues that P reflects a gradual reworking of cultic regulations over generations in response to monotheism (p. 102). 22.  Ibid., 207–8. Kaufmann adds that the fact that these features were retained by later authors suggests the texts had taken on a “quasi-canonicity” (ibid., 209). This argument presupposes that later authors would have found the characterization of God in Genesis offensive, but Kaufmann provides no evidence to support this claim. Rather it seems based in his assertion that Israelite religion was, from its inception, monotheistic, and monotheism is marked by the notion that a creator god is not subject to cosmic order but is the source of all being and did not emerge from a preexistent realm (ibid., 29, 60, 121). 23.  Ibid., 167. 24.  G. von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D. Stalker; London: SCM, 1953) 37–44.

Introduction

7

older view by asserting that it is Yhwh’s name that resides at the tabernacle, not the deity himself. Von Rad compares Deuteronomy’s theology with that of the Priestly source. P reflects a glory-meeting (‫מועד‬-‫ )כבוד‬theology, in which Yhwh’s presence is primarily located in heaven but descends to earth through the Tent of Meeting. According to von Rad, both theologies represent an attempt to reconceptualize earlier beliefs that the deity resides at a sanctuary. Thus, here too, a polemic against divine anthropomorphism is presumed as well as its evolutionary development over time. 25 Building on Kaufmann and von Rad, Moshe Weinfeld argued that the P source originated early (and extended through much of Israelite history), but was deeply anthropomorphic. In contrast, the D source was a later attempt to “curtail” the cultus, in part by removing anthropomorphisms. 26 Weinfeld’s work calls into question Wellhausen’s claim that P is antianthropomorphic and Kaufmann’s attempt to regulate P’s anthropomorphism to its earliest existence. At the same time, he perpetuates the idea that divine anthropomorphism was a polemical issue and that P and D are inherently at odds. 27 More-recent studies have brought fresh approaches to divine anthropomorphism as a phenomenon, while at the same time perpetuating the missteps of the past. Marjo Korpel presents a detailed comparative study of divine anthropomorphisms in the Bible with those in the textual finds from Ugarit. She determines that Israel shared many “metaphors for the divine” with the rest of Canaanite religion (of which Ugarit is her exemplar). 28 At the same time, the divine anthropomorphisms of the Bible reinterpret Canaanite metaphors to fit their own monotheistic theology. For instance, Israel avoids metaphors that imply divine weakness. This argument relies on the problematic assumption that most biblical compositions are strictly monotheistic in outlook. Contrary to source-critical assertions, 25. Recently, S.  Richter has reevaluated the argument for the presence of a Name theology in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) (The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: L’shakken shemo sham in the Bible and the Ancient Near East [BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter: 2002]). Richter challenges the assumption inherent in von Rad’s theory that Deuteronomy’s terminology represents a circumlocution for the divine presence (the Name versus God himself). She argues that the idioms “to cause my name to dwell” and “to place my name” refer to Assyrian imperial idioms used to assert domination over a territory and the resulting loyalty owed by its inhabitants to their conqueror. The authors of Deuteronomy were making a statement about Yhwh’s dominion in Israel and the expected allegiance of the Israelites to Yhwh. This implies the D source did not employ this idiom as an abstraction of the anthropomorphism supposedly inherent in the earlier theology of divine presence in the sanctuary. 26. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 27. See especially ibid., 191–209. For an early critique of Weinfeld, see J.  Milgrom, “Alleged Demythologization and Secularization in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973) 156–61. 28. M. C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990) 33.

8

Chapter 1

Korpel­concludes­that divine anthropomorphisms are uniform throughout the Hebrew Bible, though this conclusion may be determined by her synchronic and comparative approach. 29 While she argues for the theological legitimacy of anthropomorphism, Korpel inconsistently defines divine anthropomorphism as metaphor in Israel but as literal depiction in Ugarit. 30 Mark Smith offers a more nuanced interpretation of anthropomorphism in biblical texts as compared to Ugaritic and Mesopotamian texts. 31 However, he too characterizes the J source as highly anthropomorphic while the Priestly and deuteronomic material mutes divine anthropomorphism and contrasts anthropomorphism with “the transcendent reality represented by Israelite monotheism.” 32 I. Knohl convincingly reversed the previous assumption that the Holiness Code, within the P source, predated and served as the basis for the P source. 33 He showed instead that it is the Holiness Code (his “Holiness School”) that is the tradent of P and, in his estimation, responsible for the redaction of the entire Pentateuch. 34 Knohl uses divine anthropomorphism as one criterion for distinguishing and dating the two levels within the P source. He argues that the earlier level, his Priestly Torah (PT), was antianthropomorphic while the later level, written by the Holiness School (HS), embraced anthropomorphisms. 35 While Knohl shows that HS has more anthropomorphic features than the earlier PT writings, he does not convincingly show that PT is antianthropomorphic, as opposed to containing fewer overt examples of divine anthropomorphism. In addition, he uses divine anthropomorphism to distinguish between PT and HS, an approach 29.  While her comparison between Ugaritic and biblical texts is diachronic, her approach to the biblical texts is synchronic in that she does not account for different stages of development or different authorial interests. 30. Michael Fishbane notes the tendentious nature of this approach (Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003] 7 n. 28). 31. M. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 83–103. 32.  Ibid., 88–89, 93. 33.  Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence. 34.  Argued earlier by F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 294–324. For more-recent, similar arguments, see E. Otto, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion,” in Altes Testament—Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow (ed. P. Mommer and W. Thiel; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994) 65–80; idem, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26,” in Levitikus als Buch (ed. H-J. Fabry and H-W. Jüngling; BBB 119; Berlin: Philo, 1999) 125–96; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 1439–43; C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT 2/25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); I. Knohl, “Who Edited the Pentateuch?,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 359–67. 35.  Knohl faults Weinfeld for not distinguishing characteristics of the Holiness Code and Ezekiel from the main Priestly source, which leads Weinfeld to argue that P is anthropomorphic (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 129 n. 16, 181 n. 40).

Introduction

9

that often amounts to circular reasoning. So, while his main argument successfully disproves the dating of P popularized by Wellhausen, it perpetuates the presumption that divine anthropomorphism was a polemical issue and thus can be used to both distinguish between authors and date their compositions (at least, relatively). Yochanan Muffs has argued for a positive assessment of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, as a response to the philosophical critique of divine anthropomorphism made popular in Judaism by Maimonides. 36 He argues for what he calls the “personhood” of Yhwh, who is described in the Hebrew Bible as “a paragon of human virtue.” 37 Though he is “the principle of absolute nondependence,” Yhwh has human qualities. 38 Unlike the anthropomorphism of the gods of the rest of the ancient Near East (of which Muffs focuses primarily on Mesopotamia), Yhwh’s anthropomorphism was achieved without linking him to the powers of nature. He is thus able both to maintain his absolute otherness and to engage in an intimate relationship with Israel (that is, a covenant relationship), that would have been considered beneath the aristocratic deities of Mesopotamia. Muffs’s work challenges a philosophical reading of divine anthropomorphism, which considers any human-divine analogy to undermine the true nature of the deity. He rightly notes that this sort of understanding of divinity is alien to the biblical texts. But Muffs achieves this goal not by denying the philosophical critique of divine anthropomorphism but by arguing that anthropomorphism took on a sophisticated form in ancient Israel. The gods of ancient Mesopotamia, then, remain “crudely” anthropomorphic, while Yhwh’s anthropomorphic nature may be embraced by philosophers and mystics alike as it rejects the perceived crudeness of its predecessors. 39 In this way, Muffs’s work is essentially apologetic and heavily reliant on the views of Kaufmann, critiqued above. E.  Hamori’s work is a recent argument aimed at identifying concrete anthropomorphism as a positive and creative characteristic of biblical literature. She astutely notes that few scholars have distinguished between types of anthropomorphism, and even when they do (particularly anthropomorphism and anthropopathism), these distinctions are not explored for functional differences. Her work builds off the notable exception of James Barr, who argued for the distinction between descriptions of divine theophanies and isolated attributions of human characteristics to God. 40 36. Y. Muffs, The Personhood of God: Biblical Theology, Human Faith and the Divine Image (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2005). In addition, he has advocated for “a phenomenology of God as a person” (idem, Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992] 4). 37.  Muffs, Personhood of God, 30. 38.  Ibid., 55. 39.  Ibid., 29–33. 40. J. Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 31–38.

10

Chapter 1

Hamori goes one step further and isolates what she names ʾîš (‘man’) anthropomorphism; divine theophanies in concrete human form, found in Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33. Hamori argues that this type of anthropomorphism shows God’s freedom and concern with humans, in opposition to traditional interpretations of anthropomorphism as primitive and self-obsessed. She successfully argues against an “either-or” approach to divine anthropomorphism that, under the influence of classical theism, identifies instances of divine anthropomorphism either as crude literalisms or sophisticated metaphors. 41 The main focus of her work is limited to one type of anthropomorphism and thus is not a large-scale analysis of the phenomenon. In addition, while she eschews an “either-or” approach, she maintains a bias against so-called “literal” anthropomorphisms of Yhwh. She seeks, not unlike Muffs, to create a new category of divine anthropomorphism (“analogical”), which allows for sophistication while rejecting the crude literalism found outside the Hebrew Bible. 42 Benjamin Sommer has recently taken up the issue of the conception of the divine body in ancient Israel, both in relation to its neighbors and over time. 43 He argues that the ancient Israelites, like their neighbors, had an anthropomorphic conception of their deity but that there existed a debate regarding the nature of that body. Sommer modifies Kaufmann’s argument that Israel’s deity was anthropomorphic, but nonmaterial. 44 More precisely, Sommer argues, only some biblical texts reflect this belief while others describe a material, anthropomorphic deity. His main argument is that two major conceptions of the divine body are represented in the Hebrew Bible. First, a “fluidity model” which conceives of the deity possessing a material form that is capable of existing at multiple sites (in heaven and on earth, as well as, multiple sites on earth) at the same time. This conception is represented in what Sommer refers to as the JE portions of the Pentateuch. JE’s conception of the divine body mirrors the prevalent conception of Israel’s neighbors. 45 Second, in a manner similar to von Rad, Sommer identifies 41. E. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008) 46. 42.  Ibid., 54–64. 43. B. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 44.  See p. 6 n. 20 above. 45.  Sommer relies heavily on evidence that identifies the same deity (for example, Ištar) with multiple locations to argue in favor of a conception of fragmented divinity in the ancient Near East (Bodies of God, 13–19). This argument is undermined by recent work suggesting that each local manifestation of Ištar represents a distinct deity (see especially Spencer Allen, The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East [Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011; Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming]. On-line: http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/309). Allen suggests that the inscriptional evidence supports the biblical depiction of Yahweh as a single entity, albeit from silence: “on the one hand, we can conclude that because Yah-

Introduction

11

two conceptions of the divine body that reject this earlier fluidity model. These rejections are found in the P and D portions of the Pentateuch and share in their conception of the divine body as a unity, incapable of division. In P, this unified body is represented by the permanent presence of the divine presence (‫ )כבוד‬on earth. It is only P, according to Sommer, that reflects Kaufmann’s argument of an anthropomorphic, nonmaterial deity. The D compositions conceive of a unified divine body, but instead locate it exclusively in heaven. Sommer’s approach is flawed due to his presumption of an evolutionary development and presumption of polemic. In addition, his description of the divine body in JE is compromised by his presumption (with Wellhausen) that J and E share a similar theology. When the two sources are distinguished, it is clear that much of Sommer’s evidence for fluidity in J and E falls away, undermining his presumption that P and D are responding to earlier conceptions of divine disunity. His analysis of P and D texts are likewise influenced by scholarly presumptions about the theological interests of these compositions, in particular, von Rad’s name theology. Andreas Wagner addresses divine anthropomorphism explicitly within the context of ancient Near Eastern iconography. 46 He argues against a strict evolutionary approach to divine anthropomorphism. 47 He provides an analysis of images of the divine in ancient Israel and its neighboring cultures as well as a comparison of descriptions of body parts for humans versus for God in the Hebrew Bible. He concludes that ancient Israel shared an anthropomorphic conception of its deity with its neighbors and that there is no discernible shift away from anthropomorphic depictions of Yhwh in Israel over time. 48 He also argues that later interpreters, continuing into the modern period, have fundamentally misunderstood the function of ancient Near Eastern depictions of deities in human form. The image represents an essential aspect of the deity as opposed to a simple correlation wistic full names do not appear together, there is no evidence that any individual revered more than one Yahweh-named deity in the same way Assyrians could and would revere more than one Ištar-associated goddess or others could and would revere more than one Baal-named deity. On the other hand, we may also conclude that any Assyrian or Phoenician who encountered the names Yahweh-of-Samaria and Yahweh-of-Teman would, by anaology, have expected that they were two distinct Yahweh-named deities” (ibid., 399). 46.  The current discussion of iconography and the Bible goes back 35 years to Othmar Keel’s monograph on the imagery in Job (Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob: Eine Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hindergrund der zeitgenöss Bildkunst [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978]). For a survey of the present state of the discussion, see Iconography and Biblical Studies: Proceedings of the Iconography Sessions at the Joint EABS/SBL Conference, 22–26 July 2007, Vienna, Austria (ed. I.  J. de Hulster and R.  Schmitt; AOAT 361; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009). 47. A. Wagner, Gottes Körper: Zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung der Menschengestaligkeit Gottes (Gütersloh: Gütesloher Verlagshaus, 2010). 48.  Ibid., 163–65.

12

Chapter 1

between humans and deities. Divine bodies represent divine communication and action and thus connect the divine and human realm. In most of the ancient Near East, this is achieved through the cult statue. In ancient Israel, this is achieved through literary descriptions of the deity. He does identify a unique development within ancient Israel, closely tied to the development of monotheism and a ban on cult images. Later authors, in particular after the exile, began to recast divine anthropomorphism as a theologomenon that prevented their single, genderless deity from becoming too remote from the world. Divine anthropomorphism, through its focus on communication and action, maintained the connection between human and deity. 49 The lack of gender, in particular, prevents reducing divine anthropomorphism to primitive beliefs of deities as super-humans. 50 In addition, because in Israel this was achieved without a cult statue, the deity could interact with individual humans unmediated by priest, temple or cult. Wagner rightly questions an evolutionary approach, but his solution remains evolutionary. Instead of a shift away from depicting the deity anthropomorphically, biblical authors shifted to a more abstract understanding of that anthropomorphism. Thus, he maintains an assumption that anthropomorphic depictions of deities are naive and primitive when lacking clear distinctions between humans and gods. This clear distinction is only achieved through monotheism. In this formulation, ancient Israel remains theologically more sophisticated than its neighbors. He presumes ancient Israelite literature is characterized by divine action in history and is, in this way, unique. His work is focused on the outer form of the divine body alone and thus does not take into account the full range of the human-divine analogy in the Hebrew Bible. There remains scholarly disagreement over the relationship between divine anthropomorphisms and the dating and theologies of pentateuchal sources. Still, anthropomorphism continues to be used as a criterion for source criticism. For instance, the entry for anthropomorphism in the Anchor Bible Dictionary states, “see YAHWIST (“J”) SOURCE.” 51 Despite the crucial role divine anthropomorphism plays in source criticism, there have been few attempts to define or categorize it as a phenomenon. It is left largely undifferentiated, even as it is assumed to be a polemical topic. Overall, recent work on divine anthropomorphism reflects the need for a fresh look at anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch, one that questions previous presumptions about how the phenomenon was understood in ancient Israel. 49.  Ibid., 155–58. 50.  Ibid., 183–87. 51. “Anthropomorphism,” in ABD 1:262.  The “Yahwist” entry notes only, “Often, more general features, such as the ‘anthropomorphisms’ in the presentation of God (as opposed to E and P), were invoked [to attribute passages to J].” (A. de Pury, “Yahwist [J] Source,” in ABD 6:1013).

Introduction

13

The Relevance of a New Study Above, I have addressed the major works that have been formative in the discussion of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible. In this section, I will discuss how this phenomenon is typically conceived within biblical studies in general. I will provide examples that I consider to be paradigmatic. As I see it, there are four missteps among biblical scholars in their approach to divine anthropomorphism, which have led to the current state of affairs: a lack of definition, the application of the descriptors transcendent and immanent, the use of an evolutionary model, and the presumption of ancient Israel’s uniqueness and superiority in the ancient Near East. The first two are methodological and the second two reflect deeper, cultural biases. First, most major works that address divine anthropomorphism never provide a definition for divine anthropomorphism or an attempt to categorize types. I will address the issue of categorization here and take up definition in the following chapter. Wellhausen, von Rad, and Weinfeld all use this terminology without definition or delineation. As Hamori has summarized in her survey of definitions of divine anthropomorphisms, the primary approach until her work was to distinguish only between body and emotion—divine anthropomorphism versus anthropopathism, or physical and psychical. 52 She, in contrast, identifies multiple types of anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible, which represents an important advancement in the discussion. 53 She accepts the two-part distinction between physical and psychical, or between anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. Her interest is in the physical and thus leaves the psychical aside. Hamori advocates a spectrum approach to anthropomorphism that includes the concrete on one side and the figurative on the other. 54 The focus of her work is the exploration of the two examples of her “concrete anthropomorphism,” and thus her taxonomy serves mainly to prove the distinctiveness of “concrete­ 52.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 26–28. Karel van der Toorn uses the terminology “external” and “internal” anthropomorphism to refer to body and emotion (“God [I] ‫אלהים‬,” in DDD 352–65. 53.  Hamori’s taxonomy of physical divine anthropomorphisms includes the following: concrete (including “anthropomorphic realism”), envisioned, immanent, transcendent, figurative, and mixed (When Gods Were Men, 26–34). 54.  She includes the category “mixed” after “figurative,” which may qualify as a further step away from concrete anthropomorphism because it is characterized by attempts to express divine anthropomorphism while limiting it. She lists the D source’s use of “name” (‫ )שם‬as an example (ibid., 33–34). A potential drawback of a spectrum approach, as I see it, is its unavoidable importation of both an evolutionary and polemical understanding of divine anthropomorphism. As Hamori’s own analysis reveals, understanding concrete anthropomorphism as one extreme of a spectrum implies that the author had a deeper connection or commitment to portraying the deity in realistic human terms. It seems to necessarily evoke a comparison with the other end of the spectrum.

14

Chapter 1

anthropomorphism” both within the Hebrew Bible and in relation to other ancient Near Eastern texts. 55 Individual authors have offered definitions and limited attempts at categorizing divine anthropomorphism in short works. Barr has argued that instances of divine theophany alone should be considered serious attempts to describe the divine form, and any reference to the divine form outside a theophanic experience is secondary to our understanding of the divine form. 56 David Aaron has rightly criticized Barr for his dismissal of nontheophanic references to the divine form as arbitrary and unwar­ranted. 57 Mark Smith has argued for the existence of a biblical tradition that imagined Yhwh’s body to be of gigantic proportions, found in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1. Smith associates this tradition with the reference to Baʿlu’s immense size in the Baʿlu cycle. 58 The tradition is then associated with divine enthronement. What is lacking then from biblical research is a sustained attempt to answer the question what are the characteristics of divine-human analogy in the Hebrew Bible? This study seeks to answer this question through an in-depth analysis of the Pentateuch. Hamori’s taxonomy is an important contribution but requires broader application. I will attempt to provide this sort of analysis in the body of this work and, from this analysis, a reevaluation of Hamori’s taxonomy of divine anthropomorphism. The second misconception of divine anthropomorphism in biblical scholarship emanates from the imposition of the philosophical-­theological terminology of transcendent and immanent on descriptions of divine-human analogy in the Hebrew Bible. We must first note that biblical scholars use the terms transcendent and immanent relatively and somewhat idiosyncratically. For instance, Hamori and Sommer use these terms to refer to divine location. Hamori’s taxonomy of physical anthropomorphism includes “immanent anthropomorphism” and “transcendent anthropomorphism.” 59 Immanent refers to instances when God is present on earth, but not neces55.  Sommer includes a definition of divine anthropomorphism, but again his ultimate goal is the description of a specific phenomenon of divine body conceptions and not a broad understanding of divine anthropomorphism itself in the Hebrew Bible. His definition of body is also quite idiosyncratic, “something located in a particular place at a particular time, whatever its shape or substance” (Bodies of God, 2). 56.  Barr, “Theophany.” 57. D. H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 44. 58. M. Smith, “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-exilic Israelite Religion,” ZAW 100 (1988) 424–27; idem, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 83–86. Stephen Moore has argued that God’s body is of immense size, similar to a body builder (S. D. Moore, “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body,” JSOT 70 [1996] 87–115). 59.  See also R. Hendel’s category “transcently anthropomorphic” (“Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East [ed. K. van der Toorn; Leuven: Peeters, 1997] 205–28).

Introduction

15

sarily in bodily form. 60 Transcendent refers to times when God may be described in bodily terms, but remains in heaven. 61 Sommer likewise asserts that Yhwh in the D source is transcendent because he is located exclusively in heaven. 62 P’s theology, in contrast, attributes both transcendence and immanence to Yhwh: “Indeed, a central theme of priestly tradition—perhaps, the central theme—is the desire of the transcendent God to become immanent on the earth this God had created.” 63 But, location is not the typical nuance of these terms. The Oxford English Dictionary defines transcendent as 1.  Surpassing or excelling others of its kind; going beyond the ordinary limits; pre-eminent; superior or supreme; extraordinary . . . 5. Of the Deity: In His being, exalted above and distinct from the universe; having transcendence. 64

There are few passages in the Hebrew Bible that even approximate this definition; in particular that God is “exalted above and distinct from the universe.” Rather, even the D source claims that God resides in heaven, which is separate from earth but not transcendent of the world (Deut 4:39). 65 Similarly, for immanent: 1. Indwelling, inherent; actually present or abiding in; remaining within. 66

The J source, whose God is typically characterized as “immanent,” does not characterize God as “inherent” in the universe so much as present in bodily form on earth. It may seem overly pedantic to introduce the dictionary definitions of these terms. One could say that the meaning of these terms is determined by their usage. The OED does not include an entry for their meaning within biblical studies, but if it did it could simply note that transcendent in our field means “distant and located in heaven,” while immanent means “close at hand and located on earth.” This approach would work in the case of Hamori and Sommer. Because transcendent and immanent according to Sommer refer simply to divine location vis-à-vis earth, it is not a contradiction to assert that in P a transcendent deity seeks to become immanent; he means that in P Yhwh begins 60.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 30–32. 61.  Ibid., 32–33. 62.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 64. See also his discussion in “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle,” BI 9 (2001) 41–63. 63.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 74, emphasis original. 64. “Transcendent,” in OED s.v. [accessed July 19, 2009]. On-line: http://www.oed. com. 65. See 184–187, 207–214 for my discussion of divine location in D. For a discussion of the cosmos in the ancient Near East, see N. Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996) 19–114. 66. “Immanent,” in OED s.v., emphasis original [accessed July 19, 2009]. On-line: http://www.oed.com.

16

Chapter 1

dwelling in heaven and through the course of the narrative seeks to set up his dwelling on earth. The problem though is that these terms necessarily introduce philosophical concepts (that a true deity is totally other than his or her creation and not subject to the same forces as creation) that developed after the composition of the biblical books was completed. 67 The result is a misapplication of what are properly philosophical terms meant to describe divinity as a concept and not the particular manifestations of the specific deity, Yhwh, as he is described in the Hebrew Bible. The potential harm to theoretical clarity caused by the application of these terms to the deity in the Hebrew Bible is evident in the recent works of Stephen Geller and Robert Kawashima. Geller argues for two major theological traditions in the Pentateuch: the priestly-cultic and the deuteronomic-­covenantal. 68 The first is characterized by a theology of “transcendent immanence” and the second by “immanent transcendence.” For Geller, while these terms relate to how each tradition describes the presence or absence of the deity, they are also tied up in the very nature of the deity and his relationship to his creation. To argue that the Israelite deity exhibits both these qualities both creates a logical impossibility, further 67. E. Lab. Cherbonnier, “The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism,” HTR 55 (1962) 187. R. Renehan argues the notion of the incorporeality and immateriality originates with Plato (“On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality,” GRBS 21 [1980] 105–38). 68. S. A. Geller, “God, Humanity, and Nature in the Pentateuch,” in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch (ed. J. Stackert, B. Nevling Porter, and D. P. Wright; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2010) 421–65. See also earlier discussions in idem, “God of Covenant,” in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World (ed. B. Nevling Porter; Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1; Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000). A similar application of these terms can be found in other works: “According to D, Yhwh is transcendent; he is beyond the substance of our world, and he does not even dwell in the midst of the nation that worships him—a complete reversal of P’s point of view. . . . Side by side with its transcendental perception of the divinity with respect to the holy place, D contains an opposite point of view, which emphasizes Yhwh’s presence in the war camp” (A.  Rofé, Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch [trans. Harvey N. Bock; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 50–51); “We constantly face the tension in Scripture between God’s transcendence and immanence, both of which are important to a correct and meaningful understanding of God, his revelation of himself and how he relates to us” (R. Averbeck, “Tabernacle,” in The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch [ed. T. Desmond Alexander and D. W. Baker; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003] 822); “The kavod represents Priestly religious reflection expressing both the transcendence and the immanence of God” ( J. F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel [BJS 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000] 81). Ronald E. Clements argues that Yhwh was conceived as both immanent and transcendent from earliest times, as this was the predominant view in Canaan (God and Temple: The Presence of God in Israel’s Worship [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965] 136). Simo Parpola sees the convergence of immanent and transcendent qualities in depictions of Aššur (“Monotheism in Ancient Assyria,” in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World [ed. B. Nevling Porter; Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1; Chebaque, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000] 171).

Introduction

17

suggesting that these terms are inadequate to describe the presentation of the deity in the Hebrew Bible, and is potentially misleading. 69 In addition, though they are typically used by biblical scholars to describe divine location, these terms invoke the very nature of the deity and thus necessarily influence how we evaluate other examples of divine anthropomorphisms. That is, by labeling D’s depiction of the deity as “transcendent,” because the author supposedly relegates Yhwh to heaven, implies that divine location is simply an example of this transcendence, which we should expect the D author to bring to all his descriptions of Yhwh. Thus, the terms are misused when applied as descriptors of divine location as they in fact describe divine nature, of which location is only one part. Using these two terms together, to my mind, reflects a reticence on the part of biblical scholars to admit to an unsystematic and even contradictory presentation of the location of Yhwh in the pentateuchal sources and a conception of the divine that is radically different from those of classical theism and modern religion, in particular Judaism and Christianity, the most common religions of biblical scholars. Kawashima’s work shows how a presumption of these characteristics of the biblical deity can negatively influence interpretations of related texts. 70 Kawashima adopts the dominant definitions of these terms, “In its precise, technical sense, ‘transcendence’ refers to nonmateriality—god-as-spirit ‘transcends’ the physical universe. It provides the precise counterpart to the notion of ‘immanence’—an ‘immanent’ god exists within the cosmos.” 71 He argues, under the influence of Knohl, that the P author embraces an abstract, nonanthropomorphic conception of the deity, who is characterized by transcendence. 72 The conundrum for interpreters then is how to explain how P’s tabernacle coheres with its conception of a transcendent deity. Kawashima argues that P’s description of the divine presence (‫ )כבוד‬is the solution, as it represents a sort of “container” through which the transcendent deity can enter the physical world. 73 The problem is that Kawashima has begun from the presupposition that Yhwh in P is transcendent and thus incapable of inhabiting time and space. He does not consider the possibility that because P’s deity dwells in the tabernacle, he is not transcendent. Kawashima’s presupposition of transcendence, and its philosophical 69. Both Sommer (Bodies of God, 12) and Muffs (Personhood of God, 3) acknowledge the limitations of these terms but employ them nonetheless. 70. R. Kawashima, “The Priestly Tent of Meeting and the Problem of Divine Transcendence: An ‘Archaeology’ of the Sacred,” Journal of Religion 86 (2006) 226–57. 71.  Ibid., 237. 72.  Argued by Cross, Canaanite Myths, 299–300. Israel Knohl also argues that P’s concept of a transcendent deity is in conflict with prophetic traditions in the Hebrew Bible (“Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg [ed. M. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997] 73–79). 73.  Kawashima, “Priestly Tent of Meeting,” 256.

18

Chapter 1

implications­, leads him to see an interpretive crux in P where none exists. We can see how the introduction of these terms into critical interpretation of the deity imports a philosophical discussion that is otherwise absent from ancient Israel. 74 The use of these terms gives the false impression that the biblical authors were engaged in a philosophical discussion that began after they lived and in a separate part of the world. In the following, I will look at the issue of location as it is reflected in the text. To do this, I will focus on the specific language used in each source to describe divine location. I will argue below that each source describes Yhwh as capable of appearing and dwelling on earth. All four sources (and H), reflect a belief that God can locate either in heaven or on earth and none are concerned with the philosophical problem that to assert divine presence in one locale is to imply divine absence from another (if God is on earth, he cannot be in heaven) 75 or that God is “wholly other” and therefore has nothing in common with earthly existence. At the same time, all four sources reflect an appreciation of the complexity of divine nature. The difference between the sources is not the nature of the deity vis-à-vis his creation but the degree to and manner in which each source chooses to describe different locations for the deity. While each source prefers to emphasize certain characteristics of Yhwh over others, Yhwh in each of the sources exhibits similar characteristics. That is, the sources can be compared to gain a fuller view of the variety of possible characterizations of Yhwh present in ancient Israel and how different presentations of Yhwh contribute to the larger literary interests of individual authors. But, comparison of the presentations of Yhwh in the sources is not a reliable means by which to distinguish between the sources since each source shows itself capable of describing Yhwh in various, what we might consider contradictory, ways and the various sources overlap in their different characterizations of Yhwh. In other words, the four sources differ significantly in their indivdial depictions of the deity though their various depictions each draw on shared ideologies and literary conventions. As a result, each source is distinct in its use of divine anthropomorphism but not wholly unique; the similarities do not negate the irreconcilable differences or the need to analyze each source separately.

74.  The Dutch theologian, H. M. Kuitert argued that there are no antianthropomorphic tendencies in the Hebrew Bible. Rather, they were introduced by later Jewish and Christian interpreters (Gott in Menschengestalt: Eine dogmatisch-hermeneutische Studie über die Anthropomorphismen der Bibel [Munich: Walter Kaiser, 1967]). 75.  P’s composition reflects a concern with divine presence versus absence. In particular, Yhwh cannot dwell among humans until the tabernacle is erected and attended to. Once this happens, Yhwh’s prime residence is the tabernacle versus his earlier heavenly abode. But, P does not engage the philosophical problem implied by presence such as this. For instance, it is not a concern of P’s that Yhwh’s presence in the tabernacle implies his inability to be present elsewhere, thereby suggesting he is not omnipotent or omnipresent.

Introduction

19

The third misconception of divine anthropomorphism is that it evolved over time from more concrete to more abstract conceptions of the deity, which reflects an evolution of the sophistication of religious thought within Israelite religion. These misconceptions betray an intellectual bias against certain forms of religious expression (that is, divine anthropomorphism) on the presumption that they reflect simplistic or erroneous thought. This assumption was common and explicit in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, and I will not survey examples here. Above, I have noted the presumption of evolutionary development in the major, relevant works. These presumptions are present in shorter treatments of divine anthropomorphism as well. For instance, Werblowsky reflects this sort of bias in his distinction between primary and secondary anthropomorphism: Another important distinction has to be made between what may be called primary and secondary anthropomorphism. The former reflects a simple, naïve, uncritical (or precritical) level of immediate, concrete, “massive,” and mythological imagination. The latter is more dogmatic and deliberate. It is fundamentalist in the sense that anthropomorphic assertions are made and defended not because they reflect the immediate level of religious consciousness but because they reflect a dogmatic position: holy scriptures or canonical traditions use anthropological language, hence this language has to be literally accepted and believed in. 76

Werblowsky’s distinction between primary and secondary anthropomorphism is important because it recognizes that one’s understanding of divine anthropomorphism is caught up in one’s “religious consciousness.” His categories map on to the shift from the primary text to its secondary interpretation by later religious tradents. This is an important distinction to make because it reminds us that later readers can misread or overread the anthropomorphic religious consciousness of the biblical authors because “this language has to be literally accepted and believed in.” Recognizing this allows us as critical readers of the text to sidestep the need to apologize for the anthropomorphic language of the biblical texts; they are not literal in the dogmatic sense but true depictions of a mythological imagination. Still, his definitions of primary and secondary anthropomorphism imply both an evolutionary and value-ridden hierarchy of human thought (note in particular his use of “uncritical” or “precritical” versus “deliberate”). 77 Werblowsky’s model undermines a strict evolutionary development anthropomorphism but does not completely escape an evolutionary model in which conceptions of anthropomorphisms become more sophisticated 76. R. J. Z. Werblowsky, G. Scholem, and C. Roth, “Anthropomorphism,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (ed. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik; 2nd ed.; Detroit: Macmillian, 2007) 2:189. 77. J. Hempel adopts a similar approach to the development of divine anthropomorphism (“Die Grenzen des Anthropomorphismus Jahwes im Alten Testament,” ZAW 16 [1939] 75–85).

20

Chapter 1

over time, implying that anthropomorphism can serve as a gauge for a text’s relative date of authorship. 78 Some scholars have sought recently to expose and refute such suppositions. Ulrich Mauser asserts that explicit divine anthropomorphisms are found throughout the biblical texts, arguing against any attempt to locate “a clear line of conceptual development which leads from ‘crude’ forms of speech about God to more ‘refined’ and ‘spiritualized’ ideas” in the Hebrew Bible. 79 Mauser instead seeks to show that the Hebrew Bible, like the New Testament after it, uses divine anthropomorphism to distinguish divine character from human character and is successful because of the presumed similarities between humans and God. 80 Richter, Hamori, and Wagner have argued against disparaging aspects of ancient religion that are unpalatable to modern sensibilities. 81 Sandra Richter argues that name theology, and its claim that D and the DtrH reflect an abstract conception of the deity, was an argument heavily influenced by the problematic idea of nominal realism as an early and unsophisticated stage of human thought. 82 Hamori attempts to show that biblical conceptions of the deity are compatible with classical theism by arguing that concrete anthropomorphism was a means of expressing the limitlessness of divine ability and Yhwh’s love for his people, shown through his desire to interact with them in an intimate and direct manner. 83 In a manner similar to Ha­ mori, Wagner argues that the unique form of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible reflects contemporary theology. 84 The problem with the approach of Hamori and Wagner is that it tends toward the apologetic and thereby is outside the purview of the critical study of the Bible. The Bible will, of necessity, inform systematic and constructive theology. That said, biblical scholars who embrace a critical approach must distinguish between the Hebrew Bible as a theological document that reflects the theologies of the people who produced it (that is, the ancient Israelites) and the Bible as living Scripture that informs the theologies of contemporary religious groups. To conflate the two leads to anachronistic readings and apologetics 78.  Ibid., 188. See also A. D. Hallam, “Old Testament Anthropomorphism,” Milla WaMilla 13 (1973) 14–19. 79. U. Mauser, “Image of God and Incarnation,” Interpretation 24 (1970) 337. See also his summary of evolutionary approaches throughout the history of biblical interpretation (ibid., 337–43). 80.  He focuses on the example of Hosea. For instance, Hos 11:8 is not a denial of the anthropomorphic character of the deity but rather a qualification of divine anger as compared with human anger. While a human would act on his or her anger in this situation, Yhwh, who is “not a man,” can control his anger (Mauser, “Image of God,” 348). 81. See also, H.  W.  F. Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: Athlone, 1978) 1–29. 82.  Richter, Name Theology, 14–22. 83.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 150–55. 84.  Wagner, Gottes Körper, 186.

Introduction

21

as the religious consciousness of the ancient Israelites is forced to reflect the concerns of the present. The discussion of the theological and philosophical merits of divine anthropomorphism obscures an investigation of its forms because interpreters are predisposed to prioritize those features they value most. Any description of the types of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible does best to approach divine anthropomorphism initially as a literary phenomenon and not a theologomenon of contemporary relevance. Once the initial work of understanding divine anthropomorphism in its original cultural context is done, we are on firmer footing to venture into constructive theology, unencumbered with the burden of justifying the beliefs and actions described in the text. Related to the misconception of evolutionary development is the fourth misconception of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible. That is, that the religious forms of ancient Israel were more sophisticated than those of its neighbors. In the past, biblical scholars were often explicit in their belief of the superiority of ancient Israel over other ancient Near Eastern cultures. Wellhausen sees Priestly religion as dry legalism but considers early Israelite religion (as represented by the prophets) as an evolution from the religion of the rest of the ancient world. Kaufmann describes Israelite religion as a complete break from surrounding pagan religion, which reflects the development of an advanced theological understanding. Contemporary scholars rarely voice explicit preference, though their arguments often betray a bias in favor of Israel. Muffs is explicit in his assertion that ancient Israel’s deity is of a superior character than the deities of ancient Mesopotamia. Sommer and Hamori do not explicitly claim that ancient Israelite belief was superior, but their arguments in favor of the uniqueness of biblical texts within the ancient Near East creates a dichotomy between the two, which lends itself to a value judgment. In particular, Sommer argues that ancient Israel was monotheistic and conceived of its god as outside the forces and influence of nature. He does not present his argument with the same value-laden rhetoric as his major influence (Kaufmann), but the stark intellectual distinction between Israel and its neighbors that he does present (in which Israel embraces theological beliefs valued by later Judaism and Christianity) undermines the reader’s ability to see ancient Near Eastern belief as equally sophisticated. 85 As with presumptions of evolutionary development, a presumption of or argument for Israel’s superiority undermines a critical investigation of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible, as it encourages scholars to locate their interpretations of divine anthropomorphism within a hierarchy of crude to sophisticated. 85. For instance, Assyriologists have recently begun to question the long-standing presumption that Mesopotamian deities were conceived of as overwhelmingly anthropomorphic: see What Is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia (ed. B. N. Porter; Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2; Winona Lake: IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009).

22

Chapter 1

While individual scholars have at different times argued against all the above misconceptions of divine anthropomorphism, there has yet to be a sustained investigation of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible that seeks to provide an alternative paradigm for interpretation of this phenomenon. This is the goal of the current study.

The Approach of This Study I will address here my basic approach to the question of divine anthropomorphism and why this approach is best suited to the analysis of the phenomenon. I will discuss the specifics of my methodology in detail in the following chapter. To begin, this is a religious studies project, as it is concerned with a primary issue of religious imagination: divine anthropomorphism. My specific area of interest is of course biblical studies and the nature of this sort of religious imagination as reflected in the primary literary achievement preserved from ancient Israel, the Hebrew Bible. Thus, within biblical studies, this work belongs to the subfield of the history of ancient Israelite religion, as preserved in the Hebrew Bible. The project falls secondarily within the subfield of pentateuchal studies. I have chosen to focus my analysis on the texts of the Pentateuch for two main reasons. It is undeniable that the analysis of divine anthropomorphism is directly relevant to comparison between the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern­texts. However, I wanted to focus my analysis on the phenomenon within the Hebrew Bible as I believe it is necessary to first define and describe divine anthropomorphism from within, before effective external comparisons can be made. Thus, instead of taking the entire Hebrew Bible as my data set, I focus on the Pentateuch because historically it has been the focus of discussions of divine anthropomorphism in biblical studies. Focusing on a specific set of texts within the Hebrew Bible allows for a more in-depth, comparative analysis that fully recognizes the differences between compositions. Second, the nature of the texts that make up the Pentateuch (particularly from the viewpoint of the Documentary Hypothesis) is uniquely suited for an inner-biblical analysis of divine anthropomorphism. 86 I accept the source critical theory that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four basic sources ( J, E, D, P [with H supplements]) that existed independently until they were edited together by a compiler (the Redactor, R). In other words, I will proceed from an assumption of the validity of the Documentary Hypothesis in contrast to a supplemental model of composition. 87 More specifically, I follow the presumptions and arguments of 86.  I will address here the compositional nature of the Pentateuch. See my discussion on p. 39 regarding why the literary genre of the Pentateuch is likewise well suited for this project. 87.  Baden refers to this as the “European approach,” which he traces back to the Fragmentary Hypothesis of the late 18th and early 19th century. In contemporary scholar-

Introduction

23

the so-called Neo-Documentarian school, best reflected in the work of Baruch J. Schwartz, Joel S. Baden, and Jeffrey Stackert. 88 The goal of this work though is not to propose specific source divisions of the Pentateuch, but rather it works from the assumption that divisions such as these can and have been made, both readily and reliably. I will work from the source divisions of the above scholars, making minor adjustments where warranted. While the Documentary Hypotheis was long the consensus of biblical scholars, this is no longer the case. Thus, I align myself with a minority of biblical scholars in my acceptance of the Documentary Hypothesis to explain the composition and compilation history of the Pentateuch. That said, this work is not a defense of source criticism or the Documentary Hypothesis. This work is an analysis of divine anthropomorphism within the Pentateuch that presumes the accuracy of the Documentary Hypothesis and the reliability of source analysis as a solution for explaining the composition of the Pentateuch. While certainly many will disagree with my specific source critical approach, I am confident that my conclusions are relevant and informative to any analysis of the Pentateuch that accepts a theory of multiple authorship. The best current defense of the Documentary Hypothesis can be found in Baden’s recent work The Composition of the Pentateuch, in which he outlines the pillars of source criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis as well as corrects common misconceptions. 89 I ship, this approach finds its fullest exposition in R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. J. Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Rendtorff and those influenced by him seek to identify the smallest literary units of the texts and posit a gradual expansion through literary supplementation that does not achieve full theological significance until its latest stages. For a full discussion, see J. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012] 53–67. For examples of studies using a supplemental approach, see K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story (trans J. D. Nogalski; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010); D. M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996); J. C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); Nihan, Priestly Torah; R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003); T. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990). 88. I also rely on the source divisions of Richard Elliot Friedman (Bible with Sources Revealed), even though I disagree with his reconstruction of the compilation history of the sources and his division between J and E in Exodus. For a discussion the term Neo-­ Documentarian, see Jeffery Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. Dozeman et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 369–86. 89. J.  Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch. For introduction to this debate, see R. Rendtorff, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,” CRBS 5 (1997) 43–65; E. W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 95–268; J.-L. Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 127–64; idem, A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition­of the Pentateuch

24

Chapter 1

will note here what I see as the two most important claims of the Documentary Hypothesis in relation to my project, namely, (1) the recognition that the Pentateuch is replete with historical and logical contradictions and, as such, is incomprehensible as a unified composition; and (2) the argument that the sources were originally independent compositions that were compiled together at a single moment by a Redactor, who did not author any significant part of the respective sources. 90 First, the Documentary Hypothesis stands on the ability of sources critics to identify four independent sources that can be distinguished by the interruptions in the consistency of the final compilation and in the ways in which they describe the history of Israel, the details of which are often irreconcilable with each other. In particular, the four sources contradict each other in the historical details of their respective narratives (for example, birthplaces, names, locations of events, and so on). 91 As Baden explains, The hallmark of a unified composition, one created by a single author, is internal consistency: consistency of language and style, consistency of theme and thought, and, above all, consistency of story. Every narrative makes certain claims about the way events transpired—who, what, where, when, how, and why. When these elements are uniform through a text, there is no pressing need to inquire as to its unity. In the Pentateuch, however, historical claims made in one passage are undermined or contradicted outright in another. 92

A contradiction occurs where we find two or more descriptions of a phenomenon that can have only one accurate description. For example, a person can only be born in one place and can only be buried in one place. 93 In my analysis below, I will note when the sources present both divergent and contradictory details about the deity and his interactions with humans. For instance, the E source locates the Tent of Meeting outside the camp and describes Yhwh descending on it to meet with Moses, whereas the P source locates the tent at the center of the camp and describes Yhwh as taking up in Recent European Interpretation (ed. T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); idem, The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. Dozeman et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 90.  The Redactor is responsible for a minute portion of the content of the Pentateuch, namely, where this person added connective words or phrases and removed, rearranged or moved material. For a discussion of the work of the Redactor, see Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 214–29. 91.  By contrast, divine anthropomorphism is at best a secondary criterion for distinguishing the sources because presentations of divine anthropomorphism are only contradictory with regard to the claims they make about historical details, such as the location of the deity at a given moment (versus the deity’s ability to locate in general). 92.  Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 16. Baden includes a list of different types of narrative inconsistencies in the Pentateuch (ibid., 16–20) and a discussion of textual continuity (ibid., 45–80). 93. For discussion of types of contradictions in the Pentateuch narrative, see ibid., 16–20.

Introduction

25

permanent residence there for the post-Sinai wilderness trek. The details of the two accounts are logically and historically irreconcilable; either the tent is inside the camp or out, and Yhwh is either always there or not. The great advantage of the Documentary Hypothesis is that it frees us from the need to harmonize these two accounts of events. Instead, once we recognize that these two passages are logically contradictory we can analyze them as representing two distinct theologies about human-divine interaction and thereby gain a richer (and more accurate) understanding of conceptions of divine anthropomorphism in ancient Israel. At the same time, E and P do share in common the belief that Yhwh uses the Tent of Meeting as a locus for divine-human interaction (as opposed to J), and thus the mere reference to the Tent of Meeting is not enough to identify a passage as belonging to E or P. Also, the absence of the Tent of Meeting in J does not preclude J from embracing a similar type of divine-human interaction or mean that J was consciously rejecting the idea of the Tent of Meeting. It it important to state at this point that a source critical approach does not begin with the assumption of a disjunctive and ununified Pentateuch. The opposite is, in fact, the case. A source-critical approach starts with the canonical text and attempts to read the continuous narrative therein. It is only when an interruption in that continuous narrative is encountered (for example, a second creation account beginning in Gen 2:4b) that the source critic identifies a break in the unity of the text and posits a shift to a different composition. The Documentary Hypothesis is the explanation of the numerous interruptions in the narrative continuity of the Pentateuch. Baden explains nicely, in contrast to a supplemental approach: The methodological crux is therefore the issue of what should be the starting point for the analysis. Rendtorff lays out the issue cleary: “The differenct ‘sources’ of the Pentateuch was the answer to a particular question, namely: is the final form of the Pentateuch as it lies before us a unity or not? Source division as used hitherto makes sense only as an answer to this question.” 94 This is generally an accurate description of the documentary approach . . . the Documentary Hypothesis is an attempt to provide a rationale for the largely incoherent state of the canonical Pentateuch. Technically, the question is not “is the Pentateuch as it lies before us a unity or not,” as Rendtorff puts it, but rather “how can we best explain the literary features of the Pentateuch as it lies before us.” The solution— not the question—is that the text is not a unity. . . . The methodological distinction is clear: whereas source criticism begins with the canonical text, form criticism, as defined by Rendtorff at least, begins with the smallest literary unit. Whereas source criticism takes seriously the continuity of one passage to another, the European approach searches strenulously to separate each textual unit by any means possible. 95 94. Quoting Rendtorff, Problem, 23. 95.  Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 55, emphasis added.

26

Chapter 1

The second claim of the Documentary Hypothesis that is most germane to my project is the claim that the sources originated as independent compositions before they were compiled together by the Redactor. In particular, the J and E sources were first combined at this time and an earlier JE document never existed. 96 Also, the P source, including the H supplements, originated independently from the other pentateuchal sources and represents neither an editorial layer within the Pentateuch nor the work of the final Redactor of the Pentateuch. 97 In other words, each source represents a unique perspective on the history of the Israelites and their relationship to their deity, each of which may be distinguished, compared and contrasted, again, to contribute to our understanding of the range of theologies present in ancient Israel. It is important to recognize P as an independent composition versus an editorial addition or the final redactional layer. As this study demonstrates, P should not be understood as a reaction to one of (or all of) the earlier sources. Presuming P is writing in response to earlier sources has lead scholars to argue that P is inherently polemical. With respect to divine anthropomorphism, the argument goes that P is the later voice seeking to “correct” earlier, crude divine anthropomorphisms that have become a source of embarrassment. But, these arguments typically presume polemic, based on dating or assumptions of editing, and do not prove polemic. When P is read separately from the other sources the evidence for polemic disappears. It is also important not to conflate the issue of the compositional nature of the P source (independent source vs. editorial layer vs. final redaction) with the date of its composition. 98 Whether P is early or late has no bearing on the conception of divine anthropomorphism contained within (unless one presumes an evolutionary development of divine anthropomorphism). Rather, it is its compositional nature that is key to understanding its presentation of the deity, in particular, whether it is reactionary or not. The Documentary Hypothesis does not require absolute dating of the sources it seeks to identify, separate, and describe. Only relative dating is impor96.  Wellhausen, in general, does not separate the J and E sources but refers to them in their combined form, which he calls the “Jehovist.” For a critique of this method and its repercussions, see J. S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. 97.  These two arguments are best represented by the work of Frank Moore Cross and Israel Knohl, respectively. 98. For an informative survey of the history of interpretation and dating of P, including H, see Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, 1–19. For an alternative model of the composition and dating of the Pentateuch from what is adopted here, see D. M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). Carr argues for a gradual development of the Pentateuch from short, early monarchal compositions centered on aspects of the lives of Jacob, Joseph, and Moses to larger compositions and books through a long and complex process of scribal editing and expansion. In his reconstruction, the original Priestly material dates to the exilic period (ibid., 292–303).

Introduction

27

tant, and even this is secondary to the task at hand as it emerges from the identification of passages within sources that are dependent on passages within other sources. Attempts to provide absolute dates for the sources based on differences in their content reflect one of the shortcomings of the application of the Documentary Hypothesis in the past. Divine anthropomorphism was presumed to progress from more-to-less in the evolution of human religious thought. Examples of divine anthropomorphism were unsystematically identified within sources and compared between sources and then mapped on to an evolutionary (or deevolutionary) development of religion, which necessitated that any source identified as less anthropomorphic must be later in Israelite religious history. But these misuses of theological comparisons by those employing source criticism do not negate the usefulness of the Documentary Hypothesis. Rather, they represent a misapplication of its conclusions. Thus, the dating of the pentateuchal sources is not a primary concern of this project because it is not a necessary part of distinguishing and describing divine anthropomorphism in the sources. I will reserve discussion of dating until the final chapter. I will note here, however, that I date all of the pentateuchal sources to the Preexilic Period. The strongest evidence in favor of a preexilic date of the Pentateuch is linguistic, in particular, the similarity between the Hebrew of Genesis–Kings and that of the preexilic, Judean inscriptional record, in contrast to the Hebrew of known exilic compositions, such as Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. 99 Many readers will likely take greatest exception to my early dating of the P source. 100 What is crucial to my analysis is my presumption that the P source was originally an independent, unified source and not a later supplement of a combined J and E meant to correct the theology forwarded by those sources’ authors. 99.  This conclusion has been best argued by Avi Hurvitz and Jan Joosten; see especially A. Hurvitz, “The recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments,” HS 47 (2006) 191–210; idem, “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp,” ZAW 112 (2000) 180–91; and J. Joosten, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose ( JBS 10; Jerusalem: Simor, 2012) 377–409. D. S. Vanderhooft successfully argues that the P document’s use of the term ‫ משפחה‬reflects similar usage in Iron Age ostraca, arguing against a postexilic date of composition (“The Israelite mispaha, the Priestly Writings, and Changing Valences in Israel’s Kinship Terminology,” in Exploring the Logue Duree: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager [ed. D. S. Schloen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009] 485–96). 100. For a summary of the issues involved in dating P (and H), see M.  Haran, “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source,” JBL 100 (1981) 321–33; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 1–7; J.  Blenkinsopp, “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch,” ZAW 108 (1996) 495–518; A.  Hurvitz, “Once Again”; Baruch J.  Schwartz, “Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. S. Shectman and J. S. Baden; AThANT 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009) 1–12.

28

Chapter 1

If one adopts the view that P was written as a supplement to JE and was never an independent composition, then P must logically be later than those sources it seeks to supplement (though one need not date P as postexilic in this model). Some readers might argue that if P can be shown to be late then my argument that there is no evidence of an evolution of divine anthropomorphism is jeopardized. This assertion conflates the issue of absolute dating with the issue of the literary character of P.  Whether P is dated preexilic, exilic or postexilic has no bearing on the success of these arguments. As understood from the viewpoint of the Documentary Hypothesis, the four sources of the Pentateuch present a unique opportunity to analyze divine anthropomorphism among different compositions in the Hebrew Bible. The Pentateuch is a compilation of synoptic accounts of the origin story of the Israelites, which, not unlike the four New Testament Gospels, contain many of the same accounts but with differing details and chronology. 101 The high degree of similarity between sources (for example, main characters and basic plot line) allows for a controlled comparison between them with regard to divine anthropomorphism. That is, unlike if I were to compare divine anthropomorphisms across the entire Hebrew Bible, with the four sources I am able to compare anthropomorphisms within similar genres and narratives. Such a comparison on the one hand removes many of the methodological problems that arise from comparing literary features across different types of literature. It also helps to place the differences and similarities of the anthropomorphisms in the different sources into high relief. For example, Jacob’s divine encounter at Bethel is told in three sources. 102 The shared character ( Jacob), setting (Bethel), and major events (encounter with the divine and promise) allow for a clearer distinction between the presentations of the deity. Thus, the differences between divine anthropomorphisms in these separate texts can more safely be attributed to authorial intent as opposed to generic or contextual differences. 103 Arranging my analysis around the four sources of the Pentateuch also allows for an evaluation of the evolutionary model typically applied to these four sources and, by extension, ancient Israelite religion with regard to divine anthropomorphism. Scholars commonly associate the J and E sources (usually dated as earlier than P and D) with greater use of divine anthropomorphisms, a characteristic that later authors (P and D) have spurned 101.  This is not to say that they tell the same story. There are in fact significant differences between the four sources, which allow readers to distinguish between them. Rather, each source tells its version of the story of the origins of Israel and its relationship with Yahweh, which includes the same main characters and many of the same major events. There is no reason to assume, though, that an event in one source, regardless of its import, should have a parallel in each of the four sources (for example, the J source has no law collection). 102.  J, E, P; see pp. 158–159 for analysis. 103.  For my defense of my use of “authorial intent,” see pp. 35–36.

Introduction

29

due to its theological implications. 104 By comparing anthropomorphisms across and between the entirety of the sources (as opposed to isolated cases of comparison), I will be able to show that the four major sources in fact do not significantly differ in their anthropomorphic conceptions of the deity. At the same time, I will identify features that are particular to each source in an attempt to better understand and compare specific, creative manifestations of divine anthropomorphism. This work is inspired by the lack of consensus regarding divine anthropomorphisms within discussions of the composition of the Pentateuch. This disagreement is paralleled by a conflation of philosophic values and a search for authorial intent in the biblical texts. 105 I will seek to disentangle scholarly descriptions of divine anthropomorphism from the philosophic problem of anthropomorphism. A prominent philosophical bias assumes that anthropomorphism is either an early or unsophisticated characteristic of religious expression (or both). Within biblical studies, this bias has contributed to the assumption that Israelite intellectuals, whether responding to religious forms and beliefs of other cultures or other segments of their own society, engaged in a polemical attack on anthropomorphic depictions of the deity. This work will analyze anthropomorphism without an assumption of polemic. Its primary goal is to provide a definition and typology of anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch apropos of the Hebrew Bible, from a historical and critical distance. It will outline the problems of analyzing divine anthropomorphism and seek to identify biblical conceptions apart from later interpretations and apologetics. The results of this study will inform a secondary goal: it will allow for an assessment of source-critical assumptions about the use of anthropomorphism within pentateuchal sources and provide further insight into the comparison of those sources. The overarching thesis of this work is that divine anthropomorphisms in the Hebrew Bible are misunderstood when they are interpreted primarily as vestiges of past religious forms or as metaphors meant as circumlocutions for the description of the deity, with little or no cultural reality. The phenomenon deserves systematic study before it can contribute to arguments about composition, ancient Near Eastern comparison, or polemics. I will avoid using isolated passages to generalize about divine anthropomorphisms as a whole, instead evaluating examples with reference to their immediate literary context and larger context within a pentateuchal source. While dating will not be a primary focus, I will approach texts diachronically. 106 I will arrange my analysis of anthropomorphisms in the Pentateuch as a typology to identify its different forms and functions. 104. This sort of argument has been presented recently by Sommer, Bodies of God, 38–79. 105.  For a recent summary of the history of philosophical debates over divine anthropomorphism, see Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 35–64. 106.  See p. 37.

30

Chapter 1

It is another claim of this work that anthropomorphism is not easily relegated to one author, stage, or genre, but rather that depictions of Yhwh were diverse and culturally meaningful. That is, divine anthropomorphisms in the Hebrew Bible may very well reflect the authors’ conceptions of Yhwh’s literal body, as is typically assumed for the authors of other ancient Near Eastern texts. While divine anthropomorphisms may vary over time, I do not assume an evolutionary progression either from or to divine anthropomorphism. 107 Biblical texts often lack signs of discomfort or embarrassment over divine anthropomorphism that are typical of compositions by authors known to eschew human characteristics for the deity. 108 I will provide a template for analyzing this diverse and complicated phenomenon as well as show its cultural relevance. My interest is to move past reading divine anthropomorphism as a feature of religious or philosophical evolution. Rather, divine anthropomorphism will be evaluated for its rhetorical and literary implications as relevant to its immediate literary context. My ultimate goal is to show that divine anthropomorphism is neither a simple function of an evolutionary development of Israelite theology nor a characteristic of polytheism versus monotheism. It is a common and native characteristic of the ancient Israelite religious and literary repertoire, which often reflects serious and conscious comparisons between divinity and humanity. Such comparisons should not be evaluated by the a priori standards of philosophy, systematic theology, or logic. Rather, divine anthropomorphisms should be properly contextualized with respect to literary, rhetorical, and, when possible, historical concerns.

Structure and Argument This work will argue that the dichotomy of “anthropomorphic” and “antianthropomorphic” is ineffective for properly analyzing the comparisons made between human and deity in the Hebrew Bible (or any other ancient literature). Instead, I shall begin from the viewpoint of a human being in the world. Every human occupies a body, that body occupies a space and interacts with objects and subjects outside of itself. Thus, I shall divide my analysis of human-like portrayals of God into three types: body, location, interaction. 109 There will, of course, be overlap between categories, 107.  For an argument against an evolutionary development from anthropomorphic to symbolic to aniconic physical representations of deities in the ancient Near East, with special focus on ancient Israel, see I. Cornelius, “The Many Faces of God: Divine Images and Symbols in Ancient Near Eastern Religions,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Books Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed. K. van der Toorn; Leuven: Peeters, 1997) 21–43. 108. See Kuitert, Gott in Menschengestalt, for a discussion of Jewish and Christian interpretations that introduce a discomfort with divine anthropomorphism into a reading of the Hebrew Bible. 109.  For similar divisions, see J. K. Eakins, “Anthropomorphisms in Isaiah 40–55,” HS 20–21 (1979–80) 47–50; R. Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford

Introduction

31

but I believe these three categories are a useful means to reconceptualize the human-divine analogy. Instead of using criteria from another text to analyze anthropomorphism in a given text (for example, Enūma eliš vs. the Hebrew Bible or P vs. J), my approach compares the description of the deity with descriptions of humans within the same composition. I will rely on the assumption that, if an author uses the same language and syntax to describe a human as to describe the deity then the author allows for a direct human-divine analogy. 110 For instance, a common refrain in the P source instructs one to bring a sacrifice ‫“ לפני יהוה‬before Yhwh,” or more accurately, “in the presence of Yhwh.” 111 This same phrase is used in reference to Moses approaching God in the wilderness (Exod 6:12) and of human interaction (Exod 7:10). While certainly humans are not deities nor deities humans and any comparison between the two will be necessarily incomplete, there is no evidence to suggest that the Priestly author conceived of Moses’ approach to Yhwh as fundamentally different from his approach to Pharaoh, the implication being that one can approach and interact with the deity, in at least some degree, as one would with another human being. Surely, there will be certain differences, for example, prolonged exposure to Yhwh causes Moses’ face to glow, Exod 34:29–35. But, in this case at least, the Priestly author understands approach to Yhwh as analogous to approach to a human (perhaps, specifically a king). We must then take seriously the command to bring sacrifices “before Yhwh” as reflective of the reality of divine presence in the sanctuary. In the following, I shall analyze divine anthropomorphism under these three broad categories of body, location, and interaction. For each category, I shall further specify types of anthropomorphism and analyze and compare examples of each from each of the four sources (taking into account the differences between P and H). Each category and subcategory is meant to broaden our understanding of the presentation of the character of the deity in the Pentateuch. They are not absolute categories, and there will be many instances of types that overlap categories. For example, references to God speaking are examples of all three categories. The ability to speak implies a body (mouth, brain). Speaking as a form of communication requires University Press, 1993) 99–104; Wagner argues that action, in particular action performed by the body, and communication are the essential characteristics of humanity (Gottes Körper, 133–34). 110. I.  Wilson employs the same method but does not limit his comparisons to a single composition (Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy [SBLDS 151; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995] 47 and throughout). 111. B. Levine, “Lpny Yhwh: Phenomenology of Open-Air Altar in Biblical Israel,” in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, June–July, 1990 ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993) 196–205. For equivalence of ‫ לפני יהוה‬to Akkadian ana pan, see R. Gane, “‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creatorin-­Residence,” VT 42 (1992) 181.

32

Chapter 1

some form of contact, whether face to face or a voice from heaven, and thereby requires the speaker to occupy a location. Last, the act of speaking is a fundamental means of interacting with the world outside the body and implies a desire to connect with others through the transmission of information. Examples of anthropomorphism will be categorized by what I determine to be their ultimate function. Thus, I will categorize speaking under “interaction” because it represents the most common means of communication (that is, interaction) between God and humans, its relation to body and location being of secondary importance. In the following three chapters, I will treat my three types of divine anthropomorphism individually. I shall begin by analyzing a type in each separate source to first see how individual compositions depict a type of anthropomorphism. Only then shall I compare the sources. Too often, discussions of divine anthropomorphism in source-critical works begin with comparison, relying on assumptions of an individual composition’s attitude toward anthropomorphism. This sort of approach predisposes the interpreter to focus on differences, which are then commonly placed within a history of religious and theological polemic. Perhaps most famous would be the comparison between Gen 1:1–2:4a and Gen 2:4b–3:24. As I will argue in my analysis below, when read apart from the J account of creation, the Priestly creation story reflects many of the same basic assumptions about the interaction of the deity with his creation as is found in Gen 2:4b–3:24. 112 As well as exhibiting the failure of the anthropomorphic/antianthropomorphic dichotomy, I hope to show that anthropomorphism should not serve as a primary means of separating between sources. When we rely on assumptions of anthropomorphic versus antianthropomorphic beliefs held by authors and then use this distinction to distinguish between compositions we engage in circular reasoning: this text is P because it is antianthropomorphic because P is antianthropomorphic. Rather, the primary means of separating sources should be identifying breaks in the narrative flow, or internal consistency of the text. This argument rests on the assumption that the four major sources ( J, E, P + H, D) were compiled by R after each was completed and that each source existed independently of the others before they were compiled by R. 113 112. R. A. Di Vito has noted a similar problem with the common interpretation that Genesis 2–11 reflects a conflict between humanity and God in which humans are trying to usurp power from the divine realm. He argues that this argument is not supported by the text when each story is interpreted in its immediate context. The prevailing argument has been used to support the belief in the absolute distinction of humanity and divinity in the Hebrew Bible (“The Demarcation of the Divine and Human Realms in Genesis 2–11,” in Creation in the Biblical Traditions [ed. R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins; CBQ Monograph 24; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992] 39–56). 113. For an argument as to why P cannot be the compiler (R) of the Pentateuch, see B. J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in

Introduction

33

The goal of this work is threefold: (1) to disprove further an evolutionary theory of divine anthropomorphism in ancient Israel as reflected in the compositions of the Pentateuch; (2) to show the specific manifestations of the phenomenon in the pentateuchal sources while exhibiting the unreliability and inaccuracy of using divine anthropomorphism as a means of either distinguishing between authors or dating the sources; and (3), to provide a template for analyzing divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible through the development of a typology of the phenomenon in the Pentateuch. To this end, I will proceed with my analysis of instances of divine anthropomorphisms as described above. Temples, Texts and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M.  V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103–34; Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 177–88.

Chapter 2

Methodology and a Test Case Methodology Clear methodological delineations for the study of divine anthropomorphism in biblical texts have been largely absent from modern treatments until recently. 1 The major cause of this is likely the fact that divine anthropomorphism has not received much attention apart from larger arguments about the history of Israelite religion, as discussed in the previous chapter. With this study, I will add to the burgeoning discussion of the methodological techniques for analyzing and evaluating divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible. In this section, I will outline what I consider to be the integral methodological issues that arise from studying divine anthropomorphism, and I will offer my suggestions for a methodology. Next, I will describe the larger structure of my analysis. Finally, I will offer a reading of a text using my suggested methodology to display the potential for such a reading. The important methodological issues for studying divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible are: 1. the selection of texts for analysis 2. the impact of genre on the evaluation of anthropomorphism 3. the application of modern categories in analysis 4. the identification of polemic 5. the identification of types and functions of anthropomorphism 1.  The selection of which texts to analyze is significant for at least three reasons. First, what qualifies as a divine anthropomorphism? 2 For the pur1.  Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds; Hamori, When Gods Were Men; Sommer, The Bodies of God. Earlier exceptions within the field of biblical studies are Barr, “Theophany”; Eakins, “Anthropomorphisms in Isaiah 40–55”; Werblowsky et al., “Anthropomorphism,” 188–92; M. Z. Brettler, God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor ( JSOTsup 76; London: Sheffield Academic, 1989). 2.  I define divine as anything referring to the deity of ancient Israel known by the name Yhwh and common titles “god” and “lord.” I am not concerned with the concept of divinity in the contemporary sense of the term but only with the deity described in the Hebrew Bible. For a fuller definition of Yhwh, see Karel van der Toorn, “Yahweh,” DDD 910–19. Although modern theology, anthropology, or psychology may be correct in its description of what god is with regard to human thought and knowledge, these are not directly relevant to the ancient Israelite conception of Yhwh as represented in the Hebrew Bible (see C. Insole, “Anthropomorphism and the Apophatic God,” MT 17 [2001] 475–83).

34

Methodology and a Test Case

35

pose of this study, I will define divine anthropomorphism as any description that applies human characteristics, actions, abilities, or feelings to a deity, specifically the Israelite God. I will use “anthropomorphism” as a broad category that encompasses divine form, along with divine emotion (anthropopathism), activity (anthropopraxis), and location. In other words, using it as a general term to describe all human-divine analogy, not simply those related to the body of the deity. 3 Mine is a broad definition, which includes everything from the application of common prepositions to every reference of God speaking to explicit descriptions of God’s body. By casting a wide net, I hope to show that the Hebrew Bible is saturated with divine anthropomorphisms, some of which have elicited comment from interpreters over the ages and some of which are accepted without question. 4 I will also show that a broad definition allows for a nuanced understanding of anthropomorphism as not just explicit reference to the divine body but also the interaction of that body with its environment. A broad definition will allow me to delineate different types of divine anthropomorphism. It is an assumption of this work that there are multiple types, which may or may not be represented uniformly across unified compositions. A broad definition, yielding a large set of data, will help in the determination of authorial intent. 5 In particular, this definition will help to determine if there were certain analogies between humans and God that were avoided by certain 3.  A broad definition is in keeping with the typical use of this term within biblical studies and religious studies; see Cherbonnier, “Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism,” 187; Stern, “Imitatio Hominis,” 151; Werblowsky et al., “Anthropomorphism,” 188; Yamauchi, “Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions,” 29; S. E. Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 3. My definition also follows common usage as reflected in the Oxford English Dictionary, “1. Attribution of human form or character. a. Ascription of a human form and attributes to the Deity. b. Ascription of a human attribute or personality to anything impersonal or irrational. 2. In language: The use of language applicable to men in speaking of God; anthropomorphology” (“Anthropomorphism,” in OED s.v. [accessed March 23, 2010]. Online: http://dictionary.oed.com/). 4.  Wagner has effectively questioned the presumption that anthropomorphism is an early element of ancient Israelite religion, which was later abandoned, by collecting examples of references to the divine body, which permeate the entire Hebrew Bible and thus cannot be relegated to a specific era (Gottes Körper, 101–66). 5.  While I accept the basic assumption of New Criticism that any given text can have meaning beyond its author’s original intentions and apart from its historical context, I am particularly interested in the meaning of biblical texts in their original, historical contexts and the broader literary context of the composition as a whole (that is, its cotext). I will not consider a text’s meaning in its canonical context or its received or reader-response meaning. I do not claim to have insight into the psyche of the author, but I do contend that a historical-critical reading of a text can attain a better understanding of the resonances and implications of that text shortly after composition. A pursuit of this sort, to my mind, is best described as a pursuit for the authorial intent. For a discussion of authorial intent within biblical scholarship, see J. Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 71–80; P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989) 37–76. For a defense of

36

Chapter 2

(or all) biblical authors while others were tolerated or celebrated. An important caveat for any analysis of divine anthropomorphisms must be made regarding the inherent difference between a human and a deity. Deities, by their very nature, are not humans, and vice versa. No depiction of a deity, regardless of the extent of the anthropomorphisms used, ever asserts that the deity is human. 6 There are always characteristics not shared by the two groups. 7 In ancient Israel, for instance, Yhwh is immortal, while humans are mortal, and humans engage in sexual reproduction, while Yhwh creates asexually. The second reason the selection of texts is relevant to the study of divine anthropomorphism is, once chosen, how are other biblical texts relevant to the data at hand? In biblical studies, this relationship is typically the historical-critical method within biblical studies, see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Rethinking Historical Criticism” BI 7 (1999) 235–71. 6.  The recognition of the inherent difference between humans and deities has been used to argue that biblical texts assert the incomparability of Yhwh to humans. So Korpel, “In Israel the incomparability of Yhwh is one of the major religious traditions. Even though the Old Testament speaks about God in very anthropomorphic terms and calls him repeatedly a ‘man’, it also affirms time and again that God is not a man. Especially the later books of the Old Testament express the conviction that Yhwh cannot be likened to anything else” (Rift in the Clouds, 85, my emphasis). For a treatment of the uniqueness of Yhwh as expressed in biblical texts, see C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966). Wagner uses Hos 11:9 to an end similar to Korpel’s (Gottes Körper, 156–57). Korpel goes on to bring examples of these affirmations that “God is not a man,” including, for instance, Job 12:14, “If he tears down, it will not be rebuilt; if he closes off to man, it will not be opened [‫]הן יהרוס ולא יבנה יסגר על איש ולא יפתח‬.” But neither this verse nor its larger context asserts the incomparability of Yhwh as it does the differences between human and divine action. Both humans and God tear down and close off, but when Yhwh does these things (according to this text), they are irreversible. Korpel admits as much regarding the Ugaritic texts to which she compares the Hebrew Bible, “Even though the texts of Ugarit speak with surprising frankness about the physical appearance of the deities, it is absolutely clear that at the same time they were regarded as superhuman beings. The deities are taller than man, they are much stronger, are able to fly, can bear immediately after conception, eat and drink much more than man, and are simply not chained to the anthropomorphic shape. So there was an awareness in Ugarit that anthropomorphic designations of the divine were at best an approximation of what in reality could not be described adequately” (Rift in the Clouds, 90). There is no evidence to suggest we should assume differently of the ancient Israelites. In the text from Job, the scope of divine action does not invalidate the analogy established between humans and God. Yhwh is like a human in this passage; divine nature is expressed through both its similarity and difference to humanity. Ulrich Mauser offers a similar interpretation of Hos 11:8–9 (“Image of God,” 348), which I discuss above. 7.  In other words, deities have human characteristics but with a “non-standard biology” and “non-standard physical” properties (P. Boyer, Religion Explained: The Human Instincts That Fashion Gods, Spirits and Ancestors [London: Heinemann, 2001] 161). “Gods are not human, and the divine world, while described in anthropomorphic terms, it is also assumed to be beyond the grasp and existence of mortals” (L. K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994] 14). See also Cherbonnier “Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism,” 198; E. Schoen, “Anthropomorphic Concepts of God,” RS 26 (1990) 137.

Methodology and a Test Case

37

discussed in terms of a synchronic or diachronic approach. 8 My approach will be diachronic, in that I will assume, when possible, a relative dating between texts. This work seeks to question a common assumption that biblical compositions became less anthropomorphic over time, thus a diachronic approach is necessary. At the same time, I will distinguish between pentateuchal sources in my analysis. For example, in my analysis of Gen 1:1–2:4a below—attributed to the P source—my primary source for comparative material is from other P compositions. I will distinguish between the four major “sources”—J, E, P, and D—as well as distinguishing between the earlier P material and its later additions written by H. 9 Because the presence or absence of divine anthropomorphisms are so often related to authorial, theological intent, I will analyze examples of anthropomorphism first within the context of their full composition. In this way, I will present the whole picture of the function of anthropomorphism within a given author’s work, before moving on to comparisons between works. The third significance of text selection, which I will address in detail in the following section, is the impact of genre on the intent and effect of divine anthropomorphisms in a text. Should anthropomorphisms found in poetic texts be interpreted differently than those found in prose texts? Can anthropomorphism be compared across genres? 10 2.  Much has been said about the metaphorical versus literal intentions of descriptions of the deity in the Bible. 11 One line of argument is to distinguish between prose and poetic language. Divine anthropomorphisms described with poetic language, considered figurative by nature, are often presumed to be figurative or metaphorical. 12 While there is by no means a 8. For a definition of both, see J. H. Hayes and C. R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007) 142–43. 9.  See my discussion on pp. 22–28. 10. I agree with Fishbane, who argues that comparison across genres (and cultures, in particular comparisons of biblical poetry and Mesopotamian inscriptions) “can be of much help in assessing the living vibrancy of various myth-like phrases in biblical texts, especially where our cognitive distance or presumptions, or the particular stylistic or rhetorical setting, might lead one to suppose that the formulation in questions is only a literary trope or figure of divine action” (Biblical Myth, 20). 11.  For summaries on the study of metaphor and how it relates to biblical studies, see A. L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel (VTSup 107; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 1–34; A. Basson, Divine Metaphors in Selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation (FAT 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 41–62; Aaron, Divine Ambiguities; Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 35–64; Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 1–87. For a discussion of the general distrust of metaphor among biblical scholars as a mode of expression, see Weiss, Figurative Language, 20–21. 12.  For instance, Korpel, using the example of Hosea 11, argues that a combination of imagery about God is proof of metaphorical and nonliteral meaning (Rift in the Clouds, 112). Hamori is to be commended for arguing against an “all-or-nothing” approach that views anthropomorphisms as either wholly literal or wholly metaphorical, but she still assumes a literal divine anthropomorphism is “theologically unsophisticated.” “It is indeed possible that the Israelite author(s) and tradition meant the texts literally, but not naïvely”

38

Chapter 2

consensus over the exact meaning and implications of the term metaphorical, often the designation metaphorical-poetic implies the author of a text did not intend to assert the human-like characteristics of God, but rather the author is using human characteristics to represent otherwise incomprehensible divine traits. 13 But, as Michael Fishbane has argued, “there is nothing in Scripture itself that would point in this direction, or suggest that the representations of divine form and feeling in human terms are anything other than the preferred and characteristic mode of depiction.” 14 David Aaron has drawn attention to the problematic use of “literal” and “metaphorical” by biblical scholars. 15 For instance, scholars will identify the same idiom used outside Israel as literal but within the Hebrew Bible as metaphorical. 16 Divine anthropomorphisms in non-Israelite texts are typically assumed to be “literal,” that is reflecting a serious belief in the divine pantheon as humanity writ large. 17 However, a common literary genre of non-Israelite literature (used especially in comparisons of divine anthropomorphisms) is mytho-poetic. A consistent methodology would require (When Gods Were Men, 46). Her ultimate solution is to interpret the “anthropomorphic realism” she identifies in Genesis 18 and 32 not as metaphors but as literal depictions meant analogically (ibid., 56), which ultimately reflects the deity’s transcendent and limitless nature (ibid., 155). 13.  For example, “The texts make clear that Yhwh is hidden and inscrutable, beyond domestication into any of Israel’s categories. For that reason there can be no images of Yhwh (Exodus 20:4–6; see Deuteronomy 4:15–20), and even attempts to describe Yhwh verbally are hazardous and sure to be inexact. The result is that Israel’s characteristic speech concerning Yhwh, expressed in song, oracles, and narrative, is according to image and metaphor that proceed playfully and imaginatively without any claim to be descriptive” (W.  Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology: An Introduction [Nashville: Abingdon, 2008] 89). Hamori prefers the term figurative, noting “the tumultuous history of ‘metaphor’ in which the term has often carried the connotation of a dismissal should not be permitted to complicate the matter. The term ‘figurative’ (especially with its connotation or innuendo of figure) is preferable here” (When Gods Were Men, 33). 14.  He continues, “Moreover, on what basis should one assume that the plain sense of Scripture is some (quasi-allegorical) approximation of a more spiritual or purely metaphorical content? And what would that content be, we may well ask, and is it even possible to get past the thick immediacy of biblical language and its concrete and sensible accounts of God? One can only conclude that the evasions of the direct sense of Scripture that such attitudes represent are attempts to save Scripture from itself—for oneself, and must thus be considered a species of modern apologetics” (Fishbane, Biblical Myth, 6–7). “No where in the Tanakh are we informed that literal statements about the deity are impossible because of transcendence or any divine characteristic” (Aaron, Divine Ambiguities, 11). 15.  Aaron, Divine Ambiguities; see especially p. 23–41. 16.  “No one argues that the cultures of the ancient Near East (including the Israelites’) did not employ common idioms and motifs. However, most scholars distinguish the use of idioms in Israel from their usage in other cultures. As such, the expression ‘X is Y’ may be read literally in a Ugaritic text, but will frequently be interpreted metaphorically when it appears in a Hebrew text” (Aaron, Divine Ambiguities, 23). Korpel does just this, which I have discussed above. 17.  “We might consider how it is that we have determined that the imagery in pagan contexts was literal!” (ibid., 56).

Methodology and a Test Case

39

we interpret the divine anthropomorphisms of texts such as Enūma eliš as largely figurative-metaphorical, if we do the same for divine anthropomorphisms in biblical psalms and prophecy. 18 At the same time, scholars will rely on modern definitions of metaphor to categorize biblical idiom. 19 Aaron suggests, instead, the need “to create a new taxonomy for biblical expressions, one which can appreciate the mindset of the biblical speaker without ascribing to him unintended nuances that lead to distorted reconstructions in contemporary biblical theologies.” 20 Another reason I have chosen to focus on the Pentateuch is the fact that the majority of the material in the Pentateuch is prose narrative (and laws embedded in narrative). Indeed, as intimated above, I do not consider divine anthropomorphisms expressed through poetic language to be inherently figurative or metaphorical. Still, instances of divine anthropomorphism in prose narrative (that is, nonpoetic) contexts are less likely to be dismissed as figurative or metaphorical language. In addition, if it can be convincingly shown that serious divine anthropomorphisms exist within the narratives of the Pentateuch, biblical scholars may be more open to regarding those in poetic texts as equally serious and intentional. Last, the content of that prose narrative is uniquely suited to an analysis of divine anthropomorphism. The pentateuchal sources are narratives of divine revelation; their main focus is the description of how Yhwh revealed himself to humans, including the form he took as well as where and how he was revealed. 3.  A third methodological problem is one of terminology; specifically, the use of the terms metaphorical and literal to describe biblical images. 21 These terms bring with them their own history of controversy and few biblical scholars understand the meaning and implications of these terms in the same manner. In general, when a specific occurrence of divine anthropomorphism is deemed either metaphorical or figurative, the assumption is the author did not intend the reader to take seriously the attribute of a human characteristic to God; for example, God does not actually have a strong arm with which he brought out his people from Egypt. There is also 18.  In general, it is important for biblical scholars not to prioritize ancient Israel in terms of value of beliefs and social structures. See M. Smith, “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” JBL 71 (1952) 135–47; P. Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay,” in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor ( Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes, 1994) 196–212. 19.  Aaron, Divine Ambiguities, 23, 30. 20.  Ibid., 59. 21. I summarize the study of metaphor in n. 11 above. Wayne Booth argues that metaphors are not necessarily in contrast to literal meaning “but rather with some less striking or more everyday way of putting the point” (“Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation,” CI 5 [1978] 53), which complicates any strict dichotomy drawn between literal and metaphorical.

40

Chapter 2

a general assumption that a metaphorical description of a deity is theologically more sophisticated, and often younger. 22 It is not a goal of this work to discuss the history of metaphor in bib­ lical interpretation. I will avoid the use of these terms in my discussion of divine anthropomorphism, unless another author employs such language. Instead, I will evaluate divine anthropomorphisms as either intentional or unintentional. 23 By “intentional” I mean that a certain anthropomorphic characterization reflects a realistic characterization of the deity with human attributes; for example, God may, in fact, have a strong arm, with which he performs wonders. An intentional anthropomorphism need not be fully conscious, reflecting instead a common assumption or conception of divine activity or physicality, but not relating directly to the main goal of the author. An “unintentional” divine anthropomorphism, by contrast, is one that does not reflect any assumption or conception of the attributes of the deity. Idiomatic phrases and compound prepositions are examples of unintentional divine anthropomorphisms. For instance, the phrase ‘before Yhwh’, 24 ‫לפני יהוה‬, uses the Hebrew preposition before, nonidiomatically, “to the face of.” 25 This preposition likely developed on analogy of standing in front of a person, or a person’s face. But, the preposition is used to assert not that one person or thing is “to the face of” another person or thing but rather that the two are opposite each other, one in front of the other. For instance, the preposition can have a temporal meaning as in Gen 27:10, ‫‘ לפני מותו‬before his death’. This preposition is used of humans, objects, places, and God, 26 and we can safely presume that biblical authors were not making a statement about God’s face when they used this preposition, nor does its use reflect an assumption about God’s having a face. What this preposition may very well reflect is an assumption about coming into “the presence of Yhwh” 27 and certainly shows a lack of discomfort on the part of biblical authors regarding any potential overreadings of the preposition “before/to the face of” as referring to the divine face. 4.  The issue of discomfort leads to the next methodological issue, the identification of polemic against divine anthropomorphism. The distinction between an intentional and unintentional anthropomorphism does not assume a polemic against divine anthropomorphism in either case. 22.  Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 615–37, esp. p. 622. See my discussion of evolutionary approaches to divine anthropomorphism on pp. 1–13. 23.  Booth suggests that intention is helpful for understanding a text (in his case, a metaphor) if one considers the purpose of that text (“Metaphor as Rhetoric,” 52). 24.  All translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. 25. G. B. Caird would classify this sort of idiom as “vividness of description” (The Language and Imagery of the Bible [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1980] 175). 26.  It is most commonly used in reference to people or God but is also found in reference to places, as in “They camped before Pi Hakhirot [‫( ”]לפני פי החירת‬Exod 14:2). 27.  The phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬is best translated “in the presence of Yhwh” (Baruch Levine, “Lpny Yhwh”). For a more detailed discussion of this phrase, see pp. 201–214.

Methodology and a Test Case

41

The preponderance or paucity of humanlike characteristics attributed to God in a given text does not alone determine if the author intended to make a statement for or against such descriptions of the deity. I will define a text as polemical if it presents a different perspective than another known perspective and exhibits reactionary features. Instances of polemic should also exhibit internal signs; one should not have to rely exclusively on the comparison of two or more texts to reveal polemic in one. With regard to pentateuchal sources, relative dating and familiarity between sources is crucial to identification of polemic. The P source, for example, has been dated as the latest source by a majority of scholars since Wellhausen. 28 As the youngest composition, it was often assumed that the P source knew the other sources, even edited them together. This sort of assumption of dating and familiarity leads into an assumption of polemic by the Priestly author against the earlier sources. Distinct differences in style between P and the other sources (for example, between the P and J creation accounts) further contributed to arguments for the existence of polemic in P’s description of the deity. But, if we set aside assumptions about dating, familiarity, and stylistic differences, and look for textual evidence of both difference and reactionary features, as well as internal markers of polemic in the P source, the case for a sustained polemic is weakened. 29 Thus, I will adopt a narrow definition of polemic for my analysis of divine anthropomorphism. I will evaluate the phenomenon within its immediate context and the context of the larger source composition before making any judgments about polemic or comparisons with other pentateuchal sources. The identification of difference is straightforward, while the identification of reactionary features is more subjective. I will identify reactionary features in a text through an analysis of the compositional context of the passage and in comparison with other texts, widely accepted to be polemic. For instance, the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, as a narrative meant to showcase the superiority of Yhwh, contains reactionary features. These include comparisons between Yhwh and Baal, rhetorical questions, misrepresentation of the counter-argument, association of the counter-argument with non-Israelite people or practices, emphatic language (therefore, indeed, rather). 30 To these, we may add what Bernard 28. There have always been scholars who disputed Wellhausen’s dating and, since Kaufmann, a sizable minority of scholars date P as preexilic. Even scholars who date P as exilic or postexilic often accept that P incorporated preexilic material into its composition. See discussion of dating P on pp. 26–28 and dating of the sources on pp. 272–274 29.  The case is also weakened by the evidence for an early date of composition for P (Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 175–200; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel [Paris: Gabalda, 1982]; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence) and a lack of evidence that P knew any of the other pentateuchal sources (ibid., 4 n. 16; M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style, 239–305; Haran, Temples and Temples Service, 10–12). 30.  On the identification of polemics, see S. Olyan, “Ascription of Physical Disability as a Stigmatizing Strategy in Biblical Iconic Polemics,” JHS 9 (2009) 1–15; H. Schaudig, “‘Bel

42

Chapter 2

Levinson has termed an “hermeneutics of innovation.” For instance, innovations by the D source, which include a reversal of the Exodus law which assumes a decentralized cult, are implicitly denied in Deut 13:1 with the warning to not add or subtract from the laws. 31 I will refer to such a reactionary feature as an explicit denial of polemic. Deuteronomy 12 shares reactionary features in common with Elijah’s contest with the Baal prophets. For instance, Deut 12:13 misrepresents a decentralized cult when it describes the Canaanites as building altars “in every place which you might see [‫]בכל מקום אשר תראה‬.” 32 5.  The last methodological issue is the identification of types and functions of divine anthropomorphism from within my established data. I will outline here the main issues involved in identifying the function of divine anthropomorphisms. As I argue below, it is methodologically problematic to dismiss all examples of divine anthropomorphism as metaphor because all human speech about the divine must be metaphorical. This sort of argument misses the point because there is an important difference between the limitations of language to describe the supernatural and the conception of the supernatural in human terms. Consider the difference between anthropomorphism and a clear figure of speech that attributes human characteristics to non-living, static objects. For example, referring to the “back” of the chair or the “foot” of the bed would be a figure of speech in that one who uses the phrase does not intend to assert that the chair is a vertebrate creature. This sort of language is convenient and evocative but not ontological, nor does it contribute to our understanding or appreciation of the relationship between humans and their furniture. The case is very different for anthropomorphism. First, anthropomorphism occurs with living, dynamic entities. Second, anthropomorphism is a method for humans to conceptualize their world and the forces active within it. It achieves this goal through the tension created from analogizing the nonhuman to the human. Ulrich Mauser’s interpretation of Hos 11:8–9 Bows, Nabu Stoops’: A Prophecy of Isa xlvi 1–2 as a Reflection of Babylonian ‘Procession Omens,’” VT 58 (2008) 557–72; N.  B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel (BJS 11; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008); Y.  Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (trans. J. Chipman; Leiden: Brill, 2000); M. Dick, “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Dick; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 1–53. 31. B. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 30. See also M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985; repr., 2004) 263. 32.  We can surmise from biblical narratives that cult sites were chosen not at random but in conjunction with exceptional experiences; see Gen 12:7 and Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 48–57. E’s altar law (Exod 20:24) implies that altar sites are chosen by the prerogative of the worshiper (especially if one reads ‫ תזכיר‬for MT ‫ ;אזכיר‬see my discussion of this verse on pp. 197–198). E’s ancestor narratives though correlate altar construction with encounters with the divine (Gen 35:7).

Methodology and a Test Case

43

highlights the instructive tension created by the divine-human analogy of anthropomorphism: The words “I am God and not man” in the last sentence of this passage [Hos 11:8–9] have been adduced frequently to justify the contention that, in spite of all their anthropomorphic language, the Old Testament prophets are fully aware of the spiritual nature of God. But nothing could be further from the truth. The clause “I am God and not man” is introduced by the conjunction “for” which connects the second half of the verse with the first in such a way that the statement “I am God and not man” provides the reason for God not to execute his “fierce anger.” The highly anthropopathic phrase “fierce anger” is, therefore, neither limited nor denied by the words “I am God and not man” but rather grounded in them. Hence the godness of God is not the denial of his anthropomorphous nature, but the qualitative superiority of God over man which consists in God’s will not to fall victim to his wrath but to forgive even in a situation in which man would have lost all sympathy and patience. 33

Mauser’s interpretation helps to clarify the analogical nature and importance of divine anthropomorphism. Only by understanding human anger (in particular, how difficult it can be to control), can we understand divine anger. That which is anthropomorphized will always exhibit both human and nonhuman qualities. 34 Anthropomorphism, unlike figures of speech, goes beyond esthetics and seeks to make a statement about reality. In this way anthropomorphism is similar to metaphor; it seeks to say something new about something by associating it with something it is not, as in Max Black’s example “Man is a wolf.” 35 But unlike metaphor, anthropomorphism at its essence is not a false—that is, nonrealistic—statement. 36 While human behavior can resemble the behavior of wolves, humans are not wolves. With anthropomorphism, the analogy is always true; the nonhuman entity is like the human, in this specific manner. The anthropomorphism of a deity (or animal, or natural force) reveals an author’s (and culture’s) conception of 33.  Mauser, “Image and Incarnation,” 348. 34.  Wagner overemphasizes the differences between humans and God in the Hebrew Bible, which leads him to assert that divine anthropomorphism was qualitatively different in ancient Israel from among its neighbors (Gottes Körper, see especially pp. 177–183). 35. M.  Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962) 39–41. 36.  “We identify a simple predicational statement as metaphor when that statement is, in some sense, literally false” (Aaron, Divine Ambiguities, 36). Falsity is not a foolproof means of identifying metaphors. For instance, a metaphor may be expressed with a factually true statement, but one that draws on a figurative understanding of its components, such as “He is no wolf” (for a fuller discussion, see Weiss, Figurative Language, 37–40). Black argues that his example “Man is a wolf” only works if one abandons a literal understanding of “wolf” and instead associates humans with “the system of associated commonplaces” belonging to wolves (Models and Metaphors, 40). As such, the statement “He is no wolf” is still factually untrue in that it does not refer to an actual wolf.

44

Chapter 2

the nature of that deity. These characterizations are not meant to be exhaustive or limiting, but they explain how humans should interact with deities and what they can expect in return. Anthropomorphism, then, has much greater implications for human existence than figures of speech in general and metaphor specifically, because without it humans would have no knowledge of how to interact with forces outside their control. That said, we can distinguish between different levels of intentionality, or force, of specific divine anthropomorphisms. In particular, we can distinguish the difference between frozen versus concrete anthropomorphism, as well as ambiguous examples. Certain terminology can become part of the stock language of a community and, as a result, an author may employ instances of divine anthropomorphism without intending to assert the full implications of the analogy. In my analysis below, I will look at examples of each (frozen/unintentional, concrete/intentional, and ambiguous) and discuss how the larger context contributes to the determination of the force of specific anthropomorphisms. This process will stem from the data themselves and my contextual readings of divine anthropomorphism in these texts.

Creation and Divine Anthropomorphism: A Test Case (Genesis 1:1–2:4a) Introduction I will present a sample text and analysis to clarify both the current state of the study of divine anthropomorphism and my proposed approach. I have chosen Gen 1:1–2:4a for multiple reasons, all stemming from its privileged place in both the history of scholarship and the history of religious interpretation of the Bible. The most salient reasons for choosing Gen 1:1–2:4a as a paradigmatic case of divine anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch are these: 1. It is placed at the beginning of the canon, which has been understood to imply priority. 2. Voluminous attention has been given to the “image” and “likeness” of God in 1:26, in regard to analysis of divine anthropomorphism and relating to a wide range of topics from ancient Israelite iconography to contemporary religious ethics. 3. It is a common text for comparison, both inner-biblical (Gen 2:4b– 3:24) and extrabiblical (Enūma eliš). 4. It has been considered a paradigmatic P text, through which the vocabulary, style, and theology of the P source can be argued and compared with other pentateuchal sources. 5. Due to its common use in comparative analysis, it is often linked to arguments of polemics in ancient Israel, both at different stages of Israelite religion and with other cultures.

Methodology and a Test Case

45

6. The topics of mythology versus history and polytheism versus monotheism, which often feature in discussions of divine anthropomorphism, are particularly crucial in this text due in large part to the preceding listed features. I will elaborate on each of these features and then turn to my analysis of Gen 1:1–2:4a. The placement of Gen 1:1–2:4a at the start of the canon, no doubt, has had some effect on its prominence in interpretation and analysis. However, we must ask ourselves, where else could it go? That is, where else could the compiler (the Redactor, R) 37 of the Pentateuch have placed this story except where it places itself—at the beginning? 38 Thus, we must concede that its favored place in the canon need not reflect its importance outside of the Priestly document from which it originated. 39 Once we admit the potential obscurity of Gen 1:1–2:4a before the compilation and proliferation­ 37.  Some have argued that P, or its later tradent H, was the compiler of the Pentateuch (see Cross, Canaanite Myth, 294–324; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence; Otto, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion”; idem, “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26”; Nihan, Priestly Torah), but I assume rather that H is a supplementary level of P completed before the work of the compiler of the pentateuchal sources (see p. 96 n. 86). On methods for separating P and H, see J.  Baden, “Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Considerations,” in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ed. S. Shectman and J. S. Baden; ATANT 95; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009) 187–204. 38. See Baden on the logic of the compilation of the Pentateuch and role of the Redactor (J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 255–86; The Composition of the Pentateuch, 214–29). 39.  “The position of the creation story at the beginning of our Bible has often led to misunderstanding, as though the ‘doctrine’ of creation were a central subject of Old Testament faith” (von Rad, Genesis, 45). See also J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1988) 5–13. “It bears recalling that the creation account in Genesis 1 was not always the opening or foundational narrative of a ‘Bible’” (Fishbane, Biblical Myth, 34). For contra, see E. Firmage, “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda,” JSOT 82 (1999) 97–114; M. Smith, Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), especially pp. 117–38. Smith notes that the Priestly creation account is wholly unique among biblical and ancient Near Eastern creation accounts in that it orders creation around a seven-day week (ibid., 87), a fact that further suggests its marginality at the time of its composition. Clearly, it was important to the P writer, who felt it was necessary to begin his composition with the creation of the cosmos and who connects important events back to it, such as the flood in Gen 9:1 and the institution of Shabbat and the cult in Exod 31:12–17. (For more examples, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 321–26; R.  Hendel, “Table and Altar: Anthropology of Food in the Priestly Torah,” in To Break Every Yoke: Essays in Honor of Marvin L. Chaney [ed. R. B. Coote and N. K. Gottwald; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007] 137.) Besides this, the chaoskampf myth is the common portrayal of creation in the Hebrew Bible ( J. D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 14–50). For the link between temple building and Genesis 1 and relation to imitation of god, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken, 1979) 12.

46

Chapter 2

of the Pentateuch and Hebrew Bible, we must question its prominence in any reconstruction of the history of ancient Israelite religion. That is, any theology gleaned from this passage cannot be considered normative without attestations of said theology in other biblical texts. I do not mean to say that the Priestly creation story was unknown until the compilation and distribution of the Pentateuch. 40 Rather, that its placement at the start of the canon became meaningful only after that compilation and its distribution. In like fashion, it must be remembered that the original context of Gen 1:1–2:4a was not juxtaposed with the following creation story in Gen 2:4b–3:24. It was a later compiler who placed these two accounts side-byside and a still later interpreter who imposed the verse and chapter divisions, further creating a sense of unity between the two stories. I will not assume that either text supplements the other with regard to either’s original composition, although, certainly, each supplements our understanding of the ancient Israelite and biblical conceptions of creation. 41 The normativity of Gen 1:1–2:4a relates directly to my second reason for choosing this passage; its prominence in the history of biblical interpretation. 42 This prominence is due both to a longstanding preoccupation with origins and particular attention given to the creation of humanity in Gen 1:26–27, specifically to the “image of God.” The prominence these topics have received from interpreters, both religiously and critically motivated, stand in contrast to the Hebrew Bible’s general lack of interest in human origins or the phrase “image of God.” For instance, while the word ʾādām is very frequent in the Hebrew Bible, outside Genesis 1–11, it only rarely refers to the actual first human. When it does, it is most often in the phrase ben (bĕnē) ʾādām “the son(s) of Adam,” which is a general term for humanity and is best translated “the children of humanity” or simply “humans.” The majority of uses of ʾādām in the Hebrew Bible, including the P document from which Gen 1:1–2:4a originates, refer not to the designation for or name of the first human but designates a human in distinction from a nonhuman. It is then imperative to remember that Gen 1:1–2:4a does not define the normative referent for the word ʾādām in the Hebrew Bible nor, even, in the P document. It is more than likely that the P author chose this 40.  See, for instance, a discussion of inner-biblical interpretations of Gen 1:1–2:4a in idem, Biblical Interpretation, 318–26. For studies on creation traditions in the Bible, see Creation in the Biblical Traditions (ed. R. J. Clifford and J. J. Collins; CBQ Monograph 24; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992). 41.  This is contrary to the approach, popularized by Cross, that views P as a supplemental layer and its creation story as an attempt to right the theological wrongs of J’s creation story. The problem with this approach is, if P meant to write a supplement to J’s creation, why did the author create a story whose historical details (for example, the order of creation) are irreconcilable with the story it is supposedly supplementing? 42.  “The early chapters of Genesis had arguably a greater influence on the development of Christian theology than did any other part of the Old Testament. In these early chapters the Fathers have set out the fundamental patterns of Christian theology” (Genesis 1–11 [ed. A. Louth; ACCS 1; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001] xxxix).

Methodology and a Test Case

47

term to designate the first human because of its accepted use as a general term for a human. While it is perfectly acceptable (and necessary) for religious communities to prioritize certain texts over others, a critical examination of divine anthropomorphism in ancient Israel, as reflected through the Hebrew Bible cannot justify prioritizing Gen 1:1–2:4a beyond what its literary-historical context allows. My third, fourth, and fifth points address the use of Gen 1:1–2:4a in comparative analysis. Any reading of the first three chapters of the Bible requires the reader to compare the two creation stories, even if her next step is to harmonize them. In biblical studies, these two stories are almost unanimously assigned to separate authors—P and J, respectively—and compared for differing presentations of the deity, humans, and creation. 43 Scholars commonly assert that P and J present a very different deity: J’s deity (called Yhwh) is immanent while P’s deity (called Elohim) is transcendent. 44 Comparisons between P’s creation account and Enūma eliš are argued to support this characterization of P’s deity. Where Marduk must battle competing, preexistent forces to earn the right of kingship over the pantheon, 45 Elohim creates by ordering a chaos that poses no threat to his sovereignty. P’s creation account has been considered to encapsulate the theology that permeates the entire composition, “Anyone who expounds Gen., ch.  1, must understand one thing: this chapter is Priestly doctrine—indeed, it contains the essence of Priestly knowledge in a most concentrated form.” 46 This theology is then compared with that of other pentateuchal 43. Recently, some scholars have argued Gen 1:1–2:4a was written by H and not P (Firmage, “Genesis 1,” who regards H as both author and redactor and argues for a connection between Gen 1:26–28 and the dietary laws found in Leviticus 11, pp. 17–27; Y. Amit, “‫[ הבריאה ולוח הקדושה‬Creation and the Calendar of Holiness],” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg [ed. M. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997] *13–*29). Attributing Gen 1:1–2:4a to H contradicts what is known of H compositions: that they are focused on supplementing P legislation. Gen 1:1–2:4a, in contrast, offers no new legislation, but is narrative. In addition, excising Gen 1:1–2:4a from P destroys the narrative coherence of P’s composition. How did P begin its story, if not with creation? Should other P compositions that reference creation (Gen 5:1–2, 9:1–6; Exod 31:12–17) also be attributed to H? 44.  “The priestly narrative material tends to make God less human-like (anthropomorphic) than other narrative traditions in Genesis (for example, God walking and conversing with humanity in Gen 3:8–13, or smelling the offering in Genesis 8:21)” (Smith, Priestly Vision, 66). Smith’s second example is especially problematic given recurring description of the sacrifices for the deity being “a pleasing aroma” throughout Leviticus. A recent variation from this common argument can be found in B. F. Batto, “The Divine Sovereign: The Image of God in the Priestly Account,” in David and Zion: Studies in Honor of J. J. Roberts (ed. B. Batto and K. Roberts; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 143–86. Batto argues that P’s characterization of God in Genesis 1 is humanlike in that God is analogized to a sovereign. 45. See Abusch, “Marduk,” DDD 543–49. 46. Von Rad, Genesis, 47. Drawing on von Rad, Smith argues that Genesis 1 is P’s prologue and commentary on the entire Pentateuch (The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, 128). This sort of argument cannot explain why P would knowingly compose a creation account

48

Chapter 2

sources, though to varying degrees. 47 The common use of Gen 1:1–2:4a in comparative analyses means that divine anthropomorphism in this passage is most often discussed relative to forms of anthropomorphism found elsewhere and less often evaluated in terms of its function in this text or the context of the P source. 48 This leads to my fifth point, that Gen 1:1–2:4a features prominently in discussions of biblical and ancient Israelite polemics. Its theology and cosmology are typically characterized as “high religion” reacting against folk elements in popular conceptions of the deity and against foreign polytheistic and mythic traditions. 49 I contend that the focus on comparison, in all its forms, has predisposed interpreters to find polemics in Gen 1:1–2:4a where there may only be differences. Rarely do comparative analyses of Gen 1:1–2:4a present a method for evaluating the presence or absence of polemic, which, I argue above, assumes both authorial intent and direct familiarity with the rejected belief. I am not denying the presence of polemics in biblical texts, but proof of their presence in any given text requires evidence beyond difference. 50 I will argue that the divine anthropomorphism in Gen 1:1–2:4a may be better unthat contradicts the historical details of J’s creation, for example, posing an irreconcilably different order to creation. As I will argue throughout, P should be read as both an independent and unified composition when compared with J, E, and D and not a redactional layer or layers within the Pentateuch. 47.  Weinfeld interprets the reference to the divine image as proof of P’s anthropomorphism (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 198–201), which fits into his larger argument that the D source is a conscious rejection of P’s anthropomorphic deity (ibid., 179–209). 48.  Geller traces the opposing conceptions of the deity in P and D’s theologies back to the differences between Gen 1:1–2:4a and Gen 2:4b–3:24 (“God, Humanity, and Nature,” 421–65). Fishbane suggests the existence of two separate models of creation in the Hebrew Bible: a logos and an agon model (Biblical Myth, 34–35). Genesis 1 “is the preeminent example” of the “logos model” but “one may wonder whether the phrase toledot ha-shamayim veha-ʾaretz (‘generations of heaven and earth’) found in Gen 2:4a may betray some trace of a theogonic tradition (qualified by v.  4b), since the word toledot suggests the siring of generations (cf. Gen 5:1–5, etc.)” (ibid., 34 n. 17). Smith on the one hand seeks to understand Genesis 1 in its Priestly context but simultaneously argues that it is a reaction against other models of creation; in particular, it is a rejection of creation by theogony (Priestly Vision, 69). His argument is problematic because his own analysis of creation models shows that they vary greatly. He does not convincingly show that the P author leaves out the theme of theogony due to polemical and theological concerns as opposed to literary or stylistic concerns. One could argue instead that the reference to tĕhôm in Gen 1:2 is meant to evoke divine conflict but that the author was interested in narrating the events after its defeat. That is, the author assumes Yhwh has already defeated the sea. In addition, omission of a tradition is not enough to prove polemic. W. Randall Garr argues the Priestly author presents a “bloodless” theomachy, “in a series of preemptive measures [with the deep, the sea and the sea monsters in Gen 1:2, 9–10, 20–22], P’s God thus overpowers proven or potential enemies, demonstrating that/how he earned his dominion over the world. In each theomachy, P’s God performs a bloodless, noncombative, and nonviolent coup” (In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism, [Leiden: Brill, 2003] 199; see also pp. 191–200). 49. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 341, 361. 50.  On the identification of polemics see pp. 40–42 above.

Methodology and a Test Case

49

derstood as a difference in degree than a difference in kind. Just as I am not against the study of biblical polemics, neither do I eschew a comparative approach. Indeed, comparative analysis is crucial for biblical studies. But, in the case of Gen 1:1–2:4a, comparative concerns and conclusions have obscured some of the features of the text that reappear when it is read in its immediate context alone. Thus, my conclusions will be directly relevant to future comparative analyses of Gen 1:1–2:4a. Last, comparative analysis often assumes systematic and logical thought on the part of the author or school that produced each source. While there is certainly coherence that unifies each source, I contend this coherence is primarily a function of chronology and content and secondarily a function of vocabulary, style, and theology. 51 Also, theology is often the least systematic characteristic of a source. That is, the authors of the pentateuchal sources were not systematic theologians seeking to present a coherent and logical theology, and thus we cannot expect the theological implications of their compositions to maintain a high level of consistency. This is not to say that there is no presentation or reflection on key terms and ideas in the Hebrew Bible that may have influenced ancient Israelite theologies. But this sort of reflection is not as developed as found in, for example, ancient Greek writings. 52 What we have instead are varying types of direct descriptions of the form, emotions, location, and actions of the deity using human terms. 53 This brings me to my last reason for choosing Gen 1:1–2:4a to demonstrate my methodology and argument: the confluence of myth, monotheism, and divine anthropomorphism. There exists in biblical studies a common trend to assert an ontological separation between polytheism and monotheism, myth and history, each side manifesting itself with divine anthropomorphism or antianthropomorphism, respectively. 54 Thus, 51. B. Schwartz, “Sabbath in the Torah Sources” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Diego, November, 2007). 52.  See, for example, Xenophanes’ famous statement, “But if horses or oxen or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men, horses would draw the figures of the gods similar to horses, and oxen as similar to oxen, and would make the bodies of the sort which each of them had” (translation from Xenophanes, Fragments: Xenophanes of Colophon. A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J. H. Lesher [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992] 25, fragment 15). 53.  There do exist examples of possible terminology to express the notion of distinctions between humans and gods, as in Ps 82:7 “like a man you shall die [‫]כאדם תמותון‬.” 54.  “Whether or not these characterizations of polytheistic paganism of monotheism are in any way accurate, the exclusive identification of a literary phenomenon (myth) with a specific religious or cultural form (natural polytheism) is both tendentious and tautological: the first, because the definition is arbitrary and selective; and the second, because the identification is always self-confirming, and without any means of checking its circular or redundant character. Such argumentation is also based on certain essentialist views regarding polytheism and monotheism, though it generally avoids this stigma through the pretense of comparative historical study, and conceals an old cultural animus against brute ‘myth’ (the heir of Hellas) under the cover of an analytical phenomenology­

50

Chapter 2

polytheistic religion expresses itself through myths containing anthropomorphic deities while monotheistic religions express themselves through history and eschew an anthropomorphic deity (the distinctions growing stronger over time). Such assumptions lead to false conclusions about the implications of identifying one trait in a text with respect to the presence of the others. A text deemed to be monotheistic is assumed to avoid myth and anthropomorphism. For example, Wellhausen argues for such separations between the P and J creation stories: [In JE] Jehovah does not stand high enough, does not feel Himself secure enough, to allow the earth-dwellers to come very near Him; there is almost a suggestion of the notion of the jealousy of the gods. This mood, though in many ways softened, is yet recognizable enough in Gen. ii. iii., in vi. 1–4, and xi. 1–9. In the Priestly Code it has entirely disappeared; here man no longer feels himself under a secret curse, but allied to God and free, as lord of nature. . . . The mythic mode of view is destroyed by the autonomy of morality; and closely connected with this is the rational way of looking at nature, of which we find the beginnings in the Priestly Code. This view of nature presupposes that man places himself as a person over and outside of nature, which he regards as simply a thing. 55

Wellhausen connects, on the one hand, J’s anthropomorphism to latent polytheism and myth. On the other hand, P’s rejection of a “mythic mode of view” is expressed through an abstraction of the (single) Deity on the one hand and a rationalization of natural events on the other. Similar assertions can be found in contemporary scholarship: Far from differences of mere literary form or style, the notable contrasts between Genesis 1 and the ancient Near Eastern creation accounts are essential and deeply important as an introduction to the rest of the Bible. In a word, ancient religion was polytheistic, mythological, and anthropomorphic, describing the gods in human forms and functions, while Genesis 1 is monotheistic, scornful of mythology, and engages in anthropomorphism only as figures of speech. 56 of religion” (Fishbane, Biblical Myth, 6). Muffs identifies monotheistic anthropomorphism, but sees divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible as a function of God’s control over nature (Muffs, Love and Joy, 1–6). 55.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 307. Menahem Haran considers P’s conception of the temple/tabernacle as the house of God to be closest to the Canaanite tradition from which ancient Israel inherited this conception. Still, he states that even in the earliest layers of the Bible “it is but an accepted, semi-fossilized symbol of cultic realization” (“The Divine Presence in the Israelite Cult,” Biblica 50 [1969] 257). See my discussion of this approach on pp. 89–99 and 125–130. 56. B.  T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 46. Arnold argues against an overly polemical interpretation of Gen 1:1–2:3 (his “Genesis 1”), because he believes Genesis 1 “implicitly” denies the theologies of the ancient world (ibid., 30–32). At the same time, in his comments on this passage, he never explicitly identifies any anthropomorphisms or explains why they should be interpreted as “figures of speech.”

Methodology and a Test Case

51

But, there is no logical reason for such a conflation and in fact much evidence to prove that the biblical authors did not systematically embrace these three categories simultaneously. In the P creation story, for instance, the earth in Gen 1:12 “brings forth [‫ ”]ותוצא‬plants and animals (using an active, causative verb), implying the author attributes the earth at least a degree of autonomy and agency. In contrast, the earth in J’s creation requires rain from God and human effort to produce, showing no qualities of an independent force: “When Yhwh God made earth and heaven, it was before there were any field plants or before any field grass sprouted since Yhwh God had not made it rain [‫ ]לא המטיר‬on the earth and no human existed to work the ground” (Gen 2:4b–5). These characterizations of the power of the earth are unrelated to depictions of the deity, who is more overtly anthropomorphic in J’s creation than P’s. At the same time, the paucity of overt divine anthropomorphisms in P, as compared to J or E (or other ancient Near Eastern myths), need not be a conscious, reactionary decision on the part of the Priestly author. P’s lack of overt divine anthropomorphisms can be explained as the pragmatic result of a terse literary style 57 and a fixation on the separation of sacred and profane. The three pairs—polytheism/monotheism // myth/history // anthropomorphism/anti­anthropomorphism—are inherently separate descriptions of a text: myth refers to genre, monotheism to theology, and divine anthropomorphism (primarily) to literary expression. The presence of one does not necessitate the presence or absence of another, or vice versa. For example, Enūma eliš says of Marduk, “His members were fashioned with cunning beyond comprehension, impossible to conceive, too difficult to visualize” in a text that all would agree is polytheistic and mythic but, at least in these lines, nonanthropomorphic and aniconic. 58 57.  P’s terse style in the ancestor narratives stands in stark contrast to its detail when describing the tabernacle in Exodus 25–30 or the cultic rules in Leviticus 1–16. This contrast implies that P’s terse narrative style is a function of its larger goal of presenting the building of the tabernacle and institution of the cult as the climax of Israelite, if not human, history. 58.  Translation by B. R. Foster in COS 1:392. For the Akkadian text, see P. Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma eliš (SAA 4; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005). R. S. Hendel labels this description of Marduk “transcendent anthropomorphism,” which he argues characterizes Israelite anthropomorphism as well (“Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel”). See also “Syncretic Hymn to Ninurta” in which Ninurta is praised as being made up of other gods, “O lord, your face is Shamash, your locks [Nisaba] // Your eyes, O lord, are Enlil and [Ninlil]” (B. R. Foster, trans., Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature [3rd ed.; Bethesda: CDL, 2005] 713–14). For more on the transcendent qualities of Mesopotamian gods, see Parpola, “Monotheism in Ancient Assyria.” Barbara Nevling Porter argues against Parpola’s contention that Neo-Assyrian imperial propaganda represents an incipient monotheism (“The Anxiety of Multiplicity: Concepts of Divinity as One and Many in Ancient Assyria,” in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World [ed. B. N. Porter; Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 1; Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000] 211–71).

52

Chapter 2

Despite the criticism that Wellhausen’s methods and conclusions have incurred in the past decades, a majority of biblical scholars continue to assume Wellhausen’s evolutionary model of anthropomorphism as applied to the pentateuchal compositions. For instance, Richard Friedman states, “P was composed later than JE. . . . P was composed as an alternative to that JE version of Israel’s story. It was a retelling of the story in terms that were more suitable to the Aaronide priesthood.” 59 This leads him to the conclusion that “there are no blatant anthropomorphisms in P.” 60 Jean-Louis Ska says, “The God of Genesis 1 is transcendent: he plans Creation with all its details, then calls forth the elements; everything he says come to be, while he himself remains invisible and separate from what has been created. However, in Genesis 2–3, the divinity is more ‘anthropomorphic’. . . . This divinity does not seem to be ‘omniscient’ or ‘all-powerful’, and he differs significantly from the God of Genesis 1.” 61 Scholars who do recognize a certain amount of anthropomorphism in P’s deity still argue that P presumes a transcendent, abstract deity. For example, Knohl argues that P’s god is expressed anthropomorphically only during the period of the ancestors, but after the revelation of his true name to Moses in Exodus 6, P’s god is impersonal and “not once described in an anthropomorphic manner.” 62 Another approach is to identify in P a purposeful contradiction between a belief in a transcendent deity who simultaneously exhibits earthly qualities. So Sommer states, “Indeed, a central theme of priestly tradition—perhaps, the central theme—is the desire of the transcendent God to become immanent on the earth this God had created.” 63 The main argument of his work is that there is a fundamental difference in the way the divine body is conceived of in P as opposed to J and E. P’s deity exhibits nonmaterial anthropomorphism, while J and E present a deity with concrete anthropomorphism. Analysis With all this in mind, I turn to my analysis of Gen 1:1–2:4a. 64 My goal is to reevaluate the assumptions about the nature of divine anthropomor59.  Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, 27. 60.  Ibid., 16. 61.  Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, 55. 62. I. Knohl, ‫ גבולות המהפכה המקראית‬:‫[ אמונות המקרא‬Biblical Beliefs] ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 2007) 25–26, my translation. Knohl argues this shift occurs with the revelation of the divine name to Moses in Exod 6:3–4 (ibid., 70), but there is nothing in the P document to suggest that the author wishes to represent a shift in the basic nature of the deity. As I will argue in the following chapters, P’s depiction of the deity is anthropomorphic throughout its composition, evidenced especially by the presence of the deity in the tabernacle. Rather, the shift from Genesis to Exodus reflects the P author’s itinerary of the deity’s gradual arrival on earth (B. Schwartz, personal communication, December 6, 2009). 63.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 105, emphasis original. 64. My treatment of previous interpretation will not be exhaustive, given the immense amount that has been written just on Gen 1:26–27. For a summary of the his-

Methodology and a Test Case

53

phism in this text. To this end, I have included a list of features that reflect an anthropomorphic conception of the deity. Most commentaries argue P is antianthropomorphic, or at least, less anthropomorphic than J’s creation story. 65 In contrast, I will argue the P creation story does not reflect an attempt to deny the anthropomorphic nature of the deity. Rather, P assumes an anthropomorphic deity but does not elaborate its description of the deity due to its terse narrative style. P’s lack of polemic against divine anthropomorphism is revealed through the assumption of anthropomorphic motifs and conceptions of the deity, found in fuller expression elsewhere in P compositions.

Anthropomorphic Features of God in Genesis 1:1–2:4a 1.  God speaks (commands), sees, divides, makes/performs work, names, ceases. 66 Apart from the verb ‫‘ לברוא‬to create’ every verb with God as the subject in this passage is a common verb used to describe human behavior. 67 It is tory of interpretation and bibliography, see C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 147–55. For an extensive bibliography on Gen 1:1–2:4a by topic and verse, see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (Waco, TX: Word, 1994) 1:2–40. 65. Most recently, Arnold, Genesis, 46. In standard, commonly cited commentaries, see S. R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (10th ed.; New York: Scribners, 1900), 128–29; H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans. M. E. Biddle; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997) lxxxii; W. Brueggemann, Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982) 12; John Skinner argues that P seeks to soften the anthropomorphisms of the creation traditions it employs, though he does warn against over-emphasizing P’s “aversion” to an anthropomorphic deity (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis [2nd ed.; Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1976] 31, 37); E. A. Speiser argues P is heaven-centered, while J is human-centered, and thus J’s god is anthropomorphic (Genesis [AB 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964] xxvii); “[Genesis 1’s] quintessential teaching is that the universe is wholly the purposeful product of divine intelligence, that is, of the one self-sufficient, self-existing God, who is a transcendent Being outside of nature and who is sovereign over space and time” (N. Sarna, Genesis ‫[ בראשית‬Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989] 3). U. Cassuto presupposes the complete opposition of the Priestly creation story and the creation myths of the ancient Near East, including a completely transcendent deity in Genesis 1 (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis [trans. I. Abrahams; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961–64; repr., 1978] 2:34–35). Von Rad stresses P’s anti-mythology in Genesis 1. He considers P’s account of the flood as anthropomorphic. He stands out among commentators in that, while he considers J to contain the most blatant anthropomorphism of the deity, he considers these to be a function of J’s literary creativity and not its early date (Genesis, 46–67). 66.  For a chart of the distribution of these verbs in Genesis 1, see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 86. 67.  Scholars who stress the importance of P’s use of ‫ לברוא‬as a sign of its depiction of God as transcendent rarely note that the J author also uses ‫ לברוא‬in Gen 6:7 to describe the creation of humans. Other sources have actions that God does that humans do not (for example, give rain) if not specific verbs used only for God. Also, while God may create on analogy with a potter, the mere fact of creating life (without sexual reproduction) sets that act apart from human action (cf. Gen 4:1, 25).

54

Chapter 2

not the nature of the act that distinguishes God from humans in this story but its scale and scope. When humans speak commands the expectation is acquiescence; humans look with favor on their work; humans (in particular, Israelite priests) make divisions to maintain order; humans perform creative works; humans name their creations; humans cease from their labors. G. B. Caird has argued that the majority of anthropomorphisms in the Bible can be discounted as prepositional phrases, synecdoche, or metonymy. The remaining anthropomorphisms mainly describe divine actions and attitudes, used as a pragmatic means of understanding God and striving for human improvement, “Man is created to become like God, and the ultimate justification of anthropomorphic imagery lies in the contribution it makes to the attainment of that goal.” 68 Caird’s arguments are based on Rudolf Otto’s theory of the numinous, that all religious experience is “das Ganz Andere.” 69 Metaphor, often in the form of anthropomorphism, is the means by which humans strive to describe this experience. Knohl has applied this language directly to P, “This characteristic of the deity is symbolized by the name ‘Yhwh’. Rudolph Otto named this dimension of the deity ‘numinous’, according to this, he is a singular being and different from human logic and existence.” 70 I see at least three problems with this line of argumentation. First, many biblical accounts of human encounters with divinity are not portrayed as “das Ganz Andere.” Rather, many, such as Moses’ prolonged conversation with God in the wilderness, are described as commonplace. Second, as Aaron has argued, there is no indication in the Hebrew Bible that all anthropomorphisms should be read metaphorically. 71 It is true that there are occasional passages that proclaim the distance between God and humanity, but these passages cannot be prioritized when evaluating the reality of anthropomorphism to an individual author. This is the method Korpel uses: In Israel the incomparability of Yhwh is one of the major religious traditions. Even though the Old Testament speaks about God in very anthropomorphic terms and calls him repeatedly a “man,” it also affirms time and again that God is not a man. Especially the later books of the Old Testament express the conviction that Yhwh cannot be likened to anything else. 72 68.  Caird, Language and Imagery, 178; see also pp. 167–177. “All, of almost all, of the language used by the Bible to refer to God is a metaphor (the one possible exception is the word ‘holy’)” (ibid., 18). 69. R. Otto, Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (Munich: Beck, 1917; repr., 1987) 28–37. See also, T. Jacobson, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976) 3; Geller, “God of Covenant,” 278. 70.  He makes a distinction between P’s description of the deity before and after the revelation of the divine name in Exod 6:2–3 (Knohl, Biblical Beliefs, 70, my translation). 71.  Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities, esp. pp. 11, 30. 72.  Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 85, original emphasis. Elsewhere, Korpel uses the New Testament to justify her assumption that the authors of the Hebrew Bible presume that

Methodology and a Test Case

55

Korpel goes on to list all the passages in the Hebrew Bible that deny, in her interpretation, the comparability of God or his similarity to humans. Such a synchronic approach assumes a uniformity of thought across biblical authors, which is untenable. 73 Even within the work of the same author, we do not see complete uniformity of thought. While Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) claims the incomparability of God in 40:25, in 51:9–11 he calls on “the arm of Yhwh” to do battle with the sea, implicitly embracing the analogy of God to a warrior and the existence of forces that rivaled Yhwh. We must then accept that Isaiah’s monotheistic and antianthropomorphic statements are at least in part rhetorical and meant to assert the power of Yhwh, especially in comparison to the gods of Babylonia. 74 Both between separate authors and within texts by the same author, the immediate context must be the principle means of determining the force of a statement. 75 Third, overt statements of discomfort with assigning human attributes to God are in the minority in the Hebrew Bible. 76 This begs the question, Is divine anthropomorphism a theological problem for the majority of biblical authors? J. C. L. Gibson argues: All God-talk, all theology, even ours, is metaphorical, describing God in terms that properly belong to the human sphere. It cannot be otherwise, one cannot see the deity and survive (ibid., 77). Fishbane notes the tendentious nature of her argumentation (Biblical Myths, 7 n. 28). For a full critique, see M. H. Pope, “Review of A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine,” UF 22 (1990) 497–502. 73.  Korpel does argue for diachronic difference between biblical texts at times, typically when she encounters a particularly realistic anthropomorphic description of deity, which she then relegates to an early period. But, overall, hers is a synchronic approach to the biblical texts in that she considers a general uniformity of belief over time in ancient Israel (early texts simply show more remnants of Canaanite belief than later texts) and because she considers any biblical text capable of informing her interpretation of another biblical text without allowing for diachronic change. She labels her approach as synchronic (A Rift in the Clouds, 620). 74.  “Scholars who view Deutero-Isaiah as radically monotheistic and innovative tend to ignore the passages that have been the focus of this investigation, passages such as Isa 40:25–26, which speaks of Yhwh’s muster of the host and attributes volition, and implicitly, fear, to its members; 45:12, a text that recognizes the existence of the heavenly host, states that it is under Yhwh’s command, and associates it in some manner with his acts of creation; and Isa 40:1–8, a passage that seems to suggest the host’s agency as heralds and transformers of the wilderness landscape. Isa 51:9–11, with its clear allusion to the conflict myth, is also typically given short shrift by such scholars” (S. M. Olyan, “Is Isaiah 40–55 Really Monotheistic?” JANER 12 [2012] 190–201). 75. “What is being communicated is context-dependent: the full meaning of the metaphor cannot be determined without reference to the rhetorical situation. That it is a metaphor everyone will see without a context. What it says or does depends on a rhetorical situation” (Booth, “Metaphor as Rhetoric,” 53, original emphasis). 76.  Within my focus of the pentateuchal sources, I identify only one such statement, Num 23:19, “God is not a man [‫]לא איש‬, that he would deceive, or a human that he would regret [‫ ]ובן אדם ויתנחם‬that which he has said.” And even here, the same author (the E source), later attributes regret to God, “Yhwh relented [‫ ]וינחם‬from his evil which he had said to do to his people” (Exod 32:14).

56

Chapter 2 as human words, like human thought, belong this side of creation, and cannot begin to describe its other side, God as he is in his own interior life. 77

So, divine anthropomorphisms are problematic because they use descriptions “that properly belong to the human sphere.” But most biblical authors do not show any recognition of this problem; rather, they apply to God the same descriptions that are typically found in the human sphere Certainly, Yhwh is a god and as such is not a human and is not bound by the same limitations as humans. And yet, Yhwh is not “wholly other.” I will show below how the P author of Gen 1:1–2:4a comfortably conceives of God in human terms, while maintaining difference from humans. The claim that all statements about God in the Hebrew Bible are metaphorical is, ultimately, a theological claim, based on the presupposition that God is imperfectly comprehensible through human terms. 78 We must ask ourselves, then, is there any indication in Gen 1:1–2:4a that its author shared this presupposition? The strongest argument in favor is the use of the verb ‫‘ לברוא‬to create’, 79 which only ever has God as its subject in the Hebrew Bible; only God, never humans, ‫ברא‬. 80 This argument is weakened by the parallel use of the verb ‫‘ לעשות‬to make’ to describe God’s creative acts; ‫ לברוא‬is used 7 times and ‫ לעשות‬is used 9 times (and twice in vv. 11–12 for trees). 81 They are directly parallel in Gen 1:26 and 1:27. At the same 77. J. C. L. Gibson, Language and Imagery in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998) 22. 78.  On the importance of distinguishing between biblical conceptions and later, theological or philological assertions about divinity, see Insole, “Anthropomorphism and the Apophatic God”; Stern, Imitatio Hominis, 152. 79.  This distinction is not upheld in the Greek translations. The Septuagint on Genesis uses ποιέω throughout Gen 1:1–2:4a and elsewhere to describe actions by both God and humans (Susan Brayford, Genesis [Leiden: Brill, 2007] 206). 80.  Wellhausen sees the use of ‫ לברוא‬as proof that God in Genesis 1 is a transcendent deity (Prolegomena, 305). James Barr notes that this sort of reasoning is weak because it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the author was aware of the fact that this verb was only used of God in biblical texts (The Semantics of Biblical Language [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961] 281–82). W. R. Garr argues that ‫ לברוא‬is not simply supernatural creation, which is described using ‫ לעשות‬for the other beings in Gen 1:26, but creation by Yhwh alone. The P author, he argues, does not seek to describe divine creation as transcendent so much as separate from creation by other deities while it connects divine creation and rule with human creation of rule (“God’s Creation: BRʾ in the Priestly Source,” HTR 97 [2004] 83–90). For a recent argument that ‫ לברוא‬means “to differentiate from” and is a type of work distinct from ‫לעשות‬, see E. van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 184–200. For a critique of van Wolde, see B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel, “To Create, to Separate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1– 2:4a,” JHS 10 (2010) 1–21. Geller argues that, although the literal meaning is obscure, its theological resonance is clear because the verb is used only of God (“God, Humanity and Nature,” 432). 81.  The word ‫ לברוא‬is used seven times, and ‫ לעשות‬is used eight times: ‫ לברוא‬Gen 1:1, 21, 27 (3 times); 2:3, 4 (Niphal, passive) versus ‫לעשות‬, 1:7, 16, 25, 26, 31; 2:2 (twice), 3

Methodology and a Test Case

57

time, not all of creation is directly created by God—the earth brings forth plants 82—and “creating” is not God’s only act of forming the cosmos— light and dark and the waters require division, the luminaries require placement in the vault and sea animals and humans are blessed. 83 If the Priestly author was invested in asserting the total incomparability of divine creation to human creation, we must wonder why he would use ‫ לעשות‬at all. 84 “Whatever distinct identity ‫ ברא‬may have had, it seems obscured both by the correlative ‫( עשה‬see also 1:27aβ // 9:6b; 5:1; 6:7; Exod 34:10) and by the other verbs expressing what God did in Gen 1:1–2:3.” 85 In addition, when P refers back to this act in Gen 9:6, P only uses ‫ לעשות‬to describe the creation of humanity, ‫בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם‬. Instead, ‫ לברוא‬functions as a general descriptor of creation—forming an inclusio around creation in Gen 1:1; 2:4—which functions analogously to ‫ לעשות‬within the narrative and includes supplementary acts, such as dividing. 86 Thus, in the Priestly presentation, divine creation is both (‫ לעשות‬also appears twice in 1:11–12, but with the trees as the subject). For a more detailed discussion of how the use of ‫ לברוא‬by P has been overemphasized, see M. Vervenne, “Genesis 1,1–2,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001) 35–79, esp. pp. 45–47. Westermann (following B. Stade, F. Schwally, and J. Morgenstern) argues each type of creative action (separating, naming, letting the earth bring forth, making/creating, blessing) represents a different ancient tradition about the means of creation which have all coalesced in the P creation account: Tatbericht and Wortbericht (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 87–88). If so, then P was comfortable with this coalescence regardless of its sources for the different types of creation. For an argument against this type of division, see O. H. Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1–2,4a (FRLANT 115; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). For a recent reappraisal of this argument and critique of Streck, see J. Hutzli, “Tradition and Interpretation in Gen 1:1–2:4a,” JHS 10 (2010) 1–22. Hutzli maintains that the final author/redactor of Genesis 1 (he sees two levels of redaction here) tried to “correct” the theological problem of the earlier source (that is, the polytheism inherent in Gen 1:26). For my critique of this sort of argument, see n. 84 below. 82. Note the Hiphil, causative verbs in 1:11–12. In the Greek, the waters are commanded to “bring forth” (ἐξαγαγέτω) sea animals, 1:20. 83.  Gen 1:4, 7 (division), 17 (placement), 22, 28 (blessing). 84. Von Rad sees two layers of tradition here: an earlier, ancient Near Eastern tradition of creation with its mythic conceptions and a later, Priestly interpretation of that tradition, which emphasizes monotheism and creatio ex nihilo. The Priestly author (represented by ‫ )לברוא‬undermines the earlier tradition (represented by ‫ )לעשות‬but cannot entirely purge the remnants of the earlier, polytheistic, mythic, anthropomorphic tradition from its composition (Genesis, 49). An interpretation such as this is contradictory because it both affords the Priestly author ultimate control over the presentation of his religious beliefs and makes him beholden to the tropes of an earlier, hostile tradition. 85.  Garr, “God’s Creation,” 83. He goes on to argue that ‫ לברוא‬should be understood as describing not divine creation but creation by Yahweh alone, without the help of the divine council (ibid., 84). 86.  “P certainly prefers ‫ ברא‬to ‫ עשה‬in certain places, but in others he uses both words without distinction” (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 87). “In other words, P’s ‫ ברא‬encloses two phases of creation: the beginning and finale of all cosmogonic activity (1:1; 2:3); and the

58

Chapter 2

fundamentally­different from and analogous to human creation, “God created through making [‫( ”]ברא אלהים לעשות‬Gen 2:3). In the Priestly presentation, divine creation is both different from human creation (because it can achieve what human creation cannot) and similar to human creation (it is achieved through the common act of making). Thus, we should understand Gen 2:3 as describing the human-like means (“making”) by which God achieves divine-like results (“creating”): “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, for on it he ceased from all his work which God had created through making.” 87 2.  God places value. An anthropomorphic trait ascribed to God in Gen 1:1–2:4a is the repeated statement, “And God saw that it was good [‫]וירא אלהים כי טוב‬.” 88 The adjective good does not carry a moral valence in the Priestly compositions. 89 Instead, “good” implies practical value. For instance, in Num 14:7, Joshua and Caleb say of the land of Israel “the land is extremely good [‫]טובה הארץ מאד מאד‬,” meaning not that the land is without evil but that it is vital, “flowing with milk and honey” (Num 14:8). 90 The implication of the refrain, then, is that God looks with approval on his creations, thereby exhibiting human-like emotion (anthropopathism). On a basic level, there is no distinction made between these acts of God and those of Joshua and Caleb in Num 14:7. The difference, as I have noted above, is one of degree and not kind. God evaluates all of creation, while Joshua and Caleb evaluate the land. God, by his very nature, acts on a grander scale than any individual human—which makes him not like a human—but his actions and emotions are not fundamentally different than those of a human. 91 3.  God acts like a king. Though never explicitly called a king in the P creation story, God is analogized to a ruler. In particular, God issues commands and heads a court. The verb ‫‘ ְלצּות‬to command’ is not used in Gen 1:1–2:4a, but God’s statements follow a similar pattern of command and performance found elsewhere in the P source. The pattern in the creation story is a jussive “Let there be x” followed by the narration “And it first and last living creatures (1:21, 27). ‫ ברא‬demarcates the creation of a physical domain and all the animate beings that inhabit it” (Garr, “God’s Creation,” 84). 87.  “Finally, the infinitive [construct] with ‫ ל‬is very frequently used in a much looser connection to state motives, attendant circumstances, or otherwise to define more exactly” (GKC, 114o, of which includes Gen 2:3 as an example). “Gen 2:3 . . . would then mean He ceased all his work which God had created by doing (and not which he had done by creating)” ( Joüon-Muraoka, 124o). 88.  Found in various forms in Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25. 89.  ‫“ צדיק‬righteous” is closer to moral goodness in P (Gen 6:9), stemming from its legal meaning of “acquitted” (Exod 23:7), attested outside P. 90. The adjective ‫ טוב‬appears in P only three times outside creation: Gen 25:8; Num 14:3, 7. 91.  “The procedure in itself is quite clear: a craftsman has completed a work, he looks at it and finds that it is a success or judges that it is good” (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 113).

Methodology and a Test Case

59

was thus [‫]ויהי כן‬.” This same pattern is followed between God and humans. The P author draws a direct analogy between God and Pharaoh: Exod 7:8–12: God said [‫ ]ויאמר יהוה‬to Moses and to Aaron, “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Provide a wonder!’ you will then say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw [it] before Pharaoh!’ Then it will become a reptile.” Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and did thus, as Yh wh had commanded [‫ויעשו‬ ‫]כן כאשר צוה יהוה‬. Aaron threw his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants and it became a reptile. But Pharaoh also summoned [‫]ויקרא גם פרעה‬ his sages and sorcerers and the magicians of Egypt also did thus with their spells [‫]ויעשו גם הם חרטמי מצרים בלהטיהם כן‬. Each one threw his staff and they became reptiles, but Aaron’s staff swallowed their staffs. 92

The difference between these scenes and Gen 1:1–2:4a is the absence of human actors to carry out God’s commands. 93 P does not conceive of God’s act of command as incomparable to humans but rather shows that human power is limited while Yhwh’s is not. In his study on the biblical theme of God as king, M.  Brettler argues that P conceives of God as a king, “P drew a close analogy of God to the king, and as a result developed a God who could not be approached directly. . . . Other groups in Israel did not extend the kingship metaphor to the same extent as P, thereby creating a less royal but much more approachable God.” 94 If we accept this explanation, P’s paucity of narratives about direct human-divine contact (when compared to the J source’s stories of divine excursions into the human world) is not a reflection of an anti­ anthropomorphic theology. Rather, it is a reflection of a cult that limits, or mediates, human access to the deity through hierarchy. Brettler’s assertion reinforces the importance of a method that takes into account the larger compositional context of a passage (that is, the P composition with regard to Genesis 1) for the evaluation of metaphor or analogy. 4.  God as an active being is implied in distinction to the luminaries and the vault in 1:17. Perhaps the most descriptive moment in the story is the 92. This scene is repeated for the plague of blood (Exod 7:22) and frogs (8:2). The Egyptian magicians are unable to replicate Moses’ acts starting with the plague of lice (8:14–15). 93.  “The only difference between God’s action in history and his action in creation is that in the one case his command is directed to a person (Abraham) or a mediator (Moses), while in the other it is a command without an addressee, and hence a creation command” (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 85). 94.  Brettler, God Is King, 95. He sees in the P creation story a possible topos of God as a master builder, a popular attribution to ancient Near Eastern kings (ibid., 116–18). Haran connects P’s later description of the tabernacle with royal imagery: “there can be no doubt that P’s two cherubim—like the two large cherubim of Solomon’s temple and the four cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision—represent nothing less than a throne for God” (Temples and Temple Service, 251). See also A. Moore, Moving beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible through Metaphor (Studies in Biblical Literature 99; New York: Peter Lang, 2009).

60

Chapter 2

moment­God places the luminaries in the vault, Gen 1:17 “God put them in the vault of the heavens [‫]ויתן אתם אלהים ברקיע השמים‬.” In this short description, we have a glimpse into the assumptions of the author—God is physically present at creation, interacting with his creations. The image of God hanging the stars in the sky is not unlike Marduk in Enūma eliš. 95 The Hebrew phrase ‫ לתת ב‬supports this sort of reading, typically meaning “to put x in y,” and which is used for both God and humans. 96 We read in Exod 11:3, “Yhwh ingratiated the people to Egypt [‫ויתן יהוה את חן העם‬ ‫( ”]בעיני מצרים‬nonidiomatically, “put the favor of the people in the eyes of Egypt”). This phrase, while reflective of a physical experience, is a common biblical idiom. 97 Gen 1:17 can be distinguished from Exod 11:3 both by its specificity—to place luminaries in the vault of heaven is not a biblical idiom referring to some more abstract activity—and to the absence of any abstract concepts, such as “favor.” Significantly, the Priestly source uses this same syntax in Gen 9:13, “I have put my bow in the clouds [‫את קשתי נתתי‬ ‫]בענן‬.” Here too, God physically hangs an object in the sky. 98 5.  God speaks directly to the human in 1:28. In Gen 1:28, there is a similarly descriptive statement that implies God is speaking in the presence of the humans, “And God blessed them and God said to them [‫ויאמר להם‬ ‫]אלהים‬.” The narration at this point assumes an audience for God’s commands, besides the implied reader. Nahum Sarna notes the unexpected inclusion of this detail in the narrative, “The difference between the formulation here and God’s blessing to the fish in v. 22 is subtle and meaningful. Here God directly addresses man and woman. The transcendent God of Creation transforms himself into the immanent God, the personal God, who enters into unmediated communion with human beings.” 99 In contrast, I would argue for a simpler explanation; that God was always “immanent,” or present in the Priestly story, but the author’s terse style reveals this fact only in glimpses and when necessary. So, God is described as placing the luminaries, but not his other creations, because these creations do 95.  “He made the position(s) for the great gods, He established (in) constellations the stars, their likenesses. . . . He fixed the position of Neberu” (COS 1:399). Recently, Baruch Halpern has argued that the luminaries in Gen 1:14–18 are not independent bodies but holes in the vault that separates the waters above and below (“The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy,” ErIsr 27 [1999] 76*). 96.  In P: of God in Gen 9:13; Exod 7:4; of humans in Exod 16:3; Lev 10:1; Num 16:7, 31:3. 97.  Korpel calls this a “double metaphor” in that it is metaphorical language applied to humans and then doubly metaphoric when applied to a deity on analogy with a human (Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 128). 98. “The motif of the Divine Bow encountered in the Priestly stratum of the Pentateuch (Gen 9:13ff.) also illustrates P’s corporeal conception of the Deity” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 205). The tradition that God physically placed the astral bodies in the skies is found with slightly different language in Ps 8:4. 99.  Sarna, Genesis, 13. Geller makes a similar argument (“God, Humanity and Nature,” 432).

Methodology and a Test Case

61

not require placement; that is not part of their creation. 100 Sarna is correct that the additional information in 1:28 as compared to 1:22 draws our attention to the uniqueness and importance of human creation, 101 but there is no evidence that the author means to express a shift in theological perspective. The Priestly author uses the same phraseology in Gen 9:1, “God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them [‫]ויאמר להם‬.” It is less clear if we should presume the same of God’s speech to the animals in Gen 1:22. The references to God’s presence in 1:17 and 1:28 argue in favor of interpreting 1:22 as direct speech to the animals. The problem with assuming direct speech is the oddity of speaking a complex command to creatures incapable of speech. We may wish then to stress the absence of the prepositional phrase in 1:22 (‫ )לָהם‬and argue that here divine speech is a narrative conceit used to express the divine will. God does not actually speak to the animals. Rather, the divine mandate that animals should engage in sexual reproduction is expressed through speech, as this is the primary means of expressing divine commands. This solution puts into question the earlier interpretation that God speaks directly to the humans. What prevents us from presuming the same of the divine speech in 1:28? The propositional phrase (‫ )לָהם‬can only signal realistic direct speech if such direct speech is possible within the logic of the account. Because 1:22 comes after the creation of all animals of the sea and air, it is unrealistic that the divine speech in 1:22 could be heard by all these 100.  This passage, in particular the P author’s supposed circumlocution of the common nouns sun and moon, is typically taken as proof that Gen 1:1–2:4a is a polemic against Mesopotamian religions that worshiped a sun and moon god (UTU/Šamaš and NannaSuen/Sîn) so as to undermine belief that the sun and moon were originally created as deities (Wenham, Genesis, 9). For more information about the sun and moon gods, see their entries in DDD. In his entry on the moon god, Schmidt notes, “The moon is depicted as the lesser light that dominates the night in Gen 1:14–19 where it is superseded only by the sun. While this passage maintains a clear status distinction between Yahweh and the moon, it nevertheless upholds a significant degree of continuity between Yahweh and the astral bodies as to their functions and powers” (B. B. Schmidt, “Moon ‫ירח‬, ‫כסא‬, ‫לבנה‬, ‫חדש‬,” DDD 590). That is, unlike in Ps 104:19, where we see evidence that “the astral bodies were simply emptied of their divine power, which was then transferred to the domain of Yahweh” (ibid., 590–91), here the sun and moon maintain supernatural powers, though they are subject to God. See Job 31:26–28, where the author uses the term ‫‘ אור‬light’ to refer to the sun, in a context of clear polemic against sun worship. Smith argues against polemic here and in Job 38 (Smith, Priestly Vision, 96). Halpern sees in Genesis 1 a reaction to an Assyrian rejection of the idea that the stars, sun, and moon descended into the netherworld. Rather, they rotate in the sky. This is part of a larger effort to depersonalize the stars (Halpern, “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1”). 101.  The difference between 1:22 and 1:28 may simply be coincidental because P has a predilection toward well-structured composition with slight variations (McEvenue, Narrative Style, 185). There is a similar shift in Gen 9:1 to 9:8. The Greek of Gen 1:28 reads, “And God blessed [ηὐλόγησεν] them saying” though this may be a case of harmonization by the Greek translator (R. S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998] 20).

62

Chapter 2

species­at once. This could further account for the lack of the prepositional phrase in 1:22. Is the situation the same in 1:28? How many humans does God address here? The specification of gender in 1:27 (“male and female he created them”) reveals that ‫ אדם‬refers not to a single human but to, at least, the first human couple. But, do we harmonize with J’s creation account if we presume the P author imagines only two humans are created in 1:27 and addressed in 1:28–30? Could it be that P refers here to humanity in general and describes an initial human population that covers the entire inhabited world, that is, far more than two people? If so, then the divine speech in 1:28, as in 1:22, is not realistic because it cannot be heard by all humanity at once. There are indications from P’s creation account and the rest of its primeval history, though, that suggest that P, like J, imagines that God initially created a single, human couple, from whom all humans descended. The implication is that the divine speech in 1:28 can be considered realistic; spoken directly to the first human couple, representing direct, proximate interaction with God. First, while P lacks J’s claim that Eve was “the mother of all life” (3:20), P’s genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5 presumes humanity descended from a single couple. Second, in 1:28 God is addressing a single species. In contrast, in 1:22 the divine blessing is addressed to multiple species: all creatures that live in water or that fly (1:20–21). Thus, even if God created only two of each species (male and female) in 1:20–21, he could not realistically speak to them all at once because they would presumably be too numerable. Third, the interpretation that each species, humans included, originated from a single male-female pair is supported by P’s flood account. P’s flood account represents a reversal of the order of creation and its subsequent reordering. 102 Noah saves each species of animal to start creation anew after the flood. To do so, Noah brings only two of each animal on the ark, by God’s command (a female and male, Gen 6:18–20). We may retroject this situation back into Genesis 1 and presume that there too God initially created two of each species, including a single male and female human couple. The comparison between Gen 1:28–30 and 9:1–7 further supports the interpretation of Gen 1:28 as realistic, direct speech. Just as God spoke to Noah and his sons after the flood, he spoke directly to the first couple after their creation. 6.  God has an image and likeness, which he shares with humans (1:26–27). The amount of scholarship on the exact meaning and implications of human creation in God’s image and likeness is immense, and will not be discussed at length here. 103 Instead, I will explore the role of the divine 102.  Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture, 33–34. 103.  For a summary of scholarship on Gen 1:26–27, see G. A. Jónsson, Image of God: Genesis 1:26–28 in a Century of Old Testament Research (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988). For more recent treatments of these verses, see S. L. Herring, “A ‘Transubstantiated’ Humanity: The Relationship between the Divine Image and the Presence of God in

Methodology and a Test Case

63

image in the P source to determine its implications, if any, on P’s conception of the similarity between the human and divine body. In the context of Gen 1:26–27, God first announces the plans to create humanity in the plural, “God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image and according to our likeness.’” But, the narrative description in 1:27 of the act switches into masculine, singular, “God created humanity in his image, in the image of God he created it.” If we take the plural literally, as referring to multiple entities besides God, 104 then the human body is similar in form to the deity and his retinue. This retinue could include divine messengers who, while unattested in the P source, are attested in the other pentateuchal sources wherein they manifest as human males. 105 Ezekiel, whose writings are in the same tradition as the Priestly school, especially the Holiness Code, likewise describes both God and his messengers with human physicality. 106 As Bernard Batto has argued, Westermann claims that P “was not familiar with a heavenly court” because “angels or any sort of intermediary beings are found nowhere in P.” 107 But P’s emphasis on Yahweh’s uniqueness does not necessarily Genesis i 26f,” VT 58 (2008) 480–94; A. Schüle, “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen 1–3,” ZAW 117 (2005) 1–20; Garr, In His Own Image, esp. pp. 117–76; Wagner, Gottes Körper, 165–81; A. Schellenberg, “Humankind as the ‘Image of God’: On the Priestly Predication (Gen 1:26–27, 5:1, 9:6) and Its Relationship to the Ancient Near Eastern Understanding of Images,” Theologische Zeitschrift 65/2 (2009) 97–115; M. Gruber, “?‫[ ’בצלם אלהים‘—מהו‬What Is ‘In the Image of God’?],” in :‫תשורה לשמואל מחקרים‬ ‫[ בעולם המקרא‬Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible] (ed. T. Talshir, S. Yonah, D. Sivan; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Ben-Gurion University Press, 2001) 81–87. See also my discussion of P’s conception of the divine body on pp. 89–99, 125–130. 104.  It is possible that this is a grammatical construction that is inconsequential to meaning and that we should assume that only God is present (Speiser, Genesis, 7). Still, the ample attestation of other divine beings outside P imply that P would have been familiar with such beliefs and, if truly committed to a polemic against polytheism, would not have left open the door for a polytheistic reading. “The plural form in [Genesis 1] verse 26 is not employed in reference to either the ‘image’ or ‘likeness’ of man, but only to emphasize the solemnity of the act of man’s creation. Before initiating such an act the divine assembly must be consulted; all the heavenly hosts are participants, as it were, in the exalted act of man’s creation” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 200). See Gen 3:22; 11:7 for other examples of Yhwh’s consulting the divine assembly before enacting major decisions about human fate. 105.  See, for example, Genesis 18–19. The P source does include reference to Azazel and presents him as parallel to Yhwh (Lev 16:9–10), a potential reference to other divine beings. 106.  See Ezekiel 9–10. For a discussion of the relationship between Ezekiel and P and H, see A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study. R. Kasher argues that Ezekiel’s anthropomorphism is influenced by both P and H but varies from both (“Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48,” ZAW 110 [1998] 7–10). An earlier version of this article without Kasher’s observations regarding Ezekiel’s relationship to the Priestly compositions appears in a Hebrew publication, “‫ קדושה ופולחן—מבט חדש על יחזקאל‬,‫אנתרופומורפיזם‬ ‫מא‬-‫מ‬,” BM 40 (1995) 359–75. 107.  Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 144–45.

64

Chapter 2 exclude­divine attendants, as evidenced from Ezekiel where God, despite being characterized by a similar transcendence, is never alone but always borne about by his cherubim attendants. . . . If Ezekiel is dependent upon P for his imagery . . . one might take a cue from Ezekiel and assume that for P also the divine sovereign possesses a humanlike form and speaks to anthropomorphic cherub attendants when he proposes “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.” (original emphasis) 108

Thus, while the P author may not include other references to the divine retinue, Gen 1:26 would seem cognizant of and comfortable with the tradition of Yhwh at the head of divine court of beings that share a physical form with humans. The next verse would then confirm that humans share this form with God in particular. 109 108.  Batto, “Divine Sovereign,” 173–74. Batto goes on to argue that Ezekiel is dependent on P for his imagery (in particular an already combined P and J narrative) but does not identify any direct correspondences for the cherubim. Ezekiel’s association of divine beings with the Yhwh’s chariot could also explain the absence of divine beings from P’s ancestor narratives, in contrast to J and E. That is, just as the glory does not feature in these narratives, neither do divine beings other than Yhwh, which P and its tradents associate with the glory and do not portray as entities that act independent of Yhwh. Jill Middlemas argues that Ezekiel’s description of Yhwh is not anthropomorphic. Rather, she argues that the prophet favors abstracted terms to refer to the divine form, such as describing the effulgence around the deity and using the more general term ʾādām vs. ʾîš (“Exclusively Yahweh: Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ezekiel,” in Propehcy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar [ed. John Day; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010] 309–24). As I argue about P and D, an obscured body is not the same as no body. The issue is not whether humans can see the divine body but whether the deity has a body and whether that body resembles human form. The presentation of divine interaction and presence in P and D reflect that both conceived of the divine body as humanlike. 109. “The author of the text must have been aware that if he uses the respective formulation, the statement is open for a ‘polytheistic’ interpretation. He would not have chosen the formulation if he judged the idea of the royal household incompatible with his own theological perception” (Hutzli, “Gen 1,” 11). Alexander Rofé argues that P consistently avoided references to angels and divine anthropomorphisms. He does acknowledge that there are examples of divine anthropomorphisms in P but also that these are vestiges of P’s source material (namely, J and E), (‫האמונה‬ ‫[ במלאכים במקרא‬The Belief in Angels in the Bible and Early Israel] [Jerusalem: Makor, 1979] 172–76). As I have noted above, this argument is flawed because it requires that P be both committed to a program of anti-anthropomorphisms while simultaneously incorporating anthropomorphisms into its composition. Herring argues not only that the divine image here reflects the common ancient Near Eastern use of statues to represent either the presence of the king or deity but that in the Priestly creation the human is meant to represent the presence of the deity on earth, replacing any need for actual statues of the deity (“Transubstantiated”). Cf. I. Winter, “‘Idols of the Kings’: Royal Images as the Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JRS 6 (1992) 13–42; Gruber, “?‫בצלם אלהים‘—מהו‬,’” 81–87. Garr stresses the rhetorical use of the terms likeness and image in relation to their use in the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription: “‘Likeness’ is petitionary and directed at the deity; it is cultic and votive. ‘Image’ is majestic, absolute and commemorative; it is directed at the people. Thus, these two Aramaic terms encode two traditional roles the Mesopotamian ruler—that of devoted worshiper

Methodology and a Test Case

65

This phraseology is repeated almost verbatim in Gen 5:1–3 110 and applied to Adam’s firstborn, Shem: Gen 5:1–3: This is the account of the generations of Adam: On the day God created humanity [‫ ]אדם‬in the likeness of God [‫ ]בדמות אלהים‬he made it; male and female he created them and blessed them and announced their name [‫ ]ויקרא את שמם‬to be “human” [‫ ]אדם‬on the day they were created. Adam was 130 years old. He begat in his likeness, according to his image [‫ויולד‬ ‫ ]בדמותו כצלמו‬and he announced his name to be “Seth” [‫]ויקרא את שמו שת‬.

God’s act of creating humanity in the divine likeness is continued by Adam’s first act of creation; begetting a child in his likeness and image. The divine-human analogy includes naming, which follows creation, just as in Gen 1:1–2:4a. 111 In this context it is explicit that the resemblance between God and humanity is analogous to the resemblance between a parent and child. R. E. Friedman notes the connection, but draws the opposite conclusion: The first man’s similarity to his son is described with the same two nouns that are used to describe the first two humans’ similarity to God (1:26– 27). It certainly sounds as if it means something physical here. We would surely have taken it that way if we had read this verse without having read Genesis 1. 112

This argument unnecessarily prioritizes Gen 1:27 over 5:1–3 for the understanding of the meaning of “the image of God.” At the same time, Friedman and that of sovereign monarch” (W. R. Garr, “‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh,” IEJ 50 [2000] 231–32). Hempel argues that “the image of God” is meant primarily as a means of contrast between humans and animals and as a polemic against the Babylonian tradition that humanity was created from divine blood (Enūma eliš). It stresses that humans, not animals, are related to God and thus serves as a polemic against nature-based religions (“Die Genzen,” 78–79). 110. Gen 5:1–32 is typically attributed to P (see, for example, Speiser, Genesis, 41), though not unanimously; see Friedman, who attributes Genesis 5 to R (Bible with Sources Revealed, 40). Friedman attributes too much creativity to the Redactor, to whom texts should not be attributed if they can reasonably be attributed to one of the sources (Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 255–86). 111. Genesis 5 uses a slightly different phraseology than Genesis 1, that is, ‫ לקרוא ל‬vs. ‫לקרוא את שֵ ם‬. 112. R.  E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah: with a New English Translation (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) 30. J. H. Tigay argues that Gen 5:3 means to assert that Adam begat a normal looking child versus a child with genetic defects that would have given it a nonhuman appearance (“He Begot a Son in His Likeness after His Image,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg [ed. M. Cohen, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997] 139–47). It is a convincing argument that deformity could have informed this verse, but Tigay too quickly dismisses the connection between Gen 5:3 and 1:26–27. Within the P composition, there is no explicit mention of a fear of birth defects, while there is a clear connection made between the creation of Adam and the birth of Seth.

66

Chapter 2

himself argues that there is not enough context in Gen 1:27 to determine if the image of God referred to there is “physical, spiritual, or intellectual.” 113 Thus, it is problematic to imply, as he does, that Gen 1:27 suggests that God’s image is not a reference to the physical form of the deity. The difference is in the process of creation: God “creates” and “makes” humanity, while Adam “begets” Seth. The P author does not conceive of divine creation as procreation, but with similar results. 114 The use of ‫לברוא‬ and ‫ לעשות‬enables the P author to explain how the deity can create a living being “in his image,” just as a child is the image of its parents, without begetting that being through sexual intercourse. The reference to the likeness and image both connects back to the initial creation in Gen 1:26–27 and forward to God’s covenant with Noah after the flood in Gen 9:6, “Whoever sheds human blood, by a human his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God [‫ ]בצלם אלהים‬he made the human.” 115 The divine image/likeness then relates both to the command to rule over the animals 116 and to the sanctity of human life. 117 The P author stresses not the physical resem113.  “We argue but truly do not know what is meant: whether a physical, spiritual, or intellectual image of God. (Some light may be shed on this by Gen 5:3. See comment there) (Friedman, Commentary, 12.) 114.  Garr, In His Own Image, 167–68. The P author differs here from many Mesopotamian myths that attribute sexual intercourse to the gods. It is important to note, though, that the creation of humans in Mesopotamian traditions is not the result of divine intercourse. For example, Enūma eliš, wherein Marduk creates the first human from blood, or Atraḫasīs, wherein Belet-ili and Enki create a human from clay and the blood of a rebellious god. The reason for this may be that a divine being cannot beget or bear a human, because any offspring would be partially divine, as with Gilgamesh, Achilles, or the Nephelim in Gen 6:1–3. And even nonsexual creation can impart divine qualities to humanity; see V.  Hurowitz, “The Divinity of Humankind in the Bible and the ANE,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. N. S. Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, M. J. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 263–74. 115.  The word likeness does not appear again in P (or the Pentateuch) and image appears only once more in Num 33:52 in a command to destroy the molten images of the Canaanite cult sites on entrance into Israel. Num 33:52 is likely an H composition because it is law received after Sinai and concerns the actions of the people after they enter the land (Baden, “Identifying the Original Stratum of P”). That H understood the term to refer to the iconographic representations of Canaanite gods is evidence that a tradent of the P source interpreted the term ‫‘ צלם‬image’ as physical likeness. 116. H. Wildberger compiled a list of Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts wherein the king is compared with the “image” of a deity, from which he argues that Gen 1:26–27 seeks to extend that imagery to all of humanity (“Das Abbild Gottes, Gen 1,26–30,” TZ 21 [1965] 481–501). 117.  As Annette Schellenberg rightly notes, P’s phrase “image of God” in Gen 1:26–27 must be read within the context of the entire Priestly composition to be understood fully, which leads her to assert that “The context [of Gen 9:6] clearly implies that as the ‘image of God’ humans enjoy a special dignity or status that makes their life more valuable than the like of animals” (“Humankind as the ‘Image of God,’” 101). See also M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Sefer ha-yovel li-Yeḥezḳeʾel Koifman: Meḥḳarim ba-miḳra uve-toldot ha-emunah ha-Yiśreʾelit (ed. Menahem Haran; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960) 15–16. Yair Lorberbaum postulates that the Priestly association of nefesh ‘life’ with blood

Methodology and a Test Case

67

blance between God and humans but the implications of that resemblance, which is assumed and analogized to the resemblance between generations. 118 “God and Adam each create ‫ תולדת אדם‬in a manner that is appropriate to their nature. God ‘creates’ the human race (Gen 5:1–2); Adam ‘fathers’ a son (v. 3); and, afterwards, ‘likeness’ is a mechanical, genealogical, and selfperpetuating inheritance.” 119

A Preliminary Typology Typology allows for an alternative method of evaluation of divine anthropomorphism than a comparative approach, from which we can determine if there is a practice of using divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible and pentateuchal sources which is specific to them. 120 A typology complements the literary quality of anthropomorphism. 121 We can begin to delineate a typology of anthropomorphisms from the analysis of Gen 1:1–2:4a. I will offer a fuller typology at the conclusion of my analysis. The following is a list of types of divine anthropomorphisms present in Gen 1:1–2:4a: 1. physical 2. emotional 3. animated 4. characteristic 5. social stems from a belief in the divine source of blood, reflected in the juxtaposition in Gen 9:6 of the prohibitions around spilling blood and the reference to the divine image (“Blood and the Image of God: On the Sanctity of Life in Biblical and Early Rabbinic Law, Myth and Ritual,” The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse [ed. D. Kretzmer and E. Klein; London: Kluwer Law International, 2002] 66–67). 118.  Samuel L. Loewenstamm draws a connection between the attribution of the divine image to all humanity in Gen 1:26–27 to the conference of “sonship” to the Israelite people, though the second theme is not found explicitly in the P source but rather in Deut 14:1; Ps 2:7. Still “both, the idea that man is created in the image of God, and that the people of Israel are the sons of their God, have their common origin in court language which attributes to the king a special relationship with the godhead” (Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures [AOAT 204; Kevelear, Germany: Butzon & Bercker, 1980] 49). Fishbane notes that Gen 9:4–6, as an aggadic interpretation of the divine image of Gen 1:26–27, shifts the implications of being created in the divine image from the right to dominion to the right of divine protection from murder (Biblical Interpretation, 318–21). 119.  Garr, In His Own Image, 197. 120.  Eakins divides the anthropomorphisms in Isaiah 40–55 into four types: body, emotions, activity, and metaphor/simile (“Anthropomorphisms,” 47–48). Korpel gives an extensive list of every sort of divine anthropomorphism she identifies in both the Hebrew Bible and Ugaritic literature (Rift in the Clouds, 88–613). 121.  Thus, I would like to shift the discussion “from matrix of belief to literary characterization, and to view the anthropomorphic depictions of God not as a problem of belief but of representation, of the construction of the deity, the characterization of God” (Stern, “Imitatio Hominis,” 156).

68

Chapter 2

1.  Physical anthropomorphism is any reference to God’s physical body. It is best exhibited by the reference to the divine image in Gen 1:26–27. It is also implied by the references in Gen 1:17, 22, 28 to God interacting with his creation. Later in P, God appears and speaks with the ancestors (Gen 17:1, 35:9–10, 48:3–4; Exod 6:2–3). God describes his intervention in Egypt as imposing his hand against the land (Exod 7:4–5), and the Egyptian magicians echo this description to Pharaoh when they pronounce the plagues to be “the finger of God” (Exod 8:15). 2. Emotional anthropomorphism, or anthropopathism, is the attribution of human emotions to God. It is reflected in the refrain “God saw that it was good,” which implies divine approval and pleasure. A similar assumption of divine pleasure is present in the common reference at the end of individual sacrificial laws in Leviticus, “a pleasing odor for Yhwh [‫]ריח ניחוח ליהוה‬.” Also, P can conceive of God being pleased, or potentially displeased, with the Israelites (Num 14:7). A potential anthropopathism is the description in P of God remembering. God remembers Noah in the ark (Gen 8:1); he places the bow in the sky after the flood so as to remember his covenant with Noah (9:15); and he remembers the promise-covenant with the ancestors when he hears the Israelites suffering in Egypt (Exod 2:24). 122 3.  By animated anthropomorphism, I mean the use of verbs of action, commonly attributed to humans, with God as the subject. In Gen 1:1–2:4a two actions often attributed to God are “to see” and “to say,” both of which imply a body with eyes and a mouth. There is no indication from the text that God’s seeing and speaking are fundamentally different from human seeing and speaking, beyond the fact that God is the subject. Divine speech is especially present in the rest of the P source; Leviticus, for example, is an extended dialogue of God with Moses. 123 The Priestly author does not give much information about the logistics of this discussion. Lev 1:1 states “He called to Moses and Yhwh spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting.” 124 The 122.  P uses the term ‫ ברית‬in the ancestor narratives to describe a divine promise, and not a treaty, as established at Sinai/Horeb. The analogy between divine and human action is present, but in different form. For a recent discussion of P’s use of ‫ברית‬, see J. Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction.” 123.  The phrase “God spoke to Moses” appears 17 times in Leviticus 1–16 (once in Lev 1:1 as “God spoke to him”). The phrase appears 17 more times in Leviticus 17–27. 124.  Knohl has argued this verse is an addition of the Holiness School editor, who expanded the Priestly composition. The addition of Lev 1:1 creates a direct narrative link with Exod 40:34–38. Because Knohl attributes Exod 40:34–28 to H, then Lev 1:1 must also be H (Sanctuary of Silence, 66–68). Knohl’s attribution of Lev 1:1 to H relates also to his identification of H as the compiler of the Pentateuch (ibid., 6). Lev 1:1 is certainly a connective meant to help incorporate the likely already existing laws of Lev 1:2–3 into the narrative of the construction of the tabernacle. But there is no reason to attribute this verse to H because Lev 1:2–16:28 show signs of P editing (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 [AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991] 61–63). Likewise, there is also no reason to attribute Exod 40:34–38 to H because it is an integral part of P’s narrative (are we to believe P had no narrative of the erection of the tabernacle the presence of which is assumed in Leviticus– Numbers?). Knohl’s attribution of Exod 40:34–38 to H stems from his argument that H is

Methodology and a Test Case

69

assumption of God’s physical presence in the tent is assumed throughout Leviticus, “And you shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, before Yhwh [‫( ”]אל פתח אהל מועד לפני יהוה‬Lev 4:4). 125 4. Characteristic anthropomorphism refers to a text that associates a common ancient trope with the Israelite God. An example of characteristic anthropomorphism in Gen 1:1–2:4a is the royal topos, especially in Gen 1:26. Brettler has argued, “God as King” is a common analogy in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the P source. 126 Similarly, the splendor of the tabernacle, described in Exodus 25–30, is reminiscent of the description of Solomon’s royal palace in 1 Kgs 7. 127 5.  Social anthropomorphism is an analogy between divine action and a prolonged human activity. 128 There are two examples of social anthropomorphism in Gen 1:1–2:4a: creation of order through division and ceasing on the seventh day. Humans continue God’s initial acts of division through implementation of the dietary laws in Lev 11:46, which uses many of the same terms which describe the creation of animals in Gen 1:20–25: Lev 11:46–47: This is the instruction for the beast and the bird and every animate creature that creeps in the water and every being that swarms on the earth [‫]הבהמה והעוף וכל נפש החיה הרמשת במים ולכל נפש השרצת על הארץ‬, in order to divide [‫ ]להבדיל‬between ritually pure and ritually impure, between the creature that is eaten and the creature you shall not eat.

The maintenance of ritual purity maintains the purity of the sanctuary, facilitating the presence of the divine. Human action maintains order through division just as divine action established order through division. 129 more anthropomorphic than P. His argument becomes circular for this passage: because Exod 40:34–38 are anthropomorphic in their portrayal of God, Exod 40:34–38 must be H because H is anthropomorphic. See my discussion of H on pp. 95–96. 125.  The coordination of the Tent of Meeting and the divine presence appears again in Lev 4:7, 18; 14:11, 23; 15:14; 16:7. The divine presence is also juxtaposed with the altar, the officiating priest, the fire of the altar, and the curtain of the tabernacle, all implying the presence of God in the Tent of Meeting, from which he speaks to Moses and accepts offerings. 126.  Brettler, God as King, 95. 127.  The description of Solomon’s palace in 1 Kings 7 is preceded by a description of the temple for Yhwh that he commissioned, in 1 Kings 6. The palace and temple have the same layout (1 Kgs 7:12). See M. Haran, “Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch,” JBL 81 (1962) 14–24. 128.  The dependency between divine and human action is described as moving the other way in the Hebrew Bible with humans imitating the deity, as with holiness and its counterpart, uncleanness. “The precepts and ceremonies alike are focused on the idea of the holiness of God which men must create in their own lives” (M.  Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo [Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1966; repr., 1970] 64). But, as Douglas asserts, “reflection on dirt involves reflection on the relation of order to disorder, being to non-being, form to formlessness, life to death” (ibid., 16). 129. The act of selection in the sacrificial process also reflects an analogy between humans and deity ( J.  Klawans, “Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel,” HTR 94/2 [2004] 133–55).

70

Chapter 2

A second social analogy is drawn between the human observance of Shabbat and God ceasing on the seventh day. While there is no stipulation to observe Shabbat in Gen 2:1–3, the description of God is analogous to the Priestly understanding of Shabbat observance by humans. 130 The P source links the tabernacle back to creation by placing the Shabbat law at the end of the instruction for building in Exod 31:15–17: Exod 31:15–17: Six days work will be done but on the seventh day [it is] a Sabbath of Ceasing 131 [‫]ששת ימים יעשה מלאכה וביום השביעי שבת שבתון‬, a holy thing to Yhwh; anyone who works on the Sabbath day shall be killed. The Israelites shall observe the Sabbath in order to perform the Sabbath for their generations, an eternal covenant. Between me and the Israelites it is an eternal sign, for Yh wh in six days made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he ceased [‫כי ששת ימים עשה יהוה את השמים ואת הארץ וביום‬ ‫( ]השביעי שבת‬and was refreshed). 132

God’s ceasing temporally precedes human ceasing which implies that humans cease on the seventh day in imitatio dei (Exod 31:17). The more likely historical chronology though is the observance of Shabbat preceding the Priestly composition. Thus, in Gen 2:1–3, we have what may be called imitatio hominis; 133 divine action mimicking and justifying human ritual. In both of these cases of social divine anthropomorphism, the Priestly writer has made bold assertions about the divine origins of human, specifically 130.  The P author does not introduce legislation until Sinai and thus we would not expect the Shabbat law to be referred to in the context of creation, even as an etiology (Baden, “Identifying the Original Stratum of P,” 9). 131. W. H. C. Propp suggests the translation “Sabbatical Sabbath” and argues the phrase is meant for emphasis, “To call the Sabbath a ‘Sabbatical’ provides emphasis through tautology; indeed, much of the language in 31:12–17 is redundant” (Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006] 493). 132.  This last verb, ‘and was refreshed’ (‫)וִינָפש‬, is the only instance in P that equates Shabbat with resting as opposed to ceasing (‫)שבת‬. The Priestly conception of Shabbat nowhere else suggests that the purpose of Shabbat was rejuvenation (compare with Exodus 16), unlike in the Decalogue in Exod 20:11. A possible explanation is that the final statement “and he was refreshed” is a later addition to the Priestly composition meant to harmonize P Sabbath law with those found elsewhere ( J. Stackert, “The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives,” CBQ 73 [2011] 239–50). The idea of a deity who rests is an anthropomorphism that does not appear in the Priestly composition. 133.  Stern identifies this phenomenon in rabbinic literature (“Imitatio Hominis,” 163– 64). See also Meira Kensky’s work on the depiction of the deity as a judge, in which she argues that rabbinic texts use divine anthropomorphism to encourage the reader to identify with the deity (Trying Man, Trying God: The Divine Courtroom in Early Jewish and Christinan Literature [WUNT 2/289; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010] 320–32). Smith notes that blessing is a key role of the priest (Num 6:22–26; Gen 14:19; 1 Sam 1:20; Sir 45:15) and argues that “God is in the image and likeness of the priest” when he pronounces blessings in Gen 1:22, 28, 2:3 (Priestly Vision, 104). For similarities between the divine body and royal body, see M. W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (Biblical Interpretation 87; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 273.

Methodology and a Test Case

71

Israelite, ritual and culture. There is no doubt polemic to be found in these assertions, but not a polemic against divine anthropomorphism, rather a polemic promoting the observance of Priestly instruction and Shabbat observance. What is lacking from P’s references to the divine image and action is an overt discomfort with or denial of the form of God. There is no evidence in Gen 1:1–2:4a that the author was systematically avoiding divine anthropomorphism. Instead the text relies on multiple assumptions about the physicality of the deity, but does not fully develop these themes, because P is not describing the divine nature but narrating the creation of the world. In fact, the implication of the divine image in the human form is that instead of conceiving of divine anthropomorphisms as metaphors for describing God, the P author considered human form and activity a reflection of God: God is not “wholly other” from us; we are imperfectly similar to God.

Chapter 3

The Divine Body Definition This chapter will analyze descriptions of the divine body and its similarities to the human body. For the purpose of this study, I will define body as the physical or material frame of some being. 1 Because my concern is for the comparison between humans and god, the features of the human body are assumed (as opposed to those of an animal). None of the compositions of the Pentateuch discuss the sexual organs of the divine body. 2 Thus, I will further define body as possessing those features shared by both females and males. 3 In contrast to earlier studies of divine anthropomorphism, I will consider descriptions of divine emotion and mental activities as bodily features. That is, I will not draw a sharp distinction between body and mind or anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. 4 The reason for this is twofold. First, the duality between body and mind is a product of Western thought and is not native to the biblical texts. 5 Emotions are similar to physical senses; they are experienced by the body and can only be experienced by others through external phenomena. Biblical Hebrew consistently uses body imagery in its idioms for emotion and thought. For example, the common idiom for expressing approval is “to find favor in the opinion of” (‫)מצא חן בעיני‬. Second, drawing a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropopathism is methodologically problematic. On the one hand, the numbers of data for each category are vastly different because there are far more examples of anthropomorphism than anthropopathism. On the other hand, scholars use “anthropomorphism” as a general category 1. “Body,” OED s.v. [accessed December 12, 2009]. On-line: http://www.oed.com. 2.  The connection between Yhwh and the divine messengers in the Hebrew Bible suggests he has a male form. Wagner argues that Yhwh’s lack of gender serves to maintain a clear distinction between humans and God in the Hebrew Bible that is lacking in other ancient Near Eastern cultures (Wagner, Gottes Körper, 186–87). 3. For a recent investigation into the different portrayals of women in the Pentateuchal sources, see S. Shectman, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis (HBM 23; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009). Shectman shows that the P source describes women in limited roles in comparison with the non-P sources. This raises the possibility that P’s divine anthropormophism is, at least functionally, an analogy between Yhwh and human males. 4. See Hamori for discussion (When Gods Were Men, 26–28). 5.  See H. Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), esp. pp. 1–102.

72

The Divine Body

73

to refer to any analogy between humans and deities. Whereas this sort of approach may be criticized, it is a goal of this work to show how biblical scholars have misread what qualify as divine anthropomorphisms even by their own definitions and thus it is useful to adopt past definitions and categories. For these reasons, I shall consider anthropopathism as a subcategory of anthropomorphism. My analysis is divided into two main parts: body and mental activity. Within my analysis of the divine body, I will distinguish between full-scale and small-scale manifestations of the deity, which can be distinguished generally as the divine body at Sinai/Horeb versus elsewhere. My analysis of divine mental activity (or, anthropopathism) is divided into the use of bodily idioms to describe divine emotion or prerogative and non-idiomatic descriptions of the inner life of the deity. I will save a broad comparison of the pentateuchal sources for the final chapter.

God’s Bodies: Full- and Small-Scale Manifestation Hamori argues that Yhwh’s appearance on Sinai/Horeb represents an “immanent” anthropomorphism, but not an “embodied” anthropomorphism (found in Gen 18:1–15, 32:23–33). Hamori does not distinguish between different source compositions in Exodus 19–40 and thus conflates J and E’s depiction of Yhwh and prioritizes the cloud encasement as the primary feature of the theophany. As a result, she considers J texts that refer explicitly to the divine body (Exod 24:10–11, 33:18–23) not to be examples of embodied anthropomorphism because the broader context describes Yhwh inhabiting the cloud. Once the sources are separated it is clear that J’s composition describes an embodied deity, who is occasionally encased in a cloud. I prefer to distinguish anthropomorphic depictions of the deity’s body with regard to their level of description. Each of the pentateuchal sources provides its most extensive descriptions of the outward appearance of the deity in their telling of the Sinai/Horeb event. The increased level of description coupled with the exceptional nature of the event suggests to this reader that the Sinai/Horeb theophanies represent to these authors their truest descriptions of the divine body. This is reflected in the language of each source’s description and the priority given the Sinai/Horeb event in each composition. 6 First, as I will show below, each source is concerned to explicitly describe the location of the deity at the mountain. This interest in location supports the reality of the theophanic event. I will define “theophany” as any narration of God appearing to an individual or a group, 6.  Barr argues that P’s glory (‫ )כבוד‬is distinct from instances of divine theophany, because the glory appears to all the Israelites at one time (“Theophany,” 34). Unlike Barr, I do not consider the Sinai/Horeb events to be wholly distinct from earlier theophanies to individuals but rather a different scale of theophany.

74

Chapter 3

in which there is an explicit or implicit description of seeing and interacting with God that requires a physical presence, however conceived. 7 Second, the Sinai/Horeb event is a climatic event within each source. This is especially so for the P source, in which Sinai marks the moment in history when Yhwh comes to dwell among his people in the tabernacle, whose related laws make up the majority of the P (and H) composition. In E and D, Horeb is the site of the revelation of the law, which serves as the basis for the covenant between Yhwh and Israel. The J source does not include a law collection but does portray Sinai as the site of the institution of the covenant between Yhwh and Israel. 8 Thus, these narratives will be treated as primary examples of what the divine body resembles in each source to which descriptions found in other narratives may be compared. My intention is to show that the different anthropomorphic descriptions of the deity in the sources share a basic presumption of the human-like form of the deity but that this presumption is accentuated in different manners. Sommer’s distinction of small versus full-scale manifestations provides a helpful model for analyzing descriptions of the divine body. Sommer uses this language to explain the conflation of deity and messenger in many Hebrew Bible passages. A messenger (‫ )מלאך‬represents a small-scale manifestation of the deity because it is typically only partially identified with the deity; acting both as the deity and apart from the deity. 9 In contrast, the full manifestation of the deity is unified in that its form and actions are localized at a single site. 10 I disagree with the particulars of Sommer’s argument, which I will discuss below, but I believe his distinction between small and full-scale manifestation is instructive for understanding how it is that each source author is able to describe such differing descriptions of theophany. Sommer does not fully account for the complexity of the problem with regards to the interpretation of the identity and nature of the messenger of Yhwh. First, while he acknowledges that not all examples of the divine messenger represent “a humble and incomplete manifestation of Yhwh,” 11 Sommer does not account for the fact that some biblical texts depict divine messengers as fully independent emissaries of Yhwh while others conflate messenger and deity. As I shall show, it is not even the case that, once separated, J and E systematically present such a conflation. That the messenger of Yhwh can act independently of Yhwh in both J and E weakens Sommer’s argument that the messenger functions as a small-scale manifestation 7.  See pp. 158–172 for my full discussion of theophany as it relates to divine location. 8.  In addition, it is in the J source that Moses tells Pharaoh that the Israelites must leave in order to worship Yhwh in the wilderness (Exod 5:1; 7:16, 26; and so on), thereby presenting the Sinai experience as the climax of Yhwh’s redemption of the people from Egypt. 9.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 40. 10.  Ibid., 58–78. 11.  Ibid., 41.

The Divine Body

75

of Yhwh in these sources (and reflects the conception of a fluid divine body, which he argues is held by these authors). Second, those texts that do conflate messenger and deity are not so easily categorized as examples of actual divine manifestations. That is, scholars do not agree on the explanation for the conflation of the two. The messenger has been interpreted as: Yahweh in a theophany, the preincarnate Christ, a means of crystallizing into one figure the many revelatory forms of early polytheism, a hypostatization, a supernatural envoy of Yahweh where the confusion in identity results from messenger activity that merges the personality or speech of the messenger with the sender, or the interpolation of the word malʾak into the text where originally it was simply Yahweh speaking and at work. 12

The fact that no single interpretation has become dominant is likely due to the fact that none adequately explains all the variables. Samuel A. Meier notes the problem with the two most popular explanations: The notion that the identity of messenger and sender could be merged in the ancient Near East is incorrect: any messenger who failed to identify the one who sent him subverted the entire communication process. . . . On the other hand, those who posit an identity (whether by theophany or hypostatization) between Yahweh and the malʾak Yhwh apart from this do not do justice to the full significance of the term malʾak which must mean subordinate. 13

Dorothy Irvin has made a strong case for understanding the messengers in Genesis 16, 19, 21, and 22 as later interpolations. 14 Through a comparative analysis of folktale motifs in Genesis and ancient Near Eastern texts, Irvin shows that deities in the extrabiblical material perform the roles of the messengers in the above Genesis passages. At the same time, the typical motifs associated with divine messengers in the extrabiblical material (for example, dictating to the messenger and dispatching the messenger) are absent in Genesis. 15 What are superficially messenger stories in Genesis are in fact “Epiphany Episodes,” which we would expect to feature a deity and not a messenger. Thus, the reference to messengers in these stories must represent later interpolations, meant to distance the deity from the human realm. Irvin’s work is another argument against Sommer’s understanding of divine messenger as a small-scale manifestation of the deity. 12.  S. A. Meier, “Angel of Yahweh ‫מלאך יהוה‬,” DDD 58. 13. Ibid. 14. D. Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AOAT 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1978); see esp. pp. 91–104. 15.  In her estimation, Genesis 28 is the only example of divine messengers conforming to ancient Near Eastern motifs (ibid., 101, 104).

76

Chapter 3

Last, Sommer’s argument that the divine body is presented as fluid in J and E (his JE) versus nonfluid, or unified, in P and in D, is not born out by the data. In particular, the comparative evidence he brings from nonbiblical sources need not reflect a belief in a fluid divine body. 16 In addition, I will show that J and E texts, once separated, show important distinctions in their presentations of the divine body while they do not reflect anthropomorphic conceptions at odds with the P and D sources. Given the complexity of the issue, it is best to approach each example of a divine messenger independently. I will distinguish between the divine body in a full-scale manifestation (or, theophany) as opposed to a small-scale manifestation. I define a fullscale manifestation not with reference to the nature of the divine body described therein but with regard to the extent of the description. Thus, it is perhaps better to refer to the “fullest” manifestation. In each of the sources, it is the description of the deity at Sinai/Horeb that garners the fullest description. I consider theophanies away from Sinai/Horeb to be small (or smaller) scale manifestations as they do not receive the same extensive description. 17 These manifestations are not only smaller in that they are described with fewer details, but the details given reflect a lesser experience of the divine presence and body than at Sinai/Horeb. For instance, these smaller scale manifestations are generally not associated with attendant phenomena, (clouds, fire, and so on), nor is the deity’s presence considered dangerous. 18 In what follows, I will first show how each source describes the full manifestation of the deity at Sinai/Horeb (and the wilderness) and second discuss how this description differs from smaller manifestations elsewhere. Full-Scale Manifestation: Sinai/Horeb My discussion here will focus primarily on the presentation of the divine body on the mountain but will also address the location of the deity. This is crucial for the D source especially as the location of the deity at Horeb is directly related to the question of D’s attitude toward divine anthropomorphism. 19 The passages in each source that describe the Sinai/ Horeb event are as follows: 20 16.  See discussion on pp. 10–11. 17.  The P source’s description of Yhwh in the wilderness is an exception as it describes Yhwh’s full-scale manifestation traveling with the people in the tabernacle. But even here, the fullest manifestation involves seeing the glory, which happens only occasionally in the wilderness. 18.  On attendant phenomena and a theophany, see Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 207. Some small-scale manifestations outside the Pentateuch are depicted as potentially lifethreatening ( Judg 6:22–23; 13:22). 19.  See pp. 99–108, 184–187 for my complete discussion of divine location. 20.  Adopted from B. J. Schwartz (“What Really Happened at Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question,” BR 13/5 [1997] 20–30, 46] with adjustments based on Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 153–72.

The Divine Body

77

J: Exod 19:9b–16aα, 21 18, 20–25, 24:1–2, 9–11, 32:26–29, 33:12–23, 34:2– 3, 4*, 22 5aβ–10 23 E: Exod 19:2b–9a, 16b–17, 19; 20:1–23:33; 24:3–8, 12–15a, 18b; 31:18*, 24 32:1–25, 30–35, 33:1–11, 25 34:1, 4*, 5aα, 28 P: Exod 19:1–2a, 24:15b–18a, 25:1–31:18*, 34:29–40:38 26 D: Deut 4:1–5:5, 9:1–10:22 27

21.  Up to ‫הבקר‬. 22.  The asterisk indicates that a verse is a composite of multiple sources in which the words or phrases appear in both sources. Exod 34:4 is a composite of J and E (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 167–68): J: Moses arose early in the morning and went up to Mt. Sinai as Yhwh had commanded him. E: He carved two stone tablets, like the first ones, and he went up to Mt. [Horeb], as Yhwh had commanded him, and he took the stone tablets in his hand. The canonical text refers to Mt. Sinai, but E’s original version would not have used this name. 23.  Exod 34:11–26 are later additions; see S. Bar-On, “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26,” VT 48 (1998): 161–95; S. Gesundheit, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch (FAT 82; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 12–43. I will not include these verses in my discussion of J. 24.  Exod 31:18 is a composite of P and E (Schwartz, “What Really Happened,” 26): E: He then gave Moses two tablets, stone tablets, which had been inscribed by the finger of God. P: When He finished speaking with him on Mt. Sinai, He gave Moses the testimony. 25.  Exod 33:1–6 are likely a composite of J and E. I include these verses with E due to the reference to Horeb in 33:6. 26.  Knohl ascribes all of Exodus 35–40 to H, his HS, as well as parts of Exodus 25–30 (Sanctuary of Silence, 66–68, 105). While it is possible that parts may belong to H, it is highly unlikely that P’s narrative did not include some description of the construction of the tabernacle and Yhwh’s installation therein, both of which are presumed by the rest of the P narrative beginning in Lev 1:1. In addition, the construction is commanded in Exodus 25–30, the majority of which Knohl attributes to P. One of Knohl’s primary reasons for ascribing Exodus 35–40 to H is the fact that it describes lay Israelites participating in the construction of the tabernacle, which he considers to contradict the second-masculinesingular commands in Exodus 25–30 directed toward Moses (presumably, Moses alone) to construct the tabernacle (ibid., 63–66). But Exodus 40 describes Moses erecting the tabernacle himself, in line with these commands in Exodus 25–30. Thus, at the very least, Exodus 40 along with 25–30 should be ascribed to P. Knohl argues that Exod 25:1–9, which command the involvement of the Israelites in the construction of the tabernacle, belong to H. The problem with excising this passage from P (along with Exodus 35–40) is that it raises the question of what was the form and coherence of P before H’s additions. That is, once you remove Exod 25:1–9, P lacks an initial command to Moses to build the tabernacle but still contains the specific commands on how to do so. Thus, Knohl’s argument, while it accounts for tensions in the unity of Exodus 25–30 (specifically the shifts between singular and plural command forms), introduces arguably greater interpretive problems. 27. D’s description of the Horeb event is nonlinear because it is encorporated into Moses’ speech to the people in Moab. These chapters contain the largest concentration of description of Horeb but are not limited to it; see my analysis on pp. 99–108.

78

Chapter 3

The J Source “The J, or Yahwistic, narrative could well be called ‘The Appearances of Yhwh on Mt. Sinai’. Here the Sinai events are essentially visual, primarily concerned with the question of who may behold the countenance of Yhwh (‘the Lord’) and under what conditions.” 28 Schwartz goes on to note that J’s narrative is fragmentary and has likely been rearranged from its original order by the compiler (R). As a result, we have two, originally separate appearances of Yhwh to Moses: (1) the theophany on Mt. Sinai that involves the people and their leaders to varying degrees (19:9b–16aα, 18, 20–24; 24:1–2, 9–11) and (2) a private appearance of Yhwh to Moses in response to a rebellion among the people that inaugurates the covenant (Exod 33:12–23; 34:2–3, 4*, 5aβ–6). I will consider these two events in turn, using the second passage (Exod 33:18–23) to discuss the divine face. As I will discuss in greater detail in the following chapter, the J source describes Yhwh traveling with the people out of Egypt encased in a cloud pillar (Exod 13:21–22). While the deity is said to be inside the pillar (Exod 14:24), this pillar does not function as the glory (‫ )כבוד‬and cloud in the P source in which it is the perpetual cover for the full manifestation of the deity. First, the pillar is associated with a divine messenger (Exod 14:19), which signals a small-scale manifestation of the deity. Second, the J source narrates the presence of Yhwh apart from the pillar in the wilderness (Exod 17:6). Third, there are no sanctity precautions associated with the pillar nor limited access to its proximity, as characterize Yhwh’s theophany on Mt. Sinai. We must conclude, then, that preceding their arrival at Mt. Sinai, the Israelites and Moses have not been privy to a full-scale manifestation of the deity. 29 As Schwartz notes, J’s description of the full manifestation of Yhwh at Sinai is characterized by limited access, in terms of both proximity and viewing. “The danger that the Deity may surge forth and destroy those who come too close is so great that the Lord refuses to make his appearance until he is absolutely certain that his warnings have been received and heeded (Exod 19:20–25).” 30 This element of danger is absent from all the appearances of Yhwh to the ancestors in J’s narrative. In fact, it is quite contrary to them as the appearance of the deity in the theophanies to the ancestors, as discussed in my analysis of Genesis 18 below, was fairly commonplace. Yhwh’s appearance to Moses in the burning bush marks a departure from the ancestor stage. Exod 3:2 states that it is a messenger of Yhwh that appears to Moses in the bush, ‫וירא מלאך יהוה אליו בלבת אש מתוך הסנה‬. But, as the text continues, there is no further reference to this messenger. 28.  Schwartz, “What Really Happened,” 27. 29.  Note that Yhwh’s appearance “before” Moses in Exod 17:6 bears none of the precautions of Exod 33:18–23. 30. Ibid.

The Divine Body

79

Instead, all speech and action is attributed directly to Yhwh. 31 The simplest solution in this passage is to consider the word ‫ מלאך‬to be a later interpolation, likely meant to avoid Yhwh appearing in a bush. 32 If this is so, then Moses has experienced a direct theophany, but not of the same nature as was common for the ancestors. While also small in scale, in that it lacks the grandeur of the Sinai theophany, the bush theophany bears many of the marks of the full-scale manifestation at Sinai: the deity’s appearance is associated with fire (Exod 3:2); Moses notes the exceptional nature of the phenomenon (3:3, 6b); and, proximity to the phenomenon is identified as holy and marked by attendant ritual behavior (3:5). This manifestation may be understood as a preview of the full-scale manifestation at Sinai. 33 Exod 19:11 is unequivocal about the nature of the theophany on Sinai, “They should be prepared by the third day, for on the third day Yhwh will come down in the sight of all the people on Mt. Sinai [‫ירד יהוה לעיני כל העם‬ ‫]על הר סיני‬.” This same language of “coming down” has been used earlier by J to describe theophany in Gen 11:5, 7, 18:21; Exod 3:8. Yhwh’s descent in Exod 19:11 is distinctive because of (a) the strict boundaries around and limited access to his presence and (b) the size of his audience. As noted above, the burning bush theophany in Exodus 3 is the only instance up to this point in J in which a theophany is combined with sanctity regulations. Also, Yhwh has never appeared simultaneously to a large group, only to individuals. This descent then is unique from those that preceded it, a fact which is reflected in the description of what exactly is seen on Mt. Sinai. On the third day, Yhwh descends in fire on to the top of Mt. Sinai: Exod 19:18: Mt. Sinai was all smoke because Yhwh had come down upon it in fire [‫]ירד עליו יהוה באש‬. Its smoke went up like smoke from a stove and the whole mountain trembled greatly. Exod 19:20: Yhwh came down on Mt. Sinai to the top of the mountain [‫]וירד יהוה על הר סיני אל ראש ההר‬. Yhwh summoned Moses to the top of the mountain and Moses went up. 31. Exodus 3 can be separated into a J and an E account. In the J account (Exod 3:2–4a, 5), Yhwh appears in the bush, while in E (Exod 3:1, 4b, 6), he calls to Moses from the mountain. The reference to the bush in Exod 3:4b (‫ )מתוך הסנה‬is an addition by R to harmonize the two accounts (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 269–71). 32.  The Vulgate reads apparuitque ei Dominus in flamma ignis de medio rubi. Sommer argues that instances in the versions that show a plus or minus of ‫ מלאך‬reflect the ongoing conflation of messenger and deity (Bodies of God, 43). But this presumes that their conflation continued into the Hellenistic era, when in fact divine angels are presented as independent creatures at this point in Jewish (and later Christian) tradition. 33.  In the meantime, Moses enjoys special access to Yhwh in Egypt and the wilderness before Sinai. During the plagues, Moses goes back and forth between Pharaoh’s presence and Yhwh’s presence (Exod 5:22; 8:8; etc). and Yhwh appears to Moses alone in Exod 17:6. For discussion of possible pun of ‫‘ סנה‬bush’ for Sinai, see C. Houtman, Exodus (trans. J. Rebel and S. Woudstra; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993–2002) 1:116, 339–41.

80

Chapter 3

The full manifestation of the deity includes a mask of fire and smoke while the earlier theophanies lacked the outward grandeur found here. The actual proximity of Yhwh to the people in his descent is reflected in Moses’ trips up and down the mountain as well as the language J uses to describe proximity to Yhwh. The priests, who are granted limited access to Yhwh on the mountain, are described in Exod 19:22 as those who approach Yhwh, ‫הכהנים הנגשים אל יהוה‬. When Moses brings the priests and leaders on to the mountain, proximity to Yhwh is again described with ‫ נגש‬in Exod 24:2. In Exod 24:1–2, 9–11, the J author confirms that Yhwh’s physical presence is located at the top of Mt. Sinai. Again, no theophany before this in J has revealed such detail about the actual form of the deity. According to Exod 24:1–2, the elect are required to keep their distance from Yhwh. It is unclear if the description in 24:10 focuses on the deity’s feet so as to avoid a description of his entire body or if this is all that the elect see, as they are bowing down from afar. 34 Another possibility is that this is all they see because this is all that can be seen. As we will see in the discussion of Exodus 33, the full manifestation of the deity in J suggests both the immense size of the deity and his desire to remain at least partially obscured at all times. 35 The limited access to the divine body is maintained then even for the reader. Here we have another indication that we are dealing with the full-scale manifestation of the deity. The narrator provides us a detailed description of only a narrow view of the divine body allowing on the one hand for the reader to extrapolate the rest of the divine body through metonymy and on the other maintaining the sanctity of that body. Though only providing snippets of description, it is clear that the J author imagines the divine body analogously to the human body. Along with the reference to his feet, Yhwh’s human-like body is presumed by the phrase “he did not extend his hand.” While the specific use of this phrase here refers to violent outburst, the phrase is not so idiomatic that one should totally disregard the reference to God’s hand. 36 Elsewhere in J, this phrase is used of God to refer to inflicting harm: 34.  “The writer restricts himself to a portrayal of what is under the feet of God, because human images to describe what is above are inadequate, and also because he aims at giving a description from the perspective of those who saw God: they lay prostrate on the earth (cf. 24:1); so their view remained restricted to what was under God’s feet” (ibid., 3:294). The LXX has καὶ εἷδον τὸν τόπον οὗ εἱστήκει ἐκεῖ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ισραηλ while the MT has the simplier ‫ויראו את אלהי ישראל‬. The LXX seems a likely circumlocution to avoid referring to seeing the deity. “The meaning seems to be that Yhwh, when Aaron and companions arrived, had already left the place (cf. 17:16 LXX)” (Houtman, Exodus, 3:292). 35.  Cf. Isa 6:1. See Smith, “Divine Form and Size,” 424–27. 36.  Houtman suggests the translation, “He did not destroy them,” based on the LXX and Tg. Pesudo-Jonathan (Exodus, 3:294). Jean-Louis Ska interprets Exod 24:1, 9–11 as the investiture of the elite, which draws from the prophetic tradition authenticating visions of the divine council and from royal court etiquette, an audience and meal with the king for the favored elite (The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions [FAT 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009] 165–83).

The Divine Body

81

Exod 9:13–15: Yhwh said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and station yourself before Pharaoh and say to him, ‘Thus said Yhwh, the god of the Hebrews, “Send out my people that they may serve me. For this time I am sending all my plagues against you, your servants and your people so that you shall know that there is none like me in all the land. For now, I have sent my hand [‫ ]כי עתה שלחתי את ידי‬and have struck you and your people with a pestilence and you will be effaced from the land.

In 9:15, “sending out the hand” is parallel to “sending plagues” in 9:14. When used of humans in J, the phrase refers to direct contact and reaching for something. So, Exod 4:4, “Yhwh said to Moses, ‘Reach out your hand [‫ ]שלח ידך‬and grab its tail.’ He reached out his hand [‫ ]וישלח ידו‬and grabbed it and it became his staff in his hand.” 37 There is no indication from Exod 9:15 or 24:11 that we should understand this phrase as referring to something fundamentally different than its meaning with a human subject. Thus, J describes the physical presence of the deity on the mountaintop, a fact that is witnessed by Moses and others. J’s second description of the full manifestation of the divine body comes in Moses’ request to see the glory (‫ )כבוד‬in Exod 33:18–23: 38 Exod 33:18–23: He [Moses] said, “Show me your glory.” He said, “I, myself, shall pass all my goodness in front of you [‫]אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך‬ and I will call out the name of Yhwh before you. I shall be gracious to whom I shall be gracious and I shall be compassionate to whom I shall be compassionate.” He said, “You shall not be able to see my face for a human cannot see me and live [‫]לא תוכל לראת את פני כי לא יראני האדם וחי‬.” Yhwh said, “Here is a place by me. Stand by the rock. When my glory [‫ ]כבדי‬passes by, I shall put you in a fissure in the rock and I shall lay my palm over you [‫ ]ושכתי כפי עליך‬until I have passed. I will remove my palm and you shall see my back but my face shall not be seen [‫והסרתי את כפי‬ ‫]וראית את אחרי ופני לא יראו‬.”

Given the deity’s response that he will show his palm and back but not his face, the “glory” here refers to the divine body. 39 Yhwh himself describes the act as the passing of “my glory” (33:22). As such, it is distinct from P’s use of glory, which is the ever-present encasement around the divine body. Moses has seen the fire encasement at the Sinai theophany and at least the 37.  See also Gen 3:22, 23; 8:9. 38.  A number of studies have offered explanations of how this passage, in which the divine face is said to be deadly, may be reconciled to Exod 33:11 in which Moses is described as speaking to God “face to face.” See, for example, S. Sanders, “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face,” VT 52 (2002) 400–406; M. Wessner, “Toward a Literary Understanding of Moses and the Lord ‘Face to Face’ in Exodus 33:7–11,” RQ 44/2 (2002) 109–16; I. Wilson, “‘Face to Face’ with God: Another Look” RQ 51/2 (2009) 108–14. These attempts are unsuccessful, and it is far more likely that the two narratives derive from different authors ( J and E). 39. “The kavod must refer to God’s body in Exod 33:18–23: It moves, and it has a face (‫)פנים‬, a hand (‫)יד‬, and a back (‫( ”)אחור‬Sommer, Bodies of God, 60). See also Aaron on how ‫כבוד‬, when seen, refers to the body versus the divine presence (Divine Ambiguities, 52–59).

82

Chapter 3

deity’s feet (Exodus 24). At this juncture, Moses requests a more intimate viewing. As in Exodus 24, the divine body is described only in part, but those parts are clearly anthropomorphic: Yhwh has a face, palm, and back. The image created by J of Moses hiding in a cleft in the rock while Yhwh covers him with his palm, if taken realistically, requires the deity to be much larger than Moses. The deity claims his face, and only his face, is deadly to look upon. If we are to take Exod 33:20 at its word, then up to this point, no human in J’s narrative has seen the deity’s face. It is possible to argue that this verse relies on rhetorical exaggeration. Such an argument is weakened by the precautions the deity takes to protect Moses. That Yhwh insists that Moses hide in the cleft and be shielded from seeing the divine face strongly suggests that the J author did consider the divine face to be dangerous to humans. 40 The very real presence of the deity in Moses’ proximity is confirmed again in Exod 34:2, 5aβ. 41 Though J’s explicit descriptions of the deity’s body are careful to stress the inherent danger of the divine presence, J abandons this theme of deadly vision when describing the divine presence without reference to the divine body. So, in Exod 34:5aβ–6, J states that Yhwh stood before Moses on the mountain and passed before his face (see also Exod 19:3, 20–21). We are to presume then that, after just reading in J about the concern God takes to shield Moses from the danger of seeing the divine face, the same protocol was followed here. Or, it is the case that God’s appearance in Exod 33:18–23 was exceptional and God appeared to Moses in Exod 34:5aβ–6 in some sort of obscured form, such as from within a cloud as in E and P. The E Source “In E’s view, the encounter with God on the mountain consists only of sound, as the mountain was covered in a thick cloud, and the reaction of the people was one of unmitigated terror.” 42 Schwartz’s description of the Horeb theophany in E draws attention to the reality in E that, while the people do not see Yhwh, as in J, Yhwh is located on Horeb for the revelation of the law. That is, the people only hear Yhwh because the thick cloud obscures his presence. This event qualifies as a theophany according to my definition, because the people see the attendant phenomena of the full manifestation of Yhwh though, unlike in J, they are never 40. A third option is that Yhwh simply does not wish to reveal his face to Moses. In other words, Yhwh is not being completely honest, which has occurred before in J (Genesis 2–3). 41.  The word ‫ פנים‬in J may be synonymous with divine presence (see J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, The Hexateuch according to the Revised Version: Edited with Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptical Tables [London: Longmans, Green, 1902; facsimile of the first edition, 2006] 2:178). 42.  Schwartz, “What Really Happened,” 26.

The Divine Body

83

said to see Yhwh himself. 43 The fearful reaction of the people suggests that Yhwh appears thusly, at least in part, to protect the people from his full manifestation. As it is, the people fear they will die simply from prolonged exposure to Yhwh’s voice (Exod 20:19). As with J, this association with the potential danger of the deity contributes to the reality of his presence on the mountain. In addition to the above evidence, the E source describes the Horeb event as a visual experience. For instance, in Exod 20:18, “All the people saw [‫וכל‬ ‫ ]העם ראים‬the thunder, flames, the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking. The people saw [‫ ]וירא העם‬and trembled, and they stood far off.” In E, the Israelites did not see Yhwh himself at Horeb. Still, they do witness the attendant phenomena that accompany Yhwh’s arrival and thus have had both a visual and aural experience of the deity. “Seeing” Yhwh speak is referred to again in Exod 20:22, “Yhwh said to Moses, ‘Thus shall you say to the Israelites, “You have perceived that I have spoken with you from heaven [‫]אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם‬.”’” The statement ‫אתם ראיתם‬ refers to perception and not an actual visual experience, but this perception occurs due to the visual experience. 44 The second half of this verse would seem to undermine the interpretation that Yhwh was in fact located on the mountain when speaking with the Israelites, but rather was always in heaven. This assertion is contradicted by the multiple, explicit references to Yhwh’s presence on the mountain in E (Exod 19:3, 9; 20:21; 24:12; 34:1). Thus, we should understand “heavens” here more in the sense of “skies” or that the mountain reaches the heavens; Yhwh, at the top of the mountain, speaks from the heavens. 45 When Yhwh announces his plans to speak directly to the people in Exodus 19 the deity is already located on the mountain in E’s narrative. In Exod 19:3, Moses goes up to God on the mountain and Yhwh calls to him from the mountain, (‫)ומשה עלה אל האלהים ויקרא אליו יהוה מן ההר‬. 46 His ascent to Horeb in Exod 19:3 is parallel to his initial interaction with Yhwh in Exodus 3. Once J and E are separated, we see that E describes Moses arriving at “the mountain of God,” that is Horeb, from which Yhwh calls to Moses

43.  This is an important distinction to make because it aids in the separation of the J and E narratives in Exodus 19–24 and because many source critics will avoid using the term theophany to describe E’s narrative of the Horeb event. 44.  Deut 5:24 makes this connection between visual perception and mental perception explicit. See my discussion on pp. 103–105. 45.  In this way, E’s description of Horeb is reminiscent of Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ascent (‫ )סלם‬that spans heaven and earth and serves as a passageway for divine messengers (see my discussion of Bethel on pp. 163–167). 46.  The MT has ‫ ומשה עלה אל האלהים‬versus LXX καὶ Μωυσῆς ἀνέβη εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ. Either way, 19:2b makes it clear that they are at Horeb at this point and that Yhwh is on the mountain (19:3b). For example, Exod 18:12 describes Jethro, Aaron, and the elders enjoying a sacrifical meal “in the presence of Yhwh” at Horeb.

84

Chapter 3

and announces his plan (Exod 3:1, 4b, 6, 9–15). 47 Unlike in J, there is no description of Yhwh’s external form in this passage, possibly suggesting a small-scale manifestation. But, elsewhere in E, Moses’ communications with the deity are described as uniquely intimate and revealing: Num 12:6–8: He said, “Hear my words, If there should be a prophet of yours, [who is] of Yhwh, 48 in a vision shall I make myself known to him, in a dream I shall speak with him [‫]במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬. Not so my servant Moses, in all my house he is trusted. Mouth to mouth I shall speak with him [‫ ]פה אל פה אדבר בו‬and vision and not in riddles [‫ומראה ולא‬ ‫ ]בחידת‬and he will regard the figure of Yhwh [‫]ותמנת יהוה יביט‬. So why have you not feared to speak against my servant Moses?” Exod 33:11: Yhwh would speak to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his neighbor [‫ ]פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו‬and he would return to the camp and Joshua, son of Nun, his attendant, a young man, would not move from within the tent. Deut 34:10: A prophet did not arise in Israel again like Moses who knew God face to face [‫]ידעו יהוה פנים אל פנים‬.

Moses then is privy to the full manifestation of the deity, unlike in J in which Moses is given access to Yhwh’s back alone. Also, unlike in J and as we will see in P, the deity’s body as experienced by Moses is not described as majestic either with regard to its size, its appearance or its effect. In contrast, Moses’s interaction with Yhwh is like the interaction between two friends (Exod 33:11); 49 Moses’s experience of the deity is intimate, not majestic. The experience that the Israelites have of Yhwh could not be more different; instead of intimacy, they experience terror. Yhwh’s announcement in Exod 19:9 states explicitly that the deity himself will appear “in a dark cloud [‫]בעב הענן‬.” While the Israelites hear the divine voice, they experience the outward phenomena associated with a storm (Exod 19:16aβ–17, 19). The disconnect between Moses’ experience of Yhwh and that of the Israelites could imply that they have experienced different manifestations of the deity. However, E’s description of the Horeb event gives multiple references to Yhwh’s actual location on Horeb, in the cloud (Exod 19:3, 9, 20:21, 24:12, 34:1). A better interpretation then is that the cloud (and its attendant phenomena) accompanies the full manifestation of the deity. This same cloud continues to appear in E to the Israelites in the wilderness, and it is inside this cloud that Moses encounters Yhwh (Exod 20:21, 33:11, 34:5). 50 47.  The reference to the bush in 4b must be an addition by R to bring J and E into closer alignment. Note that it is highly unusual that Yhwh would “call to” Moses from the bush as elsewhere ‫ לקרוא‬implies distance between the subject and object (see p. 79 n. 31). 48. Following Levine, Numbers 1–20, 329. 49.  Hamori interprets this phrase as indicating the noncorporeal theophany of God to Moses but does so out of context with the rest of the E source (When Gods Were Men, 31–32). 50.  “Owing to the dense thickness of the cloud concealing him, Yhwh can come very close and speak audibly with Moses in the hearing of the people without being seen” (Houtman, Exodus, 2:448).

The Divine Body

85

The E author then describes the actual and full presence of the deity on Horeb. What, though, is the form of this presence? Yhwh states that Moses regards the divine form, ‫( ותמנת יהוה יביט‬Num 12:8). The description of this form, as in the J source, comes only in parts. So, in Num 12:8, Moses is said to speak with Yhwh “mouth to mouth” (‫ )פה אל פה‬and elsewhere “face to face” (‫)פנים אל פנים‬. 51 Yhwh’s insistence that Moses regards his form (Num 12:8) strengthens the interpretation of these phrases as realistic. That is, while their effect is to assert the immediacy of the divine presence, 52 they likewise assert the equivalency of Moses and Yhwh in their means of communication; they communicate as equals and in equal fashion. The exact force of the reference to the divine “face” and “mouth” in these passages cannot be known for certain. Did the author intend to assert that Moses saw Yhwh’s face? These idioms are comparable to the idiom in Exod 23:15 and 17, which describes pilgrimage to the sanctuary “to see the face of Yhwh.” As I will show below, the idiom expresses access to the deity, “to come into the presence of Yhwh.” Reference to the divine face is an unintentional anthropomorphic characterization, which is also true for the claim that Moses spoke “face to face” with Yhwh. The idiom conveys the intimacy and uniqueness of Moses’ interactions with Yhwh. Whether the author imagined that Moses saw the divine face or not is secondary to the main assertion of intimacy. At the same time, the idiom, through its use of the noun “face,” necessarily evokes proximate, corporeal presence. The surrounding narrative, which describes Yhwh’s proximate presence on the mountain or in the tent and Moses’ interaction with Yhwh, provides a realistic context for this idiomatic language. Indirect references to the divine body are also present. The voice that the people hear (Exod 19:19), because the cloud accompanies it, suggests a hidden body. Also, in E Yhwh himself engraves the tablets of the Decalogue: Exod 32:16: The tablets were the work of God [‫ ;]מעשה אלהים‬the writing was the writing of God [‫]מכתב אלהים‬, engraved on the tablets. Exod 32:32: So now, if you will bear their sin, but if not, wipe me out from your scroll which you have written [‫]מספרך אשר כתבת‬.

51.  Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10. See my discussion on pp. 176–177 regarding the intentionality of the reference to the divine face in Exod 33:11. Below, I discuss references to Yhwh’s nose. 52. Jacob Milgrom compares this to regular access to a monarch (Numbers ‫[ במדבר‬Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990] 96). Milgrom elsewhere considers that this and other references to Moses’ direct encounter with Yhwh (Num 12:8; Deut 34:10) “must be discounted as hyperbole,” given the reference to the impossibility of seeing the face in Exod 33:20 and the fact that the description of interaction in the tabernacle in P never described Moses entering the holy of holies. His approach is highly problematic because it conflates information from multiple sources. Oddly enough, Milgrom continues on to acknowledge that the passages that describe direct encounter could not have originated from P (Leviticus 1–16, 134–35).

86

Chapter 3 Exod 34:1: Yhwh said to Moses, “Construct two stone tablets like the first ones that I may write on the tablets [‫ ]וכתבתי על הלחת‬the words that were on the first tablets which you broke.” Exod 34:28: He was there with Yhwh for forty days and forty nights; he did not eat food or drink water. He [Yhwh] 53 engraved on the tablets [‫ ]ויכתב על הלחת‬the words of the treaty, the ten matters.

E’s description of Yhwh’s act of writing bears no evidence that we should understand it as essentially different from the human act of writing. In this way, it may be compared to Yhwh’s command to Moses to record the defeat of Amalek, in Exod 17:14, “Yhwh said to Moses, ‘Write this as a remembrance [‫ ]כתב זאת זכרון‬in the scroll and recite it to Joshua that I have completely wiped out the memory of Amaleq from under the heavens.’” The divine body in E, then, is analogous (at least in part) to the human body. The divine face, while accessible to Moses alone in the wilderness period, is accessible to all Israelites through a sanctuary. In E’s pilgrimage laws in Exod 23:14–19, all Israelite males are required to either see Yhwh’s face or be seen by the face, three times a year: 54 Exod 23:14–19: Six pilgrimages shall you celebrate for me during the year. The festival of Unleavened Bread you shall observe: seven days shall you eat unleavened bread as I commanded you at the appointed time in the month of Aviv for in it you came out from Egypt. My face shall not be seen empty-handed [‫]ולא יראו פני ריקם‬. The festival of harvest, the firstfruits of your labors, which you seeded in your field, and the festival of gathering at the end of the year when you gather your labors from your field, three times during the year every male of yours shall appear before the Lord, Yhwh [‫]יראה כל זכורך אל פני האדן יהוה‬. You shall not sacrifice the blood of my sacrifice on leaven and you shall not keep the fat of my festival until morning. The first of the first-fruits of your land shall you bring to the house of Yhwh your god [‫]בית יהוה אלהיך‬. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

It has been long noted that the MT scribal tradition employed an ʾal tiqrê reading in 23:15, 17, 55 choosing to read the Qal verb as a Niphal and likely replacing ‫ את‬with ‫ אל‬in v. 17. 56 The supposed motivation of the scribes was to soften the blatant anthropomorphism implied in seeing the divine face 53.  In the canonical context, the subject appears to be Moses, but once the sources are separated, the subject must be God, per 34:1 (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 167–69). 54.  D. P. Wright compares Exod 23:17 to entering the presence of the king’s statue in the epilogue of the Laws of Hammurabi (“The Laws of Hammurabi and a Source for the Covenant Collection [Exodus 20:23–23:19],” Maarav 10 [2003] 41). 55. A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857) 337. Some scribes went even further as 1 Sam 1:22 has likely been changed from Qal to Niphal through addition of a nun to shift from active to passive (see Geiger, Urschrift, 339). 56.  Exod 34:23 has ‫ את‬in place of ‫אל‬.

The Divine Body

87

at a sanctuary. If this is the case, these scribes have provided only a limited solution. A shift from active to passive here (“seeing Yhwh’s face” to “be seen by his face”) does not negate the claim that Yhwh has a face. As Propp notes, the unpointed text is ambiguous (thus, there may have been differing reading traditions, existing concurrently): Ultimately it makes no difference if we read Qal or Niphal in 23:17. We were already told in 23:15 that Yahweh’s face may be seen. Accepting the MT vocalization, the point of v. 17 is that Deity and worshipper should behold one another. 57

At the same time, the phrase “appearing to my face/the face of the lord, Yhwh” is juxtaposed with the command to bring the first fruits “to the house of Yhwh your god,” and refers to Israelite males appearing at a cult site in the presence of the deity. Instead, what is negated through a shift from active to passive, is the visibility of the divine face at the sanctuary. 58 What neither E, nor the scribes who transmitted his work, have done here is deny the existence of Yhwh’s face or its presence at the sanctuary. The text as it stands now, with the Niphal, represents a conception of an embodied but invisible deity who can see his human worshipers but they cannot see him. While neither reading denies that Yhwh has a face, the likely original reading (“see the face of Yhwh”) did not intend to showcase this fact, but rather it is a coincidence of the idiom. This idiom “to see the face of” is known from other passages in the Hebrew Bible to refer to access to the monarch. 59 See, for instance, David’s statement to Abner: 60 57.  Propp, Exodus 19–40, 135. 58.  If we presume that “seeing my face” referred to presenting offerings before a statue, then a shift to the passive allows the scribes to maintain the assertion that the deity resides at a sanctuary without the presence of a cult statue to represent that presence. Thus, the shift from active to passive makes more sense as either a polemic against the ability for humans to see Yhwh at the sanctuary (through his statue) or a necessary emendation of the text to conform with Israel’s eventual aniconic/iconoclast cult. “Since the vocalization implying the translation ‘appear’ is found only in passages that refer to a sanctuary, perhaps its intention is to avoid giving the impression that God is physically visible there in the form of a statue. It does not seem likely that the vocalization is intended to avoid the implication that god is visible at all, because many passages that imply that He is visible have been left unaltered, such as Exod. 24:10–11 and Num. 12:8” ( J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy ‫[ דברים‬Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996] 372 n. 46). S. Bahar argues that iconism was a common cultic feature of the Levant that was neither uniquely Isralite nor related to monotheism or abstraction of the deity (“‘He Erected Altars to Baal’ [2 Kgs 21,3]: The Absence of Iconic Objects in Cultic Sites for ‘Other Gods’ in the Biblical Narrative,” BN 145 (2010) 25–36). 59. For a recent discussion of the meaning of this idiom, see F. Hartenstein, Das Ange­sicht Jhwhs: Studien zum seinen höfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32–34 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 60.  Other uses, 2 Sam 14:28, 32; 2 Kgs 25:19; Esth 1:14 (see 1 Sam 1:22 for shift to Niphal); see also “seek face of” in 2 Sam 21:1; 1 Kgs 10:24 / 2 Chr 9:23.

88

Chapter 3 2 Sam 3:13: He said, “It is good that I would make a treaty with you. However, there is one matter that I ask of you: You shall not enter my presence [‫ ]לא תראה את פני‬until you bring Michal, the daughter of Saul when you enter my presence [‫]בבאך לראות את פני‬.

The actual viewing of David’s face, if it is expressed with active or passive constructions, is secondary to the intent of the idiom which is to express access to the king, and thereby his favor. See, for instance, the case of Absalom who, on his return to Jerusalem, is still denied access to the king, “Absalom resided in Jerusalem for two years, but he did not enter the king’s presence [‫]ופני המלך לא ראה‬.” 61 Once Absalom does gain access to David, his approach to David does not highlight the face but uses the more common idiom for coming into the presence of someone, ‫לפני‬, “Joab came to the king and told him. He summoned Absalom and he came to the king [‫ויבא אל‬ ‫]המלך‬. He bowed down to him, his nose to the ground, before the king [‫לפני‬ ‫ ]המלך‬and the king kissed Absalom.” 62 On comparison with Exod 23:15–17 we may say that access to the monarch/deity is crucial, which is expressed through the intimacy of proximity that allows one to see the face. The Masoretes, who adopted the tradition to read the Qal forms of Exod 23:15–17 as Niphal forms, reflect a later, “over-reading” of E’s idiom as though the intent was to demand that male Israelites see Yhwh’s face (an impossible feat, especially without constructing a cult statue). 63 Instead, the original stipulation demands that all male Israelites bring triannual tribute to the deity at his tabernacle, wherein his presence is located. Thus, while the original reading does explicitly refer to seeing Yhwh’s face the true analogy is not between human faces and the divine face, but between a royal court and a sanctuary. Yhwh’s sanctuary is the site of formal visitation of the deity through which subjects may gain access to divine favor. Whether his face is visible or not (or even that he has a face) is inconsequential; that Yhwh is located there or not is paramount. By transferring this idiom from the royal court to the sanctuary, the E author shows a willingness to analogize the deity to a monarch. At the same time, there is no concern for the coincidental attribution to Yhwh of a face that can be seen by humans. This sort of hyper-sensitivity to divine anthropomorphism is not apparent until much later. 61.  2 Sam 14:28. 62.  2 Sam 14:33. 63.  “For the most part, the Hebrew Bible offers no indication that Yhwh desired to be represented iconically . . . it is clear that as the object of worship, Yhwh was perceived as a hidden God, most often invisible even when thought to be present” (B. Levine, “The Cultic Scene in Biblical Religion: Hebrew ʾal panaî and the Ban on Divine Images,” in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin [ed. S. W. Crawford et al.; Jerusalem: Albright Institute of Archaeological Research; Israel Exploration Society, 2007] 358–69).

The Divine Body

89

The P Source The construction of the tabernacle and Yhwh’s entrance to it is the climax of the P composition. 64 The deity who began creation largely removed from his creation (though not transcendent of it), at Sinai comes to permanently dwell among his people. Up to this point in the P composition, Yhwh has not remained in any one place for an extended period of time. 65 But now, he will remain among his people and thus requires a suitable dwelling place. Given the above, Yhwh’s appearance on Sinai is unique in the history of the world; it represents his full manifestation to Israel. P’s description of this manifestation, as in J and E, is accompanied by grand, outward phenomena. I will provide a full analysis of Yhwh’s location in the wilderness in the following chapter. Here, I will present the basic conception of the divine presence in P. Yhwh arrives at the top of Mt. Sinai just after the Israelites (Exod 24:15b–17 and 19:1–2, respectively). Exod 24:15b– 17 describes Yhwh arriving on Mt. Sinai in cloud and fire: Exod 24:15b–17: The cloud covered the mountain and the glory of Yhwh dwelt on the mountain of Sinai and the cloud covered it for six days. He called to Moses on the seventh day from within the cloud. The appearance of the glory of Yhwh was like a consuming fire at the top of the mountain in the sight of the Israelites. ‫ויכס הענן את ההר וישכן כבוד יהוה על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים ויקרא אל משה‬ ‫ביום השביעי מתוך הענן ומראה כבוד יהוה כאש אכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל‬

The subject of ‫ ויקרא אל משה‬in 24:16 must be Yhwh. The same pattern repeats after Yhwh enters the tabernacle in Exod 40:34–38 and then calls to Moses in Lev 1:1. Likewise, the P author states in Exod 34:32 that Moses spoke with Yhwh on the mountain, and not with his glory. 66 The description of Yhwh’s interactions with Moses on Sinai reflects the presumption that the deity is located on the mountain. In Exod 25:9, 40; 26:30 Yhwh shows Moses the plans of the tabernacle and in Exod 25:16, 21 he gives 64. J. Blenkinsopp argues that P starts with the creation of the world in Genesis 1, climaxes with the erection of tabernacle in Exodus 39–40, and ends with the establishment of sanctuary in Joshua 18 (“The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 [1976] 275–92); see also Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture, 11–13). Mark Smith argues that creation in Genesis 1 is homologous to temple building, in that the world is structured and functions like a proper temple (The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, 70). C. Nihan argues that Leviticus 16 is the true climax of the original P document (which he identifies as contained within Genesis 1–Leviticus 16), as the ceremony it describes “corresponds to the re-establishment of cosmic order and may therefore be regarded as a ritual re-enactment of God’s primeval victory over chaos at the creation of the world. This ritual process of re-creation makes possible God’s permanent presence in Israel” (Priestly Torah, 613, original emphasis; see also pp. 370–82). 65.  For instance, in Gen 17:1–22 and 35:9–13 Yhwh appears and then leaves. 66.  See also the references to Yhwh dwelling among the people in Exod 25:8, 29:42– 46, 30:36. Exod 29:42–46 is attributed to H by Knohl (Sanctuary of Silence, 65).

90

Chapter 3

him the testimony. We may say then that Yhwh is located on Sinai and then in the tabernacle, but what is the form that Yhwh takes here? The P source is explicit that the divine presence on Sinai includes Yhwh’s ‫כבוד‬, translated here as “glory.” The glory itself is not the divine body, but rather functions in P as the perpetual covering of the divine body. For instance, Menahem Haran distinguishes between the ‫ חוד‬and the ‫כבוד‬, the former is “the halo of light surrounding and radiating from a figure” and the latter is the “‘thick’ covering that envelops the divine image, concealing it from the outside. In the day-time this covering is seen as a cloud, but at night it takes on the appearance of fire.” 67 The “glory” then is distinct from the divine body itself, as it shields it, but is made up of the cloud and fire seen at Sinai. 68 If the glory is not the divine body, how then does the P author conceptualize the divine form? Michael Hundley has recently argued that while P offers a systematic description of the form and function of this divine encasement (‫)כבוד‬, the deity’s form itself is purposely left a mystery: Regarding the terrestrial divine form, the text is silent. Yhwh’s presence in the inner sanctuary may be either the glory itself and/or an invisible, anthropomorphic or some undetermined form. One can muster arguments both for and against each of these proposals, but ultimately a definitive answer is purposely elusive. The divine form must remain undefined because it cannot be seen and lest an approximate description misrepresent it. Thus, while the glory may be described as like fire, the divine presence itself may not be described at all. 69 I will argue here that, while it is certainly true that the form is not explicitly described in the Sinai narrative, the P source provides indirect information about the divine form, which presumes an anthropomorphic form. Also, outside of the Sinai narrative, the P author provides explicit references to Yhwh’s anthropomorphic form. Thus, Hundley goes too far when he claims that the “divine form must remain undefined since it cannot be seen and lest an approximate description misrepresent it.” 70 Nor should the P source be considered to have a less anthropomorphic con67. M. Haran, “‘The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTsup 31; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1984) 167. 68.  Hundley argues that the divine presence in P consists of the divine form encased in the glory which is further encased in fire and cloud. Thus, unlike Haran, the cloud and fire are separate from the glory. (Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011] 44–47). A. Leo Oppenheim argues that melammu should be distinguished from the pulḫu. The former is wrapped around the divine body, while the latter is worn as a crown (“Akkadian pul(u)ḫ(t)u and melammu” JAOS 63 [1943] 31–34). 69.  Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 45. 70.  Similarly for Middlemas, “Exclusively Yahweh.”

The Divine Body

91

ception of Yhwh than the other sources simply because it lacks the same descriptions of Yhwh’s form found in other sources (namely, J and E). The J and E sources share with P its partial description of the deity, differing only in what parts are described. Each source chooses to emphasize a different aspect of Yhwh’s anthropomorphic form. The first indication that the P author conceives of Yhwh’s form as anthropomorphic is reflected in his description of the tabernacle and its cult. As Haran has shown, the cultic rituals and furniture reflect the ancient idea of a sanctuary as the house of the deity and the offerings and sacrifices as the deity’s food. 71 In P’s cult, the senses are attended to through the rituals of the inner sanctum. The incense appeals to smell, lamps to sight, bread to taste, bells to hearing, the ephod to memory and the diadem the “sense” of grace: 72 The former [the rites involving the inner vessels of the tabernacle] are meant to provide for the “physical” needs of the deity, while the purpose of the latter [the rites involving the priest-servant who wears his special garments] is merely to stimulate certain of his “senses” and thereby to attract his gracious attention to the tribes of Israel. We may say that, if the acts performed with the three inner appurtenances are a kind of “necessity” for the daily existence of the deity, the three associated with Aaron’s special vestments are a necessity for the survival and well-being of the community in whose midst the deity dwells. 73

The tabernacle and its furniture and rituals represent the necessary service to the deity that he may continue to inhabit his dwelling; much like a king in his palace. This description is then anthropomorphic on two fronts. First, it presumes Yhwh has a human-like form that requires (or desires) similar stimulation and sustenance, as does the human body. Second, it describes the divine abode in terms that are analogous to the service of servants to a monarch. 74 71.  See also D. P. Wright, “The Study of Ritual in the Hebrew Bible,” The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship (ed. F. E. Greenspahn; New York: New York University Press, 2008) 130–34. 72.  Haran, “Complex of Ritual Acts,” 289. Haran argues that, while no libation offering is described, P does include falgons and bowls in the inner sanctum (Exod 25:29; 37:16) though it prohibits libation offerings there (Exod 30:9). He suggests they did contain liquid, which was not poured out ritually but served as a reminder of a libation offering (ibid., 286–87). 73.  Ibid., 289. See also idem, Temples and Temple Service, 216–26. Kaufmann argues that P rejects the idea that temple and cult were intended to “secure the blessing and favor of God (Gen. 28:18ff.; Exod. 20:21; I Kings 8:19ff.). . . . Instead, P enlarges upon the popular idea of the temple as the place where God revealed himself and manifested his election of Israel” (Religion of Israel, 302). 74.  M. K. George argues that Yhwh is analogized to king through the tabernacle project. Like a king, he builds a temple (Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space [IIAL 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009] 162–67).

92

Chapter 3

Haran, though, does not consider P’s description of the tabernacle to reflect the belief in the actual need for food by the deity: There is no doubt that the priestly scribes, like all the authors of biblical literature, did not envisage their God in such a form as to require this daily satisfaction of a need for food, incense and light. Even the pagan religions of the ancient East had long since ceased to comprehend the deity in such crudely anthropomorphic terms. As found in the ancient religion of Israel, this institution was undoubtedly a survival from a prebiblical conception of the world, and as a cultic institution it persisted practically unchanged even after the proclamation of Mosaic faith. It is well established that, in all the religions of the ancient East, the temple was conceived as essentially the dwelling-place of the divinity, in just the same way as every king, and indeed every man, had his own abode. This explains the figurative expressions used of the temple in the Bible—“the house of Yhwh,” “the house of God,” “the tent of Yhwh”—which are also derived from pre-biblical conceptions of this house as being literally the habitation of the deity. In P it is called “the tabernacle of Yhwh” . . . i.e. the tabernacle in which, figuratively speaking, the deity dwells. 75

Haran offers no explanation as to why he considers P’s sanctuary rites to be “figurative” besides his description of such beliefs as “crudely anthropomorphic.” Haran presumably accepts the argument that anthropomorphic conceptions of the deity evolve over time from more to less anthropomorphic, while attendant rituals, which are by nature conservative, lag behind. 76 Haran’s greatest discomfort with the non-figurative interpretation of the tabernacle rites is the presumption that the deity “needs” food as a human needs food. I would agree with Haran that Yhwh is never presented in P as in need of food. 77 Yhwh has, after all, survived up to this point without any sacrifices (according to P). But, I think Haran has missed the point because Yhwh no more needs food than he needs to dwell on earth among his people. Rather, Yhwh desires to dwell among his people; the tabernacle is the means by which this desire may be fulfilled. 78 The rites 75.  Haran, “Complex of Ritual Acts,” 292. He makes the same claim elsewhere (“Divine Presence,” 257; Temples and Temple Service, 17, 221). See also Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 111; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 62. 76.  “So the question arises: why do some of the very same scholars, who look at the food laws and the purity regulations and see the need to find a key to unlock a complex symbolic system, look at sacrifice as a fossilized vestige, bereft—finally—of whatever foolish meanings it once had? If the ritual purity system—the prerequisite for sacrifice—can be understood as symbolic, might it not be reasonable to understand the sacrificial system(s) similarly? But scholars dislike sacrifice too much to give this possibility the benefit of the doubt” (Klawans, “Pure Violence,” 137). 77.  Though, as I discuss below, this is implied by H. 78.  “There is also the fact that the deity desires the company of his worshippers, that he desires to be invoked and invited, so to speak. This is to be deduced from the relatively great importance of the zebaḥ type of sacrifice, as a form of celebration” (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 27).

The Divine Body

93

of the tabernacle then do not attend to his needs of sustenance so much as they maintain the necessary space and relationship in which the deity can remain on earth. 79 The author analogizes these needs to the needs of the human body. But, as Haran notes, these needs extend beyond human needs to include stimulation of memory and grace and they differ from the satisfaction of human needs as they include symbolic behavior. If Yhwh’s needs are not met in the proper manner, Yhwh will not dwell among the people, but he is not in danger of starving to death without humans. Again, we may compare this situation to a king in his palace. A king does not require the attendant rituals of a palace and court. He, like any human, could survive without them. But, he does require these rituals—which find their basis in basic human needs—to remain a king. That Yhwh does not need food to survive does not mean that he does not possess a human-like form. Rather, that the P author adopts so wholeheartedly the analogy of human sensation as an appeal to Yhwh reflects a belief in the basic anthropomorphic nature of the deity since it presumes that Yhwh will respond to the rites (which in the P text he himself has demanded) as they appeal to his very nature. Ronald Hendel argues that the food taboo of P reflects a theology of imitatio dei. Israelites are required to limit consumption to clean animals, just as only clean animals may be sacrificed to Yhwh. Being human, though, Israelites are allowed to eat both domesticated and wild animals, while only domesticated animals are fit for sacrifice. “That is, through its food code, Israel is like God—or rather, is commanded to be like God—but is like other human groups too.” 80 This simultaneous imitation and differentiation between Israelites and Yhwh is reflected in the sacrificial system. Sacrifices are ritualized meals, in which Yhwh, his priests and the Israelites each partake, but to different degrees and by different means. So, Yhwh consumes his sacrifices through fire, while humans eat their portions. Priests consume parts of all sacrifices except the whole-burnt and purification offerings, while lay Israelites partake only of the well-being offering. “These meals dramatize the bonds of intimacy and distance that relate Israel to God.” 81 Hendel stresses that the means of consumption reflects the physical nature of the participants: The cuisine of sacrifice correlates the consumer with the mode of preparation. . . . God’s portion is appropriate to his metaphysical station—it is supercooked, becomes wholly non-material, and rises to heaven. God’s reception of his portion also differs from human consumption: he smells 79.  Baruch A. Levine argues that the ʿôlâh offering is meant to attract the attention of Yhwh to the needs of the people (Leviticus ‫[ ויקרא‬Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989] 5–6. See also idem, In the Presence of the Lord, 22–27). Klawans sees the main function of sacrifices as the maintenance of the divine presence (“Pure Violence,” 151–56). 80.  Hendel, “Table and Altar,” 134. 81.  Ibid., 145.

94

Chapter 3 the pleasant aroma rather than eating solid food. . . . Humans belong to the material world, and therefore eat cooked, solid food, while God is transcendent and therefore beyond the material world. 82

Hendel’s emphasis on Yhwh’s transcendence neglects the anthropomorphic language used to describe his consumption of his sacrifices. That is, it is not an either/or proposition: either wholly material or wholly nonmaterial. Rather, just as Hendel has nicely shown that Israelites imitate Yhwh, Yhwh imitates humans, but only to a limited extent. First, we must recognize the conundrum basic to any sacrificial system: how does the deity consume the sacrifice? In daily existence, deities do not appear at the altar and eat the food offered them, as humans do at their tables. Rather, religious systems develop rituals and belief systems that explain how the offerings, which are not realistically eaten by the deity, are in fact consumed by that deity. The system is based on the assumption that deities do not consume food in the same manner as humans consume food. Second, the Priestly sacrifical system explicitly describes the deity consuming his sacrifices, specifically through the physical act of conflagration. That Yhwh consumes his sacrifices at all undermines Hendel’s assertion that Yhwh is presented as transcendent. Like a human meal, an offering must be consumed to be authentic. Consumption through fire is not a nonmaterial consumption, but rather a physical consumption of a different nature than mastication. In other words, Yhwh does “eat” his sacrifices; he simply does so with fire versus with his mouth, which, as noted above, in everyday reality would have been impossible. Israel is this way does not differ from other ancient Near Eastern sacrificial systems. For instance, ancient Mesopotamian sacrifices were also symbolically consumed by the deities. 83 Third, P’s description of sacrifices as “a pleasing aroma for Yhwh” likewise represents both the similarities and differences between divine and human consumption. Focusing on the smell of the offerings does not reflect a belief in a transcendent deity; transcendent (that is, nonmaterial) 82.  Ibid., 143. 83.  Not through fire but through extended presentation followed by consumption by the king and priests (T. Abusch, “Sacrifice in Mesopotamia,” in Sacrifice in Religious Experience [ed. A. L. Baumgarten; Leiden: Brill, 2002] 43; W. G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East [ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA 55; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peetersen Departement Orientalistiek, 1993] 191–201; see also, J. Scurlock, “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through Comparison, Part 1,” AUSS 44 [2006] 44; idem, “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through Comparison, Part 2,” AUSS 44 [2006] 241–64; G. A. Anderson, “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings [OT],” ABD 5:878). On the tabernacle as representative of divine dwelling and presence in a manner similar to Mesopotamian texts, see P. Pitkänen. “Temple Building and Exodus 25–40,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny; AOAT 366; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010) 255–80.

The Divine Body

95

deities don’t have noses and aren’t appeased by pleasant aromas. Rather, P’s description explains how Yhwh experiences the offerings, as he has not eaten them in a human manner. The point is that P uses explicitly anthropomorphic description of Yhwh’s experience of his sacrifices (enjoyment and smell). So, Yhwh’s consumption of the sacrifices does not reflect his transcendent, nonmaterial nature. Instead, it reflects his anthropomorphic nature; more specifically, his human-like (but not fully human) form and interests. This presentation of Yhwh is the mirror image of P’s emphasis on imitatio dei; Israelites are called to be God-like (but not fully divine), by which they may maintain their contact with the deity. 84 The H Legislation The Holiness legislation (H) adopts and expands the anthropomorphic presumptions of its predecessor P. Knohl and Milgrom view H theology, as reflected through its terminology and laws, as oppositional to P. So, for instance, Knohl argues that H (his HS) introduces explicit anthropomorphic descriptions of Yhwh, which are eschewed by P (his PT). Knohl’s argument fails on at least three measures. First, he uses divine anthropomorphism as one of his criterion for separating H and P texts, thus he presumes instead of proves that H is more anthropomorphic. This leads him to assign many texts to H that are better assigned to P, texts (like Exodus 40) that contain explicit anthropomorphic descriptions of Yhwh. Second, Knohl downplays those anthropomorphic features that are present even in the texts that he does assign to P. For instance, he argues that H is more anthropomorphic than P because H has Yhwh refer to sacrifices as “my food.” But, as seen above, P presents the sacrificial system as food for the deity. Third, Knohl’s argument that P has an antianthropomorphic conception of the deity is made from silence and through comparison with H texts. So, Knohl argues that P lacks the anthropomorphic descriptions of Yhwh found in H. 85 But, this is not proof that P consciously avoids these descriptions, just that H has a broader description of Yhwh than its predecessor. At best, this is proof that H is more anthropomorphic but not that P is antianthropomorphic. A better explanation of the relationship between P and H has been argued by Schwartz: H (his “Holiness Legislation”) supplements and expands P. 86 Leviticus 17–26 are not an independent law collection, but rather 84.  Schwartz argues that imitatio dei is an inaccurate term to describe P’s theology in that humans are enjoined to actions that are never attributed to God (for example, food taboos [“Israel’s Holiness,” 56]). While this is true, it is still a useful model because it reflects the desire for humans to imitate the deity (to a limited extent). 85.  Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 128–37. 86.  Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 17–24; idem, “Strata of the Priestly Writings.” For his argument why P cannot be the redactor of the Pentateuch, see idem, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” Temples, Texts and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. Haran and M. V. Fox; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996)

96

Chapter 3

presume­the content of the laws of Lev 1–16. 87 As it relates to the issue of divine anthropomorphism, I will show here that H is not “more” anthropomorphic than P, but it is more explicit about certain aspects of Yhwh’s anthropomorphic character. H is always building upon the foundation of P; H does not describe any anthropomorphic qualities of Yhwh that are not already implicit or nascent in P. As discussed above, the sacrificial cult and its attendant ritual in the P composition reflects the conception of sacrifices as food for Yhwh, or at least sensual stimulation of the deity. This concept is reflected in P’s language for the sacrifices. In Lev 3:11, 16, the common ‫ ִאּשֶה‬offering is more fully identified as ‫לחם ִאּשֶה‬. Thus, Milgrom argues it is best translated “food gift”: Most likely ʾiššeh is related to Ug. iṯt ‘gift’ or Arab. ʾaṯaṯu “possessions of every kind.” Because the priests as well as the altar benefit from the ʾiššeh ([Lev] 7:35; 24:9; Deut 18:1; Josh 13:14; 1 Sam 2:28), I suggest “food gift,” a shortened form of leḥem ʾiššeh (3:11, 16). This translation is in line with the rendering “a sacrifice that is willingly received by the Lord” (Tgs. Ps-J and Neof). It also suffices to explain why it cannot apply to the purification offering [Num 15:24–25]. A sacrifice that purges the sanctuary of the pollution caused by the accumulation of sin . . . can hardly be called a gift. Conversely, because the burnt offering functions primarily as a gift . . . there is no better designation for it than ʾiššeh. 88

The use of ‫ לחם‬here must refer to the general sense of “food” and not the more concrete “bread,” as in the context it refers to an animal sacrifice and not a grain offering. 89 A further analogy to sacrifices as food is reflected in the practice of eating that part of a sacrifice not offered directly to Yhwh. So, in Lev 8:31 Aaron and his sons eat the portions of the ordination offerings of meat and bread not consumed on the altar, “Moses said to Aaron and his sons, ‘Boil the flesh at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and there you shall eat it and the bread [‫ ]לחם‬that is in the basket for the ordina103–34; this is further developed in “‘Profane’ Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code,” HUCA 67 (1996) 15–42; Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 169–92. Neither P nor H could realistically be the compiler of the Pentateuch because, as such, they would have combined their composition with compositions that expressly contradict aspects of their own. For instance, J’s description of sacrifice before the existence of the tabernacle or D’s assertation that only the Decalogue was presented to the people at Sinai (which D calls Horeb) contradict P’s description of the establishment of the cult and the presentation of cultic laws at Sinai. 87.  Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 17. In particular, he lists the following topics: the tabernacle, its service, the priesthood, their duties, the types of sacrifices and their rules, the rules of impurity and purity, food taboo laws, divisions between holy and profane. 88.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 162. Levine tentatively translates “fired offering” and distinguishes it from a “food offering” (In the Presence of the Lord, 6 n. 6, 48 n. 126). 89.  The word ‫ לחם‬is also used in Lev 7:13; 8:26, 31, 32 but here it is in reference to grain offerings and may be used more concretely to refer to “bread.” In 7:13, ‫ לחם‬describes the content of the offering and is not the title of the offering (see 7:14, ‫)קרבן תרומה‬. The same is true of 8:26, 31, 32 (see especially 8:32).

The Divine Body

97

tion offering as I have commanded, saying, “Aaron and his sons shall eat it.”’” The use of ‫ לחם‬here is clearly meant as “bread” or at least the prepared grain products and not food in general. 90 But, this is presented as an offering shared by Yhwh and his priests. As described in Lev 8:22–28, Moses sacrifices the second ram and offers the appropriate flesh and fat (v. 25) along with a grain offering (v. 26). All together, this offering is summarized as such, “they were the ordination offering for a pleasing aroma, it was a food gift for Yhwh [‫לריח ניחח‬ ‫]אשה הוא ליהוה‬.” 91 Aaron and his sons are then commanded to consume an analogous combination of meat and bread products to fulfill the ordination (8:31). This sharing of the sacrificial meat between the offerer and the deity follows the pattern of the well-being offering (‫ )שלמים‬in Lev 3:1–16 92 and 7:11–21. It is in the context of the well-being offering that P uses the expanded title for the ‫ ִאּשֶה‬offering, noted above. This analogy of offering and food fits well with the purpose of the well-being offering, which is shared by the deity and the offerer. Lev 8:22–32 also describes a type of well-being offering (‫)זבח שלמים‬. Aaron and his sons partake of the meat and bread just as Yhwh receives his food offering of meat and bread. We may note as well that the meat and bread are not presented as food for Aaron’s and his sons’ sustenance (compare with H below). It is a ritual meal, meant to be consumed within the sanctuary within a limited amount of time (8:33–35 and compare 8:32 to 7:17). Their consumption of parts of the ‫ִאּשֶה‬ enact their ordination just as those parts that were burnt on the altar; each has his own role to play. Knohl argues that H uses ‫ ִאּשֶה‬and ‫ לחם‬differently than P and in a way that reflects both P’s antianthropomorphic agenda and H’s advocacy of an anthropomorphic deity: PT is very careful not to make any direct connection between the Lord and food; thus it will never speak of “the Lord’s food,” but rather of “the food of the Lord’s fires” or “a fire of pleasing odor of the Lord.” This avoidance apparently stems from the desire to refine the idea that sacrifices are God’s food. In contrast, H readily uses the expressions “the food of your God,” “the food of his God,” “the food of their God” (Lev 21:6, 8, 21, 22, 22:25; cf. Ezek 44:7). 93

He is certainly correct that H at times employs both ‫ ִאּשֶה‬and ‫ לחם‬differently than P does. At the same time, we should note that H can use these terms synonymously to their use in P. For instance, P uses the idioms ‫ליהוה אשה‬ 90.  Compare with ‫ לחם‬in 22:7. 91.  Lev 8:28. 92.  Knohl assigns 7:17 to H. Milgrom considers the ordination offering “a transitional offering” that combines aspects of the well-being and ʿôlâh offerings and reflects the transitional nature of ordination (Leviticus 1–16, 527, 534–35, 566–69). 93.  Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 30; see also 133–34.

98

Chapter 3

and ‫אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה‬, and H uses these same idioms. 94 Thus, H continues the P tradition as opposed to avoiding the earlier formulations. H does differ from P in (a) its use of ‫ לחם‬with a first common singular pronominal suffix referring to Yhwh, ‘my food’ (‫לחמי‬, Num 28:2); (b) its use of the phrase ‫‘ לחם אלהים‬food of (your) god’ (Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22, 22:25); (c) and the description of the priestly prebend as “food” for the priests and their families (Lev 22:7, 11, 13). Knohl argues that the absence of usages (a) and (b) in P reflect P’s desire to avoid identifying the sacrifices as food for the deity. His claim cannot be sustained. First, his argument that P consciously avoids “my food” (‫)לחמי‬ to describe Yhwh’s sacrifices is misleading. It is true that this form never appears in P, but it appears only once in H. 95 That is hardly convincing proof that H either embraced this formulation or that P rejects it. Second, as I will argue below, the instances of ‫ לחם‬in construct with a form of ‫אלהים‬ are found in H in only Leviticus 21–22. This suggests that this formulation reflects a specific contextual purpose and not a broad agenda promoting divine anthropomorphism. The use of ‫ לחם‬in relation to sacrifices in H suggests not that H was embracing a more anthropomorphic conception of the deity but that H expanded on the conception of sacrifices as food in P. Each instance of H’s references to “God’s food” is found in the context of the purity of the sacrifices. Five of the six occur in Leviticus 21 in relation to the purity of the priests who offer the sacrifices (Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 21, 22). 96 In Lev 21:6 it is made clear that because the priests come into contact with the offerings, they must remain holy, “They shall be holy for their god that they not desecrate the name of their god, for they are the ones who offer the food gifts of Yhwh, food for their god [‫]כי את אשי יהוה לחם אלהיהם הם מקריבם‬, so they shall be holy.” This state of holiness affects the families of the priests. Priests are limited in the women they may marry (21:7) and with whom they may share their prebend (22:11, 13). H makes explicit the identification of the sacrifices as Yhwh’s food not to advance a program of the anthropomorphizing of the deity but to express the importance of the need for holiness from the priests and their families. The holiness of the sacrifices is expressed through its identity as food for both Yhwh and the priests. H does in the process suggest a motivation for sacrifices absent in P: Yhwh’s need for sacrifices as his food. Lev 22:7, 11, 13, unlike 8:31–32, refer to food 94.  For examples of ‫ ליהוה אשה‬and ‫ אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה‬in P, see Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 11, 16; 3:3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 16, 7:5, 25, 8:21, 28. For examples of ‫ ליהוה אשה‬and ‫אשה ריח ניחוח ליהוה‬ in H, see Lev 22:27, 23:8, 13, 18, 25, 27, 36–37, 24:7. 95.  Num 28:2. Also, used once in Ezek 44:7. These are in fact the only two instances of this formulation in the entire Hebrew Bible (with Yhwh as the possessor). 96. The sixth example is 22:25, which forbids accepting “food of God” from a foreigner, and also concerns the holiness of the sacrifice and is paralleled in the prohibition of sharing priestly food with a ‫( זר‬Lev 22:10).

The Divine Body

99

for sustenance versus ritual consumption. This motivation is implied by the juxtaposition of “God’s food” and the priest’s food. Knohl’s argument confuses difference for polemic. While P’s language may be indirect it never eschews the idea that sacrifices are a type of food for the deity. When compared with H’s language, P’s does appear reserved but, as Knohl so effectively shows, H followed P. Thus, we cannot presume that P was familiar with H’s language for the sacrifices. Knohl’s claim that P is consciously antianthropomorphic must be proven in relation to some text that precedes P, not in comparison to one that follows it if we are to accept that the P author consciously and systematically rejected an otherwise common tradition of an anthropomorphic deity. The divergences between H and P language describing offerings is best explained as an expansion of P themes and language to suit the larger program of H, namely, the pursuit of holiness within Israel. The D Source Though my primary focus in this chapter is the body of the deity, I will discuss his location at length here since the matter of Yhwh’s location in the D source has been a dominant concern for biblical scholars. References to the divine body in the D source’s description of the Horeb event carry a different force if the deity is present on the mountain versus in heaven. Proponents of the name theology argue that Yhwh in D dwells exclusively in heaven. As such, unlike in the other sources, Yhwh never arrives on the mountain for the revelation of the law, but communicates as a voice from heaven. The divine body then remains completely obscured and undefined. Sommer’s work is the most recent to systematically defend this approach. Sommer accepts the argument that for the D author Yhwh is only located in heaven but seeks to correct the erroneous conclusion that because the people did not see the divine body on Horeb there was no body to see: it is crucial to note that neither these [Deut 4:15–16] nor any other verses in Deuteronomy claim that God is invisible or lacks a body. Rather, these verses state that God’s body cannot be seen by humans because the latter are on earth while God’s body is in heaven. 97

Sommer argues that instead, Deuteronomy is characterized by a locational conception of transcendence, “God transcends this world in the spatial sense that He sits enthroned up there, while we are down here.” 98 The result is that D reworks the concept of “name” (‫ )שם‬to refer to “a sign for God” since, “God cannot reside both in the skies and in the temple (much less in multiple temples), and thus God’s heavenly body must be a unity.” 99 97.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 64. 98.  Ibid. 99.  Ibid., 66. For another defense of name theology, see T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (Lund: Gleerup, 1982). M. Hundley has attempted to reconcile Richter’s argument with some of the assertions of

100

Chapter 3

Sommer is correct that D’s use of “name” is not a rejection of an anthropomorphic conception of the deity but his defense of the idea that Yhwh in D dwells solely in the heavens is flawed. First, Sommer’s argument relies on an idiosyncratic definition of “transcendent” as defining the location of the deity versus its more common meaning of non-material. 100 Second, Sommer does not distinguish between D and the later DtrH material and thus brings what should be circumstantial evidence from DtrH (in particular 1  Kings 8) to support his argument. 101 Third, Sommer ignores crucial evidence in D that reflects quite the opposite of his argument; that Yhwh is present on the mountain for the giving of the law. Sommer’s interpretation of the “non-fluidity” of the divine body in D is influenced by his presumption of the accuracy of the theory of name theology. Sommer accepts the argument that D’s formula “the place wherein I cause my name to dwell” is meant as a corrective to the belief that the deity dwells in the temple. By presuming that this theology determines D’s conception of Yhwh, Sommer is inevitably led to argue that the deity cannot be located anywhere but heaven, according to D. 102 In what follows, I will present evidence that Yhwh is present on Horeb in D before turning to my discussion of how D presents this full manifestation of Yhwh. Ian Wilson has argued that the book of Deuteronomy does not show a systematic effort to downplay or avoid reference to the earthly divine Presence. 103 He compares passages from Deuteronomy 1–3, 4–5, 9–10 with synoptic passages in Exodus and Numbers. The passages in Deuteronomy show no fewer, and at times more numerous, references to the earthly presence of the Deity. The D author’s description of the revelation at Horeb uses language that stresses the location of Yhwh in both heaven and on earth, in particular that the people stand “before Yhwh” (4:10), the parallelism of the voice from heaven and the fire on earth (4:36) and that Yhwh spoke “from the midst of the fire,” which refers to Yhwh’s location within the fire which was on the mountain (9:10; 10:4). 104 I will build on Wilson’s argument to show that Yhwh name theology (“To Be or Not To Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 59 [2009] 533–55). 100.  See pp. 14–18 for my discussion of the terms transcendent and immanent within biblical studies. 101.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 62–63. See Richter for a discussion of differences between D and DtrH with respect to name theology (Name Theology, 207–17); see also Menahem Haran, “Divine Presence in the Israelite Cult and the Cultic Institutions,” Biblica 50 (1969) 251–67. 102.  For a critique of this interpretation of D’s formula, see S. Richter, Name Theology. I present my full discussion of name theology and divine location in D in the following chapter. 103. I. Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire. Wilson distinguishes between the legal section of Deuteronomy 12–26 (deuteronomic) and the surrounding narrative framework, which he considers to be mainly the work of the later Deuteronomistic editor. 104. See Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire, 67–73, 105–6. Wilson does consider the absence of ‫ ירד‬in D’s account suggestive that D could be rejecting the idea that Yhwh is on

The Divine Body

101

is located on Horeb for the revelation of law in D and that D presents an anthropomorphic conception of that presence on Horeb. Proponents of name theology often bring comparisons between D and the other sources to support their argument that Yhwh in D is not present on Horeb. In doing so, they often neglect a key characteristic of D’s composition. Unlike J, E, or P, D’s composition is not a linear narrative but is a self-described exhortation (Deut 1:1–5). D’s description of the Horeb event is neither continuous nor exhaustive, but must be reconstructed from Moses’ retelling of specific moments of the events found in Deuteronomy 4–5, 9–10. The D composition does lack some of the detail of E’s narrative, such as the announcement of Yhwh’s arrival (Exod 19:9a) and his initial appearance on the mountain (Exod 19:16aβ–17). This discrepancy is likely the result of the nature of D’s composition noted above. In D, Moses is recalling past events as they pertain to laws he is about to present to the people, he is not narrating events. Thus, the absence of these details should not be considered, by their absence alone, a denial of Yhwh’s presence on Horeb. Several characteristics of D’s description of Horeb suggest that Yhwh is present on the mountain. First, Moses’ trips up and down the mountain suggest he does so to enter the presence of the deity, as in J, E, and P. Second, the terror the people experience is consonant with a theophany. Third, the attendant phenomena (cloud, fire) of the divine pronouncement resemble the theophanic experiences in J, E, and P. Fourth, Yhwh is said twice to write the tablets and give them to Moses, who must ascend the mountain to receive them, implying that Yhwh is located at the top of the mountain where he interacts with Moses. The D author shares with the other sources his description of the Horeb event as an awesome display of natural phenomena. In particular, D describes fire and cloud (4:11) focusing primarily on the fire. The D author uses an array of descriptions to present his picture of what was seen at Horeb, each one slightly different than the last. When taken as a whole, Wilson’s argument that Yhwh is located on Horeb in the fire is born out. Deut 4:11–12: You drew near and stood at the base of the mountain—the mountain was burning with fire up to the center of heaven, darkness, cloud, and smoke. Yhwh spoke to you from the midst of the fire [‫וידבר‬ ‫]יהוה אליכם מתוך האש‬. You heard the sound of words but you did not see a form, only a voice. Deut 4:15: You were very guarded of your lives for you did not see any shape on the day Yhwh spoke to you on Horeb from the midst of the fire [‫]ביום דבר יהוה אליכם בחרב מתוך האש‬. the mountain. But, this can be explained by D’s genre as a speech versus a linear narrative. Also, this verb is common in J’s description of Sinai (Exod 19:11, 14, 18, 20) but appears only once in E’s account (Exod 34:5), and it is E that serves as D’s main source. Thus, its absence in D need not be a rejection of this term.

102

Chapter 3

Deut 4:33: Have a people heard the voice of god speaking from the midst of fire [‫ ]מדבר מתוך האש‬as you have yourselves heard and lived? Deut 4:36: From the heavens he made his voice heard to you to reprove you and on the earth he showed you his great fire and you heard from the midst of the fire [‫]שמעת מתוך האש‬. Deut 5:4: Face to face did Yhwh speak with us on the mountain, from the fire [‫]פנים בפנים דבר יהוה עמכם בהר מתוך האש‬. Deut 5:22–26 (19–23): These matters Yhwh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain from the midst of the fire the cloud and the smoke [‫דבר יהוה‬ ‫]אל כל קהלכם בהר מתוך האש הענן והערפל‬, a great voice but he did not continue and he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me. When you heard the voice from the midst of the dark and the mountain was burning with fire [‫]ויהי כשמעכם את הקול מתוך החשך וההר בער באש‬, you drew near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. You said, “Yhwh, our god, has shown us his glory and his greatness and we have heard his voice from the midst of the fire; this day we have seen that God shall speak to a human and he shall live. So, now, why should we die? For this great fire shall consume us if we continue to hear the voice of Yhwh, our god, again—we shall die. For who of all flesh has heard the voice of a living god speaking from the midst of the fire [‫]שמע קול אלהים חיים מדבר מתוך האש‬ as us and lived?” Deut 9:10: Yhwh gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God and on them were all 105 the words that Yhwh spoke with you on the mountain from the fire [‫ ]דבר יהוה עמכם בהר מתוך האש‬on the day of the assembly. Deut 9:15: I turned and went down from the mountain [‫—]ואפן וארד מן ההר‬ the mountain was burning with fire [‫—]וההר בער באש‬and the two tablets of the covenant were in either of my hands. Deut 10:4: He wrote on the tablets like the first writing, the ten matters that Yhwh spoke to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire [‫דבר‬ ‫ ]יהוה אליכם בהר מתוך האש‬on the day of the assembly and Yhwh gave them to me. Deut 18:16: According to all that you asked of Yhwh, your god, on Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, “I shall not continue to hear the voice of Yhwh, my god, and this great fire I shall not look at again that I not die.”

There is no doubt that in D the people do not see the divine form; that they only heard the divine voice is systematically presented throughout D’s description of Horeb. But, the people are privy to a supernatural display of fire and cloud at Horeb. Also clear from D is that the voice that the people 105. Reading ‫ כל הדברים‬as reflected in manuscripts for LXX and Vulgate, against the MT ‫ככל הדברים‬.

The Divine Body

103

hear emerges from the fire that is on the mountain. The crucial question is then, is Yhwh also “in the midst of the fire” or is this a disembodied voice or the divine voice from heaven, transmitted through the fire? Deut 4:11 describes the fire of Horeb as reaching “up to the heart of the heavens [‫]עד לב השמים‬.” This sort of a description does allow for the interpretation that Yhwh remains in heaven—albeit, in the area above Mt. Horeb—for the revelation of the law. The fire then acts as a transmitter for the divine voice, allowing the deity to remain in heaven. This interpretation begs the question, why would Yhwh need fire and cloud to speak to the people if he remains in heaven? That is, it means that D retains the attendant phenomena of a full-scale manifestation found in J, E, and P but reinterprets them as displays of might versus a shield for the divine body. Deut 4:36 seems to support this sort of interpretation: the voice emanates from heaven while the fire is seen on earth. But, the verse also states that “his words” were heard “from the midst of the fire.” In fact, D always describes the voice coming from or associated with the fire; thus, the fire is a necessary aspect of the divine speech. We may question then what precisely D means by ‫ ;השמים‬is this the nonearthly realm that contains Yhwh’s dwelling or is this a more general reference to the sky. If the fire on Horeb reaches “up to the heavens” then it is understandable how D can claim that the voice came “from the heavens” and “from the fire.” And if the heavens here refer to the skies then the image is of Mt. Horeb consumed in fire that extends up past its peak. The D source is then likely adopting the perspective of its main source (E), in which Yhwh speaks from “the heavens [‫]השמים‬,” which is the mountaintop. 106 Thus, while the people do not see the actual form of Yhwh, they do see “his fire” (4:36). The use of the pronominal suffix suggests a formal connection between the fire and the deity, beyond a display of power. Elsewhere, D associates Yhwh’s nature with fire. In 1:33, Yhwh goes before the people “in fire at night” (‫ )ההלך לפניכם בדרך לתור לכם מקום לחנתכם באש לילה‬and is described as “a consuming fire” (‫ )אש אכלה‬in 4:24 that crosses “before you” in 9:3 (‫)הוא העבר לפניך אש אכלה‬. We conceivably have a situation similar to J, E, and P in which the divine body is encased in fire. This interpretation explains why D consistently locates the voice in the fire and so strenuously asserts that the Israelites saw no form of the deity at Horeb, only “his fire.” D is attempting to simultaneously assert the presence of the deity on Horeb, in the fire, while denying any possibility of the sight of the divine body. Indeed, why mount a polemic against seeing the body if the body is not even there in the first place? 107 It must also be noted that D mounts its 106.  See my discussion on p. 82. D combines this detail of E with J’s description of the presence of fire at Sinai (Exod 19:18). 107. “Deuteronomy 4:12ff. has been understood as combating representation of Yhwh and as arguing for an abstract concept of deity. Idol-worship is banned on the grounds that Israel saw no form in the fire on Mount Horeb. But if the text wished to assert

104

Chapter 3

polemic not to assert that Yhwh is located exclusively in heaven (which it never explicitly states), but to warn the people against building any representations of the divine body. This is why D employs the anomalous ‫פנים‬ ‫ בפנים‬in 5:4; Yhwh is present on Horeb, speaking with the people, but his actual face is obscured and the interaction is mediated by the fire and Moses. Yhwh and the people do not speak “face to face,” since they did not see Yhwh’s face, but rather “each and every face (equally),” as it were, in that they were in the presence of the deity, though they did not see his form. 108 Deut 5:24 supports the idea that D emphasizes the outward manifestation of the divine presence while allowing only for the experience of the divine voice and not his body, “You said, ‘Yhwh our god has shown us his glory and his greatness and we have heard his voice from the midst of the fire [‫]הן הראנו יהוה אלהינו את כבדו ואת גדלו‬, this day we have seen [‫ ]ראינו‬that God shall speak to a human and he shall live.’” Sommer argues that Deut 5:24 confirms the argument that Yhwh is located only in heaven in D: Deuteronomy scrupulously avoids using the word kavod to refer to the divine body (indeed, this verse is the noun’s only occurrence in Deuteronomy at all). Here, is it clear that kabod refers to God’s glory in the abstract sense, as the parallel with the word “greatness” shows. It is no coincidence that the end of the verse also uses the verb ‫ ראה‬in a broad, nonliteral sense (“we have seen that God can speak”), equivalent to “witness” or “come to understand.” This second use of the verb ‫ ראה‬underscores that its first use in the sentence refers not to perceiving some object with the eye but to coming to understand an abstract idea (namely, God’s glory and power). 109

Sommer obscures the point. First, D need not equate ‫ כבוד‬with the divine body proper to use the term to refer to a theophanic experience. That is, Yhwh’s abstractness, it would not have limited it in such a way as to say that no form was seen just at Mount Horeb; it would have said that God has no form. Moreover—and this is decisive—the sequence shows that the chapter deals with the worship of idols and the host of heaven. . . . Now clearly there could be no point in interdicting the idol-gods of the nations on the ground that Yhwh has no form. This passage, then, cannot refer to the cult of representational figures, but to the cult of fetish images (see vs. 28)” (Kaufmann, Religion of Israel, 237). 108.  For the translation “each and every face (equally),” see S. Chavel, “The Face of God and the Etiquette of Eye-Contact: Visitation, Pilgrimage, and Prophetic Vision in Ancient Isralite and Early Jewish Imagination,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 19 (2012) 45. Chavel argues that v. 5 is a later interpolation to counter both any misinterpretation of ‫פנים בפנים‬ to mean “face to face” and the inevitable contradiction that arises from comparison with Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10 (ibid., 45–46). As in E, the immediate force of the idiom is intimacy. Yhwh begins by speaking directly to the people (Deut 5:4) but changes to mediated communication (through Moses) in response to the people’s fear (5:5). The presence of the deity on the mountain lends reality to the idiom, because the people and Yhwh are “face to face” in that they are in each other’s proximity. For a discussion of possible meanings of ‫פנים בפנים‬, see Wilson, “Face to Face with God,” 11–12, 40–41; Chavel, “The Face of God.” For the use of the preposition ‫ ב‬as a synonym for ‫אל‬, see BDB 815. 109. Sommer, Bodies of God, 64

The Divine Body

105

Yhwh’s “glory and greatness” may be understood as his ability to manifest to his people and speak with them through fire. Second, if we choose to interpret “glory” through its parallel to “greatness” we must note that the fire is described with the same root in 4:36, 5:25, and the voice in 5:22. That is, the “greatness” shown the people may be meant to refer to “the great fire.” Third, Sommer’s argument regarding the use of ‫ ראה‬is problematic. An author is free to use a verb of the same root with different nuances, even in close proximity. That this may be the case here is strengthened by the fact that the first use of ‫ ראה‬in 5:24 appears in the Hiphil and with Yhwh as the subject while the second is a Qal form with the people as the subject. In other words, they are not synonymous uses and thus need not be synonymous in meaning. The description in 5:24a aligns with the description of Horeb elsewhere: the people see fire but hear a voice. This leads to the realization (“seeing”) that Yhwh can speak to a human without that human dying. It is through seeing with the eye that the people see with the mind (that is, understand). Last, as discussed above regarding theophany in P, the “glory” there is properly understood as that which surrounds the divine body and not the divine body itself. As such, it is possible that D does use “glory” in a manner similar to P, though simply not to the same extent or in the same systematic way. D’s description of Moses’ interactions with Yhwh further supports the interpretation that the voice from the fire comes from the deity located inside the fire, on the mountain. Moses travels up the mountain to speak with Yhwh, which is described as “drawing near” (‫ )קרב‬and “standing” (‫ )עמד‬110 with Yhwh. In addition, he enters the fire to do so in 9:15, “I turned and went down from the mountain (‫—)ואפן וארד מן ההר‬the mountain was burning with fire (‫)וההר בער באש‬.” That is, to speak privately with Yhwh, Moses approaches the fire, out of which came Yhwh’s voice, implying Yhwh is to be found in the fire. Once on the mountaintop, Moses receives the tablets from Yhwh, which Yhwh writes himself (4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2; 10:4). As explained for the second set of tablets, Moses must first carve the tablets and then bring them to Yhwh on the mountain so that Yhwh may inscribe them: Deut 10:1–5: At that time, Yhwh said to me, “Carve for yourself two stone tablets like the first and come up to me to the mountain [‫ועלה אלי‬ ‫ ]ההרה‬and make a wooden ark for yourself. I shall write on the tablets [‫ ]ואכתב על הלחת‬the words that were on the first tablets that you broke and you shall put them in the ark.” I made an ark of acacia wood and I carved two stone tablets like the first and I went up to the mountain and the two tablets were in my hand. He wrote on the tablets [‫ ]ויכתב על הלחת‬like the first writing, the ten matters that Yhwh spoke to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly and Yhwh gave them to me [‫]ויתנם יהוה אלי‬. I turned and went down from the mountain 110.  Deut 5:5, 10:10.

106

Chapter 3

and I put the tablets in the ark which I made and they remained there as Yhwh had commanded me.

This passage raises all sorts of problems if we presume the D author locates Yhwh only in heaven: Why does Yhwh say “come up to me on the mountain” (v.  1) if he is in heaven? How does Yhwh receive the tablets from Moses to then write on them if he is in heaven (vv. 2, 4)? How does he then give them back to Moses (v. 4)? Why would D assert that the tablets are written by Yhwh, by the very finger of Yhwh (9:10), if one of his main concerns is the limitation of Yhwh to his heavenly abode? The answer must be that this is not a primary concern of D and in fact not a concern at all since the D author is perfectly comfortable with locating Yhwh elsewhere than heaven, in particular on Horeb for the revelation of the law. In addition to the above evidence, we can add that the D author, while he does not provide many references to the divine body, those he does provide suggest a human-like form. As we have seen, Yhwh writes the Decalogue himself, an act that implies a human-like form. D asserts that Yhwh writes with his finger (‫כתבים באצבע אלהים‬, 9:10). This act of writing the law is paralleled when Moses writes out the full set of laws and gives the scroll to the Levites just as Yhwh writes on the tablets and gives them to Moses (Deut 31:9). In Deut 11:12, the eyes of Yhwh are said to perpetually keep watch over Israel’s seasons (‫)תמיד עיני יהוה אלהיך בה‬. Yhwh hears the leaders and elders when they request that Moses serve as intermediary in Deut 5:28, which implies his physical proximity, “Yhwh heard the sound of your words when you spoke to me [‫]וישמע יהוה את קול דבריכם בדברכם אלי‬ and Yhwh said to me, ‘I have heard the sound of the words of this people that they have spoken to you [‫ ;]שמעתי את קול דברי העם הזה אשר דברו אליך‬all that they have said is good.’” And, in Deut 5:4, the encounter at Horeb is described as occurring in proximity to the divine face. The divine face is referred to again in the context of the yearly pilgrimages to the temple. The D’s author’s reuse of E’s pilgrimage law offers an opportunity to test the main assertions of the argument for a name theology in D. 111 As noted in an earlier section, the original text of Exod 23:14–18 stipulated the triannual pilgrimages through the adoption of the court idiom “to see the face of the king.” Israelites males are enjoined to travel to a sanctuary “to see the face of Yhwh.” If, as proponents of name theology argue, it is a primary concern of the D author to reverse the conception that Yhwh dwells at the temple, we should expect to see an alteration of E’s idiom, which necessarily locates the deity at his shrine. A comparison of Exod 23:14–18 with the relevant passages in Deuteronomy, though, shows no such alteration: Exod 23:14–17: Three pilgrimages shall you celebrate for me during the year. The festival of Unleavened Bread you shall observe: seven days shall 111.  This discussion continues in chapter 4.

The Divine Body

107

you eat unleavened bread as I commanded you at the appointed time in the month of Aviv for in it you came out from Egypt. My face shall not be seen empty-handed. The festival of the Harvest, the first-fruits of your labors which you sowed in your field and the festival of the Gathering at the end of the year when you gather your labors from your field, three times during the year every male of yours shall appear before the ark of Yhwh. ‫שלש רגלים תחג לי בשנה את חג המצות תשמר שבעת ימים תאכל מצות כאשר צויתך‬ ‫למועד חדש האביב כי בו יצאת ממצרים ולא יראו פני ריקם וחג הקציר בכורי מעשיך אשר‬ ‫תזרע בשדה וחג האסף בצאת השנה באספך את מעשיך מן השדה שלש פעמים בשנה יראה‬ ‫כל זכורך אל פני האדן יהוה‬ Deut 16:16: Three times in the year every male of yours shall see the face of Yhwh, your god, in the place that he shall choose: at the festival of unleavened breads, at the festival of weeks and at the festival of booths and he shall not appear to Yhwh’s face empty-handed. 112 ‫שלוש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך את פני יהוה אלהיך במקום אשר יבחר בחג המצות ובחג‬ ‫השבעות ובחג הסכות ולא יראה את פני יהוה ריקם‬

Presuming the D author had the text of E as preserved in the MT, the only changes made to the description of the deity is the replacement of ‫האדן יהוה‬ of Exod 23:17 with ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬and of ‫ פ̱ני‬in Exod 23:15 with ‫את פ̤ני יהוה‬. 113 The first represents no significant change and may have been precipitated by the unusual construction ‫האדן יהוה‬. 114 The second changes the first-person reference to the divine face (“my face”) to a 3rd person construction (“the face of Yhwh, your god”). D’s quotation of Exod 23:14–17 reflects Siedel’s Law 115 as it reverses the order of the commands to come to the sanctuary: Exod 23:15–17: (a) they shall not see my face empty-handed (Exod 23:15) (b) each male of yours shall see the face of the lord, Yhwh (Exod 23:17) Deut 16:16: (b) each male of yours shall see the face of Yhwh, your god (a) he shall not see the face of Yhwh empty-handed 112. Reading ‫ יראה‬as a Qal form, against the MT pointing for a Niphal, see my discussion of Exod 23:14–17 on pp. 86–89. 113.  As I noted above, the MT reading ‫ אל פני‬in Exod 23:17 is likely not original. If it is (which is highly unlikely given its odd and confusing construction), this means the D author made the E text more anthropomorphic. 114.  For a discussion of D’s changes to the pilgrimage festivals, see Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 90–92; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 217–24; Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 290–300, 333–39. Comparison with 2 Sam 3:13 is instructive in that it shows that there is very little difference in effect switching from active to passive forms. Either way, one comes into the presence of someone or something. 115.  The phenomenon is named after its discoverer, M. Seidel, “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms,” Sinai 38 (1955–56) 149–72.

108

Chapter 3

There is a shift in subject in E from third common plural in 23:15 to second masculine singular in 23:17. In its later, reversed formulation in Deut 16:16 this variation of subject becomes even more pronounced. Thus, D’s rewording of ‫ פ̱ני‬in Exod 23:14 with ‫ את פ̤ני יהוה‬may reflect a desire to harmonize the phrasing and verbal construction, thereby clarifying that the subject for both is future, adult males. The shift from first common singular to third masculine singular was likely further influenced by the D author’s narrative framework and its variations from E’s narrative. In E’s narrative, the people hear the Decalogue and then request that Moses, alone, receive the remaining laws. The Covenant Code then, according to the surrounding narrative setting, is spoken by Yhwh to Moses on Horeb and subsequently repeated to the people (Exod 24:3). In contrast, according to D’s narrative setting, the laws of Deuteronomy 12–26 are Moses’ recitation of what he received from Yhwh on Horeb to the people. The third-masculine-singular construction (“the face of Yhwh”) fits this new setting better than E’s first-common-singular construction (“my face”). In E, Yhwh is speaking directly to Moses (hence, first common singular) while in D, Moses is repeating Yhwh’s words to the Israelites (hence, third masculine singular). 116 Thus, while it is certainly possible that the D author changed E’s construction to avoid Yhwh referring to “my face,” we need not resort to this difficult-to-prove argument to explain the change. Even if the D author did object to E’s construction, he preserves the royal court idiom “to see the face” to describe pilgrimage to the temple. As such, the D author imports the implications of this idiom that the deity (like the king) is present in his court. 117 The D author was clearly comfortable with changing his source material, but those changes do not reflect an interest in denying the presence of the deity at the shrine. Instead, the D author inserts his signature refrain ‫במקום‬ )‫אשר יבחר (יהוה‬. D’s primary interest in adopting E’s festival legislation is adapting that legislation to a centralized cult. It is perhaps significant that D does not insert the full form of his refrain here, leaving out the description of “the place” as “wherein he places his name.” If, as proponents of the name theology assert, the D author adopted this formula to negate the perspective that Yhwh dwelt at the temple, the context of the festival laws with its use of the visitation idiom seems a key point to insert “name” language. That is, why would the D author leave in tact the reference to see116.  Gesundheit recognizes this necessary change but still states that Deut 16:16–17 are a shift away from the “blatant anthropomorphism” of its source material in Exodus 23/34. He stresses the shift from a theocentric to an androcentric focus. He also argues that these verses are not original to D but are later expansions based on the parallel material in Exodus 23/34 (Three Times a Year, 157–62). 117.  The word ‫ יראה‬in Deut 16:16 may be read as Qal or Niphal, but the Qal is the likely original intent. The Qal reading is supported by Deut 31:11 (“When all Israel comes to see the face of Yhwh, your god [‫)”]לראות את פני יהוה אלהיך‬, for which an original Niphal reading is harder to defend given the use of the infinitive construct.

The Divine Body

109

ing Yhwh’s face, an idiom that necessarily implies Yhwh’s presence at the temple, but not then assert in some manner that it is the name and not the deity himself that is in fact present? To my mind, the answer to this question is that the D author would do this because he is not concerned with proving that God is not at the temple, but rather accepts and presupposes this theological outlook. Small-Scale Manifestation In this section, I will test Sommer’s argument that at least some of the biblical authors reflect the belief that the deity can manifest in different forms, in particular in small-scale versus full-scale manifestations. I will argue that this paradigm is instructive for understanding the different presentations of the deity in the ancestor period versus the Exodus and wilderness periods. Unlike Sommer, I will argue that this distinction of small-scale versus full-scale manifestation holds true for P, as well as J and E, and likely for D. In addition, I will argue that examples of manifestations by messengers cannot be categorically labeled small-scale manifestations because the conflation of sender and messenger may be rhetorical versus ontological, if it exists at all. The J Source In this section, I will discuss the presentation of the divine body by the J author in the ancestor narratives. J’s account of Sinai describes limited access to the divine body due, at least in part, to the danger associated with it. So, the general populace is allowed only to see the body encased in cloud and fire while remaining at the base of the mountain. The priests and elders are allowed a viewing of the deity on Sinai, but must remain at a distance. 118 Moses is the only human allowed to approach the deity and, in Exodus 33, is described as seeing the divine body, though this display is limited to the hand and back of Yhwh; to see his face would be deadly. This limited access to the divine body and danger associated with the body is conspicuously absent from the ancestor narratives. Yhwh interacts without issue with Adam and Eve and then with Cain and Abel. Yhwh appears to Abraham and Jacob. 119 Jacob goes so far as to claim that seeing Esau’s face is “like seeing the face of God” (Gen 33:10). The most sustained description of a theophany to an ancestor comes in Genesis 18, when J describes Yhwh appearing to Abraham at Mamre. I will focus my analysis on Genesis 18–19 to evaluate J’s presentation of the divine body before Sinai. The recent works of Sommer and Hamori are welcome correctives to earlier approaches to divine anthropomorphism in that they acknowledge and emphasize the multiplicity of forms the deity takes in the Hebrew 118.  In addition, Exod 24:11 mentions ‫אצילי בני ישראל‬, usually translated “nobles” according to its Arabic cognate (Propp, Exodus 19–40, 297). 119. Yhwh appears to Isaac in a dream in Gen 26:24.

110

Chapter 3

Bible. Hamori argues that divine anthropomorphism is best understood as a spectrum; the deity (and divine beings) appears in different forms at different times. 120 She has emphasized the uniqueness of the “concrete anthropomorphism” and “anthropomorphic realism” of the theophanies in Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33, which she names “ʾîš theophany” as the deity is referred to as a “man” (‫ )איש‬therein. Hamori’s analysis of Genesis 18 and 32 is instructive in that she convincingly shows the distinctiveness of these passages both within the Hebrew Bible and the greater ancient Near East. At the same time, she overemphasizes their uniqueness in comparison to other examples of divine anthropomorphism while simultaneously overemphasizing their similarities to each other. Her assertion that form follows function is certainly accurate, but her analysis of the function of ʾîš theophany is weakened by a lack of distinction between source compositions in Genesis. My full discussion of Gen 32:23–33 can be found in the following section, while I will address both Genesis 18–19 and 32:23–33 here as they relate to Hamori’s thesis. Hamori insists on the uniqueness of Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 within the ancient Near East. These passages are characterized by a description of the deity taking the form of a man (and being identified as such by the narrator and/or characters), with the physical limitations of the human body. 121 So, Yhwh comes to Abraham at Mamre as a man who eats and rests. God comes to Jacob at Jabbok as a man who cannot physically overpower the patriarch. In both cases, the deity has so fully taken on the human form that he is not initially recognized as the deity. Hamori finds partial parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible ( Joshua 5, Judges 13) and outside ancient Israel (ʾAqhat, Illuyanka tales) but never an example of the combination of the concrete anthropomorphism of an embodied deity interacting with a human as a human. Hamori’s insistence regarding the uniqueness of these passages is influenced by the approach she takes to them. She isolates Gen 18:1–15 from its broader context of Gen 18:1–19:28. The result is that she isolates the description of the men from their later descriptions in which they exhibit their supernatural nature. So, for instance, Hamori argues that Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 are unique because, unlike in other examples of embodied anthropomorphism (for example, Judges 13), the divine beings never perform a supernatural act to confirm their true nature. But, the messengers that continue on to Sodom and Gemorrah do perform a supernatural act in defense of Lot (19:11). By excising Gen 19:1–28 from her analysis of the divine anthropomorphism in Gen 18:1–15 she is able to overemphasize the limitations of the form of the deity and his messengers there. But, as Hamori acknowledges, there is a clear continuity between the events in 120.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 34. 121.  Ibid., 128.

The Divine Body

111

Gen 18:1–15 and 19:1–28 (see 18:16, 22). 122 There is no reason to presume that the nature of the form of these messengers is different for Lot than with Abraham. Rather, there are a great many similarities in their presentation. As such, their supernatural feat in 19:11 should be relevant to any characterization of their form in Gen 18:1–15. 123 Hamori argues that instead of a supernatural feat, the divine nature of the men is only revealed through Yhwh’s speech (18:13–14). But this is not the case since Yhwh’s speech acknowledges that he performed a supernatural feat: he has heard Sarah laugh to herself (‫בקרבה‬, 18:12–15). 124 Hamori stresses that both stories present the deity as unrecognizable. It is certainly the case that neither Abraham (nor Lot) nor Jacob acknowledge the divine nature of their visitors until the end of the encounter, but when compared with other narratives of mysterious encounters, these passages are lacking the “ah-ha moment,” as described by Kugel. 125 The best example is Manoah’s response to the appearance of the messenger in Judges 13. In comparison, Abraham and Jacob are never described as unaware of who the men are. That Abraham and Jacob are never described as surprised to have encountered the deity suggests that they may have understood, or at least suspected, the true nature of the encounter. 126 Hamori overemphasizes the differences in Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 when compared with other narratives of theophany. She stresses the difference between the embodied theophany of the deity in Gen 18:1–15, 32:23–33 versus theophany through a messenger elsewhere. She argues 122.  Ibid., 74–75. 123. Unless one argues for multiple layers of composition in Genesis 18–19; see Gunkel, Genesis, 159–60. 124. Granted, this is not the most impressive of supernatural feats, but it is an example of doing something a human could not do. It is also possible that the prediction in v. 10 revealed the true identity of the guests. Hamori argues that Abraham realizes Yhwh’s identity only in vv. 13–14 (Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 11–12). Hamori argues Sarah’s response implies she does not know the guest is Yhwh, otherwise she would not have laughed (ibid., 12), but Abraham laughs in Gen 17:17 (P) knowing that he is in God’s presence. 125.  J. L. Kugel argues that this “moment of confusion” is the result of the presumption that the divine and human realm can and do overlap (God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible [New York: Free Press, 2003] 23–24). The messenger then represents the deity before his true identity has been recognized: “One almost has the impression that these biblical narratives attest to an awareness that the ‘angel’ they speak of is really a construct, one might even say a literary device. What an ‘angel’ really is, these texts are saying, is a way of reporting that God Himself appeared to someone in human form, or more precisely, in what at first looked like human form” (ibid., 31, original emphasis). Recently, F. Mirguet has argued that the messenger is a literary construct meant to mediate a divine encounter and create an interior change for a human character (La représentation du divin dans les récits du Pentateuque: Médiation syntaxiques et narratives [Leiden: Brill, 2009] see esp. pp. 226–30, 248, and conclusion). 126.  If they did in fact appreciate that these men were divine, this could account for the lack of a grand supernatural feat; it was not necessary.

112

Chapter 3

that ʾîš theophany is unique from messenger theophany in both form and function. Messengers are commonly conflated with the deity and messengers rarely bring blessings. First, we must note that Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 differ in that the deity is accompanied in Gen 18:1–15 but alone in 32:23–33. If we accept Hamori’s assertion that form follows function, then we should not discount this distinction. Second, the word ‫ מלאך‬does not appear in Gen 18:1–15 but is used twice in Gen 19:1, 15 clearly in reference to the same two “men” who accompany Yhwh in Gen 18:1–15 (Gen 18:16, 22). As I will show below, the presentation of Yhwh and his travel companions bears similarities with other descriptions of messenger theophanies elsewhere. As Hamori rightly notes, the shifts from singular and plural forms for the visitors likely does not reflect a physical conflation of the three men under the single identity of Yhwh. But, it does reflect a conflation of sender and messenger; the singular may be used of the three men because only one of them really counts. This conception is what facilitates the conflation of messenger (angel) and sender (Yhwh) elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and should be acknowledged as present here as well. 127 Hamori likewise overemphasizes similarities between Gen 18:1–15 and Gen 32:23–33. For instance, there is no conflict between Abraham and Yhwh as between Jacob and God. 128 Also, while the deity is limited in Gen 32:23–33 in that he seems incapable of defeating Jacob, there is nothing in Gen 18:1–15 that suggests that Yhwh and his messengers are incapable of superhuman feats. And, as shown above, they exhibit abilities of this sort and thus cannot be said to exhibit physical limitation to the same extent as God in Gen 32:23–33. Hamori argues that the embodied form of the deity in these passages serve the specific function of an intimate confirmation of the divine promise. It is true that Yhwh’s visit in Gen 18:1–15 is meant to confirm the lineage through Sarah and Isaac. But, the only reference to blessing in Gen 32:23–33 does not state the content of that blessing, 32:30b, ‫ויברך אתו שם‬. Instead, the main purpose of the passage is the etiology of Jacob’s name change to Israel (and secondarily the etiology for Peniel). In fact, Hamori must appeal to the broader context of Gen 32:1–22, 33:1–20 to relate the theophany at Jabbok to the covenant with the ancestors. She employs the opposite method from her treatment of Gen 18:1–15, which she excised from its broader context. 129 The surrounding material 127.  W. G. Heidt argues that the role of the angels in Genesis 19 is best described as bringing assistance to Lot versus as divine messengers (Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology [Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1949] 40). 128. We may further note that Gen 18:1–15 lacks any sense of conflict, which is the main focus of Gen 32:23–33. Sarah laughs in disbelief but is summarily silenced by Yhwh. Abraham may be said to argue with Yhwh in 18:16–33 but cannot be said to “prevail” over Yhwh. Rather, he is quite obsequious (18:23, 25, 27, and so on). 129.  Hamori presumes that Gen 32:23–33 has a different author from 18:1–15 (When Gods Were Men, 102–3) and that Genesis 18–19 are likely from a single author, or at least Gen 18:1–15 and 19:1–18 (ibid., 74–75).

The Divine Body

113

(Gen 32:1–22, 33:1–20), which Hamori relies on for her analysis of this passage, are best attributed to J as they make reference to Esau’s desire to harm Jacob, which conforms to J’s earlier narrative in Gen 27:1–45. Even if one wishes to read the canonical text without acknowledging shifts in authors (which Hamori does not advocate), it must be accepted that the narrative proper of Gen 32:23–33 simply does not explicitly refer to the covenant with the ancestors, but only to a divine blessing of unknown content. The use of ʾîš theophany in Gen 32:23–33 does not function as it does in Gen 18:1–15. 130 Gen 18:1 sets the stage for the narrative, naming the entire event a theophany, “Yhwh appeared to him [‫]וירא אליו יהוה‬.” 131 Then, we are told that Abraham saw three men on the road (18:2). As Hamori argues, these men are described as typical humans: Abraham does not seem to be aware of their special identity 132 and they consume a meal without issue suggesting the same limitations as a human body. It is not until Yhwh reveals his ability to hear Sarah’s retort, that their identity becomes clear; this is marked by the narrator who at this point shifts to exclusively third masculine singular with explicit subject as Yhwh (18:13). 133 At the same time, Abraham does not react to his supposed revelation that the visitors are divine. We may argue that the shift from 18:1a to 18:1b represents a shift from the narrator’s to Abraham’s perspective. If so, then Abraham does not become aware of the theophany until Yhwh is explicitly mentioned in 18:13–14. But, there are some indications from the text that Abraham may have recognized his visitors. The description of the men “standing opposite” (‫והנה שלשה אנשים נצבים‬ ‫ )עליו‬Abraham suggests odd behavior. 134 This idiom is typically used to describe standing stationary or standing at attention. For instance, the J 130. While Hamori accepts that Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 were penned by different authors, her insistence on their similarities of both form and function, as well as her diachronic reading of Genesis 32–33, presents them as intentional components of the arc of the ancestor narrative, implying they had the same author, or at least were used by the compiler for the same purpose. 131.  Westermann argues this verse is a later addition to the narrative (Genesis 12–36: A Commentary [trans. J. J. Scullion; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1985] 275). For a contra argument, see Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 6–7. 132.  Hamori notes that, unlike Abraham and Yhwh, Danʾil recognizes Kothar-wa-­ Hasis immediately (Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 85f). Danʾil recognizes the deity in large part because of his gigantic size. This begs the question, if in the J source Yhwh’s true size is super-human (as implied by Exod 24:9–11 and 33:21–23), should Abraham immediately recognize him if he appears in human size? Could not his form in Gen 18:1–15 represent an altered version of his full manifestation, which is not immediately recognizable but not necessarily meant as a disguise? Warren Smith argues that deities in Greek myths take on human form either to disguise themselves or out of necessity (“Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad,” Numen 35 [1988] 165, 168). 133.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 11–14. 134.  See my full description on pp. 159–160.

114

Chapter 3

author­uses it to describe Yhwh’s appearance in Gen 28:13. Thus, the men are not described as spotted while traveling toward Abraham (compare with 19:1) but as standing stationary at a distance. This image fits the introduction of the narrative that states that Yhwh “appeared to Abraham”; we may speculate that Yhwh and his companions appear from nowhere (not unlike the angel to Balaam in E). Abraham’s reaction is also suggestive of the special nature of these men, as he immediately runs to them and prostrates before them. After convincing them to eat a meal, he does not join them, but rather stands apart from them as they eat (18:8). While prostration need not indicate divinity, it does reflect the special status of the recipient. Also indicative of their special status is the fact that Abraham slaughters a bull (‫ )בן הבקר‬for their meal. 135 If nothing else, we may say that while these visitors take a realistically human form, they do not act nor are they treated as typical humans. 136 Also, unlike in the theophanies described in both J and E’s story of Jacob in Gen 28:11–22, recognition of the deity (or sacred nature of the site) is not an explicit concern of this narrative. We cannot rule out the possibility that the author had no intention of asserting that these men were indistinguishable from human men. The J author maintains a fairly clear distinction between Yhwh and the other two men (see especially 18:22 and 19:13). 137 At the same time, there are indications in Genesis 18–19 that Yhwh and the messengers are conflated. In 18:21, Yhwh states that he will go down to Sodom and Gemor135.  “His ‘bit of food’ [18:5] turns out to be a feast. If a seah is about two gallons (eight liters) . . . ‘three seahs of best wheat flour’ would make a great quantity of bread, while to kill ‘a bull’ for just three visitors shows royal generosity: a lamb or a goat would have been more adequate (compare with 2 Sam 12:4; Luke 15:27–30)” (Wenham, Genesis, 2:47). In P’s sacrificial laws, bulls are used only for special occasion sacrifices, such as the ordination of the priesthood (Exod 29:1). Compared with the sacrificial provisions of P, we can say it is an offering fit for a deity, as well as for a king. According to the MT vocalization, Abraham uses the appropriate address for the deity ‫ אדנָי‬in 18:3. His address continues in the singular in 18:3 (but switches to the plural in 18:4–5). If Abraham does not know the true identity of the leader of the group, then we should read ‫אדנִי‬. “What the text indicates, therefore, is that Abraham has turned to one of the strangers whom he somehow recognized as the leader. In vss. 4–5 he includes the other two as a matter of courtesy. . . . The present pointing was probably influenced by the explicit mention of Yahweh in vs. 1” (Speiser, Genesis, 129. See also von Rad, Genesis, 206). 136.  The location of the theophany may also suggest that Abraham could have suspected a divine visitor. Abraham builds an altar at the oaks of Mamre in Gen 13:18. Elsewhere in J, altars are the site of theophanies. See my discussion of cultic presence in J on pp. 189–196. Kugel argues the commonly held interpretation that the point of these details is to assert Abraham’s exceptional generosity (God of Old, 10–12). His interpretation does not account for the missing “moment of confusion” that he argues is primary in an unexpected encounter with a divine messenger. 137. Genesis 19 is a weak point in Irvin’s argument that the majority of messenger stories in Genesis reflect later interpolations of a messenger for originally divine action. It is impossible simply to replace the messengers with Yhwh in this chapter. So, while it is true that these messengers do not act as typical messengers, as she argues, they do appear to be sent by Yhwh to perform a divine task in his stead.

The Divine Body

115

rah to investigate, but of course it is the messengers who actually do so. 138 Also, the use of first-common-singular language in 19:22 suggests that the speaker is Yhwh: Gen 19:21–22: He said to him, “I have lifted your face in this matter as well, to not overturn the city of which you spoke. Flee quickly there for I am unable to act [‫ ]לא אוכל לעשות דבר‬until you reach there.” Therefore they named the city Zoar.

The concern here is Lot’s safety; Sodom and Gemorrah cannot be destroyed until Lot is safely contained in Zoar. Gen 19:14 and 24 state that it is Yhwh himself who destroys the cities, suggesting that in 19:22 it is Yhwh, not the messenger, who voices the concern for Lot’s safety. At the same time, 19:24 states that the destruction comes as fire “from Yhwh, from heaven” which emphasizes the distinction between Yhwh (in heaven) and his messengers (on earth). While the messengers claim Yhwh has sent them to destroy the city in 19:13. 139 It is unlikely that the messengers in Genesis 18–19 are a later interpolation to the text. Their presence and independent identity flows organically from the appearance of three men to Abraham to the separation of the two from Yhwh and their encounter with Lot. In addition, the references to the two messengers could not be removed or replaced by Yhwh without introducing new interpretive problems. The strong independent identities given these two men likewise argue against interpreting them as a small-scale manifestation of Yhwh. Gen 18:16–19:1 are unequivocal that the two men are distinct characters from Yhwh. The best solution in this passage is to interpret the conflated language of the deity and his messengers as resulting from their role as representative of the deity who sent them. 140 First, the men are not identified as messengers (‫ )מלאכים‬until after 138. Yhwh does not remain with Abraham during the destruction of the cities, but is said to depart from him after their conversation (18:33). Yhwh may have gone down to the cities at this point (Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 69). 139.  Sommer argues that, during the visit with Abraham and Sarah, it is unclear if Yhwh is all three men or just one of the men (Bodies of God, 40–41). I think it is in fact quite clear that Yhwh is only one of the men, especially from 18:13 and on. It is true that 18:1 says Yhwh (and not Yhwh and two messengers) appeared, but then 18:2 describes three men. However, this is not an indication that the three men all represent Yhwh. Rather, 18:1 is a general description of the narrative. 140.  Irvin provides strong evidence that the messengers in Genesis (except for Genesis 28) perform acts that are typically performed by deities and thus cannot be said to act as messengers (Irvin, Mytharion, 99). Her argument complicates the claim that the messengers in Genesis occasionally speak on behalf of the deity. Still, as Irvin herself acknowledges, not all the acts of the messengers in Genesis are exclusive to deities. In particular, rescuing a human from danger, as the men do for Lot in Genesis 19, may be performed by lesser deities sent by greater deities or by humans (ibid., 97). It seems reasonable to presume that such a lesser divine being could, in the process of rescuing a human on behalf of a deity, in the process, speak on behalf of that deity.

116

Chapter 3

they depart on their mission to Sodom and Gemorrah (Gen 19:1). In other words, they are identified as messengers once they take on this function. The men state that Yhwh sent them in Gen 19:13, “For we are destroying them, this place, for their cry is immense before Yhwh and Yhwh sent us to destroy it [‫]וישלחנו יהוה לשחתה‬.” This statement explains the conflation of the actions of the deity and his messengers in Gen 18:20–22: Yhwh said, “The cry of Sodom and Gemorrah, it is immense, and their sin, it is very severe. I will go down so that I might see, Is what they have done as complete as its cry that comes to me? And if not, I will know.” The men turned from there and went to Sodom—Abraham remained standing before Yhwh. 141

Yhwh “goes down” by sending his companions. Though Gen 18:21 has Yhwh state that he will go down to Sodom and Gemorrah, Gen 19:1–28 never locate Yhwh in the city, but instead explicitly locate him in heaven (19:24). This can also explain the discrepancy between 19:13, in which the messengers state that they will destroy the cities, and 19:24, in which Yhwh is described as destroying them. Yhwh is the ultimate force behind the destruction of the cities, though the messengers participate through their investigation of the situation and protection of Lot. Lot recognizes this fact in his words to his sons-in-law in 19:14. While the messengers have stated that they will destroy the city, Lot states that Yhwh is going to destroy it (‫)כי משחית יהוה את העיר‬. The J author is imprecise in the details, but has not presented the messengers as a manifestation of the deity, but as independent actors who enact the will of Yhwh. This situation is concretized in Gen 18:1–15, which presents three physically distinct men but which clearly prioritizes the thoughts, deeds, and words of their leader. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the interpretation that the messenger represents a small-scale manifestation of Yhwh is found in J’s story of Hagar’s escape (Gen 16:7–14). In Gen 16:7, it is a messenger of Yhwh who encounters Hagar and speaks with her “The messenger of Yhwh found her on a water spring in the wilderness, on the spring on the way to Shur.” (See also vv. 10, 11.) In 16:13, the narrator refers to “Yhwh, the one who spoke to her [‫]יהוה הדבר אליה‬.” 142 Also, the messenger in 16:10 speaks the words of Yhwh in the 1st person, “The messenger of Yhwh [‫ ]מלאך יהוה‬said to her, ‘I will surely increase [‫ ]הרבה ארבה‬your seed; it may not be counted due to magnitude.’” As Meier notes, while interpreting the messenger as a type of theophany explains the apparent conflation of messenger and deity here, it raises other problems. Why use a term that signifies subordination 141. The MT (‫ )ואברהם עודנו עמד לפני יהוה‬reflects a tiqqun soferim, or pious scribal alteration. The original reading was “Yhwh remained standing before Abraham” (Geiger, Urschrift, 310). 142. For an explanation of the textual problems in this verse, see Speiser, Genesis, 118–19.

The Divine Body

117

to express direct theophany? Instead, this passage could present a situation similar to E’s Hagar narrative; Yhwh hears and the messenger responds (see Gen 21:17). But, Hagar’s act of naming in 16:13, which “ripples with the ocular,” 143 undermines such a systematic understanding of the events. Unlike in Gen 18:1–19:28, there is no clear distinction made between the identity of Yhwh and his messenger. Thus, we cannot say that Hagar has encountered a messenger but describes the encounter as a direct theophany because of the proxy nature of the messenger. It is possible the references to the messenger in Gen 16:7, 9, 10, 11 are later interpolations. Their removal leaves a more coherent account of Yhwh encountering Hagar and bestowing a blessing on her son, which she commemorates in 16:13. There is no support for interpolation from the ancient witnesses, which leaves interpolation a speculative solution, but one that resolves the difficulties of the text, without introducing new problems. 144 The question is if Yhwh’s appearances, when not mediated by dreams (Gen 26:24) or messengers, are equivalent to Yhwh’s theophany at Sinai. In the J composition, no human is said to come into proximity with Yhwh’s face except for Moses (Exod 33:18–23). 145 While the “glory” (‫)כבוד‬ is parallel­to Yhwh’s face and back in that passage, its absence in Genesis 18 may explain why Abraham and Sarah are able to look at Yhwh without danger. If, as Hamori argues, Yhwh appears here as an embodied human, then Abraham and Sarah have not actually seen the divine body but rather its presence manifested in a human body. This sort of function of divine theophany could then be parallel to E’s propensity to describe dream theophanies. Hamori argues for the complete distinction between embodied presence and dream vision, but given that in both the danger of the divine body is not an issue the two may in fact be separate solutions to the same problem: how can a human being see the deity and live? 143.  “Hagar, though names the interlocutor ‘the God of Sight,’ ‫אל ראי‬, for her shock, relief, and gratitude that beholding divinity did not lead to death (or blindness): ‘I still see even after looking, ‫ראי‬.’ She then names the spot something like ‘Well of the VisionSustainer’, ‫באר לחי ראי‬. The very texture of the narrative ripples with the ocular” (Chavel, “The Face of God and the Etiquette of Eye-Contact,” 3–4). 144.  Mirguet argues for the intentional, literary conflation of messenger and deity in Genesis 16, as a means of presenting two sides of the nature of the deity (Representation du divin, 226–30). She argues that the messenger is a mediating force in the narrative that is meant to aid an interior transformation by the main human character of a scene (ibid., 494–95). 145.  Jacob states that seeing Esau’s face is “like seeing the face of God” (Gen 33:10). The context suggests that “seeing the face of God” may refer to bringing an offering to a sanctuary (Exodus 23; Deuteronomy 16, 31) because this is just what Jacob does for Esau in the hopes of acceptance. Given this and the fact that Jacob is afraid of his brother, we may speculate that the meaning of the idiom is not an expression of joy, so much as awe. This sort of interpretation fits with J’s story of Moses in Exod 33:18–23 in which Yhwh’s face is dangerous to humans. At the same time, Jacob’s statement implies that the deity’s face can be and is seen by humans.

118

Chapter 3

All this said, we cannot ignore the fact that Gen 18:1 describes the entire event as an appearance of Yhwh to Abraham. Also, that the concern for the potential danger of the divine presence found in J in Exodus 19, 24, 33–34 is completely absent in Genesis 18; in fact, the opposite is the case as the divine presence is treated similarly to human presence. If we assume that the J author would not compose two separate stories that logically contradicted each other (or incorporated a story or stories into his work that contradicted each other) then we must attempt to explain how it is that for Moses seeing the divine face would cause death, but for Abraham and Jacob no such danger exists. Perhaps, the simplest solution is to say that Abraham and Jacob did not see the divine face, but that only Moses was given access to an unmediated audience with the deity. 146 If so, this seriously undermines the argument that J is more anthropomorphic than E because it does not mediate divine presence through dream vision or a messenger. Rather, the J author does show an interest in mediating divine encounters, through small-scale manifestations of the deity. The E Source In this section, I will discuss the form of the deity in E apart from the Horeb manifestation and subsequent manifestations in the wilderness. In E, the initial manifestation to Moses happens at “the mountain of God,” paralleling Yhwh’s manifestation to the people in the E portions of Exodus 19. E’s narrative of the exodus and preceding plagues is fragmentary in the canonical text and thus provides little information regarding the divine body and its means of manifestation in Egypt. 147 This, in effect, leaves the manifestations to the ancestors in Genesis. I will focus my attention on Jacob’s wrestling match at Penuel (Gen 32:23–33) and address more broadly the relation of messengers (‫ )מלאכים‬to the divine body in E. 148 146.  Another solution is to say that Exod 33:20 is rhetorical and not reflective of the actual consequence of seeing the divine face. This interpretation is made less likely by the lengths that Yhwh goes to in this passage to protect Moses from his presence. 147. For the argument that J portions of Exodus 6–11 are better assigned to E, see Friedman, Sources Revealed, 126; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999) 51–52, 314–15. The non-P portions of Exodus 6–11 are better attributed to J on the basis of narrative continuity: they continue many of the plot elements introduced in the J portions of Exodus 1–5, which themselves pick up on the J narrative in Genesis. 148.  Sommer assigns the Penuel passage to J, though with no explanation as to why (Bodies of God, 41). Baden attributes the passage to J (“Identifying the Original Stratum of P,” 23–24). Friedman assigns this passage, tentatively to E (Sources Revealed, 86). For a discussion of early source divisions, see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch According to the Revised Version, 2:51. I ascribe this passage to E because it fits best within the narrative continuity of E, continuing from Gen 32:1–3, while it interrupts J’s narrative of Jacob’s encounter with Esau (Gen 32:4–22; 33:1–17). Gen 32:23–24 may be a conflation of J and E as they refer both the Jacob crossing the wadi (v. 23) and sending his family across with him (v. 24). However, the bulk of the narrative (32:25–33) belongs to E, and it is these verses on which I focus my analysis.

The Divine Body

119

As Hamori shows, Gen 32:25–33 identifies the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled as the deity. 149 This fact is confirmed by the two etymologies in the tale. First, the man explains Jacob’s new name “Israel” as symbolic of the fact that “you persevered with God 150 and with men and you have prevailed [‫ ”]כי שרית עם אלהים ועם אנשים ותוכל‬in v. 29. Second, Jacob’s explanation of naming the site “Peniel/Penuel” in v. 31 reflects the fact that a theophany occurred there, “I saw God face to face [‫ראיתי אלהים פנים אל‬ ‫ ]פנים‬and my life was saved.” There can be little doubt that the author understood this encounter as a direct theophany. Instead of a 3rd person, narratival statement “God appeared (‫ )נראה‬to Jacob,” we have Jacob’s own words, “I saw [‫ ]ראיתי‬God.” The use of the phrase “face to face” stresses the intimacy of the encounter, but also its reality, which explains Jacob’s surprise that he has emerged safely (‫)ותנצל נפשי‬. The claim to have seen God “face to face” links Jacob with Moses as the only two people who have experienced God in this manner. Moses’ encounters with Yhwh described as such (Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10 and compare with Num 12:8) refer to Yhwh’s appearance in the cloud pillar at the tent of Meeting, in which Moses meets with him “face to face” (Exod 33:11). 151 Jacob’s experience at Peniel lacks the outward phenomena of Yhwh’s full manifestation in E at Horeb and in the wilderness. Instead, Yhwh manifests as a man. The text gives little indication regarding when Jacob discovers the true nature of his wrestling partner. Unlike in his encounter with the divine at Bethel (Genesis 28), Jacob is not described as surprised regarding the nature of the site, only that he survives his encounter. Jacob’s first words in 32:27b suggest that he is aware of the identity of the man and thus asks for a blessing, “He said, ‘I shall not send you off unless you bless me.’” On the other hand, Jacob’s request for the man’s name in v. 30 is met with incredulity, 152 suggesting that Jacob would not have been so bold if fully aware of the man’s identity. It is not until Jacob receives this rebuff that he expresses knowledge that he has seen God. It may be the man’s reactions to his request for a blessing and inquiry into his name that confirmed his identity for Jacob. Requesting the man’s name could be interpreted either as Jacob’s attempt to determine if the man is divine or not or as Jacob’s attempt to gain more information about an entity he knows to be divine. In E’s narrative about Yhwh’s revelation to Moses, Moses asks for the divine name, not because he is unsure with whom he speaks, but to provide proof of his encounter to the Israelites 149.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 25. 150.  Speiser translates ‫‘ אלהים‬divine beings’ on analogy with Hos 12:5 (Genesis, 255). This interpretation is undermined by 32:31, and the fact that Jacob clearly wrestles with a single man. 151.  Below and in chapter 4, I discuss Exod 33:11, Deut 34:10, Num 12:8 fully. 152. “Jacob asked and said, ‘Tell me your name.’ He said, ‘Why would you ask my name?’ and he blessed him there.”

120

Chapter 3

(Exod 3:13–15). Thus we may say that like Gen 18:1–15 this narrative is not explicitly interested in Jacob’s awareness of his companion’s true identity. Also, like Gen 18:1–15, there are some indications that Jacob could have known the man’s identity from the start. The author does not describe whence the man came or when or how he left. When he appears, he immediately engages in a wrestling match with Jacob. While the statement in 32:25 “and Jacob remained alone” refers back to Jacob sending his caravan ahead of him, its juxtaposition with the following statement “a man wrestled with him” accentuates the unusual appearance of this man out of nowhere. 153 Last, of course, is the unexplained situation of encountering an anonymous man who wishes to wrestle for no stated reason. The oddity of this situation leads Gunkel (and Westermann after him) to advocate the interpretation that this man was a river numen or demon and the wrestling match a type of ordeal. 154 The clear identification of the man as God in 32:29, 31 renders this sort of interpretation untenable. But, we can note a similarity between Jacob’s wrestling match and Moses’ brush with death on the road to Egypt in Exod 4:24–26, though a J narrative. Here too the deity is the aggressor, who attacks without provocation, and may be said not to prevail over Moses. So, while the man is not described as physically distinct from a normal man, his actions set him apart from a normal man and suggest that Jacob suspected his identity before it was expressly revealed. In contrast to Hamori and Sommer, I would argue that the use of “face to face” here implies the full manifestation of the deity to Jacob, as he has experienced an unmediated encounter with the deity. 155 That is, God has not taken on the form of a man to interact with Jacob, but rather has shown his true form to Jacob, just as Moses is privy to the true form of the deity (Num 9:8). 156 The uniqueness of Jacob’s encounter at Peniel is confirmed when compared with the other encounters with the divine described elsewhere in the E portions of Genesis. In every other encounter, Yhwh either appears in a vision or dream or mediated by a messenger (Gen 15:1; 20:3; 21:17; 22:11; 31:11–13, 24; 46:2) and never as physically present (in any form) on earth. 157 153.  For a discussion of the translation of ‫ויאבק‬, see Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 97. 154.  Gunkel, Genesis, 352–53; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 515–21. See also, J. B. Curtis and S. L. Shearman, “Divine-Human Conflicts in the Old Testament,” JNES 28 (1969) 231–42. For a contra argument, see Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 13–19. 155.  See my discussion of this idiom on pp. 85–86, 176–177. 156.  Unlike in J, P, and D, the assertion in E is not that the divine body is dangerous but rather that the outward phenomena are terrifying. 157. Genesis 28 is discussed in detail in chapter 4. I would note here that the E portions of Genesis 28 describe Jacob’s dream of messengers, never the deity, though this experience is described as a theophany in Gen 31:11–13 and 35:1. In Gen 32:1–2, Jacob similarly comes upon a group of messengers and declares the site “the encampment of God,” which need not refer to the divine presence but rather possession. In both cases, Jacob is not said to encounter the deity directly. In addition, on two occasions (Gen 22:1 and

The Divine Body

121

Previous scholars have gone too far in their declaration that the E author seeks to lessen the type of direct anthropomorphism used by the J author. As in the J source, the messenger in E is at times conflated with the deity. In Hagar’s encounter in Gen 21:14–21, the conflation is minor. The only confusion of messenger and sender comes in 21:18, when the messenger (who began speaking in 21:17) uses the first person to speak for the deity, without prefacing his speech with a reference to the deity, “Arise and pick up the boy and grasp your hand with his for I will make him a large nation.” Otherwise, the narrative maintains a clear distinction between sender and messenger. Gen 21:17 explains that God hears Hagar, but it is the messenger who speaks to her, ‫וישמע אלהים את קול הנער ויקרא מלאך אלהים אל הגר מן השמים‬. The best explanation for the messenger’s use of the first-common-singular verbal form in 21:18 then is his function as the mouthpiece of the deity. While the messenger speaks to Hagar, the narrative attributes all other action to the deity; specifically, hearing the child cry (21:17), opening Hagar’s eyes (21:19), and protecting the boy as he grows up (21:20). 158 The fact that the messenger speaks from heaven (21:17) argues against interpreting the messenger as a small-scale manifestation of the deity. There is no theophany in this narrative, with or without the messenger. Even if one considers the messenger an interpolation, God still speaks to Hagar from heaven. Thus this encounter, unlike Hagar’s encounter in J (Gen 16:7–14), is mediated by distance. In the Akedah narrative, the deity and messenger are conflated in Gen 22:11–14. In Gen 22:11, it is the divine messenger that calls to Abraham from heaven, but when Abraham names the site in v. 14, he refers to an encounter with the deity, “Abraham named that place ‘Yhwh will see [‫יהוה‬ 35:1), the E author describes God as speaking to a human but does not specify the means of communication (that is, dream, voice from heaven, direct theophany). God’s communication to Abraham seems to have occurred at night. Yhwh’s command is directly followed by the description of Abraham rising the next morning (Gen 22:3), suggesting the communication took place the night before. Whether we should consider this evidence of a night vision though is unclear. 158.  A similar division of labor is found in the narrative of Balaam’s encounter with the messenger in Num 22:21–35. God becomes angry, and the messenger reacts (22:22). The messenger communicates with Balaam, but control of events are attributed to God, in particular opening the donkey’s mouth (22:28) and Balaam’s eyes (22:31). The source ascription of the Balaam cycle is complicated and contested. I will consider the entire passage as E. The passage shows more signs of narrative unity than disunity, and it is unclear how isolated portions that have been attributed to J would fit into that author’s larger narrative. Still, I consider any aspects of divine anthropomorphism found in this passage to be only tentatively relevant to the conception of the E author and thus will not rely heavily on them. In the past, these chapters have been attributed to E in their majority (see for instance Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, 280; Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 184). For other source divisions, see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch according to the Revised Version, 2:224. Levine argues that Numbers 22–24 are a composition separate from the four sources (Numbers 22–36, 137–41).

122

Chapter 3

‫ ’]י ְִראֶה‬of which it is said today, ‘On the mount of Yhwh, he will appear [‫בהר‬ ‫( ”’]יהוה י ֵָראֶה‬Gen 22:14). 159 Also, when the messenger speaks he uses a firstcommon-singular form that must refer to God, in v. 12, “He said, ‘Do not extend your hand against the boy and do not do anything to him for now I know that you fear of God 160 and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from me [‫]ממני‬.” The word ‫ מלאך‬in Gen 22:11 is a strong candidate for interpolation, even without support from ancient witnesses. The messenger is mentioned only once in the narrative 161 and is significantly absent from Abraham’s description of the event in v. 14. Also, God has already spoken with Abraham earlier in the narrative without the mediation of a messenger, “After these things, God tested Abraham and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ and he said, ‘Here I am!’” (Gen 22:1). The messenger says the same words to Abraham and receives the same response in v. 11, “A messenger of Yhwh called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ and he said, ‘Here I am!’” Such an exchange is typical of direct communication by the deity. 162 Finally, the event occurs on a mountaintop, which is a common site for direct, divine contact in the E source. 163 Taken together, it is likely that ‫ מלאך‬is a later interpolation and the original narrative described God’s direct speech to Abraham on Mt. Moriah. Even as an interpolation, as with Hagar, Abraham’s encounter with the deity is mediated by distance, as God speaks to him “from heaven” (22:11). 164 The final example of a messenger conflated with the deity in the E source is found in Jacob’s description of his dream to his wives in Gen 31:4–16. In this passage, Jacob reports that a messenger speaks to him in a dream 159. The MT reads the first ‫ יראה‬as a Qal “Yhwh sees” and the second as a Niphal “Yhwh appears.” The use of the Niphal complicates the situation as the narrative states only that the messenger called from heaven (22:11) in response to Yhwh seeing Abraham’s actions (22:12). This then parallels the communication with Hagar in E’s narrative in Genesis 21 (see esp. 21:17; Yhwh hears and the messenger responds). The narrative never describes an appearance of any kind and thus it is perplexing why the etymology for the site would refer to a theophany. (See Geiger, Urschrift, 339.) See n. 164 below for a possible explanation. 160.  It is not unusual that the deity would use a 3rd-person form to refer to himself, especially when referring to an established trope, such as the fear of God. 161.  Gen 22:15–18 is widely recognized to be a later interpolation (see, for example, Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 363). For why this addition need not be (and is likely best not) attributed to R, see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 243–47. 162.  See Gen 46:2; Exod 3:4; 1 Sam 3:4, 6, 8. Once the J and E portions are separated in Exodus 3, it is clear that in E God calls to Moses directly from the mountain. See p. 79 n. 31 for division. 163.  In E, compare with the E portions of Exodus 3 and 19. 164.  As I note above, in the Horeb account “from the heavens” in Exod 20:22 must refer to the mountain top. The same could hold here: God is located at the top of Mt. Moriah, which is in the sky, but not in the non-earthly realms of heaven. Even so, this detail emphasizes the deity’s distance from Abraham (as it does for the Israelites in Exod 20:22) and, as such, limits the intimacy of the encounter. This would also explain why Abraham describes the encounter as a theophany in Gen 22:14.

The Divine Body

123

(Gen 31:11), but that messenger identifies himself as God in v. 13, “I am the god, Bethel 165 where you anointed a stele [‫אנכי האל בית אל אשר משחת‬ ‫]שם מצבה‬, where you made a vow to me. Now, get up and leave from this land and return to the land of your birth.” In addition, the statement in v. 12, “for I have seen everything that Laban has done to you,” fits the actions of the deity, as described by Jacob in Gen 31:42. Finally, Rachel and Leah interpret Jacob’s experience as a direct communication from God in v. 16, “For all the wealth that God prospered from our father belongs to us and to our children. So now, everything that God said to you [‫כל אשר אמר‬ ‫]אלהים אליך‬, do.” As in Genesis 22, the messenger here is not a small-scale manifestation of the deity, as the entire experience is mediated through a dream and is not a theophany. Thus, either the messenger is a later interpolation or speaks on behalf of the deity. As in Gen 22:1 and 11, the narrator uses a formulaic call and response to describe the initial communication in Gen 31:11, “The messenger of God said to me in a dream, ‘Jacob’ and I said ‘Here I am.’” As noted above, this formula typically happens in direct speech from the deity. Unlike in Genesis 21, the messenger here speaks entirely in the voice of God and even identifies himself as God in v. 13. This identification in particular argues in favor of interpreting the messenger as a later interpolation. If so, as for Abraham in Genesis 22, Jacob experiences a direct communication from God, but not a direct theophany. Instead, the encounter is mediated through a dream. E’s descriptions of divine communication do not bear out the theory that the author sought to use divine messengers to soften earlier, anthropomorphic depictions of the deity. Whether taken as interpolations or mediated communications, the deity is not less anthropomorphic in E than in J. Rather, God is less accessible, preferring to communicate from a distance or through a messenger or dream. Such phenomena may even reflect a more limiting understanding of the deity’s abilities than found in J. In J, Yhwh travels to meet with humans. In E, though, the deity is not capable of spanning long distances. 166 Likewise, dream visions do not limit the anthropomorphic nature of the deity. A dream of the deity does not make the deity less anthropomorphic than in a direct theophany; after all, a human may come to another through a dream or vision (as in Joseph’s dreams). 167 165.  Gesenius-Kautzsch suggest that ‫ האל בית אל‬represents an ellipsis (“the god, namely of Bethel”), which explains the syntactical difficulty of the use of definite article on a nomen regens. An ellipsis such as this is attested with other constructions in the genitive is a proper noun (GKC 127–28). LXX reads “the god who appeared to you in Bethel.” See also my discussion on p. 165 n. 25. 166.  Meier notes that the same is true of deities in most ancient Near Eastern texts, “The gods of the ancient Near East, like humans, communicated with each other over great distances by means of messengers. They were neither omniscient nor capable of immediately transporting themselves from one location to another” (Meier, “Angel I ‫מלאך‬,” DDD 46). 167.  Barr, “Theophany,” 33.

124

Chapter 3

Rather, dreams and messengers limit access to the deity. The E author quite clearly explains this system in its defense of Moses: Num 12:6–8: He said, “Hear my words, If there should be a prophet of yours, [who is] of Yhwh, 168 in a vision shall I make myself known to him, in a dream I shall speak with him [‫]במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר‬. Not so my servant Moses, in all my house he is trusted. Mouth to mouth I shall speak with him [‫ ]פה אל פה אדבר בו‬and vision and not in riddles [‫ומראה ולא‬ ‫ ]בחידת‬and he will regard the figure of Yhwh [‫]ותמנת יהוה יביט‬. So why have you not feared to speak against my servant Moses?”

Yhwh does not reveal his form to all to whom he appears but rather typically appears in some mediated form. Jacob, like Moses, is unique to have had a direct revelation of the divine form. Unlike Moses, though, Jacob sees the divine face only once, while all his other encounters with the deity are mediated through dreams or messengers. What does E have to say about the divine form then? Sommer argues that Gen 32:23–33 is an example of a small-scale manifestation in the form of a divine messenger. The “man” here should be considered a divine messenger, “It is perfectly normal to find a text referring to an angel as an ‫איש‬ [man] in the Hebrew Bible; see Gen 18:2, 19:1; Judg 13:16; Zech 1:8, 11; Dan 9:21.” 169 We may first note that none of his parallels come from elsewhere in E. In fact, E never refers to a divine messenger as a “man [‫]איש‬.” Second, while the passages mentioned by Sommer do refer to divine messengers as ‫ איש‬they all concurrently identify them as a divine messenger. That is, their true identity as a divine messenger is never left unstated. This is simply not the case in Gen 32:23–33, in which the word divine messenger is never used to describe Jacob’s encounter and instead, as noted above, Jacob states that he has seen God, and not a messenger, “face to face.” 170 It 168. See p. 84 n. 48. 169.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 41. Sommer also brings Hos 12:4–6 as evidence that the man in Gen 32:23–33 is indeed a divine messenger. The MT of Hosea asserts that Jacob wrestled a divine messenger that was Yhwh, but it may be that ‫ מלאך‬is a gloss. If so, then it is not Hosea but a later scribe who wishes to identify the man as a divine messenger. Even if Hosea both originally referred to a divine messenger and refers to Gen 32:23–33 (and not some similar tradition), this is his interpretation of the passage, which must be said to impose the presence of a divine messenger on to the story. If it is a scribal gloss, then this suggests that there was a tradition that Yhwh himself wrestled with Jacob, which some pious scribe sought to restate. For how these verses in Hosea are an example of inner-biblical exegesis (and thus not necessarily a reliable interpretation of Genesis) see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 376–79. He shows that Hos 12:4–6 transform the Jacob tradition by applying it to the entire nation versus as a narrative about an individual. They present Jacob’s encounter with God as a contention that forshadows the nation’s later transgressions, while the story in Gen 32:23–33 does not portray Jacob as sinful. See also L. Eslinger, “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 18 (1980) 91–99. 170.  Compare with Gideon’s proclamation in Judg 6:22 that he saw “a messenger of Yhwh face to face” and not Yhwh himself.

The Divine Body

125

is as both the narrator and Jacob say; the man is God. The E author does not seek to negate the anthropomorphic character of the deity by mediating theophanies. Instead, E explicitly describes the divine body as human in form. The P Source Because God remains removed from humanity for most of the ancestor period according to the P composition, there are not many examples of small-scale manifestations to analyze (and none in H). The appearances in Genesis 17 and 35 are treated in chapter 4, primarily in relation to location. Here I will analyze what is revealed about the divine body apart from the manifestation of the glory. R. Kawashima has argued that the glory (‫ )כבוד‬in P represents its solution to the conundrum of describing a wholly transcendent, nonmaterial deity inhabiting space on earth, namely, in the tabernacle: For a rigorous, formalist thinker such as P, divine transcendence is a problem to be overcome, divine presence a solution to be achieved. Specifically, God takes up residence on earth only within history, in a contingent encounter, an intrusion into time and space: the “glory” (kābôd). 171

Kawashima’s argument is flawed due to his initial presumption that P’s god is transcendent (by which he means nonmaterial), which means that God’s apparent presence in the Tent of Meeting must be explained through some other means than corporeal presence. Also, Kawashima presumes an Eliadian division between mythic-circular time and historical-linear time: because P is written as a linear narrative it is perforce history and ergo the opposite of myth and must then reflect a dualist (versus monistic) understanding of the cosmos. 172 Ultimately, Kawashima’s argument is undone by the text as it begs the question, If Yhwh, a nonmaterial being, can only enter the world through an “intrusion into time and space” in the form of the glory, then what are we to make of P’s description of theophanies without the glory? P reports that Yhwh appears to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Exod 6:2. We have P’s narratives of Yhwh’s appearance to Abraham and Jacob in Genesis 17 and 35, respectively. 173 Yhwh’s appearance in these cases is conspicuously mundane when compared with the description of the appearance of the glory at Sinai. In both Gen 17:1–22 and 35:9–13 P states only that Yhwh appeared, spoke and departed: Gen 17:1: Abram was 99 years old when Yhwh appeared to Abram [‫וירא‬ ‫ ]יהוה אל אברם‬and said to him, “I am El Shaddai, walk before me and be perfect.” 171.  Kawashima, “The Priestly Tent of Meeting,” 256. 172.  Ibid., 242–47. See also R. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) 23–46; J. Barr, “The Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the OT,” VT 9 (1959) 8. 173.  For a fuller discussion of P in Gen 35, see pp. 168–172.

126

Chapter 3

Gen 17:22: He finished speaking with him and God went up from Abraham [‫]ויעל אלהים מעל אברהם‬. Gen 35:9–10: God appeared to Jacob [‫( ]וירא אלהים אל יעקב‬again) 174 when he came from Padan Aram and blessed him. Gen 35:13: God went up from him [‫ ]ויעל מעליו אלהים‬in the place where he spoke with him.

Given the extent of preparation needed for Yhwh to travel with the people through the wilderness in his tabernacle and the systematic description of the cloud and glory, it is difficult to believe that similar phenomena accompanied Yhwh’s theophany to the patriarchs. Rather, Yhwh comes to the patriarchs in a small-scale manifestation; just as they are not privy to his true name, so too they are not shown his true glory. These examples of divine appearance on earth without the glory undermine the interpretation that Yhwh is transcendent (that is, nonmaterial) in P. Are there also descriptions of the divine body that support the interpretation that Yhwh has human-like form? Gen 1:26–27 suggests the shared form of humans and the deity. Lambert states “The Hebrew writer of Genesis 1 declared that ‘God made man in his image’, but the Sumerians and Babylonians as we understand them made their gods in their image.” 175 While it is of course true that Gen 1:26–27 presents what has been called a theomorphic conception of the human form, this should not be considered antithetical to an anthropomorphic conception of the divine form. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin, for if the human body resembles the divine body then the divine body must resemble the human body. P stresses the parental implications of resemblance (children look like their parents) whereas many Mesopotamian texts feature anthropomorphism that emphasizes hierarchy and service (deities deserve service). 176 In either case, it is the case that divinity is conceived of in human terms, though the P author may choose to express this resemblance theocentrically. We may go a step further and argue that the Mesopotamian theology is similarly presented as “theomorphic.” In the Mesopotamian myths that describe the creation of humanity (Atraḫasīs, Enki and Ninmah, Enūma eliš), human beings are created to feed the gods, removing this burden from the lesser deities. Humans are then made in the image of the gods in Mesopotamia as they are the replacement for the lesser deities. 177 174.  This phrase is an addition by R meant to harmonize P’s account with the J and E accounts of Gen 28:10–22 (Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 241–42). 175.  Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink,” 201. 176. T. Abusch explains the differences between the Israelite cult and that in Mesopotamia as developing out of the different foci of kin-based versus temple-based society (“Sacrifice in Mesopotamia,” 39–48). 177.  We may also suggest that, as the building of the tabernacle and Yhwh’s subsequent indwelling is the climax of the P composition, Yhwh’s original intention in the

The Divine Body

127

At the same time, the P composition shows other indications of the presumption that the divine form is an anthropomorphic form. P describes divine actions in reference to body parts. So, Yhwh’s covenant with the ancestors is confirmed by “lifting my hand” (Exod 6:8) and the Egyptian plagues are caused by Yhwh stretching “my hand over Egypt” (Exod 7:5) and are “the finger of God” (Exod 8:15). These phrases may be considered idiomatic (nonintentional) in that they do not report the historical movement of Yhwh’s hand and finger. At the same time, they reflect the presumption that divine action is understandable on analogy to human action. In particular, P analogizes Moses’ actions and Yhwh’s actions in Egypt; Yhwh stretching his hand over Egypt is manifested by Moses and Aaron stretching out their staffs to enact wonders. 178 In addition to the above references to the divine body, Yhwh in P is often the subject of verbs that imply a body, in particular: speaking, seeing, and hearing. As noted above, Yhwh appears directly to the patriarchs before speaking with them. It is then reasonable to presume that this interaction bears some resemblance to proximate conversation. See, for example, Abraham’s interaction with the Hittites in Genesis 23: Gen 23:7–8: Abraham arose and prostrated to the people of the land [‫]וישתחו לעם הארץ‬, the Hittites, and he spoke with them [‫]וידבר אתם‬, “If you are willing to remove my dead for burial, hear me and intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar.” Gen 17:17–18: Abraham fell on his face [‫ ]ויפל אברהם על פניו‬and laughed. He said to himself, “Shall a 100 year old beget a child, and will Sarah, a 90 year old, bear a child?” Abraham said to God [‫]ויאמר אברהם אל האלהים‬, “Would that Ishmael might live in your presence!”

The similarity of Abraham’s behavior in each case suggests that he was in Yhwh’s presence in Genesis 17, speaking with him in much the same way as he speaks with the Hittites in Genesis 23. The communication with the ancestors may be considered a small-scale version of Moses’ communication with Yhwh in the Tent of Meeting; the presence of Yhwh and his communication with the ancestors presumes bodily form. Before the construction of the tabernacle, Yhwh speaks with Noah and Moses. 179 In these cases, Yhwh is not described as appearing (or departing) but simply speaks. It is difficult to determine how the P author imagined the means of this communication: does Yhwh appear to Noah and Moses? Is he speaking through some visionary means? One indication in P’s flood creation of humanity may very well have been to enable his ultimate habitation on earth, which is sustained through the sacrificial cult. If so, then Yhwh has created humans, in effect, to feed him (or at least serve him). 178.  P describes Moses as a “god” to Aaron and Aaron as his “prophet” as analogous to Yhwh and Moses’ relationship (Exod 7:1). 179.  See Gen 6:13 and Exod 6:2, respectively.

128

Chapter 3

story that Yhwh may indeed be physically present when speaking with Noah comes in Gen 9:1 and 8 when he addresses Noah and his sons: Gen 9:1: God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them [‫]ויאמר להם‬, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Gen 9:8: God said to Noah and to his sons with him [‫ויאמר אלהים אל נח ואל‬ ‫]בניו אתו‬

There is nothing explicit in this passage that suggests that Yhwh is communicating with Noah and his sons noncorporeally, such as through simultaneous visions. 180 If the subject were human, we would assume he or she to be physically present to utter a blessing on Noah and his sons. Also suggestive is Yhwh’s statement in 9:13 that he has hung up his bow in the sky, “I have placed my bow in the cloud [‫ ]את קשתי נתתי בענן‬and it will be the sign of my covenant between me and the earth.” This act, if not taken as figurative, depicts Yhwh interacting with his creation during the flood, which implies he does not remain within heaven during the flood. Yhwh’s communication with Moses while still in Egypt is similarly without context. The single exception comes in Exod 6:12/30, 181 which states that after Moses first spoke with the people he “speaks before Yhwh [‫לפני‬ ‫]יהוה‬.” Elsewhere in P, this phrase always refers to the presence of Yhwh in the tabernacle. 182 It is therefore surprising to find it used here long before the tabernacle has been constructed or without even a description of a theophany. We are left with the interpretation that here it refers to the preglory manifestation of Yhwh and that, though a theophany has not been reported, Moses has access to the divine presence while in Egypt. As such, we must consider at least his initial communications with Yhwh as analogous to those of the patriarchs. 183 Yhwh on occasion “sees” according to P. As with speaking, descriptions of Yhwh seeing are ambiguous regarding the reality of the description. So, in Gen 6:12, Yhwh sees that the earth is spoiled. Are we to understand ‫ראה‬ 180. It is difficult to imagine what form such a noncorporeal interaction simultaneously occurring for multiple humans with the deity would take. Taking into account Yhwh’s incremental interaction with humanity in P it is tempting to say that Yhwh does not appear on earth to Noah but first chooses to communicate through some other means and then takes the next step to appear on earth for the patriarchs. 181. Exod 6:30 is a resumption, marking the insertion of the genealogy in 6:13–27 (Propp, Exodus 1–18, 266–67). 182.  Houtman identifies this use of “before Yhwh” as identifying “an act as holy” (Houtman, Exodus, 1:50). See my discussion on pp. 180–183 regarding how the use of this phrase in Exodus 16 does not constitute an exception to this rule. 183. 6:12/30 appears before Moses goes to Pharaoh, so his access to Yhwh may be in effect only up to that point. In P, the wonders all seem to occur on the same day. If so, then Yhwh is communicating with Moses while Moses is in the presence of Pharaoh. How then is Yhwh communicating? If Moses is “before Yhwh” while speaking with Pharaoh, which seems unlikely, then we must concede that Yhwh is visible only to Moses. It is more likely that, once Moses engages Pharaoh, Yhwh communicates with him through some other means. (Thanks to Jeffrey Stackert for bringing this aspect of P’s narrative to my attention.)

The Divine Body

129

here as “come to understand” or is it better interpreted as realization that comes through eyewitness? Gen 6:11 states that the earth is “before God [‫ ”]לפני האלהים‬strengthening the latter interpretation that Yhwh looked at the earth and saw that it was ruined. 184 Physical, versus abstract, perception is described in the description of the night of Passover in Exod 12:12–13: I will pass through the land of Egypt this night [‫]ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה‬ and strike every first born in the land of Egypt—from human to animal— and I will enact judgments against all the gods of Egypt, I am Yhwh. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses wherein you are and I will see the blood and protect you [‫ ]ראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עלכם‬and there will be no plague that destroys among you when I strike the land of Egypt. 185

Yhwh is described as physically moving through Egypt to kill the first born, thus the necessity of the blood on the doors. Seeing the blood directs Yhwh away from the Israelite houses. The implication is Yhwh’s presence in Egypt in some approximate corporeal form. In P’s version of the Exodus, Yhwh is set into motion once he hears the cry of the Israelites in Egypt: Exod 2:23aβ–25: The Israelites groaned from their work and they cried out. Their cry from their work went up to God [‫ותעל שועתם אל האלהים מן‬ ‫]העבדה‬. God heard [‫ ]וישמע אלהים‬their wailing and God remembered [‫ויזכר‬ ‫ ]אלהים‬his promise-covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God saw the Israelites [‫ ]וירא אלהים את בני ישראל‬and God knew.

The description is particularly evocative as the cry is said to travel up to God (presumably in heaven). Hearing their cry is what triggers Yhwh’s memory of his promise to the patriarchs and sets the exodus into action. P  also describes Yhwh responding to the outbursts of the Israelites once in the tabernacle. So, in Num 14:27–28 Yhwh states that he has heard the people’s complaints: 186 How long have I listened [‫ ]שמעתי‬to this bad report of those who grumble against me, the grumblings of the Israelites which they make against me? Say to them, “As I live, an utterance of Yhwh, If I do not do to you thus as you have spoke in my hearing [‫ ]כאשר דברתם באזני‬. . .”

The self-reference to Yhwh’s ears (v. 28) reflects the presumption of Yhwh’s bodily presence in the tabernacle. Because of his proximate, corporeal presence, Yhwh is capable of hearing and responding to the Israelites. The 184. A similar issue exists in Exod 2:24. Does Yhwh look at the Israelites and then understand what needs to be done, or does ‫ ראה‬refer to a more abstract perception of the situation? “They are ready for the liberation. . . . The turning point seems to have arrived” (Houtman, Exodus, 1:322–23). Speiser “in the view of. . . . What is involved in such instances is the attitude of the party concerned, in terms of judgment, will, approval, and the like . . . cf. the Akk. idiom pānušūma ‘if he chooses’” (Genesis, 51). 185.  The translation ‘protect’ instead of the traditional ‘pass over’ is more appropriate, especially given its use in Isa 31:5 (Propp, Exodus 1–18, 401–2). 186.  This follows Num 14:2–10 (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 116–30).

130

Chapter 3

situation­is similar in Exod 2:24, except that the cry must travel up to Yhwh, who is not yet located in the midst of the people. Taken all together, P’s references to the deity’s body apart from the tabernacle, though relatively scarce, present a picture of a human-like form. The D Source Apart from the Horeb event, which I discuss above, D does not explicitly describe any theophanies of Yhwh. The reason for this is likely a result of the setting and style of D’s composition. The references to Yhwh’s appearance in D center on the Horeb event and his presence with the people during the wilderness journey. As I discuss above, these descriptions include the bodily presence of the deity first on Horeb and then leading the people in cloud and fire. The full-scale manifestation of Yhwh on Horeb then appears to be presumed by D through the rest of the wilderness journey. There are two exceptions to this predominant description of Yhwh: (a) Yhwh’s presence vis-à-vis the cult and (b) Yhwh’s presence in battle. I will treat the issue of cultic presence in D at length in the following chapter. Here, I will discuss how Yhwh’s presence is described with regard to battle. As with the Horeb event, the reality of Yhwh’s presence with the camp supports the interpretation that the human traits attributed to him are meant realistically. When we speak of Yhwh’s presence in battle we must distinguish between the initial conquest of the land and all subsequent campaigns undertaken by the Israelites. According to Deut 1:32–33, Yhwh leads the people through the wilderness in cloud and fire: But in this matter you have not trusted in Yhwh your god, who goes before you on the path [‫ ]ההלך לפניכם בדרך‬to spy out a place for your encampments with fire by night [‫ ]באש לילה‬for you to see on the path on which you go and in the cloud by day [‫]ובענן יומם‬.

Yhwh is likewise said to “lead” (Hiphil ‫ )הלך‬the people the entire dur­ation of the wilderness journey in 8:2 and 15. Deut 9:3, refers to Yhwh passing before the people as “a consuming fire” (‫ )אש אכלה‬to help them destroy the Canaanites. 187 The fire imagery suggests that the D author has in mind here the cloud and fire said to lead the people in 1:33. D’s language situates Yhwh at the head of the camp during the wilderness. Deut 1:33 des­cribes Yhwh as present in the cloud and fire as he leads the people­. The reality of the deity’s ongoing presence with the camp in the wilderness is further supported by D’s description of the people’s reaction to their defeat in Deut 1:45, “You returned and wept before Yhwh [‫ ]לפני יהוה‬but Yhwh did not he­ar your voice [‫ ]ולא שמע יהוה בקלכם‬and did not give ear to you [‫]ולא האזין אליכם‬.” The Israelites are defeated by the Amorites (1:44) because they have rebelled against Yhwh and have gone out to fight though 187.  See also 1:30; 31:3, 6, 8 for Yhwh going into battle against Canaan.

The Divine Body

131

Yhwh is not in th­eir “midst” (1:42). When they return, they lament “before Yhwh.” The implication is that Yhwh has remained in the cloud and fire, at the campsite, while the people have gone up the mountain. When they return to the campsite, they reenter Yhwh’s presence. This passage in D parallels J’s narrative in Num 14:40–45. Here, though, it is made explicit that it is by the ark that Yhwh travels into battle with the Israelites (compare to 14:42 and 44). As we have long recognized, D’s references to the ark specify its function as a container for the tablets and book of Moses. 188 The absence of the ark in this passage should not obscure the fact that Yhwh is quite explicitly located in the camp, and his presence in battle is considered to bring success. Scholars likely go too far when they argue that the express purpose of the ark in D is meant to undermine its association with the divine throne found in E and P. First, D is not particularly interested in the ark, mentioning it only eight times and, more importantly, in only three settings: (1) its construction and deposit of the tablets in it (Deut 10:1, 2, 3, 5), (2) the deposit of the torah into it (Deut 31:9, 25–26), and (3) the institution of its caretaking by the Levites (Deut 10:8, see also 31:8). This last instance is quite suggestive, “At that time, Yhwh separated the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of Yhwh, to stand before Yhwh to serve him and to bless by his name [‫ ]לעמד לפני יהוה לשרתו ולברך בשמו‬until this day.” The Levites are appointed to: carry the ark, stand before Yhwh, minister to him and bless in his name. 189 The exclusive responsibility of the Levites for the ark, coupled with their appointment to stand in proximity to Yhwh implies that D does in fact associate the presence of Yhwh with the ark. By carrying the ark, the Levites stand before Yhwh and there minister to him. 190 188.  G. von Rad, “The Tent and the Ark,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1931; repr., 1966) 103–24; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 208–9. For a contra argument, see Fretheim, “Ark in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 30 (1968) 1–14. 189.  It is possible to interpret only three responsibilities and translate “to stand before Yhwh in order to minister to him” (S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895] 122). He also notes where “stand before” is used to describe service to a human, “To stand before is a Heb. idiom meaning to wait upon, to serve (1 Kgs 10:3 of Solomon’s courtiers, 12:8, Jer 52:12; 1 Kgs 17:1, 18:5, 2 Kgs 3:14, 5:16 of Elijah and Elisha, as the servants of God), and is used distinctively of the priest, as God’s minister, Deut 17:12; 18:7” (ibid., 123). Thus, along with the strong locative force of the idiom, which suggests the presence of the deity “before” the priests, the idiom itself is used to describe service both to the deity and to a human monarch. 190.  For an argument that this verse proves the ark was also the site of the presence of Yhwh, see I. Wilson, “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” in Temples and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2005) 212–49. This verse could instead refer to the divine presence at the chosen site, at which the ark is also housed. If so, then Yhwh’s presence is not tied to the ark but rather the ark is placed in Yhwh’s presence. The problem for D then is not that the ark represents the divine presence on earth but that it represents a mobile divine presence, unbounded to the mandated cult site.

132

Chapter 3

What happens once the conquest is complete? On two occasions (Deut 20:4 and 23:15) D refers to the divine presence on military campaigns: Deut 20:4: For Yhwh, your god, is the one who goes with you to fight [‫ ]ההלך עמכם להלחם‬for you with your enemies to deliver you. Deut 23:15: For Yhwh, your god, walks around in the midst of your camp [‫ ]מתהלך בקרב מחנך‬to deliver you and to put your enemy before you, so your encampments shall be holy that he not see [‫ ]ולא יראה‬among you an exposed thing and turn from you. 191

Deut 20:4 uses the same language as 1:33 to describe Yhwh’s movements, but without explanation of the means. Deut 23:15 is anomalous within D in its use of the Hithpael of ‫  הלך‬192 but shares in the idea of the presence of Yhwh with a military campaign. 193 In these cases, we cannot presume the divine presence in the cloud and fire as with the wilderness camp as D provides no indication that this visible presence remains in the land after its conquest. We may only say that, however D imagined the form of the divine presence in future battles, the language used evokes the tangible presence experienced during the wilderness journey. As with divine location at Horeb, the reality of D’s description of Yhwh’s presence elsewhere supports a realistically anthropomorphic interpretation of its references to the divine body away from Horeb. The D source contains far fewer references to the divine body. This is more likely to be a result of the nature of the composition and not a polemic against Yhwh’s anthropomorphic nature or presence on earth. Thus, what is significant is that D would have any realistic reference to the divine body and not the number of references. According to Deut 1:34, “Yhwh heard the sound of your words and became angry and swore.” The words refer to the people’s lament that they will be unable to conquer Canaan and their fear that Yhwh wishes to use the Amorites to s­laughter them (Deut 1:27–28). As noted above, D describes Yhwh’s presence with the camp in 1:45, at the close of this account. Yhwh’s presence with the camp suggests Deut 1:34 is a realistic depiction of Yhwh hearing the people, to whom he is proximate. The words of the people are precisely what evoke a reaction from Yhwh. 191.  “Exposed thing [‫]ערות דבר‬.” The use of this phrase in Deut 24:1 suggests the meaning “indecent thing” versus actual nudity (see Driver, Deuteronomy, 264; HALOT 882). As such, it likely refers to uncovered excrement versus the exposure of genetalia while defecating. “That he may see in thee no nakedness of a thing . . . i.e. no indecency. The expression is peculiar, but recurs in 24:1: ‘nakedness’ is the word commonly used to denote pudenda (Gen 9:22 and often), also used fig. of the nakedness of a land (Gen 42:9, 12)” (Driver, Deuteronomy, 264). “Anything unseemly This idiom (ʿervat davar) is as broad as ‘anything untoward’ in verse 10” (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 214). 192.  The same verbal form is used in Gen 3:8, which undermines the argument that J’s deity is more anthropomorphic than depicted in the other sources. 193.  See pp. 184–187 for my full discussion of this verse. See also Deut 28:36 for use of ‫ הלך‬to describe Yhwh bringing the people into exile.

The Divine Body

133

That is, ‫ לשמוע‬is not meant figuratively as ‘to understand’ or ‘to heed’. The latter is used of Yhwh to describe his response to the people in 1:45, “You returned and wept before Yhwh, but he did not listen to your voice and he did not heed you.” 194 There are other references to Yhwh’s body in D that suggest the author presumed Yhwh’s body was anthropomorphic. Deut 8:3 states: He afflicted you and starved you and fed you manna, which you had not known about, nor had your ancestors known about, in order that you might come to know that not by bread alone shall a human live but by all that comes out of the mouth of Yhwh [‫ ]על כל מוצא פי יהוה‬does a human live.

I will discuss the idiom ‫ פי יהוה‬in the following section. I note this example here because of its evocative description of divine commands as “all that comes out of the mouth of Yhwh.” Such a description, while not primarily focused on the divine body, reflects a presumption of an anthropomorphic body. At the same time, D lacks any discomfort with the anthropomorphic implications of describing divine commands as real, verbal pronouncements. Finally, this imagery is paralleled by D’s description of human speech, as in Deut 23:24, “Whatever comes out from your lips (‫)מוצא שפתיך‬ you shall observe and you shall do as you have sworn to Yhwh your god, any obligation that you have uttered (‫)דברת בפיך‬.” The divine body is also implied by comparison to other deities in Deut 4:28, “There you shall serve gods that are the work of human hands; wood and stone that do not see, hear, eat, or smell.” These other gods, which do have material representations, are paradoxically unable to use their bodies; Yahweh, by implication of the contrast, is a deity that can see, hear, eat, and smell. 195 There is polemic here, but not polemic against the existence of Yahweh’s body. Instead, it is polemic against the assertion that a deity’s power is in any way related to his or her statue. Yahweh may not have a statued body, as the Assyrian deities often did, but this does not mean that he is less powerful. Rather, he is more powerful than statued deities. Finally, we may note that the D author makes frequent reference to Yhwh’s promise of the land to the ancestors. 196 In the other pentateuchal sources, some form of small-scale manifestation accompanied this promise. It is tempting to assume the same for D, but the author provides us with no description of when or under what circumstances Yhwh made this promise to the ancestors, and thus we cannot presume it involved a manifestation. The D author does consider both the promise to the ancestors and the laws 194.  See also Deut 3:26, 5:28, 23:6. 195.  P. A. H. de Boer, “An Aspect of Sacrifice,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTsup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 37. 196.  See, for example, 1:8, 35; 4:31; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:8, 12, 13; 8:1, 18; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 31:20 (not exhaustive after 11:21).

134

Chapter 3

given at Horeb to constitute a covenant (for example, 7:12). That Yhwh is present to establish the covenant with the Israelites at Horeb suggests that he was present when he initially made his promise to the ancestors to do the same.

Mental Activity: Bodily Idiom and the Inner Life of the Deity In this section, I will discuss the description of divine thought and emotion in the sources. Emotion and thought can be distinguished from descriptions of physicality or activity by their internal nature; they are primarily experienced by the agent. That said, emotions and thought are linked to both physicality and action in that they require a body, in particular, a mind. Emotions and thoughts are especially similar to the physical senses. So, for instance, one person’s anger may be expressed in such a way that another person can be said to experience it (for example, physical violence), but the feelings of anger are experienced by the agent alone. If I touch a hot plate, you cannot experience that sensation of burning, but you would register that I was burned by my reaction. Similarly, if I am angry, you have only my external appearance and behavior with which to surmise what I am experiencing. This is different from walking. You may not be able to know what it feels like for me to walk, but my act of walking is evidenced by the same criteria whether from within or without (movement through space by propulsion of legs). Unlike anger, which the viewer may misperceive, that I walked or not is incontrovertible to any witness. I will begin with an analysis of the use of common idioms of mental activity shared by each source. Second, I will discuss the nonidiomatic descriptions of divine emotion and thought in each source. Bodily Idiom Many Hebrew idioms for emotion are expressed with reference to body parts. So, for instance, the phrase ‫בעיני‬, which means “in the eyes of” but is used figuratively to refer to the disposition of the referent to something or someone. 197 Thus, the common refrain that x found favor “in the eyes of” y, meaning that y approves of x. The author who employs such a phrase is not making a statement about the eyes of y but rather that the act of acceptance is equivalent to observing and approving. For example, in the description of Eve approving of the tree of knowledge, “The woman saw that the tree was good for food” could be restated, synonymously, “The tree found favor in the eyes of the woman” or, “The tree was good in the opinion of the woman.” The four pentateuchal sources all employ such bodily idioms to describe the deity. In particular, they share in common the three following idioms: 197.  By “figurative” I mean language that the author meant nonrealistically (Aaron, Divine Ambiguities, 1).

The Divine Body

135 ‫בעיני יהוה‬ ‫ויחר אף יהוה‬ ‫פי יהוה‬

The third idiom, ‫‘ פי יהוה‬the command of Yhwh’, is less directly related to divine emotion or thought than the first two. It is possible to say that commands relate to desire and may be considered part of the gambit of emotion, but their relation to human speech and communication figures more prominently. I will consider this idiom here as it is a common idiom that employs bodily imagery. In the following, I will note the use of each phrase in the pentateuchal sources. “In the Opinion of” )‫(בעיני‬ The J source uses the idiom ‫ בעיני יהוה‬eight times as in Gen 6:8, “But Noah was favorable in the opinion of Yhwh [‫]בעיני יהוה‬.” 198 This same idiom is used to express human favor or disfavor. For example, in Gen 30:27 Laban says to Jacob, “If I have found favor in your eyes [‫]מצאתי חן בעיניך‬, I have divined that Yhwh has blessed me on your account.” So too, Moses views divine anger with disapproval in Num 11:10, “Moses heard the people crying within each man’s family by the entrance of his tent and Yhwh became very angry [‫ ]ויחר אף יהוה מאד‬and it was wicked in Moses’ opinion [‫ובעיני משה‬ ‫]רע‬.” Here, two bodily idioms are juxtaposed, the first with God as the subject and the second with Moses as the subject. While the idioms themselves differ, the author created an analogy between the emotional response of Yhwh and that of Moses and expresses both with body idioms­. 199 The E author likewise uses this idiom to refer to divine and human thought in Num 11:11, “Moses said to Yhwh, ‘Why do you do evil to your servant and why have I not found favor in your opinion [‫ולמה לא מצתי חן‬ ‫ ]בעיניך‬that you put the burden of all this people on me?’” and also with a human subject in Gen 21:11, “The matter was very bad in Abraham’s opinion [‫]וירע הדבר מאד בעיני אברהם‬, because of his son.” 200 This idiom does not appear in H, but P says of Yhwh, “Yhwh became angry with Israel and made them tremble in the wilderness for 40 years until the entire generation who did evil in the opinion of Yhwh [‫ ]העשה הרע בעיני יהוה‬was finished” (Num 32:13). 201 It is used of Isaac in P’s story of Esau’s wives in Gen 28:8, “Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan were bad in Isaac, his father’s, opinion [‫]בעיני יצחק אביו‬.” The idiom is most common in the D source, in which a direct contrast is made in Deuteronomy 12 between cult 198.  See also, Gen 38:10; Exod 33:9, 12, 13, 17, 34:9. In Gen 18:3, Abraham uses this idiom while speaking directly to God. At this point in the story, Abraham would seem to be aware that his guest is divine. 199. For other examples of the use of these idioms with human subjects, see Gen 19:14, 19; 32:6; 39:4, 21; 47:29, 50:4; Exod 5:21. 200.  See also Gen 33:8; 41:37; Num 32:5. 201.  For division of Numbers 32, see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141–53.

136

Chapter 3

sites chosen­by humans versus by Yhwh. 202 In Deut 12:8, the Israelites are enjoined to not continue doing as they see fit: “You shall not do according to what we do here today, each man [doing] all that is right in his own opinion [‫]כל הישר בעיניו‬.” Human choice is directly contrasted with divine choice in this chapter, for instead the Israelites are to sacrifice at the place that Yhwh chooses (Deut 12:11). In v. 25, this new centralized worship is described as doing as Yhwh sees fit, “You shall not eat it in order that it go well for you and your children after you for you shall do what is right in the opinion of Yhwh [‫]הישר בעיני יהוה‬.” “Burning Anger” )‫(חרף אף‬ The common idiom for anger that describes the subject’s nose burning is found in each source (but not H) used of both God and humans. 203 In the J source, this idiom is used of the deity six times and with a human agent five times. 204 A parallel setting of supplication to a human versus to the deity appears in the J source. So, in Gen 44:18, Judah entreats Joseph not to become angry, “Judah approached him and said, ‘On me, my lord! May your servant speak a word in the ears of my lord? Let not your anger burn against your servant [‫ ]ואל יחר אפך בעבדך‬for you are like Pharaoh.’” A similar situation takes place in Gen 18:30a (and is repeated verbatim in v. 32) between Abraham and Yhwh: “He said, ‘Let not my Lord be angry [‫אל נא‬ ‫ ]יחר לאדני‬that I may speak, perhaps thirty will be found there.’” While the phrasing of the idiom is not completely parallel, as Gen 18:30 and 18:32 formulate without a form of ‫אף‬, they share in common the treatment of a superior. Just as Judah uses flattery and entreaty to appeal to Joseph, so too Abraham flatters and entreats Yhwh, both with the intended goal of avoiding the wrath that is the prerogative of the one with power. 205 The same use of the idiom for anger is used in the E source to assuage the anger of a superior in the golden calf incident. 206 In Exod 32:10, Yhwh 202.  For other uses with God as the subject, see Deut 4:25, 6:18, 9:18, 12:28, 13:19, 17:2, 21:9, 31:29. With a human as the subject, see Deut 1:23; 15:9, 18; 24:1. 203. For an opposing argument, see D. Grant, “A Brief Discussion of the Difference between Divine and Human hmh,” Biblica 91 (2010) 418–24. Her argument is undermined by her presumption of a difference between human and divine anger and a presumption of a polemic against divine anthropomorphism within biblical texts. 204.  With the deity as the agent, see Exod 4:14, 22:23, 32:12; Num 11:1, 10, 33. For a human agent, see Gen 27:45, 30:2, 39:19, 44:18; Exod 11:8. In addition, Gen 45:5a states “Now, do not be grieved and let it not anger you [‫ ]ואל יחר בעיניכם‬that you sold me here.” 205.  Both use ‫ אדני‬and ‫( נגש‬Gen 18:23); Abraham flatters the deity by referring to him as ‫ השפט כל הארץ‬in 18:25 and his excessive use of ‫אדני‬. 206.  For examples of use of this idiom with a human agent, see Exod 32:19, 22; Num 22:27; 24:10. For examples with the deity as the agent, see Exod 32:10, 11; Num 12:9; 22:22. In Numbers 22, there is a parallel made between the anger of Yhwh and of Balaam. In both cases, the agent is angry because of the movement of a subordinate: Num 22:22 ‫יחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא‬ Num 22:27 ‫ותרא האתון את מלאך יהוה ותרבץ תחת בלעם ויחר אף בלעם‬ See p. 121 n. 158 for a discussion of the source ascription of Numbers 22–24.

The Divine Body

137

announces to Moses his angry response to the iconography of the Israelites­: “So, leave that my anger may burn against them [‫ ]ויחר אפי בהם‬and consume them and I may make you into a large nation.” Moses responds to this outburst in v. 11 with a successful entreaty to assuage the divine wrath, “Moses entreated Yhwh, his god, 207 and said, ‘Why, lord, does your anger burn against your people [‫ ]למה יהוה יחרה אפך בעמך‬whom you brought out from the land of Egypt with great strength and a strong hand?’” In a parallel­scene, once Moses descends from the mountain in v. 19 and sees the calf, he reacts with anger, “When he drew near the camp he saw the calf and dancing and Moses’ anger burned [‫]ויחר אף משה‬. He threw the tablets from his hands and shattered them under the mountain.” 208 Unlike Yhwh, Moses does not give any warning of his initial reaction (or opportunity to be deterred from it), but Aaron, in v. 22, is able to stop any further destruction through his entreaty to Moses, “Aaron said, ‘Do not be angry, my lord, [‫ ]אל יחר אף אדני‬you know that the people are evil.’” As with Moses’ entreaty to Yhwh, Aaron is successful as Moses recognizes that the­people were out of control (32:25), and he returns to Horeb to receive replacement tablets from Yhwh (32:30–31). Divine anger is relatively rare in P, but it is reported using our idiom. For instance, in Num 32:10a (and v. 13) it is used to describe Yhwh’s reaction to the refusal of the ­people to invade Canaan: “Yhwh’s anger burned [‫ויחר‬ ‫ ]אף יהוה‬on that day.” Yhwh’s emotional reaction is absent from P’s original account in Numbers 13–14. 209 Instead, the glory appears in response to the rebellion of the Israelites in Num 14:10. As I will discuss in the following chapter, the glory in P appears six times during the wilderness trek, usually in response to Israelite rebellion. 210 Divine anger is referenced directly in Num 16:22 and 17:11. Moses and Aaron are denied entrance into Canaan in Num 20:12 for an apparent disloyalty, just as the rebellious wilderness generation is punished with death in the wilderness for their rebellion. 211 We may surmise then that the appearance of the glory in P can signal divine 207.  ‫ויחל משה את פני יהוה אלהיו‬. “Just as the word for ‘nose’, ʾap, also connotes ‘anger’, appeasement is indicated by an unruffled brow, nonflaring nostrils and the face’s return to its proper hue” (Propp, Exodus 19–40, 555). 208.  Reading with the Qere, ‫מידיו‬. The consonantal text has the singular ‘his hand’, ‫מידו‬. 209.  Because Numbers 13–14 are a composite of J and P (see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 116–30), it is possible R removed this information, but this seems unlikely given that there is little motivation to do so. Knohl attributes the Priestly portions of Numbers 13–14 to H and thus those of Numbers 32 also to H because Numbers 32 is clearly familiar with the former (Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 90–92, 98). But, Knohl’s reasons for attributing Numbers 13–14 to H versus to P are circumstantial. His criteria for distinguishing between H and P are primarily linguistic, which is highly problematic given that P and H share a common heritage. 210.  Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10; 16:19, 35; 17:7; 20:6. 211.  The reason that Aaron and Moses are denied entrance is not explicit, and interpreters can only speculate as to why (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 490).

138

Chapter 3

anger, expressed or not. 212 In P, the imagery of burning, without reference to the nose, is used to describe human anger, though only once: Num 16:15, “Moses became very angry [‫ ]ויחר למשה מאד‬and he said to Yhwh, ‘Do not turn to their offering. Not one donkey have I taken from them and I have not wronged one of them.’” Though the terminology to describe their anger differs, Moses and Yhwh share in their response of anger to the situation, “They fell on their faces and said, ‘God, god of the winds of all flesh, one man sins and you would be infuriated [‫ ]תקצף‬at the entire congregation?’” 213 The D source uses the same bodily imagery to describe divine anger. In particular, divine anger is a primary motivation for loyalty to the covenant: Deut 6:14–15: You shall not go after other gods from the gods of the peoples who surround you, for Yhwh, your god, is a jealous god in your midst. Lest Yhwh, your god, burn with anger against you [‫פן יחרה אף יהוה‬ ‫ ]אלהיך בך‬and destroy you from off the face of the earth.

This idiom is used five other times in D to describe the divine wrath that will come in response to Israelite disloyalty. 214 The D source also employs the verbal form of ‫ אנף‬to describe past instances of divine anger (Deut 1:37; 4:21; 9:8, 20). In contrast to the other sources, in D there are no examples of the idiom with a human agent. In fact, there is a conspicuous lack of references to human anger in the D composition. The one exception is the description of the blood avenger in Deut 19:6aα, “Lest the blood redeemer pursue after the murderer for his heart is inflamed [‫ ”]כי יחם לבבו‬Though the idiom is different (“heated heart” vs. “burning anger”), there is a similarity in the association of heat with anger in both idioms, and both associate that heat with a body part. It is also the case that the D source in no way avoids using bodily imagery to describe divine emotion, in this case, divine anger. “The Command of Yhwh” )‫(פי יהוה‬ The idiom ‫פי יהוה‬, more than the above idioms, approximates an intentional reference to the divine body. That is, its imagery is the closest of the three idioms considered to the actual action it seeks to describe figuratively. Whereas anger may be described without reference to the nose or heat and favor without reference to the eyes, divine commands in all the sources are primarily introduced with verbs of speech (‫אמר‬, ‫)דבר‬, which imply a mouth with which to speak. 215 We may productively consider this idiom shorthand for “what comes from the mouth of Yhwh.” 216 212.  See p. 120 n. 157 for a detailed discussion of the connection between divine anger and the appearance of the divine glory in the wilderness in P. 213.  Num 16:22. Other instances of divine anger that do not use this idiom include Num 16:22, 17:11, 31:14. 214.  Deut 7:4; 11:17; 29:23, 26; 31:17. See also Deut 9:19; 29:19, 22; 32:22 for descriptions of divine anger not using this idiom. 215.  For instance, anger is described with verbs using the roots  ‫ קצף‬and ‫חפץ‬, respectively. 216.  That said, this is still an idiom that relies on metaphor. As such, the construction ʾal pi-x can be used of inanimate objects, such as the Urim in Num 27:21. As elsewhere, the significance lies in the fact that the same author will use the idiom with either the

The Divine Body

139

This idiom is used by each of the sources and H, but it is most common in P and D. The J author uses this idiom only twice: once in reference to Yhwh and once to Pharaoh: Gen 45:21: The sons of Israel did thus and Joseph gave them carts by the command of Pharaoh [‫]על פי פרעה‬, and he gave them provisions for the road. Num 14:41: Moses said, “Why do you transgress the command of Yhwh [‫ ?]את פי יהוה‬It shall not be successful.

In both cases, the idiom describes the command of a leader. The idiom is used four times by E; once of a human and three times of the deity: Gen 41:40: You shall be over my house and all the people shall submit to you [‫ ;]ועל פיך ישק‬only with regard to the throne will I be greater than you. 217 Deut 34:5 218: Moses died there, the servant of Yhwh in the land of Moab, by the command of Yhwh [‫]על פי יהוה‬.

Again, as in the J source, the idiom refers to the command of a leader. Also, while Joseph is the agent in Gen 41:40 the author draws a clear analogy between Joseph and Pharaoh, suggesting the use of this phrase was particularly apt for absolute sovereigns. In the P source, ‫ פי יהוה‬describes divine commands given to Moses as in Num 3:51: “Moses gave the redemption money to Aaron and his son according to the command of Yhwh [‫]על פי יהוה‬, as Yhwh had commanded Moses.” 219 In the P source, once the tabernacle has been built it is the primary site of communication between Moses and Yhwh. Thus, when Num 1:1a states, “Yhwh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the Tent of Meeting,” this situation can be assumed for the subsequent communications between Moses and Yhwh in the wilderness. As in J and E, this particular use of ‫ פי יהוה‬in P suggests the broader context of Yhwh speaking directly to Moses, which is how their communication is described in Num 7:89: When Moses entered the Tent of Meeting to speak with him, he heard the voice speaking to him continuously from above the cover which was on the ark of the pact from between the cherubs and he spoke to him. 220 deity or a human as a referent without any difference in meaning, suggesting at least an unintentional analogy between the human and divine. 217.  MT pointing reads ‫‘ יִּׁשַ ק‬all the people shall kiss you on your mouth’. My translation follows Speiser, who adopts Ehrlich’s repointing, ‫( יָׂשק‬Speiser, Genesis, 313–14). 218.  The other two instances are in Num 22:18, 24:13. 219.  See also, Num 3:16, 39; 4:37, 41, 45, 49; 13:3; 20:24; 27:14; 33:2, 38. Knohl attributes most of the material in Numbers 1–10 to H (Knohl, Sanctuary, 71–73, 85–90, 105). For the most part, these chapters fit smoothly within P’s narrative and do not conform to H’s program of legal supplementation and thus are better assigned to P. There are exceptions. For instance, Numbers 5–6 interrupts the narrative continuity, introduces new legislation not linked to Sinai and, in the case of Num 5:5–10, contradicts earlier P legislation (cf. Lev 5:20–26; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 176–80). 220. Azzan Yadin argues that the reference here to the voice speaking (and not the deity) is part of P’s antianthropomorphic program. The P author uses ‫ קול‬as a hypostasis (“‫קול‬

140

Chapter 3

The two instances of ‫ פי יהוה‬in H reflect this model and are specifically associated with oracular requests. 221 So, in Lev 24:12, the people imprison Shelomit’s son after he curses the divine name while they determine the divine will, “They set him under guard in order to determine for themselves about the command of Yhwh [‫]על פי יהוה‬.” 222 Human speech is similarly described in the P material. Moses gives leave to the Gadites and Reubenites to follow their plan to dwell east of the Jordan in Num 32:24: “Build cities for your children and hedges for your flock and do what you said [‫]והיצא מפיכם תעשו‬.” 223 In Num 4:27a, Yhwh himself describes the relationship of the A ­ aronides to the Levites as analogous to his relationship to Moses: “By the command of Aaron and his sons [‫על פי‬ ‫ ]אהרן ובניו‬shall be all the work of the sons of the Gershonites, regarding all their burden and all their work.” Just as the priestly hierarchy is arranged “by the command of Yhwh.” So too, the work of the Gershonites is determined “by the command of Aaron.” The same analogy occurs in Exod 38:21, a possible H passage, “These are the appointments of the sanctuary, the sanctuary of the pact which was appointed by Moses’ command [‫]על פי משה‬, the work of the Levites, in the hands of Itamar, son of Aaron the priest.” 224 The description here matches almost exactly the pattern describing Yhwh’s commands regarding the tabernacle rules in Numbers 1–8 (mostly P). Take, for example, Num 4:37, “These are the musterings of the families of the Qehatites, each one who works in the Tent of Meeting whom Moses mustered and Aaron by the command of Yhwh [‫]על פי יהוה‬, by the hand of Moses [‫]ביד משה‬.” Whether H or P, Exod 38:21 extends the hierarchy of command down the chain of command: the command of Yhwh (‫ )על פי יהוה‬is carried out by Moses (‫)ביד משה‬, who commands Ithamar (‫על פי‬ ‫)משה‬, who carries out his commands (‫)ביד איתמר‬. The same sort of human-deity analogy appears in P with its other uses of ‫פי יהוה‬. P describes the Israelites as progressing through the wilderness ‫על פי יהוה‬. So, in Num 9:18, “By the command of Yhwh [‫ ]על פי יהוה‬would the Israelites travel and by the command of Yhwh [‫ ]ועל פי יהוה‬would they encamp, all the days that the cloud tabernacled on the tabernacle they would encamp.” 225 When Moses transfers his authority to Joshua, Joshua as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 122 [2003] 601–26). The reference to the voice alone, though, fits with P’s description of the tabernacle as a place wherein Moses speaks with Yhwh but does not see the deity, just the attendant phenomena of his manifestation (compare with Exod 25:22). Levine suggests the reference to the voice is meant to stress the oracular nature of the tabernacle, attested also in E (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 258). 221.  Num 26:56 (P) describes the land allotment as following “the command of the lot [‫]על פי הגורל‬,” reflecting a similar oracular use of this terminology (see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 102). 222.  See also Num 36:5. 223.  Similar language is used in H; see Num 30:3. 224.  Knohl assigns all of Exodus 35–40 to H. I argue that at least Exodus 40 belongs to P, but possibly also other portions of Exodus 35–39. See p. 77 n. 26 for my discussion. 225.  See also, Exod 17:1; 9:20, 23; 10:13.

The Divine Body

141

is described similarly, “He shall stand before Elazar the priest and he shall ask for him by the rule of the Urim before Yhwh; they shall go out by his command [‫ ]על פיו יצאו‬and by his command they shall come back [‫ועל פיו‬ ‫ ;]יבאו‬he and all the Israelites with him, the entire congregation” (Num 27:21). Here again, the concreteness of the idiom comes out, since Joshua’s commands are necessarily spoken aloud. At the same time, through comparison with a human agent the figurative use of the phrase with Yhwh is brought to the fore. Yhwh’s commands to Moses regarding the cult are explicitly described as spoken by the deity to Moses in the Tent of Meeting. However, the description of the camp moving ‫על פי יהוה‬, if taken as referring to Yhwh’s direct commands to Moses from the tent, conflict with P’s description of the camp moving in response to the movements of the cloud. The full description in Num 9:15–23 presents an evocative image of the Israelites attending to the movements of the cloud over the tabernacle for directions regarding their travels: Num 9:15–23 226: On the day the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle at the Tent of Meeting and in the evening it was over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning. Thus, the cloud was regularly covering it and an appearance of fire occurred at night. Whenever the cloud went up from the tent, after that the Israelites would travel and in the place where the cloud resided, there would the Israelites encamp [‫ולפי העלת הענן מעל האהל ואחרי כן יסעו בני ישראל ובמקום אשר ישכן שם הענן‬ ‫]שם יחנו בני ישראל‬. By the command of Yhwh would the Israelites travel and by the command of Yhwh would they encamp, all the days that the cloud dwelt on the tabernacle they would encamp [‫על פי יהוה יסעו בני ישראל‬ ‫]ועל פי יהוה יחנו כל ימי אשר ישכן הענן על המשכן יחנו‬. When the cloud spent many days on the tabernacle the Israelites observed the charge of Yhwh and they did not travel. When it was that the cloud was on the tabernacle a few days, by the command of Yhwh would they encamp and by the command of Yhwh would they travel. When it was that the cloud stayed from evening to morning, the cloud would be lifted in the morning and they would travel or by day and at night the cloud would be lifted and they would travel. Whether two days, a month, or a year that the cloud remained on the tabernacle to reside on it, the Israelites would encamp and they would not travel but when it was lifted they would travel. By the 226.  Friedman argues this passage belongs to R and is R’s attempt of establishing the framework for all the movements of the camp found in the different sources (Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, 256). There is no convincing reason to attribute such a long composition to R. In fact, this description of the movement of the camp contradicts E’s presentation of Yhwh descending to the Tent of Meeting but not remaining there (Exod 33:7–11). For a method for determining passages most likely belonging to R, see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 214–45. Knohl ascribes the passage to H (which is his R) along with most of Numbers 1–10. Knohl’s model does not adequately account for the shape of P before the H additions and it relies on methodologically weak evidence to distinguish between P and H (for example, language and theology). If one considers narrative continuity, then Numbers 1–10 makes more sense as P, with H supplements, than as a later H addition in its entirety.

142

Chapter 3

command of Yhwh they would encamp and by the command of Yhwh they would travel. They guarded the charge of Yhwh, by the command of Yhwh, by the hand of Moses [‫על פי יהוה יחנו ועל פי יהוה יסעו את משמרת יהוה‬ ‫]שמרו על פי יהוה ביד משה‬.

As there is no mention in these verses to Yhwh communicating with Moses or of Moses entering the Tent of Meeting, we must say that the idiom ‫על פי‬ ‫ יהוה‬is used figuratively here. 227 The movement of the cloud is equivalent to a spoken command from the deity. This nuance of the idiom has no human equivalent in P or H. The concrete nature of the idiom ‫ על פי יהוה‬is made explicit by the D author, who asserts in Deut 8:3: He afflicted you and starved you and fed you manna, which you had not known about, nor had your ancestors known about, in order that you might come to know that not by bread alone shall a human live but by all that comes out of the mouth of Yhwh [‫ ]על כל מוצא פי יהוה‬does a human live.

The D author uses similar imagery to describe human speech in Deut 23:24, “You shall guard what comes out of your lips [‫ ]מוצא שפתיך‬and you shall do as you vowed to Yhwh, your god, a free shall offering that you spoke with your mouth [‫]אשר דברת בפיך‬.” 228 The reference to Yhwh’s spoken words is particularly evocative in D in which the divine voice figures so prominently in the Horeb theophany (Deut 4:12, etc).. Thus, when D describes the Israelites rebelling against “the command of Yhwh” (Deut 1:26, 9:23), this refers to the refusal to follow the commands spoken by Yhwh. The D author describes divine commands as mediated through Moses: Deut 1:42–43: 42) Yhwh said to me, “Say to them, ‘You shall not go up and you shall not fight—for I am not in your midst—that you not be stricken before your enemies.’” 43) I spoke to you but you did not listen and you rebelled against the command of Yhwh [‫]את פי יהוה‬. You were presumptuous and went up the mountain.

Here also the image is of direct, verbal communication between Yhwh and Moses, which is paralleled between Moses and the people: Yhwh speaks to Moses, who in turn speaks to the people. That Yhwh is actually speaking to Moses, as opposed to some other form of communication that is simply described as “speaking,” is true at least for the Horeb theophany. As noted above, the D author stresses the fact that the Israelites heard the 227.  The claim in Num 9:23 ‫( את משמרת יהוה שמרו על פי יהוה ביד משה‬see also v. 19) refers to the maintenance of the tabernacle, which was received by Moses and communicated to the Israelites, and not to the command to move or encamp. The same is true for the term ‫ משמרת‬elsewhere in both P and H (Lev 8:35; Num 1:53; 3:7, 8, 28, 32, 36, 38; 4:31, 32; 8:26; 18:4, 5, 8; 31:30, 47). D. Frankel argues for two competing presentations of the movement of the camp in P versus H (“Two Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wilderness,” JSOT 81 [1998] 31–37). I discuss his article on p. 180 n. 71. 228.  For other examples with a human agent, see Deut 17:6, 10, 11; 18:18; 19:15; 21:5.

The Divine Body

143

divine voice at Horeb (Deut 4:12). In Deut 5:5, Moses’ mediation between the Israelites and the deity begins at Horeb in response to Israelite fear. Mediation away from Horeb may be similarly imagined as Moses receiving direct, verbal communications from Yhwh and passing them along to the Israelites. The emotional implications of “commanding” are borne out by the larger context of Deut 1:19–46. First, the rebellion against the divine command is precipitated by human fear. The motivation given for this is fear: in 1:28 the hearts of the Israelites melt at the report that the Canaanites ­are bigger and stronger than they. This fear then implicitly challenges Yhwh’s ability to provide the promised land to the Israelites, as reported in 1:19– 21. 229 Thus, in response to their fear, Moses, in 1:30, clarifies that in “giving” the land to the people, Yhwh “is going before you. He will fight for you [‫]ההלך לפניכם הוא ילחם לכם‬.” The second reason for the Israelites’ fear is their belief that Yhwh is in fact purposefully leading them to their destruction (Deut 1:27). In this way, the Israelites express their lack of trust in the divine command and Yhwh’s motivations. Thus, instead of accepting that the divine desire is to help the Israelites become a landed nation, the fear is that Yhwh’s command is motivated by hatred and the desire to destroy the people. 230 In response to this fear, Moses reminds the people, in 1:31, of Yhwh’s kindness­toward them up to this point, in particular, that he carried them out of Egypt and through the wilderness “as a man carries his child [‫]נשאך יהוה אלהיך כאשר ישא איש את בנו‬.” The use of these idioms with God as the subject cannot provide any reliable insight into an author’s conception of the actual body of the deity since these references to the divine body are indirect and unintentional. At the same time, it is important to note that the use of these bodily idioms by an author precludes a strictly antianthropomorphic conception of the deity. That an author would make even indirect reference to the divine body presumes that the author had no compunction about implying a divine body nor any discomfort with or fear of a potential overly nonidiomatic interpretation of these idioms. Similarly, these idioms, while they may not reflect an intentional statement about the divine body, are examples of divine anthropomorphism because they are the same idioms used to describe human emotions. The source authors, then, do create an analogy between human emotion and thought with divine emotion and thought with the use of these idioms. Similarly, they can be said to characterize the internal experience of the deity with the same bodily idioms as are used to describe that of humans. It is then reasonable to assert that the authors of each of the four sources considered divine emotion and thought to be analogous to 229.  Report of this promise includes, in v. 21, an exhortation not to fear. 230. While referred to here as a hypothetical, actual divine hatred is mentioned in Deut 12:31 and 16:22.

144

Chapter 3

human emotion and thought and that human emotion in ancient Israel, if its idiom is to be taken seriously, was a bodily affair. The Internal Life of the Deity Robert A. Di Vito has questioned the assumption that the ancient Israelite, contrary to the mind-body duality found in Greek thought, considered the body unified. He argues that biblical scholars have too often replaced one anachronistic paradigm for another, namely, Enlightenment and modern conceptions of the self. According to Di Vito, the Hebrew Bible reflects the complete lack of the concept of “inner depths” of the individual. He explains, To be sure, in the OT one will occasionally find talk of “inward parts” (‫טחות‬, Ps 51:8), of one’s “interior” (‫)קרב‬, or even of “inner chambers” (‫חדרי‬ ‫בטן‬, Prov 18:8), yet in all these cases the context makes clear that what is at stake is simply the distinction between what is observable by others and what remains hidden from sight—the potential in each person for hypocrisy and deception. On no account does such language convey the modern sense of “inner depths.” 231

In this section, when I speak of the “inner life” of the deity, I mean, to borrow Di Vito’s terminology, “what remains hidden from sight.” The J Source References to Yhwh’s inner life are concentrated mainly in the primeval era within J’s composition. 232 The premier example is Yhwh’s regret for creating humankind, which precipitates the flood: Gen 6:5–7: Yhwh saw how great the evil of humanity was on the earth, every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, at all times. Yhwh regretted that he had made humanity on the earth and he ­was heart broken [‫]ינחם יהוה כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו‬. Yhwh said, “I shall wipe out humanity, which I created, from off the face of the ground—from human to beast to bug to bird of the skies—for I regret that I have made them [‫]נחמתי כי עשיתם‬.”

The J author provides similar insights into Yhwh’s motivations elsewhere. In Gen 2:18, we learn that Yhwh creates animals and eventually Eve because he has determined that it is not good for the human to be alone. Likewise, we hear Yhwh’s reaction to Noah’s offering after the flood: Gen 8:21–22: Yhwh smelled the pleasant smell and Yhwh said to himself [‫]ויאמר יהוה אל לבו‬, “I shall no longer curse the earth on account of humanity because the inclination of the human heart is evil from his youth 231.  R. A. Di Vito, “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity,” CBQ 61 (1999) 234. 232. My interpretation of Genesis 1–11 is greatly indebted to Tzvi Abusch and his course “The Book of Genesis” (Divinity School at the University of Chicago, Spring, 2009), for which I served as his teaching assistant.

The Divine Body

145

and I will not again strike all life as I have done. For as long as the days of the earth, planting and harvest, cold and hot, summer and winter, day and night, they shall not cease.

The J author does not repeat the language of regret here, but Yhwh has certainly had a change of heart by learning to accept humanity’s wicked inclination (‫)יצר רע‬. J’s insights into the deity’s inner life are countered by narratives that present little exchange of knowledge between Yhwh and humanity. Yhwh is presented as curious about human action. I­ n Gen 2:19, he brings his creations to the human to see what he will name them [‫ ]לראות מה יקרא לו‬and he comes down to investigate the tower of Babel in 11:5 [‫]וירד יהוה לראת‬. In a less positive light, Yhwh seems to lack crucial information about the actions of humans. In Gen 3:9, he does not know where Adam is hiding and in 3:10–13 he must interrogate Adam and Eve to discover what course of events lead up to their newfound knowledge. 233 Similarly, Yhwh does not appear to know that Cain has killed his brother until he questions him in Gen 4:9–10. 234 At the same time, Yhwh withholds information from humans. We learn from the snake in Gen 3:4–5 that Yhwh has mislead Adam and Eve to think they will die as soon as they eat from the forbidden fruit. This divine deception is revealed once they do eat and do not die (3:6–7). Once in the ancestor period and beyond, the J author provides far fewer descriptions of Yhwh’s thoughts and interests. The narrative of Sodom and Gemorrah’s destruction resembles J’s flood story. Here too we are privy to Yhwh’s motivations in Gen 18:17–21: Yhwh said, “Am I to hide what I am doing from Abraham? Abraham will certainly become a large and strong nation and all the nations of the earth will be blessed in him, for I have come to know him in order that he command his children and his household after him. They will guard the path of Yhwh by doing righteousness and justice, so that­Yhwh­may bring to Abraham that which he spoke about him.” Yhwh said, “The cry 233.  Wenham rejects such an interpretation, arguing instead that the question is meant rhetorically and as an invitation to come out of hiding, but not that Yhwh does not know where they are (Wenham, Genesis, 1:77; see also 1:240). I would agree that the ultimate goal of the J author is artistry but would fault Wenham for imposing later theological concerns regarding the implications of this sort of question on the text. The J author’s use of this question, which in its plainest sense conveys a lack of knowledge on the part of the deity, reflects his use of anthropomorphic characteristics. 234. If we take seriously Yhwh’s inquiry into Abel’s whereabouts, then it is Cain’s defensive answer that tips Yhwh off that something is wrong. At the same time, Yhwh claims that Abel’s blood is crying out to him, which implies he does not require Cain’s reactions to understand what has happened. Either way, the J author does not present a deity who is omniscient in the classical sense of the term. Comparison with Gen 18:21 suggests that the hearing of cries merely fosters curiosity, but is not knowledge in and of itself. Rather, it requires further investigation. If so, then Yhwh is interrogating Cain because he hears Abel’s blood crying out; he knows something is wrong, but not what specifically has happened.

146

Chapter 3

of Sodom and Gemorrah, it is immense, and their sin, it is very severe. I will go down so that I might see, Is what they have done as complete as its cry that comes to me? And if not, I will know.”

In addition, Yhwh explains that he must investigate the cries he has heard from the cities (18:21), just as Yhwh goes down to investigate the tower of Babel. 235 This same type of outcry is what motivates Yhwh to redeem the Israelites from Egypt: Exod 3:7–8: Yhwh said, “I have indeed seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and I have heard their cry [‫ ]ואת צעקתם שמעתי‬because of its oppressors, for I know their pains. I have come down in order to rescue it from the hand of Egypt and to bring it up from that land to a good and wide land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite.

Interestingly, in this instance Yhwh’s seeing precedes his coming down. Yhwh does ­not need to come down to investigate the oppression of the Israelites but is fully aware of it; he knows their pain (‫)כי ידעתי את מכאביו‬. Rather, Yhwh has descended with the intention of saving the Israelites. In both cases, it is the cry from oppression that spurs Yhwh to action, redemptive or punitive. Yhwh’s actions ­are elsewhere described without motivation. Yhwh inexplicably attacks Moses to kill him on his way to Egypt (Exod 4:24). J describes the divine prerogative in Exod 33:19b, “I shall be gracious to whom I shall be gracious and I shall be compassionate to whom I shall be compassionate [‫]וחנתי את אשר אחן ורחמתי את אשר ארחם‬.” The prerogative toward compassion is expressed in Num 14:18 as divine patience (‫ )ארך אפים‬and care (‫)ורב חסד‬. So, when Yhwh reacts to Israelite rebellion with the threat of destruction, Moses is able to provoke divine forgiveness through an appeal to compassion (and reputation) in Num 14:13–20. 236 The E Source In the E source, the primary description of Yhwh’s inner life is expressed through his reactions to human interests. For instance, Yhwh is described as having intimate knowledge of human motivations and acting in accord of this knowledge. In the ancestor narratives, this is reflected in Yhwh’s communication through dreams. When Yhwh comes in a dream to Abimelek, Yhwh confirms in Gen 20:6 that he knew that Abimelek was ignorant of Abraham’s deception, as Abimelek professes in v. 5. Yhwh’s response intimates that it was due to this innocence that he warns Abimelek against sexual intercourse with Sarah, “God said to him in a dream, ‘I, also, know that in the clearness of your heart you did this thing and I, for my 235.  On the translation of 18:21, see Speiser, Genesis, 133–34. 236.  Fishbane argues that the delay of punishment can reflect divine mercy (Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 335–36, 342).

The Divine Body

147

part, have stopped you from sinning against me. For this reason did I not allow you to touch her.’” On the flip side, Yhwh comes to Laban in a dream to warn him against harming Jacob, “God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream at night and he said to him, ‘Watch yourself lest you speak good or evil with Jacob’” (Gen 31:24). Laban later admits to his evil intentions (31:29). 237 We may compare these cases with divine knowledge in the Akedah narrative. The messenger proclaims to Abraham in 22:12 “Do not reach out your hand to the lad and do not do anything to him for now I know that you possess fear of God; you did not withhold your son, your only one, from me.” This knowledge of the depths of Abraham’s reverence is the result not of Yhwh’s prior knowledge of Abraham’s faith, 238 but through Abraham’s outward actions described in 22:9–10. The E author presents the deity as responsive to human complexity. That Yhwh is capable of knowing the hearts of humans, so to speak, is decidedly nonanthropomorphic, because we humans are not capable of knowing what other people are thinking. But, that Yhwh is moved to intercede with people in response to their otherwise private intentions and thoughts reflects an anthropomorphic understanding of the emotional, inner life of the deity. That is, Yhwh is concerned for his people, not only as a community but also individual suffering. This concern is further reflected in E’s description of Yhwh responding to the cries of the oppressed or defenseless, in particular those with whom he has a prior relationship. It is Ishamel’s cry that stirs Yhwh to action to save Hagar and Ishmael from dying of thirst, “God heard the voice of the boy and a messenger of God called to Hagar from heaven” (Gen 21:17a; see also v. 19). In a similar manner, Yhwh is stirred to action once he hears the cry of the Israelites in Egypt: Exod 3:9–10: So now, as the cry of the Israelites comes up to me I also have seen the oppression by which Egypt has oppressed them. So now, go that I may send you to Pharaoh and bring out my people, the children of Israel, from Egypt.”

Yhwh hears and he responds, just as with Ishmael. 239 This pattern of events suggests that for E the deity is emotionally involved with humans and is moved by their suffering. This emotional engagement with the Israelites in particular leads Yhwh to respond to the distress of the people even when it is deserved. So, the golden calf incident initially provokes a violent reaction from Yhwh. He 237.  We may speculate a similar situation for Jacob in Gen 46:3. Yhwh comes to him in a dream to reassure him regarding his safety on his trip down to Egypt in response to Jacob’s unstated fear. See also Gen 21:12, where Yhwh seems to anticipate Abraham’s discomfort with Sarah’s demand that he expel Hagar and Ishmael. Yhwh’s communication then gives him the assurance he needs to do the “right” thing. 238.  Compare with Gen 15:6, in which Yhwh is privy to what Abraham believes. 239.  See also Exod 22:22–23 and Num 20:16.

148

Chapter 3

seeks to destroy Israel since they have so quickly disobeyed his commands. This reaction is consonant with the commandments to which the people have just agreed to bind themselves at Mt. Horeb. In Exod 20:5–6 Yhwh sets out a simple system of reward and punishment: You shall not prostrate to them nor serve them for I am Yhwh your god, a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of fathers on sons to the third and fourth [generation] against those who hate me, but those who show loyalty, to the thousandth, for those who love me and keep my instructions.

Thus, we should not be surprised by his response to the golden calf, as Yhwh is following the terms of the covenant. But, Moses is able to convince Yhwh to relent from his anger: Exod 32:12–14: Why should Egypt say, “He brought them out with evil intention to kill them in the mountains and to finish them off from the face of the earth.” Turn from the heat of your anger and relent of this evil against your people. Remember for Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servant to whom you swore by yourself and said to them, “I will increase your seed like the stars of the heavens and all this land of which I have said I will give to your seed and they shall inherit it forever.” Yhwh relented [‫ ]וינחם יהוה‬from his evil plan, which he had said to do to his people.

While Yhwh’s reaction to the golden calf follows the terms of the covenant, we may note that it is described as an emotional response; straying from the commandments is punished not out of necessity of the agreement so much as due to the anger it provokes in the deity. Moses’ successful appeal to the deity to relent is achieved through an appeal to the divine memory. Specifically, that the deity should recall his history with the Israelites and their ancestors, but also Yhwh’s good name among the other nations. These are appeals to the deity’s emotional engagement with humanity, in particular the Israelites. 240 At the same time, the E author presents Yhwh as capable of obstinacy. This trait can be beneficial, as in the Balaam cycle. Yhwh, through Balaam, refuses to heed Balak’s request to curse Israel (Num 23:11–12, 25–26; 24:10). Num 23:19 proclaims that Yhwh is not a man that he would change his mind “God is not a man that he should deceive or a mortal that he should regret [‫]לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם‬. Shall he say and not act? Or speak and not establish it?” But, of course, Yhwh has changed his mind earlier in E’s composition (Exod 32:14). The E author even uses the same terminology (‫)נחם‬. 241 But we would not expect Yhwh to change his mind for a foreign ruler, especially to harm Israel, unprovoked. But, Yhwh refuses to listen to 240.  “The portrayal of God found here [Exod 32:12–14] is strongly anthropopathic. It is Yhwh’s will that Israel be solely devoted to him (cf. Hos 13:4); unfaithfulness, unrequited love is something he cannot stand and condone (cf. Deut 4:24–28, 6:15; Josh 24:24)” (Houtman, Exodus, 3:33). 241.  We cannot avoid this apparent contradiction by attributing this passage to J, as the J composition similarly describes Yhwh as changing his mind (Gen 6:6). Levine argues

The Divine Body

149

Moses’ appeal t­ o spare Miriam from her punishment for doubting Moses in Num 12:13–14 (‫)ויצעק משה אל יהוה‬. Whereas at other times Yhwh responds to the cries of human, in this case he is completely unmoved, comparing himself to a dishonored father. This instance of Yhwh’s obstinacy is particularly surprising given the humans involved. While Yhwh is willing to forgive Israel its blatant disobedience, he does not enact similar compassion for Miriam, even at the bequest of his faithful servant Moses. 242 The P Source By far the most common reference in the P composition to the deity’s inner life is its multiple descriptions of Yhwh’s memory. Instances of Yhwh remembering can be divided into two broad categories: objects or acts meant to trigger the divine memory; and, unpredicted instances of divine memory. In the first category fall the “memorials” (‫ )זכרון‬and “signs” (‫ )אות‬established by the deity to ensure his future memory of certain facts. God establishes the first sign of this sort after the flood, to remind himself of the covenant he has instituted with his creations to never again destroy them with a flood: Gen 9:12–17: God said, “This is the sign of the covenant [‫]זאת אות הברית‬ which I am placing between me and you and every animate creature that is with you, for unending generations. I have placed my bow in the cloud and it will be a sign of a covenant [‫ ]לאות ברית‬between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds, then I will remember my covenant [‫ ]וזכרתי את בריתי‬which is between me and you and all animate creatures, with all flesh and there will never again be waters for a flood to destroy all flesh. The bow will be in the clouds and I will see it to remember the eternal covenant [‫וראיתיה לזכר ברית‬ ‫ ]עולם‬between God and all animate life, with all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant [‫ ]זאת אות הברית‬that I have erected between me and all flesh which is on the earth.”

Similar memory triggers are found in P’s description of the tabernacle service in Exodus 25–30: Exod 28:12: You shall place the two stones on the shoulders of the apron; stones of remembrance of the Israelites and Aaron shall bear their names before Yhwh and on his two shoulders as a memorial [‫]לזכרן‬. Exod 28:29–30: Aaron shall carry the names of the sons of Israel on the breastplate of judgment on his heart when he comes to the holiness as a ongoing memorial before Yhwh [‫]לזכרן לפני יהוה תמיד‬. 243 You shall put the Urim and Thummim into the breastplate of judgment and they shall be that ‫ נחם‬has here the meaning ‘renege’ versus is more typical ‘regret’, as in Exod 32:14 (Numbers 21–36, 182). 242.  See also Deut 34:4. 243.  “Breastplate [‫”]חשן‬: “The exact meaning and etymology of this term are unknown . . . the ḥôšen is a bejeweled pouch of fabric holding sacred lots” (Propp, Exodus 19–40, 431; see also, 438–43).

150

Chapter 3

on Aaron’s heart when he comes before Yhwh and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the Israelites on his heart before Yhwh perpetually. Exod 28:38: It shall be on Aaron’s forehead and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holinesses, which the Israelites sanctified for all the gifts of their holies and it shall be on his forehead perpetually for their goodwill before Yhwh [‫]לרצון להם לפני יהוה‬. 244 Exod 30:16: You shall take the expiation money from the Israelites and put it to the work of the Tent of Meeting and it shall be the Israelites’ memorial [‫ ]לבני ישראל לזכרון‬before Yhwh to expiate on account of their lives. 245

Different terminology is used here than for the rainbow in Genesis 9. Aaron’s garments are called a “memorial” (‫ )זכרון‬as opposed to a “sign” (‫)אות‬. Also, the Exodus verses never refer explicitly to Yhwh seeing this memorial, as described in Genesis 9. The two passages are connected though by the correlation of divine memory and compassion. The title “memorial” reflects its use as a trigger for the memory, just as seeing the rainbow triggers the divine memory. Instead of stating that Yhwh will see the memorials, the priests bring them before Yhwh, or into his presence. In Exodus 28 and 30, these memorials are brought before Yhwh to elicit divine favor and expiation just as the rainbow is a reminder to stop Yhwh from again destroying creation with a flood, by reminding him of his covenant. In Num 17:1–5, the P author extends this concept of memory trigger to humans: 246 Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to Elazar son of Aaron the priest, ‘Pick up the fire pans from within the scorched area and scatter the fire away for they are holy—the fire pans of these sinners on their persons—and make them into pounded plates overlaying the altar. For they offered them before Yhwh and they are holy and they shall be a sign for the Israelites [‫]לאות לבני ישראל‬.” Elazar, the priest, took the bronze fire pans, 244.  “The iniquity of the holiness”; see ibid., 448–50. 245.  “‘Work’ must connote not worship . . . but construction” (ibid., 479). 246.  Knohl ascribes the Priestly portions of the entire Korah passage to H, but his argument is not convincing. There is nothing in this narrative that suggests it cannot belong to P, while there are features that argue against attributing it to H. In particular, the Korah narrative argues against H’s extension of holiness to the entire people of Israel in that it insists that only Aaron and his sons are holy (compare Num 16:3 to 16:7). Schwartz notes that it is the ascription of holiness to Israel that distinguishes H from P. “Whereas in the remainder of the priestly work the idea that the entire Israelite people is holy is never mentioned, except once as the rejected claim of Korah and his followers (Num 16:3), in H it is a recurrent refrain” (Schwartz, “Holiness,” 53). For a discussion of source ascription of Numbers 16–17, see Stackert, Rewriting Torah, 191–98. Stackert argues that the Priestly portions of these chapters are better ascribed to H than P and that they represent H’s attempt to limit potential misunderstandings that could arise from its program of lay holiness; that is, that Levites and laypeople could presume that because they too can achieve holiness then they too can officiate at the tabernacle (ibid., 196).

The Divine Body

151

which the burnt people had offered, and they pounded them as overlay for the altar: a memorial for the Israelites [‫ ]זכרון לבני ישראל‬in order that a layperson who is not from the seed of Aaron not draw near—it is for burning the incense before Yhwh—and that he not become like Korah and like his congregation, as Yhwh spoke to him by the hand of Moses.

Here, sign and memorial are combined to describe the function of Korah’s fire pans. But it is the memory of the Israelites that is meant to be triggered so as to avoid future violent outbursts from the deity. 247 The H legislation refers to similar memory triggers. H regulates the use of trumpets so that Yhwh remembers the people during military campaigns: Num 10:9–10: If you come to war in your land against the tormentor who torments you then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets and you shall be remembered before Yhwh [‫]ונזכרתם לפני יהוה‬.

These reminders appeal to hearing as opposed to sight and seek to inspire Yhwh to defend the Israelites instead of refrain from destroying them. The interest is still to trigger the divine memory, which is stated explicitly in v. 9, “you will be recalled before Yhwh.” The H legislator also extends this concept of memory triggers to humans in Num 15:37–41 with its law regarding ṣîṣit. The H author here echoes the description of the rainbow in Genesis 9: Gen 9:16: The bow will be in the clouds and I shall see it so as to remember [‫ ]וראיתיה לזכר‬the eternal covenant between God and all animate life, with all flesh that is on the earth. Num 15:39a: The fringe shall be for you that you shall see it and remember [‫ ]וראיתם אתו וזכרתם‬all the commandments of Yhwh and you shall do them.

In both cases, seeing leads to memory, which leads to a desired response. 248 The second category of divine memory involves unpredicted instances of divine memory; that is, to remember without a trigger by some predetermined sign or memorial. So, during the flood, Yhwh remembers Noah (Gen 8:1) and ends the flood. Yhwh similarly remembers Abraham when he destroys Sodom and Gemorrah, and as a result saves Lot (Gen 19:29). Neither of these instances reveals what precipitated this remembering. But, in P’s explanation of Yhwh’s engagement in Egypt, we are provided an example of what can trigger Yhwh’s memory: 247.  See also Aaron’s staff later in Numbers 17. 248.  Shabbat serves a similar function in P. In Exod 31:12–17, the Shabbat is called a sign “in order to know that I, Yhwh, am the one who sanctifies you.” Though the language of seeing and remembering is not employed here, the P author does draw a connection between the observance of Shabbat and the events of creation suggesting Shabbat observance is in part a memorial of creation.

152

Chapter 3

Exod 2:23aβ–25: The Israelites groaned from their work and they cried out. Their cry from their work went up to God. God heard their wailing and God remembered his promise-covenant [‫וישמע אלהים את נאקתם ויזכר‬ ‫ ]אלהים את בריתו‬with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God saw the Israelites and God knew. Exod 6:2–6: God spoke to Moses, and he said to him, “I am Yhwh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai but my name—Yhwh—I did not make known to them. I also erected my promise-covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their travels in which they traveled. Also, I have heard the cry of the sons of Israel whom Egypt is working and I remembered my promise-covenant [‫]וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל אשר מצרים מעבדים אתם ואזכר את בריתי‬. Therefore, say to the Israelites, ‘I am Yhwh and I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt and rescue you from their service and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.’”

Hearing the Israelites’ cry under the oppression of the Egyptians triggers Yhwh’s memory of his covenant and promise to Abraham. In Exod 2:25, Yhwh’s decision to act is also precipitated by seeing the Israelites, just as seeing the rainbow or seeing Aaron’s garments results in beneficial actions towards humans, though in this case seeing follows instead of precedes remembering. This model of Yhwh responding to human suffering fits with the earlier examples of divine memory. In the case of Noah and Abraham, though we are not told that either cried out in distress, Yhwh remembers them at a moment of need: Noah stuck in the ark and Abraham about to lose a family member. We may further infer that Yhwh responds to his memory for similar reasons as in Exodus. Yhwh’s memory of Abraham and resultant care for Lot is consistent with his actions to uphold his promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations (Gen 17:4). As for Noah, Yhwh has promised to save him, and all the inhabitants of the ark, from the flood (Gen 6:13–22). 249 Divine attention can at the same time be potentially negative. The deity is close at hand for the entire wilderness journey. He hears all that the Israelites say, including their complaints. In Num 14:2–10, 26–35, after the Israelites rebel against the plan to invade Canaan, Yhwh reacts instantly by appearing (v. 10) and seeking to punish the Israelites. Yhwh hearing the dispute precipitates the instant reaction: Num 14:26–28: Yhwh said to Moses and to Aaron, “How long have I listened [‫ ]שמעתי‬to this bad report of those who grumble against me, the grumblings of the Israelites which they make against me? Say to them, “As I live, an utterance of Yhwh, If I do not do to you thus as you have spoke in my hearing [‫ ]באזני‬. . .”

Unlike in similar situations in the other sources, there is no attempt by Moses to convince the deity to change his mind. Instead, energy is focused on 249.  For an example from H, see Lev 26:42, 45.

The Divine Body

153

lessening the impact of divine anger. So, in Numbers 14, only those spies who misinformed the people die immediately (14:36), while the remaining adults must live out their lives in the wilderness (14:29). During the Korah incident, Yhwh’s first response is to destroy the entire congregation (16:21) but Moses and Aaron are able to appeal to Yhwh’s sense of justice (v. 22) and Yhwh instead kills only Korah and his company (v. 35). In Num 17:10–11 and 25:11, the divine anger is abated only through ritual act: Aaron’s incense offering and Phinehas’ human “offerings.” In both cases, once set in motion, the divine anger cannot be reversed but can only be muted. 250 The focus on divine memory by the P author reflects two major themes of his composition: the progressively enhanced involvement of Yhwh with his creation and the increased danger that comes with increased proximity to the deity. 251 P’s deity is not transcendent, but he is uninvolved with the intricacies of human existence. P’s focus on memory reflects its anxiety regarding Yhwh’s interest in humanity. The reason for this anxiety stems from the nature of divine reaction. After creation, Yhwh disappears from human life. His attention returns at Noah’s generation to discover that creation has spoiled in his absence: Gen 6:11–12: The earth was spoiled before God and the earth was filled with violence. God saw the earth [‫]וירא אלהים את הארץ‬, that it was spoiled, for all flesh had spoiled his path on the earth.

The reason for this spoliation and Yhwh’s motivation for the flood are not explicitly stated in P’s composition, but may be inferred from it. At creation, Yhwh granted only the plants for consumption by humans and animals (Gen 1:28). The flood ends with Yhwh’s covenant with humanity that specifies the proper treatment of blood (Gen 9:1–7). It is reasonable to presume then that humans (and animals) have not heeded the law at creation and have been killing each other. 252 The force of ‫ השחית‬in 9:11 and 12 is the effect of blood mistreatment on both creatures and the earth. The solution is to wipe out all but one family and one couple of each species of animal and purge the earth with the primordial waters. 253 Noah’s family is chosen since he “walks before God,” terminology that expresses 250.  For the use of magical know-how to reverse demonic forces unleashed by Yhwh on humans, see Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 85–87. 251.  For a discussion about the tension between divine absence and presence in the Israelite cult, see Levine, “On the Presence of God”; for specifically in relation to P, see Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence.” 252.  “It may be implied here [in Gen 1:29 as compared with 9:3] that the predilection of humans and animals for eating meat, in violation of God’s initial command, was one aspect of the violence (‫ )חמס‬that was rampant before the flood (Gen 6:11, P). After the flood God altered the cosmic order to allow animal slaughter, but imposed regulations on it” (Hendel, “Table and Altar,” 134). 253.  A similar solution is found in wilderness period when Yhwh threatens to wipe out all of Israel and start again (Num 25:11).

154

Chapter 3

Noah’s obedience to divine instruction, the lack of which lead to the need for a flood. 254 The events precipitating the flood in P’s version reflect a situation in which the deity lacks the foreknowledge to anticipate that humans and animals would spoil the earth without proper guidance. The great danger here comes from the nature of his reaction. That is, when left unregulated, the divine-human relationship is particularly dangerous for humans given Yhwh’s tendency to react with destructive, purging techniques. The best defense against Yhwh’s reactive side is the divine memory. It is Yhwh’s memory which forces the deity to change course, be it from his uninvolvement with human affairs or his zealous protection of the purity (goodness) of his creation. The P composition in many ways resembles the vacillation between divine vengeance and compassion found in the E and D sources (see above and below). In P, Yhwh vacillates between chaos and order. Human beings will never sustain a complete ordering of the cosmos and thus Yhwh is forced to compromise, for instance, allowing for the shedding of blood. His covenant with the ancestors and decision to dwell among Israel represents an attempt to achieve a high level of ordering within a smallscale community and area. But even within this ideal community, the nature of creation and of humans requires certain compromises to purity as Yhwh’s fierce protection of his ordered chaos is tempered by ritual appeals to his grace through recollection of his reasons for attempting this experiment in the first place. The D Source The D author commonly describes the inner life of Yhwh with respect to the oscillation between the deity’s compassion and vengeance. These two poles of divine emotion are well represented in D’s description of Yhwh in Deut 7:9–10: You shall know that Yhwh, your god, he is God, the god who is trustworthy, who guards the covenant and the loyalty [‫ ]שמר הברית והחסד‬for those who love him and those who guard his commandments to the thousandth generation, but who repays to those that hate him to his face in order to destroy him, he shall not delay for one who hates him, he shall repay him to his face. 255

In this passage, divine compassion versus vengeance is presented as straightforward and predictable. Loyalty, or love, is rewarded with loyalty while disobedience, or hatred, is requited with destruction. This is indeed the guiding principle of the covenant and its laws: do as Yhwh wants and you will receive blessings, but do what he has forbidden, and you will receive 254.  Hurvitz, Linguistic Study, 103 n. 153. 255.  “The idea is similar to that of the present verse [Job 21:31; see also 13:15], ‘who will upbraid him to his face? Who will repay him (yšlm lw) for what he has done?’” (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 360).

The Divine Body

155

curses. This system is best exhibited in the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28. 256 The loyalty to the covenant by Israelites mirrors Yhwh’s loyalty to the covenant he promised to the ancestors (7:8). 257 At the same time, Yhwh’s actions in D do not always adhere to this simple reward and punishment system. Yhwh can exercise compassion and choose to forgive transgression. In other words, he can change his mind. On multiple occasions in D, the Israelites are disobedient, which triggers Yhwh’s anger, but instead of punishing the people, Moses successfully intervenes and convinces Yhwh to forgive the people. For example, when the people refuse to launch the campaign against Canaan: 258 Deut 9:25–29: I prostrated before Yhwh for forty days and forty nights of which I was continually prostrating, for Yhwh had said he would destroy you. I prayed to Yhwh and said, “My lord, Yhwh, do not ruin your people and your inheritance that you ransomed with your greatness, whom you brought out from Egypt with a strong hand. Remember for your servants, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Do not turn to the hardness of this people and to their wickedness and their sin. Lest they say, the land from which you brought us out, ‘Yhwh was unable to bring them to the land that he spoke to them and out of his hatred he brought them out to kill them in the wilderness.’ But they are your people and your inheritance who you brought out with your great strength and with your outstretched arm.”

Yhwh is never expressly said to regret or to change his mind, but certainly the latter has occurred, as Yhwh does not in fact destroy his people. As much is stated in Deut 10:10, which states, “Meanwhile, I stood in the mountain as the first days, 40 days and 40 nights, and Yhwh heard me that time as well and Yhwh was not willing to ruin you.” 259 This idiom of “listening” to a petition is used elsewhere in D for Yhwh’s refusal to forgive an offense. For instance, Yhwh’s refusal to allow Moses to enter Canaan as punishment for some transgression: 260 Deut 3:23–28: I ingratiated myself to Yhwh at that time, saying, “My lord, Yhwh, it is you who has begun to show your servant your greatness and your strong hand of which who is a god in the heavens or on the earth who can do as your deeds and like your feats of strength? Let me pass through that I may see the good land that is on the other side of the 256.  Note that individual actions are deemed an abomination to Yhwh (12:31, 18:12, 22:5, 25:16), which motivates their proscription. 257.  See also 4:31, 13:18, etc. This covenantal love is paralleled by exchanges between human kings (W. L. Moran, “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 [1963] 77–87). 258.  See also Deut 10:10, and so on. 259.  See also Deut 9:19. 260.  Baden argues that in D, unlike in E, Moses is punished with the wilderness generation though he, himself, is blameless (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 120). For other examples of Yhwh’s refusal to forgive, see Deut 1:45, 23:6.

156

Chapter 3

Jordan, this good mountain, and the Lebanon.” But Yhwh passed me by on your account and did not listen to me. Yhwh said to me, “You have much. Do not continue to speak to me about this again. Go up to the top of the Pisgah and lift your eyes west, north, south, and east and see with your eyes for you shall not cross over this Jordan. Command Joshua and strengthen him and make him firm for it is he who shall cross before this people; he shall apportion to them the land that you shall see.”

Yhwh’s punishment here likewise violates the reward-punishment system of the covenant, as Moses does not seem to have perpetrated any offense. Yhwh’s forgiveness on the one hand and obstinacy on the other are then presented as highly unpredictable; he forgives the Israelites for brash disobedience, even to idolatry, while he refuses compassion to Moses, his faithful servant. This unpredictability is further reflected in D’s description of Yhwh’s choice of Israel: Deut 7:6–8: For you are a holy people to Yhwh, your god. Yhwh, your god, chose you to become his people, more treasured than all the peoples that are on the face of the earth. Not because you were more abundant than all the peoples did Yhwh set his heart on you and chose you, for you are smaller than all the peoples. Rather, due to Yhwh’s love of you [‫ ]מאהבת יהוה אתכם‬and because he guarded the oath that he swore to your ancestors did Yhwh bring you out with a strong hand and redeem you from the house of slaves, from the hand of Pharaoh the king of Egypt.

Yhwh’s choice is pre­dicated on love and not reason; 261 nothing in Israel’s past or nature could have predicted that they would receive this covenant with Yhwh. It is this unpredictable love of Israel that likely inspires Yhwh to forgive their massive transgressions. In 9:28, Moses is able to appease Yhwh in p­art by referring to how his destruction of Israel may be perceived by other nations; in particular, that Yhwh destroyed the people out of hate. Likewise, the description of Yhwh’s reaction to future disobedience is presented as highly emotional. So, if Israel refuses to obey the commandments, Yhwh will not only punish them accordingly but will rejoice in their punishment, “As Yhwh exulted over you [‫ ]היה כאשר שש יהוה עליכם‬to do good to you and to increase you, so shall Yhwh exult over you [‫כן ישיש יהוה‬ ‫ ]עליכם‬to exterminate you and to destroy you and you shall be torn from off of the land wherein you are coming to take as a possession” (Deut 28:63). But once the Israelites repent and return, Yhwh will himself return to rejoicing over them, “Yhwh, your god, shall make a surplus of every work of your hand, the fruit of your belly, the fruit of your animal, and the fruit of your land, for good. For Yhwh shall return to exalting over you [‫כי ישוב יהוה‬ ‫ ]לשוש עליך‬for good as he exalted over your ancestors.” 262 261.  See also Deut 4:37; 10:15, 18; 14:2; 18:5; 23:6. 262.  Deut 30:9.

The Divine Body

157

The D composition fluctuates between two polls of divine nature. On the one side, is the clear-cut system of reward and punishment in which the good are always rewarded and the bad always suffer. On the other hand, Yhwh is highly emotional and unpredictable. He loves and rewards those who have not earned it and is capable of disproportionally violent outbursts. In this way, Yhwh’s inner life is inaccessible to humans and often inexplicable. It is perhaps the unpredictable nature of Yhwh that inspires D’s strict reward-punishment program, like P’s use of memory triggers to keep Yhwh’s attention. The covenant laws function as a means by which to predict the unpredictable.

Chapter 4

Divine Location Definition In this chapter I will outline the different presentations of divine location in the sources. I will divide my analysis into three major sections: theophany, mobility, and sustained presence. I will define theophany as any narration of God appearing to an individual or a group, in which there is an explicit or implicit description of seeing and interacting with God that requires a physical presence, however conceived. Closely connected to theophany is the theme of the presence of the deity, or divine mobility. I will define divine mobility as the location, or presence, of the deity with regard to a person or group while traveling. I will focus my analysis on the different means by which the individual sources express, or do not express, continued divine presence outside of sacred space. For examples of divine mobility, I shall focus on the different descriptions of the ark, tent, and cloud/pillar in the sources. The preceding types of divine location are, according to their narrative context, examples of past divine location relative to the author, either occurring at the time of the ancestors or during the Exodus and desert wanderings. Sustained presence, on the other hand, is the clearest description of Yhwh’s ongoing location within the daily life of ancient Israelites. In this section, I shall analyze how the different sources describe sustained presence (or absence), focusing on each source’s description of ritual space.

Theophany: Earthly Presence In the previous chapter, I discussed how each source described the nature of the divine presence at the Sinai/Horeb theophany. In this section, I will focus on the description of the location of the deity as it relates to theophany; where the deity is located when he communicates with individual humans and how that location is relevant to our understanding of divine anthropomorphism. I will center my discussion around an analysis of Jacob’s experience at Bethel. Because this experience is described in three of the four sources, it provides an excellent opportunity for comparison between the sources. The division between J, E, and P in Gen 28:10–22; 35:1–15 is as follows: 1 1.  The division of Genesis 35 is based on Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 230– 45. I include here only passages relevant to theophany. A crux within this division is

158

Divine Location

159

J: Gen 28:10, 13–15, 16aβ–b, 20b–21 E: Gen 28:11–12, 16aα, 17–20α, 22, 35:1–8, 14 2 P: Gen 35:9–13, 15 3

The J Source In the J version, Yhwh appears abruptly and unannounced to Jacob as he is traveling to Haran in Gen 28:13: “Yhwh was standing opposite him [‫ ]והנה יהוה נצב עליו‬and he said, ‘I am Yhwh the god of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you are lying I will give to you and your seed.’” That the theophany is introduced by ‫ והנה‬suggests that Yhwh’s abrupt appearance was the intention of J. 4 Elsewhere in J’s narratives Yhwh appears abruptly to humans, as in Gen 18:1–2: 5 Yhwh appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre: he was sitting at the entrance of the tent during the heat of the day. He lifted his eyes and saw at that moment [‫ ]וירא והנה‬three men stationed opposite him [‫שלשה אנשים‬ ‫]נצבים עליו‬. When he saw, he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and he prostrated to the earth. Yhwh’s reference to Jacob lyin­g on the ground in 28:13, “I am Yhwh, the god of Abraham, your father, and the god of Isaac: the land on which you are lying [‫הארץ אשר אתה שכב‬ ‫ ]עליה‬I shall give to you and your seed.” This detail raises the possibility that the J version originally included a dream vision. The verb ‫ לשכב‬typically refers to a sexual encounter, dying, or sleeping (for example, Gen 19:4, 32–35, and 47:30). The second two are obviously not meant here, which suggests Jacob was sleeping in the J narrative when he saw Yhwh standing over him. Still, ‫ לשכב‬may refer more broadly to resting or lying down to sleep but not necessarily being asleep (for example, Exod 22:26), in which case Yhwh appears to Jacob after he has made camp for the night. If this were a dream theophany in J, it would be the only of its kind in J’s ancestor narratives. The presence of this verbal form in J further suggests that Gen 28:11b and 28:16aα could refer to J. Another explanation is that ‫ שכב‬in 28:13 is an addition by R, who replaced an earlier verbal form with one that harmonized J’s and E’s accounts. 2. The initial vav in Gen 28:22 is an editorial addition by the compiler (R) meant to combine J’s and E’s oaths. The phrase “in the place wherein he spoke with him” in Gen 35:14 belongs either to R, and is meant to harmonize P’s and E’s account, or is a later accidental insertion due to the presence of the same phrase in the preceding and following verses (Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 243). 3.  The word ‫‘ עוד‬again’ in Gen 35:9 is an addition by R to harmonize with Gen 28:10– 22 (ibid., 241–42). 4.  According to A. Berlin’s analysis of ‫הנה‬, here it marks the introduction of a new character, “Jacob left Beer Sheva and went toward Haran; at that point, Yhwh stood by him” (Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [Sheffield: Almond, 1983; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994] 95). She argues that one would expect a verb of perception if ‫ הנה‬marked a shift in perspective or point of view (ibid., 94) though elsewhere she states that it can have this function without such a verb and cites Judg 4:22 (ibid., 63). The word ‫ והנה‬accomplishes both here because it introduces a new character but also marks the shift from narrating Jacob’s travels to Jacob seeing Yhwh in his path, which arrests the narrative. See also Joüon-Muraoka, 105d, and B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 675. 5.  See Gen 12:7, 16:13; Exod 4:24–26.

160

Chapter 4

Here too, a ‫ הנה‬clause marks the introduction of an unexpected encounter. In both, the construction ‫ נִצב על‬is used to describe the appearance of Yhwh at the point when he is noticed by Jacob and Abraham, respectively. E. Hamori has argued that Yhwh’s theophany to Abraham in Gen 18:1– 15 marks a unique sort of concrete anthropomorphism, when the deity manifests completely as a human being (ʾîš theophany). 6 The use of ‫נִצב על‬ at the start of the story (18:2) may signal, to the reader if not to Abraham, that the visitors are not typical travelers. Uses of ‫ נִצב על‬elsewhere in J (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible) reveal that the phrase signals standing still. 7 For instance, Abimelek stations himself by the city well in Gen 24:13 to wait for the young women of the city, “I am sanding opposite the water spring [‫ ]הנה אנכי נצב על עין המים‬and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water.” In contrast, after Rebekah returns home and tells her family of Abimelek’s offer, Laban returns to the well to find Abimelek in 24:30, “He came to the man who was standing by the camels, by the spring [‫]והנה עמד על הגמלים על העין‬.” As we would expect, Laban, who is walking toward Abimelek, who has remained at the well, is described as “coming” to Abimelek whom he sees “standing” by the well. The opposite is the case in Gen 18:2, where Abraham is sitting still. If the three men were in fact typical travelers we would expect them to be described as coming towards Abraham. Instead, Abraham looks up to see them standing in front of him. Thus, they have either appeared out of nowhere or they have stopped in the road (presumably) waiting for Abraham to notice them. 8 Either way, their actions draw attention. The same is true of Yhwh, in Gen 28:13, whom Jacob encounters as he stands stationary in the path of Jacob’s line of travel. What is unusual here is not Yhwh’s appearance but his actions; that is, he lacks the outward signs of divinity typical of the Sinai/Horeb theophany. Jacob may not immediately recognize Yhwh when he sees him. First, this is Jacob’s first encounter with Yhwh, so he has no previous experience by which to recognize the deity. Second, Yhwh’s first words are to introduce himself (Gen 28:13). Third, Jacob’s response in 28:16aβ–b registers his surprise at the entire encounter. J does not describe Yhwh as appearing physically different than a human. So too, the act of ‫ נִצב על‬is, in and of itself, not unusual for a human as we saw in the description of Abimelek in Gen 24:13. Rather, it is the act of standing stationary in Jacob’s path, along 6.  Because she does not distinguish between sources in Gen 28:10–22, Hamori considers Yhwh’s appearance in 28:13 to be part of the dream and thus not an example of concrete anthropomorphism (When Gods Were Men, 29). 7.  See GKC 119cc “to stand serving before [‫ ”]לעמוד על‬vs. “to present oneself before [‫]להנצב על‬.” 8.  Wenham suggests Abraham may have dozed off and the narration describes what he sees when he awakes. He does rule out that the visitors appeared from nowhere, as supernatural beings often do (Genesis, 2:46).

Divine Location

161

with his exceptional promise in 28:14–15, that distinguishes Yhwh from a human to the reader and characters in J’s story. Yhwh’s theophany ends even more ab­ruptly than it began. 9 When Jacob announces his oath in 28:20b–21 he uses third-masculine-singular forms to refer to Yhwh, while Yhwh used second-masculine-singular forms in his speech, the implication being that Jacob is present for Yhwh’s speech but Yhwh is not pre­sent for Jacob’s. As such, it would appear that in J’s story Yhwh appears abruptly on the road to Jacob, delivers his message of a promise of land and protection, and then promptly disappears (if not from sight, then at least from the scene). Jacob’s overwhelmed reaction then is not surprising. Jacob’s reaction in v. 16, “Truly, Yhwh is in this place [‫אכן‬ ‫ ]יש יהוה במקום הזה‬and I did not know,” acknowledges both the physical presence of the deity “at this place” and the extraordinary nature of the experience. The use of the particle of existence (‫ )יש‬suggests ongoing presence, “Yhwh exists [is and continues to be] in this place.” 10 See, for comparison, J’s description of the people of Sodom and Gemorrah in Gen 18:24 “Perhaps, there are fifty righteous [‫ ]יש חמשים צדיקם‬people within the city.” If correct, and Yhwh has departed or disappeared at this point in the narrative, then Jacob’s comment refers to the ongoing presence of the deity where he once appeared. Such a characterization would be consistent with other appearances of Yhwh in J, after which the recipient built an altar. So, in Gen 12:6–7 Abraham builds an altar in Shechem at the Oak of Mamre after Yhwh appears to him: 11 Abraham passed through the land up to the place of Shechem, up to the Oak of Mamre—the Canaanites were then in the land. Yhwh appeared to Abraham [‫ ]וירא יהוה אל אברם‬and said, “To your seed will I give this land.” He built there an altar for Yhwh who had appeared to him [‫ויבן שם מזבח‬ ‫]ליהוה הנראה אליו‬.

At the same time, the ancestors are willing to build altars where no theophany is reported, as in Gen 12:8, “He advanced from there toward the mountains in the east, to Bethel. He pitched his tent with Bethel to the west and 9.  This feature of J’s narrative is potentially the result of the compilation process; we do not know if R has removed any part of J’s story to create a smoother combination of J and E at this point. The overall method of R is conservative and thus it is likely that he has not removed narration of Yhwh departing. See Baden for a discussion of the techniques of the compiler (The Composition of the Pentateuch, 214–45). 10.  “The adverb of existence ‫ יש‬there is expresses, first of all, the existence in a place, namely the presence, and then, by extension, existence as such. . . . These adverbs (‫)יש אין‬, therefore, are not simple copulas, but they add to the copulative notion that of existence, especially local” ( Joüon-Muraoka, 154k). 11.  See also Gen 26:27. Sommer argues that God manifests to Abraham in the tree at Shechem (Bodies of God, 51). The text gives no indication that Yhwh manifests in the tree versus at the tree. Compare with Gen 18:1, where certainly Yhwh appears at the oaks of Mamre and not in them.

162

Chapter 4

Ai to the east and built an altar there for Yhwh and invoked the name of Yhwh [‫]ויקרא בשם יהוה‬.” This behavior better fits the use of altars to access the deity (by invoking the name of Yhwh). So, a theophany elicits the building of an altar because that site has shown itself a likely place to access the deity, since the deity has already appeared there once. At the same time, an altar on its own, accompanied with the correct ritual (“invoking the name”) can also access the deity. Sommer interprets Gen 28:10–22 as the establishment of a cult site centered on a betyl believed to contain the deity. He translates ‫ בית אל‬in Gen 28:16–19, 31:13, 35:14 as ‘betyl’. 12 Sommer’s argument is based in large part on the MT at Gen 31:13, ‫אנכי האל בית אל אשר משחת שם מצבה אשר‬ ‫נדרת לי שם נדר עתה קום צא מן הארץ הזאת ושוב אל ארץ מולדתך‬: We might translate this verse, “I am the God in the betyl that you anointed into a stele there.” In this case, the presence of God in the betyl is made explicit, and the verb ‫ משח‬takes a double accusative to indicate its transformative nature. Alternatively, we might render it, “I am the God Bethel whom you anointed there in the stele.” The God who became incarnate in the betyl takes the divine name Bethel because He is identical with the cult stele known by that name. 13

Sommer does not distinguish between the J and E version of the story. 14 Once the J and E strands are distinguished, we can see that J’s story contains no reference to either a stele or, even, to Bethel. Thus, the J author cannot be said to reflect Sommer’s fluidity model, at least in this passage. Jacob’s response in 28:16aβ–b, as I noted above, strongly suggests divine presence “at this place,” but divine presence of what sort and to what end? Commentators have noted the possible meaning of ‫ מקום‬as ‘cultic site’. 15 J does not specify the location of the theophany, so it seems unlikely that he would use ‫ מקום‬to mean “cult site” because the reader would have had no knowledge (in the original J composition) where this cult site was lo­cated. 16 12.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 49–50. 13.  Ibid., 50. 14.  Ibid., 49; in particular, he identifies Gen 28:16–19 as JE. 15. See Skinner, Genesis, 246; see also pp. 86–87; Gunkel, Genesis, 309; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 453–54. “The story begins with καὶ ἀπήντησεν τόπω ‘and he chanced on a place’, which is somewhat more appropriate than the Masoretic interpretation of the Hebrew in which ‫ במקום‬is vocalized as articulated, which could promote the rather fanciful notion that ‘the place’ was a well-known cultic place. The Greek quite naturally has the first mention of τοπω unarticulated, and thereafter with the article” ( J. W. Weavers, Notes on Greek Text of Genesis [SCSS 35; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993] 448). See Gen 12:6, ‫מקום שכם‬, ְ which suggests the meaning “the (cult) place of Shechem.” The definite article could also represent imperfect determination, with the nuance of “a certain place” ( Joüon-Muraoka, 137m). 16.  This meaning is likely out of place for E’s version as well, in which ‫ מקום‬is used until Jacob gives his own name to the site. In E’s version of the story, ‫ מקום‬is used at the start of the story to maintain the coherency of the etiological nature of the passage: Jacob

Divine Location

163

Jacob’s surprised response reflects the unexpected nature of a theophany away from any preordained site. The use of ‫ מקום‬by the J author then may even reflect his reticence to locate the actual site of the theophany. His story focuses on the fulfillment of Yhwh’s promise to Jacob and his descendents and not the establishment of another cult site. What then can we say regarding the location of Yhwh in J’s story? The narrative reflects on the one hand the corporeality of the deity as he is able to stand next to Jacob and converse with him just as Abimelek and Laban, or any other humans, do. His physical appearance does not reveal his divine character. On the other hand, Yhwh’s actions and words reflect his superhuman abilities—he can appear out of nowhere and just as quickly leave, and he makes exceptional promises to humans. We may say that Yhwh in this J story is anthropomorphic, but he is also clearly capable of much more than humans. I will show that E’s and P’s description of Yhwh’s theophany to Jacob present a similar picture of the deity. The E Source E’s version of the theophany to Jacob is unique among the sources in that it is told in two sequences (in Genesis 28 and 35). 17 Perhaps most interesting about the references to E’s story in Genesis 28 is the apparent discrepancies between what is described in Gen 28:10–22 and its description later. In E’s portion of Gen 28:10–22, Jacob’s initial experience of the supernatural comes not as a theophany but in a dream of divine messengers traveling between heaven and earth. We might argue that this is not a theophany proper, except for the explanation of the place given by Jacob in 28:17 as “the house of God and this is the gate of heaven [‫בית אלהים וזה‬ ‫]שער השמים‬.” E’s story continues in Gen 35:1–8. Here, God speaks to Jacob and refers to the theophany as “the god who appeared to me [‫לאל הנראה‬ ‫( ”]אליך‬35:1) and he names the site ‫( אל בית אל‬35:7). 18 Unlike in J and in P, E’s story leaves the location of the deity largely unstated. God is not present in Jacob’s dream, rather “messengers of God” move up and down the “ascent” (‫) ֻסּלָם‬. 19 Jacob identifies the ascent both as “the arrives somewhere, has a vision of the gate of heaven, and thus names that place “Bethel” because its identity has been revealed to him. It is only parenthetically that we learn that Jacob’s Bethel was called Luz originally. 17. Jacob also refers to the experience in Gen 31:13. In P, Yhwh refers back to his theophanies to each of the patriarchs in Exod 6:2–3, but this reference back is meant as a contrast to his present revelation to Moses. In contrast, in E, the follow-up in Gen 35:1–8 completes the story begun in Gen 28:10–22. In addition, in P, Jacob refers back to the theophany at Luz/Bethel in Gen 48:3 but this is not a continuation of the Bethel experience, as it is in Gen 35:1–8 in E. 18.  The LXX and the Vulgate have the equivalent of “He named the place Bethel.” 19. From ‫‘ סלל‬to pile up’. See C. Houtman, “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel? Some Remarks on Genesis XXVIII 10–22,” VT 27 (1977) 337–51. Given the difficulty of identifying the precise image intended, I have adopted the translation ‘ascent’,

164

Chapter 4

house of God” and “the gate to heaven.” If we prioritize the dream vision for our interpretation of the nature of the site (versus Jacob’s chosen name for the site), 20 then the supposition of the E author is that the site is a locus point between heaven and earth by which the divine messengers enter earth while God remains in heaven. This interpretation is complicated by the etiology “house of God.” An early solution was to interpret the ‫ סלם‬as a ramp or stairway, akin to the Mesopotamian ziggurat temple. 21 Then, the “house of God/El” has its base on earth and its peak in heaven; the messengers travel up and down its stairs. The earthly site itself is not the dwelling place of the deity but rather the access point to the deity, who dwells in heaven. This is strengthened by the fact that no physical stairway exists at Bethel, but it is visible only in a dream. Jacob’s statement in 28:17 could be read as a clarification: “This is none other than the house of Elohim, by that I mean, the gate to heaven.” Again, Sommer’s interpretation that Yhwh is manifest in the stele is undermined once J and E are correctly separated. For, in E, Jacob never states that God is located at Bethel. Instead, he identifies the place as the house of God and, more specifically, the gate to heaven. As noted above, Sommer’s interpretation of Jacob’s stele at Bethel relies on his interpretation of ‫ בית אל‬in Gen 28:16–19, 31:13, and 35:14 as referring to a betyl. So, his preferred translation of Gen 31:13 is “I am the God in the betyl [‫אנכי‬ ‫ ]האל בית אל‬that you anointed into a stele there.” This translation relies on the reference in Greek sources to βαιτυλος as a transliteration of ‫בית אל‬. 22 As a result of this reading, Sommer considers the relative (‫ )אשר‬to refer to an object instead of a place and thus the phrase ‫ משחת שם מצבה‬as ingressive, describing the transformation of the stele from one state (normal stone) to another (dwelling place of deity). Sommer’s solution to the difficult MT text creates larger problems. First, while the act of anointing (‫ )משח‬is a ritual act, which transforms the recipient from a profane to a sacred state, there is nothing in E’s story that demands that we consider Jacob’s act specifically as transforming the stone into a dwelling place of the deity versus as marking it as a sacred object. 23 Second, the resumptive use of ‫ שם‬has no referent in Sommer’s translation which conveys the nuance of some structure connecting heaven and earth without specifying its particular form (in distinction to “ladder” or “stairway”). 20.  The E author would have had no control over the name of the site, it already being in existence at the time of his composition; rather, he is providing his etiology for that name. Therefore, it stands to reason that his understanding of the meaning of the name “Bethel” is best represented in his narrative of the events that inspired this name, as opposed to the precise grammatical meaning of the name. 21.  Skinner, Genesis, 266, 377; von Rad, Genesis, 284; Speiser, Genesis, 220; and more recently Arnold, Genesis, 252. 22.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 28. 23.  Cf. Exod 30:26, 40:9–11; Lev 8:10–11; Num 7:1; Dan 9:24; see also the common use to mean “anoint as king” or “to be king” in 1 Sam 15:1, 17, and so on.

Divine Location

165

because the divine messenger does not refer to the location of this betyl elsewhere in his speech. 24 Third, Sommer’s translation ignores the following relative clause, “where you swore an oath to me [‫]אשר נדרת לי שם נדר‬,” which necessarily refers to a specific location and not an object, thus supporting the reading of ‫ בית אל‬as the location “Bethel” and not the object “betyl.” So, while the precise translation of ‫ אנכי האל בית אל‬is debatable, the full verse clearly understands ‫ בית אל‬as a place name and not a proper name of the deity or referring to the stele. 25 The stele that Jacob erects in 28:22 represents the axis point between heaven and earth, and not the dwelling place of the deity. The stele, or “standing stone [‫]מצבה‬,” bears much in common with the “ascent” of 28:12. First, Jacob clearly associates the stone with the vision, as he is inspired to sanctify it. Second, the description of the stairway may express an etiology for the term ‫מצבה‬. Jacob has a dream of a stairway “stationed [‫ ”]מֻּצָב‬on the earth (v. 12) and in response erects a “stationed” stone ‫מצבה‬. 26 24.  Sommer solves this by translating, “I am the God Bethel whom (‫ )אשר‬you anointed there (‫ )שם‬in the stele.” In essence, he is understanding ‫ אשר‬as qualifying both the divine title and the place. See his interpretation of Hos 12:4–6 (Bodies of God, 56). 25.  For a discussion of the god “Bethel,” see W. Röllig, “Bethel ‫ב)י(תאל‬,” DDD 173–75. I have decided to translate the phrase as a construct as presented in the MT. There are three viable options for understanding the exact meaning of the phrase ‫האל בית אל‬: (1) a definite construct phrase that places the definite article on the nomen regens instead of the nomen rectum, “the god of Bethel” ( Joüon-Muraoka, 140c; see also 131d); (2) an ellipsis for “the deity, the god of Bethel [‫( ”]אל בית אל האל‬GKC 127f); (3) the text is corrupt. The text witnessed in the LXX reads “I am the god who appeared to you in the place of God wherein you anointed a stele for me [ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι ἐν τόπῳ θεοῦ οὗ ἤλειψάς μοι ἐκεῖ στήλην].” Tg. Onq. reads, “the God who appeared to you at Bethel [‫אנא אלהא דאיתגליתי עלך‬ ‫]בית אל‬.” Either reading solves the problem of the proper noun “Bethel,” which poses a syntactical difficulty in MT as it stands. LXX follows the same pattern found in Gen 35:1 when E again refers back to the original Bethel event, “God said to Jacob, ‘Arise and go up to Bethel and settle there and make an altar to the god that appeared to you [‫לאל הנראה‬ ‫ ]אליך‬there when you fled from your brother Esau.’” It is possible though that the Greek translator used Gen 35:1 to make sense of a difficult text in 31:13. Gesenius-Kautzsch provide multiple examples of an ellipsis with a PN nomen regens, but no examples of instances of a similar, nonelliptical phrase as in Gen 31:13, elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. A Phoenician inscription attests to a possible use of the definite article on a nomen regens (hbrk bʿl, KAI 26, A.I.1; H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften [5th ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002] 1:6. Thanks to Benjamin Thomas and Aaron M. Butts for bringing this text to my attention. In essence, each option makes a similar statement, identifying the site of the initial encounter at Bethel. Options one and two may be interpreted as identifying the deity specifically at Bethel, while reading with LXX would instead imply a site of revelation but not of primary residence or access. The Tg. Onq. reading, perhaps the simplest solution, likewise identifies the deity with Bethel, possibly exclusively. Each option aligns with the larger E narrative in which Jacob must travel back to Bethel to erect an altar for the deity he encountered there. If the LXX reading is original, it is possible that the E author conflates the dream of the messengers with a divine theophany proper. 26. G. W. Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative ( JSOTSup 420; London: T. & T.Clark, 2005) 63.

166

Chapter 4

Third, the author repeats certain words (‫מקום‬, ‫ראש‬, ‫)אבן‬, the repetition bearing significance for understanding the story. 27 So Jacob sets the stone as “his head support” (‫מראשתיו‬, v. 11) to rest and has a dream of the stairway with “its head” (‫ראשו‬, v. 12) in the heavens. He then sets the stone that was “his head support” as a stele and anoints “its head” (‫מראשתיו‬, ‫ראשה‬, v. 18) with oil. So E does not explicitly present the deity as dwelling at the site of the stele or in the stele. 28 Instead, the stele is more likely Jacob’s representation of his dream vision; it is the ascent (‫)סלם‬. Jacob, by erecting the stone that precipitated his vision, makes visible what was formally only visible through a dream. When Jacob swears in v. 22 that the stele “shall be the house of God,” we must read this statement parallel with his revelation in v. 17: the stele is a metonym for the house of God, representing the ascent or gateway to the heavenly divine abode. 29 Elsewhere in E, steles serve a commemorative function. But while E does not stress the dwelling of the deity at Bethel, he seems to describe Jacob’s dream as a theophany, that is, a visual experience of the deity. Gen 35:1 states, “God said to Jacob, ‘Arise and go up to Bethel and settle there and make an altar to the god that appeared to you [‫לאל הנראה‬ ‫ ]אליך‬there when you fled from your brother Esau.’” The case is complicated by Gen 35:7, “He built an altar there and named the place ‘El Beth El’ for there haʾelohim had been revealed to him [‫ ]כי שם נגלו אליו האלהים‬when he fled from his brother.” 30 Either ‫ האלהים‬refers to God and we have a rare example of the use of the plural verb, in line with its form but despite its singular meaning, 31 “for there God had been revealed to him,” or ‫ האלהים‬refers to the messengers and we should translate, “for there the divine beings had been revealed to him.” Together, these verses imply that the dream vision of messengers is equivalent to a direct, divine theophany. This is particularly surprising because Gen 28:10–22 never uses the language of theophany ‫( ראה‬Qal or Niphal). In fact, Jacob’s fearful reaction and comments of surprise in 28:17 suggest that his dream runs counter to his waking experience; he cannot see the gate of heaven except in a dream. From the stance of logic and consistency one can ask, how can Gen 28:12 be described as a divine appearance when nothing has appeared and the deity is not part of the dream? One possible explanation is that the permeability between the divine identity and the identity of the messengers suggests that for E an appearance of a messenger is equivalent to an ap27. T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 312. 28.  I am not arguing that the E author denied the possible correlation of the divine presence and steles. Sommer has shown that this belief was present in ancient Israel. I am only arguing that this belief is not explicitly reflected in this text. 29.  Clements makes a similar suggestion (God and Temple, 13). See also Levine, “Lpny Yhwh,” 203. 30.  Skinner, Genesis, 424. The LXX reads “Bethel.” 31.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 70–71.

Divine Location

167

pearance by the deity. If so, then E would share a similar conception of God’s ability to manifest in human form as found in J’s story of Abraham at Mamre in Genesis 18 in which the messengers and Yhwh are indistinguishable except through their speech. Another possibility is that Gen 35:1 does not refer to a direct, divine appearance. Unlike J and P, the E source typically does not use a form of ‫ ראה‬to describe interactions with the deity. It appears only here and in Gen 22:14. 32 In Gen 22:1–14, Abraham’s experience of the deity is mediated, either by distance or through a messenger. Thus, it is inaccurate to interpret 22:14 as reference to a direct theophany, or an appearance, of the deity. Instead, it is likely this verse identifies Abraham’s experience as a divine revelation, but not a revelation that involves seeing the deity. So too, Jacob’s dream is a divine revelation, a glimpse into the divine realm, to which E applies the language of theophany. In this case, I would suggest the translation “the god who revealed himself to you [‫ ”]לאל הנראה אליך‬for Gen 35:1. This is what is described in Gen 35:7, ‫כי שם נגלו אליו האלהים‬. 33 We may understand “revealed [‫ ”]נגלו‬to refer broadly to a revelation of the supernatural, and not specifically to seeing the deity. In this case, even if ‫ האלהים‬is translated as “the deity,” the E author describes Jacob’s experience at Bethel not as a divine theophany but as an experience of the supernatural that revealed knowledge of the deity. It would seem accurate then to argue that the E source largely avoids descriptions of direct theophany to the ancestors. The deity reveals himself through dreams and visions but, with the exception of his wrestling match with Jacob (Gen 32:23–33), does not appear on earth to the ancestors. But the lack of direct theophany in E’s ancestor narratives is not proof that the author seeks to soften the divine anthropomorphism of earlier generations. God communicates through dreams and messengers not because he is nonmaterial but because he remains in heaven. One may even say that E’s description of divine location is more aligned to human reality than J’s. In J, Yhwh is able to appear and disappear spontaneously, traveling great distances in no time. In E, on the other hand, the deity must employ visions and messengers to span the physical divide between his heavenly dwelling and humanity’s earthly abode. Finally, the E author, likely as well as the J author, does not advocate for the sustained presence or indwelling of the deity at any one place or places during the ancestor period. 32.  And a third time, if one accepts the LXX reading of Gen 31:13 as original. A substantive is used in Gen 46:2, “God said to Israel in night visions [‫ויאמר אלהים לישראל במראת‬ ‫]הלילה‬,” which describes a dream vision and not a direct theophany. See my discussion of Gen 22:1–14 on pp. 121–123. 33. Num 22:31 uses the same root to describe Balaam’s eventual revelation of the divine messenger, “Yhwh uncovered Balaam’s eyes [‫ ]ויגל יהוה את עיני בלעם‬and he saw the messenger of Yhwh stationed in the road, his sword unsheathed in his hand. He knelt and bowed to his nose.”

168

Chapter 4

The P Source In the classic comparison of J, E, and P, it is P that is the least anthropomorphic. Wellhausen, for instance, claims that while J imagines God walking around on earth and E relegates him to heaven, P presupposes a nonanthropomorphic deity and thus has no description of god’s location during a theophany. 34 This is simply not the case, as reflected in P’s version of the Bethel story. P’s version is certainly the least descriptive of action; half of the story is divine speech. Still, P quite plainly describes a direct, physical theophany to Jacob in a manner not substantially different (or at least not less anthropomorphic) than J and E. The relevant passages in P’s version are: 35 Gen 35:9: God appeared [‫ ]וירא‬to Jacob. Gen 35:13: God went up from him [‫]ויעל מעליו‬, at the place wherein he spoke with him. Gen 35:15: Jacob named it, the place wherein God had spoken with him [‫]המקום אשר דבר אתו שם אלהים‬, Bethel.

P follows the same pattern of description of a theophany for Abraham in Gen 17:1, 22 (see also Exod 6:3). First, the entire experience is described by the narrator in 35:13, 15 to have taken place at, “the place wherein God had spoken with him.” This description lacks the acknowledgement of an exceptional experience as we saw in Jacob’s reaction in both J (wonderment) and E (fear). In contrast, P’s summary of the event is quite mundane, stressing not the appearance of the deity but his communication (and its content). Gen 35:9 is typically translated “God appeared to Jacob.” In all the sources, the use of a Niphal form of this root with the preposition ‫ אל‬is most common with a divine subject. 36 The translation “appeared to” in the context of a theophany conveys the nuance of becoming visible. As discussed in the preceding chapter, this nuance is appropriate for the divine presence, or “glory” (‫)כבוד‬, in the wilderness in P’s narrative because the glory seems necessarily present in and over the tabernacle at all times. At the same time, it is said to “appear” at certain points to the people, implying that it may always be present but not always visible (see Num 20:6). However, the deity in P is certainly not always present with the ancestors as the glory is with the Israelite camp. This fact is reflected in the lack of a cult before the tabernacle is built and the lack of purity procedures prior to an audience with the deity. It is possible then that we should not interpret 34.  Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 337. 35.  See also Gen 48:3. 36.  See J: Gen 12:7; 18:1; 26:2, 24. E: Num 22:31 (messenger); Deut 31:15 (the LXX has καὶ κατέβη, which is equivalent to Hebrew ‫)וירד‬. P: Exod 6:3; Lev 9:23; Num 16:19, 17:7, 20:6.

Divine Location

169

God’s “appearance” to the ancestors as an act of becoming visible. The P author uses the same phrasing in Leviticus 13 in the laws regarding a person with a skin disease: Lev 13:7: But if the scab should spread on the skin after he has appeared to the priest that he be pronounced pure, he shall present himself to the priest a second time [‫]ונראה שנית אל הכהן‬.

The diseased person here does not “appear” to the priest for evaluation so much as “puts in an appearance to” or “goes to be seen by” the priest. 37 We can first note that P uses the same terminology for God and humans suggesting an analogy, or divine anthropomorphism in P’s description of God appearing to the patriarchs. The question of course is whether P intends the phrase differently in the context of a divine theophany; does it refer to a supernatural event when used of the deity (“appear”), or does it retain the same nuance as for a human subject (“make an appearance”). Certainly, “to appear” in the ancestor stories cannot have the same reference as later in P with the glory, meaning to move from a state of present but invisible to present and visible. The P source depicts the progressive introduction of the divine presence onto earth. At the ancestor stage, God is still relatively absent from daily life. In other words, he is not invisibly traveling along with the ancestors and occasionally reveals himself to them, but rather he shows up to deliver the covenant promise and then leaves. So then, the lack of cultic space in the ancestor narratives strongly suggests that the second, more “human” sense of the phrase (“to put in an appearance”) is meant in Gen 17:1 and 35:1. Both here and in Gen 17:22, after God delivers his announcement to the patriarch, P narrates God’s departure. This detail is lacking in both J and E’s narratives. It is tempting to interpret ‫ ויעל אלהים מעל אברהם‬as describing Yhwh physically ­moving upward, away from Jacob and toward heaven. 38 This interpretation relies on the typical meanings of ‫( עלה‬go up) and ‫מעל‬ (from over, above). But, of course, we must consider not the meaning of these words independently but their use together and in context. 39 This combination is used elsewhere in P four times, twice in reference to the glory and twice to refer to the Israelites. The use to describe the glory at first glance would seem to support the interpretation that God moves upward and away from Jacob: Num 10:11: In the second year, on the second month, on the 20th day [after leaving Egypt], the cloud was separated from [‫ ]נעלה הענן מעל‬the tabernacle of the testimony. 37.  Koehler and Baumgartner list this meaning for the Niphal (“to present oneself”), with the following examples: Gen 46:29, Lev 13:19, Judg 13:10, 1  Kgs 18:1–2 (HALOT 1160). 38.  Gunkel, Genesis, 267. 39.  Barr, Semantics, 21–88.

170

Chapter 4

The fuller description of the glory and cloud in Exodus 40 problematizes this interpretation: Exod 40:34–38: The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory [‫ ]וכבוד‬of Yhwh filled the tabernacle. Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting since the cloud encamped over it and the glory of Yhwh filled the tabernacle. Now, when the cloud was separated from the tabernacle [‫]ובהעלות הענן מעל המשכן‬, the Israelites set out on all their travels, but, if the cloud did not go up, they would not set out until the day it was elevated, for the cloud of Yhwh was over the tabernacle by day and the fire was on by night, in plain sight of all the house of Israel on all their travels.

As the P author describes the situation, the presence of the cloud covering the tent and the glory filling the tabernacle is both a physical presence— as Moses is incapable of entering the tabernacle—and procedural—as the people remain encamped. For the Israelites to break camp and travel, the cloud must be separated from the tent structure. The use of ‫ עלה‬implies that the cloud moves up and away from the tent for this to happen, but the direction of departure is secondary to the separation that must occur between divine presence and the tabernacle before the tabernacle can be broken down. The use of this phrase in P’s Korah narrative supports an emphasis on separation versus upward movement: 40 Num 16:24: Speak to the assembly, “Go away from [‫ ]העלו מסביב‬the area around Korah’s [Dathan’s and Abiram’s] dwelling.” Num 16:27: They were separated from [‫ ]ויעלו מעל‬the dwelling of Korah, [Dathan and Abiram] from around (it).

Here, clearly, the congregation is not moving up and away from Korah’s dwelling. Rather, the phrasing stresses the need to separate from the dwelling; to move away from it as evidenced by Moses’ command in 16:26, “He spoke to the assembly, ‘Turn away from [‫ ]סורו נא מעל‬the tents of these evil men.’” This fact is made even clearer once E’s story of Dathan and Abiram is removed. The continuation of P’s narrative in 16:26 comes in 16:32b, so: “They were separated from [‫ ]ויעלו מעל‬the dwelling of Korah.” The force of the phrase ‫ עלה מעל‬then is “to separate from” and not to go up from or disappear. With this knowledge we can understand Gen 35:13 as a description of the departure of Yhwh from Jacob’s general vicinity; they parted company, so to speak. 40. See 150 n. 246 for my argument for assigning this passage to P versus H, contra Knohl. Numbers 16 is a compilation of P’s narrative of Korah and E narrative of Dathan and Abiram with some redactional additions (see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 181– 83). The words in brackets in my translation represent additions by R to harmonize the P and E narratives. For a source division of this passage, see Friedman, Bible with Sources Revealed, 268–70.

Divine Location

171

P lacks the explicit references to the deity’s location that we found in J’s story (‫ )נצב על‬but shares with J a basic vocabulary to describe a theophany, “he appeared and spoke.” 41 There is no justification for reading P’s lack of detail as an intentional avoidance of divine anthropomorphism, especially because P’s limited description does reflect assumptions of the divine presence. First, as noted above, while J’s description of Yhwh “standing opposite” Jacob is language used elsewhere to describe human action, the context suggests exceptional and possibly nonhuman behavior. P’s narrative, in contrast, lacks any descriptions of Yhwh that distinguish his appearance or actions from humans. His identity as a deity is revealed only through his speech (and the narrator’s identification). 42 Second, P’s narrative, in distinction from J and E, is characterized by terseness; he reports only the essential events. It is then noteworthy that the P author does choose to include a description of Yhwh leaving (Gen 35:13). Unlike in J, where Yhwh’s departure is left unstated, the P author includes this information, which is theoretically nonessential to the plot of the story. 43 Thus, we may say that God’s actions in P are less exceptional than what is described in J for, like a human, once he shows himself to someone he must logically depart from that person’s presence. We may conclude from this comparison of the theophany to Jacob in J, E, and P that each of the sources presents its own, unique account of the theophany to Jacob which fits into a larger trend of the nature of theophany to the ancestors in that source. The three sources share some common presentations about the nature of divine location. First, none of the sources presents God as taking up a permanent, cultic location on earth during the time of the ancestors. The closest is Jacob’s acknowledgment of the divine presence at the site in J (Gen 28:16), but not his indwelling in any object. Instead, God manifests to the humans and then departs. Second, God is capable of manifesting on earth. Third, God’s outward appearance at these manifestations is unexceptional (or at least not worthy of comment) and at times even physically indistinguishable from humans. Fourth, God is distinguishable from humans by noncorporeal means; recognizable through either his speech, actions, or, only in E, his association with heaven. The conclusion then is that J, E, and P cannot be effectively charted in terms of degrees of divine anthropomorphism. They share enough in common to render anthropomorphic features an unreliable means for source ascription­. 41.  Compare with J in Gen 12:7. 42.  Hamori considers this a trait of the “concrete anthropomorphism” and “anthropomorphic realism” of Gen 18:1–15 and 32:23–33 in which the deity fully adopts the form of a human, limitations and all (When Gods Were Men, 12). 43.  This detail is potentially reflective of the progressive involvement of the deity with humans in P. In other words, it is important to the P author to assert that Yhwh left after speaking with Abraham and Jacob because Yhwh does not dwell on earth in P until the building of the tabernacle.

172

Chapter 4

For instance, even though E is the only source to associate God with heaven (though indirectly), this cannot be used to distinguish E texts from J and P texts because there is nothing in J and P texts that precludes locating God in heaven for a theophany. Also, their similarities argue against an evolutionary model of divine anthropomorphism within Israelite religion. Alternatively, though they share features in common with regard to divine anthropomorphism, their historical details remain irreconcilable. That is, a shared theology of divine anthropomorphism no more warrants ignoring source divisions as a supposed conflicting theology of divine anthropomorphism warrants distinguishing between sources. If we accept the classic, relative dating of J then E then P, the similarities and lack of systematic differences show that later sources are no more likely to avoid divine anthropomorphisms than earlier ones. Nor can we use divine anthropomorphism as a means of dating the sources relative to each other; most notably, there is nothing in P’s description of theophany that requires a postexilic date. 44 Instead, each source author presumes the anthropomorphic character of the deity but emphasizes different aspects of that nature and its relation to human corporeality, according to each author’s broader literary interests. The D Source The D source does not include any narratives of Israel’s existence before the Exodus. Thus, it is not surprising that the D source contains no explicit examples of a theophany to an individual. Theophanies to individuals in J, E, and P appear solely in the ancestor stories and to Moses. After the exodus event, theophany in all the sources is a communal event. 45 A possible exception to this trend is the common description in all of the sources of Yhwh speaking to Moses during the wilderness trek, without any accompanying description of the means by which the deity communicates. I will address this phenomenon in the next section, but mention it here to note that the D source does make a distinction between Yhwh appearing to the Israelites on Mt. Horeb and his continued communication with Moses in the wilderness. So, on four separate occasions, Yhwh speaks to Moses after the people have left Horeb (Deut 2:9, 17, 31; 3:2). Twice, Moses induces communication with Yhwh away from Horeb (3:23–28, 9:23–29). Thus, the D source does imply theophany to an individual but leaves the means (and thereby the location of the deity at this time) largely unspecified.

44.  A far more reliable method for dating is to rely on linguistic data, which strongly favors a preexilic date for P; see especially A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study. 45.  An exception appears in Exod 17:6 ( J) when Yhwh appears only to Moses, which I discuss below. Moses has private viewings with Yhwh in the wilderness period (for example, Exod 33:18–23), but the Israelites are aware of the presence of the deity at these points in the narrative.

Divine Location

173

Divine Mobility Kaufmann notes that the ancestor narratives describe a different type of theophany than is found in pentateuchal narratives that describe chronologically later events: “Genesis is peculiar also in its form of theophany. Hardly one of its theophanies possesses an external framework, fire, clouds, or the like. God appears to the naked eye mostly by day.” 46 Each of the sources introduces this “external framework” in the Mosaic period, at the Sinai/Horeb revelation. As discussed in the preceding chapter, each source presents its own version of the deity’s full manifestation at Sinai/Horeb. The extreme disparity between the description of theophany during the ancestor period and the theophany on the mountain suggests that the ancestor theophanies did not constitute full manifestations of the deity. Recently, Sommer has argued this, in particular that Yhwh partially manifests (“small-scale manifestation”) through a messenger (‫ )מלאך‬or in the form of a man. Sommer’s distinction between full and small-scale manifestations is attractive because it accounts for the varied descriptions of theophany between the different periods of Israelite history as well as within specific periods. 47 The focus of this section is the ability of the deity to be located at different sites over time and to move around on earth. I refer to this phenomenon as divine mobility. In particular, I will look at how each source describes the deity in relation to the camp during the wilderness trek. At this stage in the pentateuchal sources, Yhwh has fully manifested on the mountain. The question has become, Will the full manifestation of Yhwh remain visible to the people and if so how? I will avoid any discussion of the exact nature of the divine presence here (bodily, hypostasis, and so on). I discuss these issues in my analysis of the Sinai/Horeb event in the previous chapter and my analysis of the “name [‫ ”]שם‬in D below. The J Source The J author describes the deity traveling with the Israelites through the wilderness. The picture J presents is of Yhwh hovering over the Israelite camp in the cloud pillar. He begins his narrative of the wilderness journey in Exod 13:21 with a description of the cloud of Yhwh leading the people out of Egypt: Exod 13:21–22: Yhwh was going before them [‫ ]ויהוה הלך לפניהם‬daily in a cloud pillar to lead them on the road [‫ ]לנחתם הדרך‬and at night in a fire pillar to provide them light in order to walk day and night. 22) The cloud pillar did not depart [‫ ]לא ימיש‬by day nor the fire pillar by night from before the people. 46.  Kaufmann, Religion, 207. 47.  See his comments in Bodies of God, 38–57, esp. pp. 38–44.

174

Chapter 4

The language here explicitly locates Yhwh both in the proximity of the people, ‫ויהוה הלך לפניהם‬, and within the cloud, ‫בעמוד ענן‬. The purpose for the cloud pillar is practical, serving as a guide for the people, ‫נחתם הדרך‬. 48 Exod 14:24 further attests to the immediate proximity of Yhwh to the Israelites, hovering over them in the cloud pillar, “At the morning watch Yhwh looked down on the Egyptian camp in the pill­ar of fire and cloud [‫ ]בעמוד אש וענן‬and he confused the Egyptian camp.” 49 Exod 13:22 insists that the pillar never left the camp. 50 But, after the Sea event, the cloud is not mentioned again until Num 14:14: Num 14:14: They [the Egyptians] shall say to the inhabitants of this land, they who have heard that you, Yhwh, are in the midst of this people [‫ ;]בקרב העם הזה‬51 you, Yhwh, who have appeared in plain sight [‫נראה עין‬ ‫ ]בעין‬and your cloud stands over them [‫ ]ועננך עמד עלהם‬and you go in a pillar of cloud before them by day and in a pillar of fire by night [‫ובעמד ענן‬ ‫]אתה הלך לפניהם יומם ובעמוד אש לילה‬.” 52

Furthermore, indications from J’s narrative call into question the immediate presence of the deity in the cloud between the Sea event and leaving Sinai. So, for instance, Exod 13:21 states that the cloud moved with the camp. But in J’s narrative of Moses’ providing water for the people at Massah and Meribah, Yhwh is located outside the pillar. 53 In Exod 17:6, Yhwh tells Moses that he will stand before him on the rock which Moses should strike 48.  Exod 14:19 claims that a divine messenger is likewise leading the Israelite camp through the wilderness. This verse describes the movement of the messenger and that of the pillar (in which Yhwh is, according to 14:24) with parallel language, “The messenger of Yhwh, the one going before the camp of Israel, traveled and he went behind them [‫ויסע‬ ‫ ]מלאך האלהים ההלך לפני מחנה ישראל וילך מאחריהם‬and the pillar of cloud traveled from before them and stood behind them [‫]ויסע עמוד הענן מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם‬.” Thus, the J author describes the messenger and Yhwh as parallel but not conflated; they remain separate entitites. If Exod 33:1–3 are correctly attributed to J, then the J author describes the messenger and Yhwh both traveling with the camp through the wilderness, but only rarely mentions that messenger. 49.  The same correlation is later made between the ark and the cloud in 14:42–45. In both cases, the movements of the ark are the same as the movements of the pillar and/ or Yhwh. 50. Following Propp, “My translation [‘the cloud pillar would not depart’] parses yāmîš as an intransitive Qal (with ibn Ezra). Rashi, however, sees a causative Hiph‘il, with Yahweh the implicit subject: ‘He did not remove the pillar. . . .’ While this is morphologically unassailable, it is neither the plain sense nor the interpretation of any ancient Version. It is justly rejected by Luzzato” (Exodus, 490). 51.  The subject of heard is the Egyptians and not the inhabitants of Canaan. The syntax of this verse is likely corrupt (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 365–66). 52.  “You who have appeared”: the MT pointing reflects a third-masculine-singular affix form, ‫נראָה‬, which could be easily repointed as a masculine singular active participle, ‫נראֶה‬, in accordance with the two following verbal forms. 53.  Exod 17:1bβ–7 is best attributed to J, despite the reference to Horeb in 17:6, due to continuities with J’s composition (compare with Exod 7:20), in particular, the reference to Moses’ staff “with which you struck the Nile” (v. 5). J knows of a place Horeb as the site of

Divine Location

175

to bring out water, “‘I am going to stand before you [‫]הנני עמד לפניך‬, there on the rock in Horeb, and you shall strike the rock and water will come out of it.’ Moses did thus in the sight of the elders of Israel.” The J author uses explicit language that locates Yhwh on the rock in front of Moses (compare the use of thi­s preposition with Moses in Exod 17:5), which would seem to preclude his presence in the cloud. Yhwh’s presence with the camp is possibly brought into question in Exod 17:7 when the Israelites are quoted as questioning if the deity is among them, “They named the place Massah and Meribah because of the dispute of the Israelites and because they tested Yhwh by saying, ‘Is Yhwh in our midst or not [‫ ”’?]היש יהוה בקרבנו אם אין‬Taken plainly, it is difficult to understand how the Israelites could question the presence of the deity if the perpetually present cloud pillar was considered equivalent with the divine presence. 54 The question may be meant rhetorically, with an implied positive answer: yes, Yhwh is in our midst, so why should we experience thirst? Then, the people then are not questioning Yhwh’s presence but his power. The need for visual show of divine power suggests that the Israelites are in fact questioning both Yhwh’s power and his presence because they cannot see Yhwh himself (but only the cloud pillar) and experience hardship despite his supposed presence. If we take Exod 13:22 to mean that the J author understood that the pillar was present for the entire wilderness experience, which is confirmed by Num 14:14, then we must concede that Yhwh is not limited to the cloud but can move in and out of it. So we can emphasize the distinction between Exod 13:21, which states that Yhwh went before the people in the cloud (when they left Egypt), and 13:22, which states only that the pillar, and not necessarily Yhwh in it, was constantly before the people. 55 This explains why the people question whether Yhwh is “in our midst” (Exod 17:7) and why in Exod 34:9 Moses requests that Yhwh travel “in our midst.” J’s use of ‫ בקרב‬reflects a nuance of proximate presence, that is, to be “among” a group is to be located in its general proximity. So, in Num 11:20 Moses describes Yhwh to the Israelites as he “who is in your midst [‫]בקרבכם‬.” The Israelites are described in turn in v. 21 as those “among whom [‫”]בקרבו‬ Moses is located. Yhwh is among the people just as Moses is among them. Thus, while the J author likely imagines the pillar to be ever present with the people in the wilderness, the deity is not always present, and when he is present he is not always located in the same space, nor is he visible to Moses and Aaron’s meeting (Exod 4:27). This Horeb is not the site of the encounter with Yhwh, as in E (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 175–77). 54.  It is possible that ‫ בקרבו‬refers not to immediate presence but to providential care. But, as I will argue below, the use of ‫ בקרב‬elsewhere in J in reference to the deity necessarily refers to actual presence and not providential care, for which J uses the preposition ‫עם‬. 55.  The language of Exod 17:6 (“I am going to stand before you [‫ )”]הנני עמד לפניך‬suggests that Yhwh’s theophany here is for Moses alone; the people are not privy to it. If so, then the deity can obscure his presence once out of the cloud. If Exod 33:1–3 belong to J, then J presupposes Yhwh is not bound to traveling with the people.

176

Chapter 4

the people. The great tension of the wilderness experience, in fact, is the issue of divine proximity. From the point of view of the people, has Yhwh shown himself to be amoung them? From Yhwh’s view, will the people acknowledge his presence through obedience? And from Moses’ viewpoint, can he entreat Yhwh to remain among them in spite of the continued disobedience of the people? Humanity can never return to the original state of immediate divine presence as experienced by the first humans. 56 Ongoing divine presence is fraught with complication. As seen in the discussion of the divine body in the previous chapter, the full manifestation of the deity is something that is dangerous and requires certain safety precautions for both humans and the deity. These very precautions—the veil of the pillar, limited access to seeing Yhwh on the mountain, the invisibility of Yhwh away from the cloud or Sinai—produce a certain level of anxiety among the people that leads them to misunderstand the nature of that presence. 57 The E Source Exod 33:7–11 describes Moses’ system for erecting the Tent of Meeting and the means by which it is used to communicate with Yhwh: Moses would take [‫ ]יקח‬a certain tent and pitch [‫ ]ונטה‬it outside the camp, far from the camp. He called it the Tent of Meeting and everyone who sought Yhwh would come out to the Tent of Meeting, which was outside the camp. When Moses went out to the tent, all the people arose and each man stood at the entrance of his tent [‫]יקומו כל העם ונצבו איש פתח אהלו‬ and they watched Moses until he entered the tent. When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stand at the entrance of the tent and he would speak with Moses [‫ירד עמוד הענן ועמד פתח האהל‬ ‫]ודבר עם משה‬. All the people would see the cloud pillar standing at the entrance of the tent [‫ ]עמד פתח האהל‬and all the people would arise and prostrate, each one at the entrance of his tent [‫]איש פתח אהלו‬. Yhwh would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his neighbor [‫ודבר יהוה אל‬ ‫]משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו‬, and he would return to the camp. Joshua, son of Nun, his attendant, a young man, would not move from within the tent.

The syntax here (yiqtol . . . w-qataltí) expresses the repeated action of Moses. 58 Placed where it is, this passage is a flash forward, which describes Moses’ actions as the people traveled through the wilderness, because at this point in E’s narrative they are still encamped at Horeb (34:4–5). 59 The E author then presents a shift from the situation at Mt. Horeb, when Moses 56.  I disciss cultic presence in J below. 57.  This tension may be what prompts Yhwh’s concern at Sinai that the people will break through the barrier to see him (Exod 19:21–24). The people have shown themselves to doubt whether Yhwh really is in the pillar and thus will want to charge the mountain to see him ( Jeffrey Stackert, personal communication, June 15, 2011). 58.  Joüon-Muraoka, 119u. 59. See also Exod 33:1–6, which locates the Israelites at Horeb, but may belong (at least in part) to J.

Divine Location

177

travels up and down the mountain to meet with Yhwh while the Israelites remain encamped below, to after Horeb when Moses meets with Yhwh at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 60 Like at Horeb, Yhwh descends on to the tent in a cloud pillar. Exod 33:9 states only that the pillar descends, but v. 11 insists that Yhwh spoke to Moses “face to face” at the tent entrance. The concrete nuance of this phrase is suggested by E’s use of the same phrase to describe Jacob’s encounter at Peniel. 61 The concrete nature of the analogy of v. 11, “Yhwh would speak to Moses face to face [‫]פנים אל פנים‬, as a man speaks to his friend [‫]פנים כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו‬,” is strengthened by the parallel between the cloud and the people. So, just as Yhwh spoke with Moses as friends speak to each other (face to face), so too the cloud in which Yhwh descended stands at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (‫ירד עמוד הענן ועמד פתח האהל‬, 33:9), just as each of the Israelites prostrated at the entrance of their tents (‫)איש פתח אהלו והשתחוו‬. The chronology of the E composition as it now stands juxtaposes the use of the Tent of Meeting to communicate with Yhwh with the after effects of the golden calf incident. So, though Exod 33:7–11 is presented as a flash forward and describes repeated behavior, that the E author chose this moment to note the establishment of this practice is relevant to the transgression of the calf. The golden calf incident, narrated in Exod 32:1–25, is followed by a description of Moses’ attempt to assuage the divine anger. In 32:34 and again in 33:2, Yhwh states that he will send his messenger to lead the people and not personally accompany the camp. 62 Yhwh will not remain “in your midst” (33:4) out of fear that the rebellious nature of the people will provoke an outburst that will destroy the people (33:5). 63 The continuation that describes the construction of the Tent of Meeting then appears as a compromise; Yhwh will not go up from Horeb among his people, but he will appear at the Tent of Meeting. The Tent of Meeting then becomes a stand in for Mt. Horeb. 64 60.  Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 267. 61.  Gen 32:31. The same phrase is used by Gideon to describe his encounter with a divine messenger in Judg 6:22, “Gideon understood that he was the messenger of Yhwh. Gideon said, ‘O, my lord, Yhwh! So, then, I have seen the messenger of Yhwh face to face [‫ ”’!]כי על כן ראיתי מלאך יהוה פנים אל פנים‬In both instances, the phrase is used to describe a physical encounter with a divine being, suggesting that we should interpret its use in Exod 33:11 (and Deut 34:10) as in reference to the actual presence of the deity and not as exclusively figurative language expressing intimacy (contra Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 30). I discuss the idiom “face to face” in chapter 3. 62. I discuss messengers in E in chapter 5. This messenger is also mentioned in Exod  23:20. Here, Yhwh does not claim to send the messenger because his own presence would be too dangerous, but he does warn the people to obey his messenger strictly (Exod 23:21) suggesting the presence of the messenger is somehow related to the obstinancy of the people. 63. C. L. Meyers, Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 262. 64.  If Exod 33:1–6 belong to E, then the Tent of Meeting is introduced as the Israelites are about to leave Mt. Horeb.

178

Chapter 4

The common description of Yhwh’s appearance at the Tent of Meeting is that Yhwh “came down” to the tent (‫ירד‬, Num 11:25, 12:4–5; Deut 31:15). The E author leaves unstated from where Yhwh comes (so too for the Horeb theophany). The presumption may be that Yhwh is descending from heaven, but the E author never explicitly says this. The correlation between Yhwh’s appeara­nce and a cloud made by the E source suggests that the E author associates Yhwh with the clouds. That is, that the clouds are where Yhwh is located typically, and thus when he appe­ars on earth he comes down and bring the clouds, which usually obscure his presence. As I will discuss in the next section, the E source associates theophany in the Balaam story with elevated places, further supporting the interpretation that Yhwh for E is primarily located in the sky. As in the J source, the E source depicts the issue of Yhwh’s presence with the people during the wilderness journey as a source of anxiety and tension. The J author imagines Yhwh (or, at least his cloud’s) sustained presence with the camp. In contrast, the E author depicts Yhwh as visiting the Israelites via the Tent of Meeting, but otherwise not present with the group. Thus, divine mobility in the E source relates not to how Yhwh moves with the camp but to how Yhwh descends to the Tent of Meeting, wherever the Israelites may be encamped at the time. Yhwh’s theophany during the wilderness journey is then similar to theophanies during the times of the ancestors in that no specific place is described as the sustained location of Yhwh or as a place of access to the divine presence. E’s Tent of Meeting does provide a set location at which to access the divine presence (such as altars in E’s schema, as I will argue below), but Yhwh does not take up residence in the tent. 65 The major difference from the ancestor period is that, when Yhwh descends to the Tent of Meeting, it is in the same form (in the cloud) as his full manifestation on Horeb, whereas he only partially manifests, or manifests without an external framework, to the ancestors. The P Source Like the other sources, the P source describes the fullest divine manifestation on Mt. Sinai: Exod 24:15b–18a: The cloud covered the mountain. The glory of Yhwh dwelt [‫ ]וישכן כבוד יהוה‬on the mount of Sinai and the cloud covered it for six days and he called to Moses on the seventh day from within the cloud. The appearance of the glory of Yhwh was like a consuming fire at the top of the mountain in the sight of the Israelites [‫ומראה כבוד יהוה כאש‬ ‫]אכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל‬. Moses came into the cloud [‫ויבא משה בתוך‬ ‫ ]הענן‬and he went up to the mountain.

It is here that the divine glory first appears on earth; up to this point in P’s narrative, no one has seen the glory. 66 Though Yhwh has appeared to 65.  Haran, “Nature of the ‘ʾOhel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5 (1960): 50–65. 66. Exodus 16 has been displaced from its original place in P’s narrative.

Divine Location

179

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and then Moses, he has done so, to use Sommer’s terminology, through a small-scale manifestation. As discussed in the previous chapter, P never describes the physical features of the glory (we have to wait for Ezekiel’s description) but does conflate this presence with that of Yhwh. Hundley provides a clear picture of the nature of the full manifestation of Yhwh at Sinai and in the tabernacle: At first, Yhwh’s glory shines so brightly that none can enter the tabernacle. This light show serves both a practical and a didactic purpose. Practically, Yhwh’s glory must first consecrate his tabernacle (Exod 29:43–44) before it becomes a suitable dwelling. Didactically, the effulgent glory is a visible display of presence, indicating that the deity has come to reside and that his manifest presence is awesome. Once it has served its purposes, the glory may then withdraw into the inner sanctuary, leaving in its wake the cloud and fire as a perpetual reminder of presence, so as to allow the proper interchange between human and divine. After the glory recedes, the priests and Moses can enter the outer sanctuary to serve Yhwh and receive oracles, respectively. 67

Unlike the other sources, the first laws Yhwh gives at Sinai are expressly concerned with the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 25:1–2). Thus, in P, Yhwh’s full manifestation on Sinai is motivated by Yhwh’s plan to dwell among the Israelites, “make a sanctuary for me that I may dwell among you [‫]ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם‬.” 68 A link then is drawn between the glory, which dwells on Mt. Sinai (Exod 24:16), and the tabernacle (Exod 25:9, ‫ )המשכן‬in which Yhwh plans to dwell (Exod 25:8). 69 This parallel between dwelling on Sinai and dwelling in the tabernacle is repeated in P’s description of the glory moving from Sinai into the tabernacle, in Exod 40:34–38: The cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of Yhwh filled the tabernacle. Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting since the cloud encamped over it and the glory of Yhwh filled the tabernacle. Now, when the cloud was separated from the tabernacle, the Israelites set out on all their travels, but, if the cloud did not go up, they would not set out until the day it was elevated, for the cloud of Yhwh was over the tabernacle by day and the fire was on by night, in plain sight of all the house of Israel on all their travels. ‫ויכס הענן את אהל מועד וכבוד יהוה מלא את המשכן ולא יכל משה לבוא אל אהל מועד‬ ‫כי שכן עליו הענן וכבוד יהוה מלא את המשכן ובהעלות הענן מעל המשכן יסעו בני ישראל‬ ‫בכל מסעיהם ואם לא יעלה הענן ולא יסעו עד יום העלתו כי ענן יהוה על המשכן יומם ואש‬ ‫תהיה לילה בו לעיני כל בית ישראל בכל מסעיהם‬ 67.  Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 44. Hundley distinguishes between the glory and the fire, whereas I agree with Haran that the fire emanates from the glory and is not a separate covering of the glory (see pp. 89–91). For other explanations see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 574–75, 588–91; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 204. 68.  Exod 25:8. The LXX reads καὶ ὀφθήσομαι ἐν ὑμῖν. Knohl ascribes Exod 25:1–9 to H, which I discuss in chapter 3. 69.  Propp, Exodus 19–40, 673, 688; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 574.

180

Chapter 4

The purpose of the tabernacle is the mobility of the fully manifested divine presence in the form of the glory and cloud. Here, too, P differs from the other sources. As we have seen, J and E do not maintain the sustained presence of the full manifestation throughout the desert trek. P, on the other hand, describes the constant presence of both the cloud/fire and the glory, ‫כן יהיה תמיד הענן יכסנו ומראה אש לילה‬. 70 But, the P source does mute the full manifestation of the divine presence, as we have seen with J and E. It is clear from P’s description of the glory in the wilderness trek that, while it and the cloud may be ever present in the tabernacle or over the camp, the glory at least is not always visible. 71 At six points in P’s narrative (Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10, 16:19, 17:7, 20:6) the glory appears to the people. Five of these instances are chronologically posterior to the installation of the cloud and glory into the Tent of Meeting from Mt. Sinai. P’s manna narrative in the canonical text stands before Yhwh’s manifestation at Sinai. The Redactor has almost certainly displaced this passage to before P’s Sinai narrative in order to conflate J and P’s manna stories. 72 Apart from the logical problem of the glory appearing to the people before its arrival onto Mt. Sinai, Exod 16:33–34 presume the existence of the Tent of Meeting and tabernacle, which will not be erected until Exodus 40 in P’s narrative. The pattern of events in Exod 16:9–10 follow those in later appearances of the glory to the people in the tent: Exod 16:9–10: Moses said to Aaron, “Say to the whole congregation of the Israelites, ‘Draw near before Yhwh, for he has heard your grumblings.’” When Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of Israelites, they turned to the wilderness and the glory of Yhwh had appeared in the cloud [‫הנהו‬ ‫]ןנעב הארנ הוהי דובכ‬. Lev 9:23: Moses came, and Aaron, to the Tent of Meeting and they left and blessed the people and the glory of Yhwh appeared [‫ ]וירא כבוד יהוה‬to all the people. 70.  Num 9:16. Friedman attributes Num 9:15–23 to R (Bible with Sources Revealed, 256), but this is unnecessary. I discuss this in chapter 3. 71.  Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 46–47; Milgrom, Leviticus, 589. Contra Frankel, who sees two distinct conceptions of divine guidance in the wilderness in the Priestly material: guidance by divine command, which is part of the earlier P stratum, and guidance by the cloud, which belongs to the later H stratum (“Two Priestly Conceptions of Guidance”). Frankel sees a contradiction between those passages that describe the movement of the cloud (Exod 40:36–37; Num 9:15–23, 10:11–12) and those that describe the appearance of the glory at the tabernacle (Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10, 16:19, 17:7, 20:6): the latter present the cloud as temporarily visible while according to the former, the cloud is always visible. This is not the case. The latter passages (Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; Num 14:10, 16:19, 17:7, 20:6) describe the appearance of the glory, not the cloud, and Exod 16:10 and Num 17:7 describe the cloud as present when the glory appears, suggesting that the cloud is ever visible, though the glory is not. 72.  On evidence of displacement, see Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch according to the Revised Version, 2:104–5. For a contra argument, see Houtman, Exodus, 2:335; Propp, Exodus 19–40, 595.

Divine Location

181

Num 14:10: The entire congregation meant to pelt them with stones but the glory of Yhwh appeared to all the Israelites at the Tent of Meeting [‫]וכבוד יהוה נראה באהל מועד‬. Num 16:19: Korah assembled the entire congregation to them at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and the glory of Yhwh appeared [‫וירא כבוד‬ ‫ ]יהוה‬to the entire congregation. Num 17:7: When the congregation assembled against Moses and Aaron, they turned to the Tent of Meeting and here was the cloud covering it and the glory of Yhwh appeared [‫]והנה כסהו הענן וירא כבוד יהוה‬. Moses came, and Aaron, in front of the Tent of Meeting. Num 20:6: Moses came, and Aaron, from before the assembly to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and they fell on their faces and the glory of Yhwh appeared to them [‫]וירא כבוד יהוה אליהם‬.

These passages share in common the motivation for the appearance of the glory. While in Lev 9:23 the glory appears as part of the dedication of the altar, in all other cases, the glory appears in response to the disobedience of the people. If the glory is typically invisible to the people, what exactly is seen when the glory does appear? According to Exod 16:10, the glory appeared “in the cloud [‫]בענן‬.” The other instances locate the glory at the Tent of Meeting. Thus, when the glory appears to the people, it does so obscured by the cloud, as it was at Mt. Sinai. The people, unlike Ezekiel and possibly Moses, never see the glory unobscured. 73 At Sinai, the glory appeared to the people “as fire consuming the top of the mountain” (Exod 24:17). Elsewhere in P, the glory is associated with fire. At the dedication of the altar in Lev 9:24, after the glory appears, the people witness fire emerging “from Yhwh” to consume the offering, “A fire went out from before Yhwh [‫ותצא אש מלפני‬ ‫ ]יהוה‬and consumed on the altar the whole burnt offering and the fats and all the people saw [‫ ]וירא כל העם‬and they cheered and fell on their faces.” The same fire emerges “from Yhwh” to consume Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:1–2 and later Korah and his group in Num 16:35. 74 It is reasonable­ to presume then that what is seen in the instances of the appearance of the glory in the tent is the same fire-like sight witnessed on Mt. Sinai. 73. The fire at the inauguration of the altar (Lev 9:24) and which consumes both Nadab and Abihu (10:2), and Korah and company (Num 16:35) is a possible exception if this fire is the glory itself (Milgrom, Leviticus, 589; Sommer, Bodies of God, 68). But, given the strong similarity of descriptions it seems that this is the same phenomenon in 9:24 and 10:2. I am more inclined to the interpretation that while the glory is associated with fire, the fire that comes out of the Holy of Holies is not the glory because it is not identified as such and because it is described as coming out “from before Yhwh [‫( ”]מלפני יהוה‬Gray, Numbers, 207; Levine, Leviticus, 58). 74.  In Num 17:10, Yhwh warns Moses and Aaron to separate from the group “that I may consume them in an instant!” This use of ‫אכל‬, which is used to describe the fire in Lev 9:24, 10:2, and Num 16:35, implies Yhwh is referring to the same consuming fire here.

182

Chapter 4

The full manifestation of the divine presence, in the form of the glory appearing as fire within its cloud on Sinai, takes on a muted appearance once it begins its travels through the wilderness with the people. The glory is ever present, either in the cloud, which is either covering the Tent of Meeting or hovering above the ground and leading the people (Num 10:11–12), or in the tabernacle, when the tent obscures it. But, the glory only appears when necessary; to dedicate the altar but more often to discipline the people. Unlike in J (Exod 17:7), the people never doubt the presence of the deity in the wilderness in P. Furthermore, unlike in E, the full manifestation of the deity is ever present with the people. So the fiery glory appears during the day to respond to rebellion by the Israelites. But, why? If we accept that P’s manna narrative in Exodus 16 has been displaced by R from its original placement sometime after the Israelites broke camp at Mt. Sinai and began their wilderness trek (Num 10:11–12), then the pattern presented by the P author is clarified. The first appearance of the glory to dedicate the altar is accompanied by an awesome show of power. The response of the people in Lev 9:24 is to shout out and fall to the ground, ‫וירא כל העם וירנו ויפלו על פניהם‬. Immediately following this, Nadab and Abihu are incinerated by this same phenomenon in Lev 10:1–2. Thus, the Israelites are made fully aware of the power and mortal danger of the divine presence, even for unintentional infractions. The P author associated the appearance of the glory with the potential use of this fire. The appearance of the glory at moments of rebellion should remind the Israelites of the possible deadly results of missteps. 75 That Yhwh only uses this force to destroy Korah and his group suggests the fire serves not just as a deterrent against rebellion but a prophylactic for the sanctity of the tabernacle. 76 The “strange fire” of Nadab and Abihu and the encroachment of non-Aaronide priests threatened the sanctity of the tabernacle, which threatened the sustained presence of the glory. The glory appears when there is a possible threat to the tabernacle in the form of Israelite rebellion. The Holiness Legislation In P, while the divine presence is mobile, it limits itself to the tabernacle (or directly above it). The devastating results of bringing together the divine presence and nonsacred elements are witnessed in the stories of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1–2) and Korah and his company (Num 16:35). Though the H author accepts and assumes the P conception of divine presence in the tabernacle, H extends the implications of this presence to affecting the behavior of the people when they are away from the tabernacle. 75.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 364; Sommer, Bodies of God, 74. 76.  “The severity of Yahweh’s responses to cultic offenses would indicate that he was extremely concerned about his purity as a resident deity” (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 72; see also pp. 69–71, 74).

Divine Location

183

As we have seen, when Yhwh appears to the people in P, it always occurs in the Tent of Meeting. H, though, describes the divine presence in the tabernacle with language similar to D. Yhwh “goes around” (Hithpael ‫)הלך‬ among the Israelites: Lev 26:11–13: I shall put my tabernacle in your midst [‫]ונתתי משכני בתוככם‬ and my being shall not abhor you. I shall go around in your midst [‫ ]והתהלכתי בתוככם‬and I shall become your god and you shall become my people. I am Yhwh, your god, who brought you out from the land of Egypt from being their slaves and I broke yokes off of you and I made you walk upright.

In D, the description of Yhwh “going around” in the camp refers to the deity’s movement within the camp, apart from the attendant phenomena of his full manifestation. The question is, does ‫ התהלך‬have the same nuance here as in Deut 23:15? Yhwh’s statement that he “shall go around in your midst” could refer either to his movement among the people (while encamped in the wilderness or after settlement in Canaan) apart from the tabernacle, or it could refer to the movement of the tabernacle, with Yhwh inside. Taken in isolation, the evocative language of v. 12 suggests the former. This would represent a significant difference between P and H, because P considers Yhwh’s presence on earth to be confined to the tabernacle. 77 The latter interpretation is more likely though. The reference to the placement of the tabernacle “in your midst [‫ ”]בתוככם‬in v. 11 suggests that Yhwh goes around in the midst of his peop­le (again, ‫ )בתוככם‬by means of the movement of his tabernacle. Thus, H remains true to P’s depiction of earthly divine presence. At the same time, H’s legislation reflects a broader conception of the implications of this presence than is found in P. In P, lay purity is only an issue with respect to an individual’s proximity to the tabernacle; impurity must not be introduced into the tabernacle, and thus lay Israelites must be in a state of ritual purity when they visit the tabernacle. Within H’s program of lay holiness, impurity must be avoided in the entire camp, not simply at the tabernacle. So, in Num 5:1–4, H introduces purity legislation for the camp in which the Israelites are commanded to remove the ritually impure from the camp as “they shall not defile their encampments among which I am dwelling [‫ ”]אשר אני שכן בתוכם‬in 5:3. H likewise considers that the people dwell in the land with Yhwh, which necessitates both that the people remain holy, and that they refrain from defiling the land:

77.  “The clear implication is that, in contrast to his location in P, Yhwh is not confined to a sanctuary but is present everywhere in the land (see also Num 5:3 [H])” (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2301). For a slightly different interpretation elsewhere, see idem, Numbers, 33, 296.

184

Chapter 4

Num 35:33–34: You shall not pollute the land wherein you are, since the blood, it shall pollute the land and it shall not be expiated of the land— for any blood that was shed in it—only with the blood of the one who spilt it. You shall not defile the land wherein you reside, in which I dwell [‫]אני שכן בתוכה‬, for I am Yhwh who dwells in the midst of Israel [‫כי אני יהוה‬ ‫]שכן בתוך בני ישראל‬.

The mobility of the divine presence for H, in distinction to P, is linked with the people and the land, the tabernacle being only the immediate manifestation of that presence. Yhwh himself remains in his tabernacle, but the reality of this residence and its movement among the people warrants increased purity regulations. The D source In the previous chapter, I argued against von Rad’s name theology. In this chapter, I will provide additional evidence in support of my argument. Here, I will address the possibility of divine mobility in D. That is, before questioning whether the use of ‘name’ (‫ )שם‬in D reflects a conception of a deity who resides only in heaven, I wish to consider if the D source ever describes the deity outside heaven. In other words, does the D source, apart from its famous refrain concerning cult centralization, locate the deity exclusively in heaven? The simple answer to the above question is no. It is true that Yhwh in D is associated with heaven. Most notably, God is heard from heaven at Horeb in Deut 4:36 (‫ )מן השמים השמיעך את קלו‬and looks down from heaven in Deut 26:15 (‫)השקיפה ממעון קדשך מן השמים‬. But, in neither of these passages nor in the others that correlate Yhwh with heaven 78 does the D author state that Yhwh is only located in heaven. To the contrary, each mention of Yhwh in heaven is accompanied with a reference to Yhwh on earth. So, while Deut 4:36 states that the voice was heard from heaven and the fire seen on earth, earlier the D author describes Yhwh as present on Mt. Horeb (Deut 4:10). As I will discuss below, Deut 26:15’s reference to Yhwh looking down from heaven is likely not relevant to our understanding of the cultic presence of the deity. 79 Thus, we may ask if the D author strongly believed that Yhwh was exclusively located in heaven, why include references to earthly presence in tandem with heavenly location? Given the D author’s willingness to deny explicitly certain beliefs (non-centralized sacrifice, visual theophany), it is unlikely that if he felt strongly about countering any belief that Yhwh existed on earth he would not come out directly and say so. It is possible that the D author’s work reflects a general assumption that the deity is located exclusively in heaven, which would account for the lack of explicit polemic on the matter. I will argue that the descriptions of 78.  Deut 3:24, 4:39, 10:14. 79. Whereas Deut 26:15 likely does not refer to the cultic presence of Yhwh, it still appears in close proximity to reference to divine presence at the cult site (Deut 26:13).

Divine Location

185

divine location in D show otherwise. The D source describes the divine location on earth apart from those instances that locate the deity in heaven, a fact that best counters any argument that D’s deity is wholly “transcendent.” It is these examples that I will analyze here. The D source describes Yhwh traveling “in the midst” of the people, both through the wilderness and in the future once they settle the land. No where is this expressed more vividly than in Deut 23:15: Deut 23:13–15: You shall have a place outside of the camp that, when you leave from there, 80 you shall have a spade among your tools and when you sit outside you shall dig [a hole] with it and sit and cover your void. For Yhwh, your god, walks about in the midst of your camp [‫כי יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫ ]מתהלך בקרב מחנך‬in order to deliver you and to put your enemy before you, so your encampments shall be holy that he not see among you an exposed thing and depart from you. 81

The entire camp must remain holy to keep the divine presence in the camp to ensure victory in battle. 82 Sommer argues: Thus, this exception to the Deuteronomic theology of God’s abode in heaven alone represents a vestige taken into Deuteronomy from older material. That such materials have not been fully reworked to conform to D’s ideology in every case is no cause for surprise. 83

I will show below that Deut 23:15 is in fact not the only case in D that describes God’s presence outside of heaven. Before that, though, I wish to address Sommer’s line of reasoning in the above quotation. Sommer claims that we cannot expect the D author to remove all references to the divine presence on earth from earlier traditions that he incorporated into his composition, Deut 23:15 being an example. But, Sommer also argues that D rejects the “fluidity model” of the divine body, instead believing God’s body to be a unity, “God cannot reside both in the skies and in the temple (much less in multiple temples), and thus God’s heavenly body must be a unity.” 84 It seems quite surprising then that D would let any vestige of the fluidity model, let alone one so explicit regarding the divine location, to remain in his work. Its presence in D suggests that, in fact, the D author may not have been (at least primarily) concerned with countering the belief that Yhwh could be located on earth (at least occasionally), outside heaven. 80. MT ‫ יד‬understood by LXX as a ‘place’ (τόπος). Another possibility is that it refers to a sign as ‫ יד‬can refer to a monument, as in 1 Sam 15:12 (Tigay, Deuteronomy, 214). 81.  For an explanation of “exposed thing,” see p. 132 n. 191. 82. See Douglas, Purity and Danger, 65; Rofé, Introduction, 51. 83.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 218, n. 40. He is following von Rad and Rofé here (von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 50; A. Rofé, “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origin, Intent and Positivity,” JSOT 22 [1985] 150–52). See also his comments on Deut 16:16, which I discuss below. 84.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 66.

186

Chapter 4

Deut 23:15, if it does indeed represent an early composition incorporated by the D author, was incorporated by D in its current form because it posed no theological threat to D’s larger program. The verb form ‫‘ להתהלך‬to walk about’ is the same verb used to describe Yhwh in the Garden on Eden in Gen 3:8, a parade­example of J’s anthropomorphism. Tigay argues that this refers to Yhwh traveling with the camp and not actually walking around inside the camp, “The point is not that He moves around within the camp but that He travels in the camp with Israel, as indicated in [Deut] 20:4: ‘It is the Lord your God who marches with you to do battle for you.’” 85 The passage that Tigay cites for comparison, Deut 20:4, uses the Qal form of the root, “For Yhwh, your god, is the one who goes with you [‫ ]ההלך עמכם‬to fight for you with your enemies to deliver you.” The question then is whether D makes a distinction between the Qal and the Hithpael meaning. Samuel R. Driver defines the difference between the Qal and Hithpael as such, “Walketh (‫ )מתהלך‬the hithp[ael] conjug[ation] is stronger than the qal (1:30; 20:4), and implies going to and fro, going about (see, e.g., Gen 3:8, 13:17; 2 Sam 7:6, 7), that is, accompanying the camp wherever it went.” 86 This is the only use of the Hithpael form by the D source, which suggests the author sought to convey a distinct meaning from the Qal used elsewhere often to refer to God’s movements. 87 D provides a more detailed description of Yhwh’s movements in reference to the people in Deut 1:30–33: Yhwh your god who goes before you [‫]ההלך לפניכם‬, he shall fight for you like all that he did with you in Egypt in your sight. In the wilderness you saw that Yhwh your god lifted you as a man lifts his son on the entire path on which you came up to this place. But on this path you do not trust in Yhwh your god, who goes before you on the path [‫ההלך לפניכם‬ ‫ ]בדרך‬to spy out a place for your encampments with fire by night [‫באש‬ ‫ ]לילה‬for you to see on the path on which you go and in the cloud by day [‫]ובענן יומם‬. 88

Here, Qal forms are used to describe Yhwh leading the people and as he who specifically “goes before” the people in the same cloud and fire that J, E, and P associate with the divine presence. The D source never uses the compound preposition ‫ בקרב‬with the Qal of ‫הלך‬. At the same time, D uses this preposition with human referents to refer explicitly to proximate presence as opposed to common location (that is, “within” versus “with”): see 85.  Tigay, Deuteronomy, 214. 86.  Driver, Deuteronomy, 263–64. 87.  Deut 1:30, 33, and so on. Because this is the only case of the Hithpael in D, it is possible that D has incorporated a text from an earlier author. Even so, that D does so while preserving the highly anthropomorphic nature of the passage (especially in light of D’s obvious willingness of to alter its source material elsewhere) strongly suggests the D author was not troubled by the implications of the Hithpael. 88.  See also Deut 8:2, 15; 9:3.

Divine Location

187

Deut 29:10, “your children, your wives, and your interloper who are within your encampments [‫]בקרב מחניך‬.” 89 A distinction is made between Yhwh traveling with the camp and Yhwh walking around within the camp. It is this distinction that necessitates the purity prescription in Deut 23:13–15 (and 23:11–12), which are not necessary if God travels in the cloud, going before the people, and does not enter the camp itself. Cloud and fire are part of D’s description of the full manifestation of Yhwh on Mt. Horeb: Deut 4:11: You drew near and stood under the mountain—the mountain was burning with fire up to the center of heaven, darkness, cloud, and smoke [‫]חשך ענן וערפל‬. Deut 5:22: These matters Yhwh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain from the midst of the fire the cloud and the smoke [‫מתוך האש הענן‬ ‫]והערפל‬, a great voice, but he did not continue and he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

The D author, as the other pentateuchal source authors, draws a connection between Yhwh’s full manifestation at Sinai/Horeb and his subsequent manifestations during the wilderness journey. What the D author does not do is provide the same sort of linear narrative of the desert revelation and wilderness journey as found in J, E, and P. As such, unlike his counterparts, D appears to have no interest in describing the means by which Yhwh manifested to the Israelites in the wilderness. His single description in Deut 1:30–33 presumes a situation similar to the J author, namely, the assumed presence of the divine in the cloud, and as in J, the cloud leads the people through the wilderness. Given the close association of the divine presence with cloud and fire on Mt. Horeb, it is not a stretch to presume that this same presence is described leading the people through the wilderness in Deut 1:30–33. Unlike P (and E), but like J, the D source contains what appears to be a reference to a small-scale manifestation during the wilderness journey in Deut 23:15–17. In this way, the D author mirrors J’s conception of divine mobility.

Sustained Presence Thus far, I have focused my analysis on specific instances of theophany as an example of divine location. In this section, I will shift to an analysis of the presentation of ritual space in the sources and their understanding of the sustained presence of Yhwh. If the previous section sought to answer the question where can Yhwh be located? then the following seeks to answer where is Yhwh typically located? This question has been particularly prominent in the comparison of P and D since von Rad’s essay on the name 89. For other examples of the use of ‫ בקרב‬as within something or some group, see Deut 4:5, 11:6, 17:20, 18:2, 19:10, 21:8, 29:15.

188

Chapter 4

theology of the D source. 90 While attention has been focused on the comparison of sustained presence in P versus D, sustained presence in J and E has been largely assumed to preserve the earlier religious forms that both P and D rejected. In-depth analysis of sustained presence in J and E, though, has not received much attention. Sommer’s analysis of J and E traditions is a recent exception. One deficiency of Sommer’s project is his conflation of chronologically earlier instances of theophany (that is, to the ancestors) with later descriptions of established, permanent cult sites, as well as his general presumption of uniformity across J and E. Following Haran, I will maintain a distinction between sustained divine presence as it relates to altar versus temple. As Haran notes, a temple is a “house of god” or the dwelling place of the deity and as such was a building that contained the furnishings and objects that symbolized divine residency. In distinction, an altar not associated with a temple, was an open-air installation. An altar does represent sacred space, and so it is the site of burnt offerings. 91 As such, a solitary altar is not the place of sustained divine dwelling, though it is a place to commune with the deity through sacrifice. 92 Each of the pentateuchal sources sets its narrative chronologically prior to any temple. J and E, in addition, never refer explicitly to a future, temple-like site. 93 Sommer’s fluidity model argues that J and E understood the sustained presence of the deity was possible at isolated altars, steles, and trees. 94 I will offer a different model based in part on the difference between altars and temples as well as the separation of J and E texts. P and D address the issue of sustained divine presence at a future temple and thus my analysis will focus on the sustained location of the deity in relation to his temple. I will focus my analysis on passages that describe ritual activity, especially that which is commonly associated with a sacrificial cult, in particu90. Von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology.” 91.  Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 15–16; see also pp. 64–66. The archaeological record reflects the use of four-horned altars for incense offerings outside temple setting, contra Haran’s assertion that incense burning occurred only in the Jerusalem temple (S. Gitin, “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeoloogy and the Religion of Israel [ed. B.  M. Gittlen; Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns, 2002] 95–123). 92. Also important is the distinction between different placements of the altar, for instance, the difference between the altar of the inner sanctum and the altar in the courtyard of the tabernacle (see Haran, “Complex of Ritual Acts,” 290; see also Levine, “Lpny Yhwh,” 197). 93.  As I will discuss below, some of the laws on the Covenant Collection presume the sustained presence of the deity at a temple site. 94.  Sommer bases his fluidity model on the theology of the statue cult in Mesopotamia and its attendent mis pî ritual (Bodies of God, 19–24). But, this practice is necessarily linked to a temple and cult that attends to the needs of the resident god and thus is different from the idea of a deity inhabiting an altar or tree not associated with a temple or cult of divine residency. The lack of priests and temples in J and E’s narratives may necessarily mean the lack of the sustained presence of the deity (see Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 64–67).

Divine Location

189

lar altars and their attendant rituals. Thus, I accept J. Z. Smith’s correlation between ritual and sacred space: “Ritual is, first and foremost, a mode of paying attention. It is a process for marking interest. . . . It is this characteristic, as well, that explains the role of place as a fundamental component of ritual: place directs attention.” 95 I will focus on divine location vis-à-vis sacred space. I will adopt Sara Japhet’s definition of sacred space, “the basic biblical idea is that the sacred place is one that has a direct and immediate connection with God. This connection is perceived in two different ways: (1) a sacred place is a place where God dwells; (2) a sacred place is one where God reveals himself to humanity.” 96 I will analyze examples from the sources that bring together nonmundane action and place. The J Source According to Sommer, altars and trees in the J and E portions of Genesis are examples of God becoming manifest in wood and stone, in a manner similar to the statue cult in Mesopotamia, and use of steles and poles in the Levant. The epigraphic evidence from ancient Israel prompts him to speculate, “Was it possible to invoke this God without an object in which He could become physically present?” 97 Through his analysis of the altars, steles, and trees associated with the patriarchs, Sommer concludes, “considerable evidence shows that some Yahwistic Israelites embraced the notion of divine embodiment in multiple earthly objects.” 98 In this section, I will argue against Sommer’s interpretation of the altars and trees of the ancestors in J as fragmented embodiments of the deity, a fact that is made more explicit once the J and E material are separated. In the section on Bethel, I addressed Sommer’s argument as it pertains to the E material; here, I will respond to his examples from J material. I will offer an alternative explanation for the function of altars, trees, and steles in J and E, respectively. The J source has the least to say of all the sources regarding the sacrificial cult. Taking J’s references to altars as a starting point reveals that ritual activity in J includes invocation of the deity and sacrifice and is associated with theophany. Not all features are found together in every instance, and those features the J author commonly associated with activity at an altar (invocation, theophany, sacrifice) occur both at and away from an altar site. Each of the three other pentateuchal sources presents the form of cultic activity in Israel as something that changed features over time. Most notably in P, which presents sacrifice starting with the erection of the 95. J. Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 103. “Ritual is, above all, an assertion of difference” (ibid., 109). 96. S. Japhet, “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Space,” in Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land: Proceedings of the International Conference in Memory of Joshua Prawer (ed. B. Kedar and R. J. Z. Werblowsky: New York: Macmillian, 1993) 59. 97.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 49. His full argument is laid out in his chapters 1 and 2. 98.  Ibid., 54.

190

Chapter 4

tabernacle, and D, which prohibits sacrifice outside the chosen place once the Israelites reach the land. This is also the case with the E source, as I will discuss below, whose introduction of its altar law at the Horeb revelation presumes a new situation from that of the ancestor period. Thus, we may reasonably ask if J also presents a chronological development of the cult. The first reference to cultic forms comes in the Cain and Abel story of Gen 4:1–16. There is no altar or specific sacred site involved; Cain and Abel simply “bring” their offerings to Yhwh: Gen 4:3–4: At the end of some time Cain brought an offering to Yhwh from the fruit of the ground [‫]ויבא קין מפרי האדמה מנחה ליהוה‬, while Abel also brought [‫ ]הביא‬one from the first born of his flock and from their milk. Yhwh looked to Abel and to his offering.

Divine presence potentially stands in for an altar in this passage. We are not told where Yhwh is located; instead the narrative presents a situation in which the divine location is known by the characters and is, presumably, relatively proximate to them. The second half of the story supports this interpretation. Yhwh is close at hand after Cain murders Abel (4:5–6), and Cain is “sent out from the presence of Yhwh [‫ ”]מלפני יהוה‬in 4:16. 99 The J author presents a situation in which the first family lives in close of proximity to Yhwh, though notably, not in quite as close proximity as the older generation (see Gen 3:8). The lack of an object associated with the divine presence argues against Sommer’s speculation that the deity requires an object in which to manifest. The next reference to cultic activity comes in Gen 4:26, when we learn that Enosh is the first to invoke the divine name, “And to Seth also was begotten a son and he named him Enosh. Then was the start of invoking the name Yhwh [‫]לקרא בשם יהוה‬.” Skinner defines this phrase as “to use the name in invocations, in the manner of ancient cults, especially at times of sacrifice.” 100 There is no reference to any other cultic activity in 4:26, but as we learn from Abraham’s actions beginning in Gen 12:8, invocation of the divine name is considered appropriate cultic activity (that is, taking place at an altar) by J. We may speculate that such an invocation can mark the loyalties of the speaker and the site at which he or she may worship. In other words, invoking the name of Yhwh places one’s actions within the cult of Yhwh, and doing so at an altar, especially one just built, claims that altar for the worship of Yhwh. 101 In comparison to Gen 4:1–6, the location 99.  M. D. Fowler considers this an instance of the general omnipresence of Yhwh (“The Meaning of lip ̄ nê Yhwh in the Old Testament,” ZAW 99 [1987] 386), but the use of the preposition ‘away from’ (‫ )מלפני‬suggests a set location for Yhwh. 100.  Skinner, Genesis, 71, see also p. 127. Noah’s offering is the only instance of explicit reference to sacrifice in the J portions of Genesis, but the correlation between name invocation and altar building suggests sacrifice accompanied name invocation. 101.  Cassuto’s claim that name invocation refers to Abraham making “proclamations concerning the religion of the Lord to the inhabitants of the land” (Genesis, 2:332) is

Divine Location

191

or presence of the deity is unmentioned in Gen 4:26, suggesting that, at this stage, while the intimacy of knowing the name exists, humans do not have the same direct access to the deity as enjoyed by Cain and Abel. 102 Such an interpretation is supported by the next instance of cultic activity in Gen 8:20, “Noah built an altar to Yhwh and took one of each pure animal and one of each pure bird and brought up offerings on the altar.” In comparison with Cain and Abel, Noah builds an altar for sacrifice as opposed to bringing the sacrifice directly to Yhwh. Either Noah does not know where Yhwh is located or cannot access Yhwh’s location (or a new altar is required for the situation). The offerings are described as “going up” at which point Yhwh smells them in v. 21, “Yhwh smelled the pleasant smell [‫ ]וירח יהוה את ריח הניחח‬and Yhwh said to himself, ‘I shall no longer curse the earth on account of humanity because the inclination of the human heart is evil from his youth and I will not again strike all life as I have done.’” His response is described as inner monologue and not direct speech to Noah, further suggesting that Yhwh is located at a distance from Noah and his altar.  103 At the same time, Noah’s sacrifice gets Yhwh’s attention, forging a link between altars, sacrifice, and divine attendance. 104 There is no manifestation at this altar; rather its primary purpose here is sacrifice. Altars in J, then, need not facilitate a divine manifestation per Sommer’s argument. 105 That the location of Noah’s altar is never stated by the J author argues against its use as a sustained site of ritual activity. With Abraham begins the establishment of permanent cult sites in J. 106 The J author attributes to the first patriarch the erection of three altars and one sacred tree. The most prominent characteristic of these altars is their location: they are all located in the promised land. So, while Yhwh first speaks to Abraham in Haran in 12:1, 107 Abraham does not erect an altar until he has entered Canaan: unfounded but does rightly link proclamation of the name with loyalty to/from the deity whose name is invoked. 102.  Cassuto interprets Gen 4:26 to refer to the reestablishment of sacrifice to Yhwh and argues that it signals a reconcilliation with Yhwh after the Cain and Abel incident (Genesis, 1:248). He interprets the idiom as an expression of intimacy with deity (1:247), which is likely true but it is an intimacy of knowledge and not proximity. 103. Yhwh does speak to Noah in J in Gen 7:1 and is famously described as closing the ark in 7:16b but is no longer explicitly proximate to Noah after the flood. 104. Commentators disagree regarding the purpose of Noah’s sacrifice. Is it the act that finally quells Yhwh’s wrath or is it an expression of joy and thanks? See Wenham for an overview of opinions (Genesis, 189–90). Wenham is right to emphasize that the two are not mutually exclusive and that the sacrifice could easily function both as “propitiation and thanksgiving” and that it is the scent of the sacrifice that prompts the divine promise (ibid., 189). 105.  To be fair, Sommer never argues that all altars are the embodiment of the deity in JE. 106.  By “permanent cult cite,” I mean the establishment of some permanent object at which and to which one can return to perform ritual acts. This is never a temple site in J. 107.  Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 203–4

192

Chapter 4

Gen 12:6–7: Abraham passed through the land until the place of Shechem, until the oak of Moreh [‫—]אלון מורה‬the Canaanites were then in the land. Yhwh appeared [‫ ]וירא יהוה‬to Abraham and said, “To your seed will I give this land.” He built there an altar for Yhwh who appeared to him [‫]ויבן שם מזבח ליהוה ויקרא בשם יהוה‬.

Sommer argues that God manifests in a tree at Shechem based on the reference to ‫אלון מורה‬, which he translates as ‘at the tree of guidance’. 108 While the name ‫ אלון מורה‬may very well reflect a tradition that associates trees with theophanies, there is nothing in these verses that necessitates the interpretation that Yhwh’s manifestation is in the tree rather than at the site of the tree. 109 The altar in this passage again is not the means of the manifestation because it is built after the fact. Abraham’s first altar marks a theophany. But, a theophany is not a prerequisite for an altar, as Abraham erects his second altar between Bethel and Ai in 12:8 without a corresponding theophany, where he invokes the divine name (‫)ויבן שם מזבח ליהוה ויקרא בשם יהוה‬. As regards divine location vis-à-vis altars, in Gen 12:6–7 Yhwh has appeared at Shechem, but is not described as dwelling there; rather the altar would seem to commemorate that theophany or a visual symbol of divine presence. 110 The altar at BethelAi, by contrast, is not associated with a theophany but name invocation. Again, we see that name invocation occurs when the supplicant is unaware of the location of the deity. The same situation exists for Abraham’s third and final altar, which he builds at Alonei Mamre in Hebron in Gen 13:18, “Abraham traveled in stages and entered and settled at the Oaks of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and he built an altar for Yhwh there.” While this scene follows on a theophany, the altar is not built at the site of that theophany, rather at the next stage of Abraham’s journey. 111 It is of note though that this communication may occur in the vicinity the altar Abraham built between Bethel and Ai where Abraham had invoked the divine name before and does so again here: Gen 13:3–4: He went by stages from the Negev until Bethel, until the place where his tent had been the first time, between Bethel and Ai, to the altar location, where he had first built one [‫אל מקום המזבח אשר עשה שם‬ ‫ ]בראשנה‬and there he called on the name of Yhwh [‫]ויקרא שם אברם בשם יהוה‬.

If we presume that Abraham has not traveled on from the area of BethelAi, but that this is the location at which Lot separated from him, then the subsequent divine communication logically occurs while Abraham is in 108.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 51; see also p. 52. 109. For the association of trees with theophanies, see Speiser, Genesis, 87; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 153–54. 110.  Cassuto, Genesis, 2:328. 111.  The theophany depicted in Gen 13:14–17 describes Yhwh speaking to Abraham in 13:14 (‫ )ויהוה אמר אל אברם‬and thus should perhaps be more conservatively named a divine communication.

Divine Location

193

the Bethel-Ai area. The pattern developing is that altar sites, even those at which there has been no previous interaction with the deity, are points of potential, future interaction with the deity. But, again, the presence of an altar does not guarantee the presence of the deity as seen in the description of the erection of the Bethel-Ai and Alonei Mamre altars, nor are the altars the sustained embodiment of the deity. Also, the divine communication of Gen 13:14–17, while likely occurring when Abraham was encamped between Bethel and Ai, is not said to have occurred at the altar itself. Abraham’s final ritual act is to plant a tree at Beer Sheva in Gen 21:33, “And he planted a tamarisk tree in Beer Sheva [‫ ]ויטע אשל בבאר שבע‬and there he called on the name of Yhwh, El Olam [‫]ויקרא שם בשם יהוה אל עולם‬.” Up to this point, trees have not been explicitly described as sites of ritual activity in J. That said, the site of Abraham’s first altar (at “the oak of Moreh”) and last altar (at “the oaks of Mamre”) strongly suggests the presence of trees with the altars. That Abraham invokes the divine name at the site of the tamarisk, an act associated with altars in Gen 12:8 and 13:4, further suggests that he is establishing a ritual site at Beer Sheva, albeit one lacking an altar. Sommer asserts that “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba to invoke the name of Yhwh-El-Olam there,” 112 a fact that prompts his speculation that in J and E an object is needed to invoke the divine presence. But there is no mention of the divine presence here. As in Gen 12:8 and 13:4, the invocation of the name does not facilitate a theophany. In fact, it never does in J. Isaac in Gen 26:25 builds an altar and invokes the divine name after the theophany. 113 Instead of functioning as a place in which the deity may manifest, Abraham’s tamarisk tree, with the attending name invocation, marks ritual space at which a future theophany is possible. The final altar narrative described by J comes in Gen 26:23–25 in the story of Isaac receiving the divine promise: He went up from there to Beer Sheva. Yhwh appeared to him that night [‫ ]וירא אליו יהוה בלילה ההוא‬and said, “I am the god of Abraham your father. Do not be afraid for I am with you and I will bless you and increase your seed on account of Abraham my servant.” He built an altar there and invoked the name of Yhwh [‫]ויבן שם מזבח ויקרא בשם יהוה‬. He pitched his tent and Isaac’s servants dug out a well there.

Here, a theophany is expressly described, after which Isaac builds an altar and invokes the divine name. 114 Interestingly, this theophany occurs in 112.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 49. 113. Yhwh appears to Isaac in Gen 26:2 in Gerar, to prevent him from continuing on to Egypt. This account reports only Yhwh’s appearance and his speech (‫)וירא אליו יהוה ויאמר‬. In this way, it is most similar to J’s story of Yhwh’s appearance to Jacob in Gen 28:10–22. There as well, the focus is on the divine promise, and there is no description of Yhwh leaving. 114.  The theophany is described with the use of ‫וירא יהוה אליו‬, though the detail that this appearance happens at night could suggest a night vision or dream and not a direct theophany.

194

Chapter 4

Beer Sheva, the site of Abraham’s tree planting in Gen 21:33. Contrary to Sommer’s argument though, the tree itself is not part of the divine theophany to Isaac, just as his altar is built in response to the theophany and not in anticipation of it. The theophany at Beer Sheva conforms to the pattern established by the Bethel-Ai altar site: a sacred site previously not associated with the presence of the deity becomes the site of a divine communication; in this case, an explicit theophany. This same pattern extends, in fact, to Abraham’s altar at “the oaks of Mamre” (Gen 13:18) in Hebron, which is the site of Yhwh’s visitation to Abraham in the form of the company of three men (Gen 18:1–15). The altar of Gen 13:18 is not mentioned in Genesis 18, but the identification of the site of Yhwh’s theophany at “the oaks of Mamre” is suggestive. In J, each altar erected by the Abraham and Isaac is associated with a theophany; either commemorated by its construction or after it has been initially dedicated. 115 At the same time, theophanies occur away from established cult sites. 116 Thus, we may say that the J source considers divine presence to be unbounded; the deity can and does appear wherever and whenever he chooses. At the same time, the deity is partial to ritual sites that have been dedicated to him. But, contrary to Sommer’s argument, the deity never manifests in any ritual objects, though his presence is associated with altars and trees in J. These altars and trees are not betyls, or houses of the god, nor are they objects into which Yhwh can manifest. While Gen 2:1–4:16 suggests that initially Yhwh was located in a single place to which humans had access, this situation quickly shifted to a system in which the deity appeared unpredictably at multiple sites. Humans gain access to Yhwh, but through the rituals of the invocation of his name and the knowledge of previous sites of theophany. This reflects a view of history that imagines a gradual removal of the divine presence from daily, human life. 117 Humanity begins its existence inhabiting the same space as Yhwh, but is banished from the garden. Still, the next generation has direct access to the divine presence. By the time of Abraham, Yhwh’s per115.  There is no explicit theophany associated with Noah’s altar. In fact, as I discussed above, it would seem that, while Yhwh is acutely aware of Noah’s sacrifice, he does not directly interact with Noah at the altar site. Also distinct about Noah’s altar and those of Abraham and Isaac is the lack of specified location; J does not say where Noah builds his altar, suggesting that J does not consider it an established cult site (at least for Israelites). This supports my assertion that J considers only cult sites within Israel that have not previously been part of non-Yhwh cult, to be appropriate places for Israelite worship and sacrifice. 116.  Gen 4:1, 7:1, 11:5, 12:1, 16:13, 18:1, 26:2, 28:12. 117.  Mirguet argues for a similar progression within the Pentateuch as a whole in her analysis of the function of divine repsentation in narrative in the Pentateuch (La representation, esp. pp. 175–276 and 487–96). She is mainly concerned with the issue of authority and the dynamic interchange between the authority of the divine voice from within the narrative and the authority of the narrative voice itself.

Divine Location

195

manent location is inaccessible, but Yhwh makes himself available through theophany. Abraham sets up altars in an attempt to maximize his ability to intersect with those instances of theophany. Isaac supplements his father’s system but does not add any new cult sites, and Jacob experiences Yhwh’s last direct theophany and builds no altars. 118 By the time of Joseph’s generation, Yhwh acts from the sidelines through providential care. 119 This picture of the J composition then is largely counter to P’s understanding of God’s role in the course of human history. In P, God begins as a distant deity, involving himself in human affairs to a limited extent. This changes once the Israelites reach their term of service in Egypt, at which point Yhwh begins the process of acquiring Israel and establishing his permanent residence on earth in the tabernacle. The J source presents the opposite progression of Yhwh beginning as the intimate companion of humanity, who slowly removes himself from human interaction. This process is abruptly reversed with Moses, who experiences a direct theophany. 120 Yhwh’s presence is proximate to Moses and then the Israelites during the exodus narrative, as he eventually inhabits the cloud that leads the people through the wilderness (Exod 13:21–22). Once the Israelites arrive at Sinai, there is almost a full reversal of the progressive removal of the divine presence from human proximity. In Exod 24:1–2, 9–11, Moses, the priests and the elders dine in the immediate presence of Yhwh. This perhaps explains the lack of an altar on Sinai; there is no need for an altar here, though there are cultic activities, 121 because Yhwh has located (semi-)permanently on Sinai. An altar in this situation is largely redundant because Yhwh has, at least 118.  Isaac builds a new altar, but at an established cult site (Gen 21:33, 26:23). His altar at Beer Sheva is the last mentioned by J until Exod 34:10–16. Jacob is not credited with the establishment of any cult sites. Jacob does, of course, receive a theophany in Gen 28:10– 22. As discussed above, J’s version of Jacob’s theophany provides no specific location. Instead, we are told in Gen 28:10 “Jacob left Beer Sheva and went toward Haran,” and then in 29:1 “Jacob moved on and went toword the land of the Kedemites.” So, Jacob is somewhere between Beer Sheva and the land of the Kedemites, on his way to Haran when Yhwh appears to him. Interestingly, his grandfather is reported to have followed a similar route when he migrated to the promised land. In J, Abraham begins in Haran in Gen 11:31–32 and moves south, arriving in Shechem in Gen 12:7 and then between Bethel and Ai in 12:8. Is it possible that Jacob is retracing his ancestor’s footsteps and has happened on Bethel? (Cassuto, Genesis, 2:304, 332; D. W. Cotter, Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003] 211). Certainly, the canonical text locates the theophany to Jacob in Bethel, and it is possible that the compiler considered this true to the J source and thus combined J’s story with E’s instead of reporting multiple theophanies to Jacob. If Jacob’s theophanic experience does occur between Bethel and Ai near the site of Abraham’s altar, then we have further proof that J sees a correlation between theophany and altars. 119.  See especially Gen 39:2–6, 45:1–9. 120.  Exod 3:2–4a, 5, 6b–8. I discuss this passage in chapter 3. 121. For instance, the ritual cleansing by the people in Exod 19:14, the sanctification of the priests and establishement of sacred space (Exod 19:22–24), coming into the presence of the deity and eating (Exod 24:9–11) and the invocation of the divine name (Exod 34:5b).

196

Chapter 4

for the time being, abandoned the old system of unpredictable theophanies in favor of the even older system of dwelling in close proximity to humans. Now, Yhwh is viewed from his cloud, or humans gaze on his majestic feet. An altar does not mark Yhwh’s sustained presence. In J, an altar marks the opposite of sustained, divine presence. The altar marks a likely site of visitation or communication, an access point to the deity, but neither the only point nor the point at which the deity’s presence is guaranteed. Thus, we may say that the J author does associate divine presence with ritual and cultic activity but does not consider divine presence a prerequisite for that activity, unlike in P and D. Yhwh may make an appearance at an altar and wherever Yhwh appears he is worthy of worship (in the form of sacrifice and invocation) but the altar is not the location of Yhwh. The E Source In my analysis of E’s narrative of Jacob at Bethel above, I argued that, despite the etymology of ‫‘( בית אל‬house of El’), the E author does not depict God as dwelling permanently at Bethel at the time of Jacob. In ancient Israel, Bethel was the site of a temple cult, as its name reflects. In E’s narrative chronology, Jacob’s theophanic experience predates the establishment of this temple. 122 Thus, the E author remains true to the theology of the temple cult when he describes the initial discovery of the site’s sacred character. That is, Jacob’s experience revealed that the site was the access point between heaven and earth, a fact that precipitated the construction of a temple, in which the divine presence could be sustained through the proper rituals and sacrifices. At the time of Jacob though, neither the temple­building, its staff, nor its rituals existed, weakening any interpretation that E imagined the sustained presence of the deity at this stage of his narrative. Jacob’s stele represents the potential but not sustained presence of the deity. The question I will address in this section is, where does the E author imagine the location of the deity in relation to ritual sites and/ or ritual practice? To answer this question, I will analyze E’s description of ongoing ritual and cultic practice as it is both explicitly described in law and reflected in narratives. The E source includes a law collection (the Covenant Code), which includes an altar law: Exod 20:23–26: You shall not do [thus] with me: gods of silver or of gold you shall not make for yourselves. An earthen altar shall you make for me [‫ ]מזבח אדמה תעשה לי‬and sacrifice on it your whole-burnt offerings and well-being offerings, your flocks and herds; in every place where I shall pronounce my name I will come to you and bless you [‫בכל המקום אשר אזכיר‬ ‫]את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך‬. 123 If you make me a stone altar, you shall not 122.  Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 64–66. 123.  For the use of ‫ כל‬here with a definite nomen rectum, see Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 32 n. 18. Syriac has “you (masculine singular) announce.”

Divine Location

197

build them of hewn stone, for your sword shall not be raised over it that you defile it. You shall not go up by steps on to my altar, that your nakedness not be revealed over it.”

This law presumes a break with the preceding behavior of the Israelites. First, it stipulates specific procedures for constructing an altar. The narratives up to this point reflect no conscious attempt on the part of its characters to follow any specifications for altar construction. That is, while unhewn stones may have been turned into altars and steles in E’s ancestor narratives, these narratives never state that unhewn stones were chosen for any particular reason, let alone to conform to the divine will. On the other hand, the altar law mentions earthen altars, which are unattested in E’s narratives. 124 Second, E’s altar law describes the altar as a place where Yhwh shall “pronounce my name.” In E’s composition, the divine name is first revealed to Moses (Exod 3:11–15) and was presumably unknown to the ancestors. Thus, the connection made in Exod 20:24 between any legitimate altar and the divine name reflects a conscious break with an earlier period during which time the divine name was unknown, and thus not associated with cultic sites. 125 Given that the E author draws a distinction between cultic activity before and after the Horeb revelation, we cannot presume that cultic activity described in E passages in Genesis necessarily reflects either E’s contemporary cult or ideal cult. At the same time, we may approach both these early narratives and E’s law and post-Horeb narratives regarding altars and the cult as reflective of E’s general understanding of the nature of ritual practice in ancient Israel. So, looking again at the altar law, we may say that, for E, cultic activity includes, but is not necessarily limited to, earthen or stone altars at which animal sacrifices are performed. These altars must not be associated with “gods” made of silver or gold and, if made of stone, then not hewn stone. Also, altars can be defiled through improper construction and use. Altars are not regulated to specific, predetermined sites but are limited by divine will (only where Yhwh shall “pronounce my name”). 126 Lastly, 124.  Although many of the narratives leave unstated the material used to construct an altar and, therefore, we cannot rule out that, for instance, Jacob’s altar at Bethel (Gen 35:7) was made of earth. But again, what is significant is that the material is clearly not an issue for the ancestors. Theses narratives, thus, reflect a time before the Horeb revelation when there were no laws governing altar construction. 125.  Jethro’s sacrifice when he arrives implies that E imagined that the Israelites established the sacrificial cult once at the mountain of God. (See B. J. Schwartz, “The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay [ed. N. Sacher Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, and M. J. Williams: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009] 47.) 126.  Levine, “On the Presence of God,” 79. If one adopts the variant reading “where you pronounce my name,” then E presents a system in which Yhwh comes to any properly constructed altar at which his name is invoked.

198

Chapter 4

if the altars follow these stipulations, Yhwh will “come” to supplicants at these sites. This last promise is most relevant to the discussion at hand. That Yhwh promises to “come to you” at a legitimate altar would seem to preclude the notion that Yhwh dwells at altar sites. It is possible to interpret ‫אבוא אליך‬ ‫ וברכתיך‬as referring to just such an inhabitation. Once the altar is built to specifications, Yhwh will come and take up residence at the site. This sort of system implies a temple complex, functioning as an earthly dwelling for the deity, but there is no reference to a temple complex here. Instead, E’s law refers to open-air altars at which we would not expect sustained divine presence, as they are not considered divine dwellings. I will argue here that E in fact does not consider altars to be the site of sustained divine presence. In his altar law, this fact is reflected in the phrase “I will come to you” and not “I will come there,” that is, to the altar. The narratives about altars elsewhere in E support this interpretation. The next instance of an altar in E comes in Exod 24:4 within E’s description of the people accepting the covenant with Yhwh, “Moses wrote all Yhwh’s words and got up e­ arly in the morning and built an altar at the base of the mountain [‫ ]ויבן מזבח תחת ההר‬and twelve pillars [‫ושתים עשרה‬ ‫ ]מצבה‬for the twelve tribes of Israel.” Moses builds the altar accompanied by twelve steles (‫)מצבה‬, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. E sanctions steles as appropriate cultic forms, outlawing only steleserected by the Canaanites (Exod 23:24). The altar functions as the place for animal sacrifice (24:5), the blood from which is used to ratify the covenant between Yhwh and Israel (24:6–8). The altar is not explicitly related to the divine presence and, instead, is removed from that presence. 127 So, in 24:12, Yhwh summons Moses to him at the top of the mountain, away from the altar. Also, Yhwh has already arrived at the mountaintop before Moses built the altar (Exod 19:16aβ–17). Moses’ altar then is not the site of the divine presence. Aaron’s altar, which he builds for the golden calf in Exod 32:5, reflects a similar use: “Aaron saw and built an altar before it [‫וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח‬ ‫ ]לפניו‬and Aaron proclaimed and said, ‘Tomorrow is a festival for Yhwh.’” Whereas E uses the language of divine cultic presence (‫)לפניו‬, it is not used here in reference to the presence of Yhwh, who remains at the top of the mountain. Balaam’s actions in E presume an ongoing interaction with the divine presence that is not a historically unique event like the Horeb theo­phany. 128 Certainly, Balaam is exceptional as a prophet (note his description of himself in Num 24:15–16), but his interaction with the divine presence reflects 127.  For an opposing argument, see J. H. Tigay, “The Presence of God in the Coherence of Exodus 20:22–26,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-biblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 205–11. 128.  See p. 120 n. 157 for my discussion of the sources ascription of Numbers 22–24.

Divine Location

199

E’s altar law, which applies to the Israelites. That is, building altars and offering sacrifices facilitate Balaam’s encounters with God: Num 23:1–4: Balaam said to Balaq, “Build me seven altars on this spot and prepare for me seven bulls and seven rams.” Balaq did as Balaam said. Balaq and Balaam offered a bull and a ram on the altar. Balaam said to Balaq, “Station yourself by your whole-burnt offering that I may proceed. Perhaps Yhwh shall encounter me and whatever he shows me I will tell you [‫]אולי יקרה יהוה לקראתי ודבר מה יראני והגדתי לך‬.” And he went to the bare height. God encountered Balaam [‫ ]ויקר אלהים אל בלעם‬and he said to him, “I have arranged seven altars and I have brought up a bull and a ram on each altar.” 129

This same pattern repeats twice more (Num 23:11–17, 23:27–24:2), and each time Yhwh “encounters” Balaam after he has moved away from the altars. Thus, while the altars, as promised in Exod 20:24–25, bring the presence of the deity, they are not the site of his sustained presence as he appears at three different sites, successively, but remains at none. 130 While the divine presence can be located at or near an altar, the passage leaves unstated from where the deity comes. Each set of altars is built at the top of a mountain or high place (Num 22:41; 23:13–14, 27–28), locations chosen by Balak as likely to attract the deity (Num 23:27). The presumption may be that locations closer to heaven are more likely to facilitate a theophany and favorable oracle. 131 Sommer argues that J and E (his JE) present a conception of divine presence that reflects the belief that the deity can inhabit multiple cultic sites at once, in particular the altars and steles at these sites. As I have argued above, when the J and E sources are separated, it is clear that the J author does not present this view. But is Sommer’s argument accurate regarding the E source? We must say that, with respect to the cultic activity occurring after the Horeb revelation, it is not. Altars are never said to be inhabited by the deity, nor do they represent the sustained presence of the deity, but they are an effective means of summoning the deity. Steles in Exod 24:4 are associated with the twelve tribes and thus do not represent the dwelling place of the 129. I understand ‫ ויקר אלהים אל בלעם‬to refer to an encounter with the deity that is induced, but not ensured. Levine translates “God did take the occasion to encounter Balaam” (Numbers 21–36, 163). He argues elsewhere, “The crucial term in these passages is the verb qrh (Numbers 23:3–4, 15–16). This root, in the Qal and Niphal, bears the connotation of establishing contact, of meeting up, and seems usually to include the nuance of a chance meeting” (idem, “On the Presence of God,” 80). E. Gass argues that this mode of communication should be distinguished from ‫לבוא‬, the former likely referring to communication induced by divination (“Modes of Divine Communication in the Balaam Narrative,” BN 139 [2008] 27). 130.  Balaam’s use of whole burnt offerings (‫ )עלות‬may further reflect his desire to attract the deity (Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 23). 131.  Levine, “On the Presence of God,” 80. Balaam’s vantage point of the Israelite camp may also play a role in the selection of sites (idem, Numbers 22–36, 162–63).

200

Chapter 4

deity. 132 Neither do they represent the presence of the individual tribes, but rather serve as a commemoration of the covenant made between the tribes and Yhwh at Horeb. Steles in the ancestor narrative serve a similar function. So for instance, Jacob erects a stele in Gen 35:20 at Rachel’s gravesite. The same is true of the stele Jacob erects as part of his covenant with Laban in Gen 31:44–54. The stele represents the watchful eye of the deity (31:49) and is said to be a witness to the agreement (v. 52), but the stele is distinct from Jacob’s and Laban’s gods, who act as judges (v. 53) and do not inhabit the site of the stele or stone heap. Altars in the ancestor stories are rare in E, but in those cases the author does not draw a direct correlation between altars and theophany or sustained divine presence. So, for instance, when God commands Jacob to build an altar at Bethel this communication occurs near Shechem (Gen 35:1). The altar at Bethel is for the god who appeared there (35:3, 7), but E does not claim that Yhwh remains there. 133 The evidence gleaned from the altar and stele passages in the E source presents a picture of cultic activity that, similarly to J, considers altars as likely locations for a theophany. Before Horeb, the preference is for steles, which mark a commemoration. After Horeb, altars are always attended by sacrifice, but not always by divine proximity. So, again, like J, the E source loosely correlates divine presence with the sacrificial cult at altars but does not consider the two inextricably linked; Yhwh can and does appear apart from altars before and after the Horeb revelation. Unlike in J, E’s characters do not use altars to summon the presence of the deity before Horeb; rather, it is only with the Horeb revelation that this link is made. As I discussed above, except for Jacob’s wrestling match in Gen 32:23–33, there is no description of a direct, explicit theophany before Moses in E. 134 The majority of divine communications come through dreams. E’s altar law transforms this system as now Israelites are told a surefire means of eliciting the divine presence, if only in short bursts. As such, it is inaccurate to say the E source is less anthropomorphic than the J source because it prefers to locate the deity in dreams or in heaven and not in direct, earthly contact with humans. Rather, this is the preference for the time of the ancestors, which 132.  Sommer, on analogy with Josh 4:20, seems to presume that these steles represent the deity (Bodies of God, 51). But, these stones are explicitly associated with the twelve tribes and not the deity in both Exod 24:4 and Josh 4:20 (see 4:5, 8). The stones in Joshua 4 are never called ‫ מצבה‬but rather are “signs” meant to provoke a teaching moment for future generations (4:6, 21). 133. E describes Jacob erecting an altar at Shechem and naming it “El, the god of Israel,” ‫( ויצב שם מזבח ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל‬Gen 33:20). Sommer considers this verse to imply that Yhwh could inhabit an altar, as a stele (Bodies of God, 51). There is not enough information though to determine the precise implication of the name. It could refer to the indwelling of the deity, the site of a theophany, a place of worship for this specific deity, or a memorial of some event. 134.  God speaks directly to Jacob in Gen 35:1 when no dream/vision or messenger is mentioned, but at the same time there is no clear indication that E imagines the location of the deity as proximate to the recipient at this point.

Divine Location

201

begins to change with Moses and is reversed by the altar law. It is not that the E source believes that Yhwh does not manifest on earth but that these manifestations are rare until the establishment of guidelines, after which time they are presumably normative. While the narratives and altar law describe a situation in which Yhwh can appear at or near an altar but does not dwell there permanently, the Covenant Collection laws reflect a temple system of sustained divine presence. 135 E’s covenant stipulations refer three times to coming to the deity (‫)האלהים‬. 136 First, in the case of the slave in Exod 21:6, the owner “brings him to the deity [‫]והגישו אדניו אל האלהים‬.” The E author uses the same terminology to state that Moses approaches the cloud that contains “the deity” in Exod 20:21, “The people stood far off while Moses approached the cloud wherein was God [‫]ומשה נגש אל הערפל אשר שם האלהים‬.” 137 The concrete reference to the deity’s location in 21:6 is evidenced by the immediately following statement: “and he will bring him to the door or the post [‫והגישו אל הדלת‬ ‫]או אל המזוזה‬.” The author has drawn a direct analogy between approaching the door and approaching the deity. The implication is that this ceremony occurs at a cult site, effectively “before Yhwh.” Second, in Exod 22:7, the accused guardian “is brought near to the deity” to swear that he did not steal his counterparts property while the following law in 22:8 states simply­ that any people disputing the possession of an object “shall come to the deity” and “God shall determine guilt.” 138 Third, Exod 23:14–19 prescribes the three yearly pilgrimages, which entail coming into Yhwh’s presence. 139 Verse 19 refers explicitly to the site of the pilgrimage of the house of Yhwh, “The first of the first-fruits of your land shall you bring to the house of Yhwh your god [‫]בית יהוה אלהיך‬.” The E source’s narratives reflect the realia of the historical setting of these narratives. Before the Horeb regulations and before the Israelites, as a nation, took control of and inhabited the promised land the deity did not permanently inhabit any cult site because no temple had yet been built for him. E’s law collection, by contrast, reflects the author’s present reality at which point the divine presence at temple sites, or the house of Yhwh, is presumed. 135.  Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 64–66. 136. Though ‫ האלהים‬is not used elsewhere in the Covenant Code to refer unambiguously to Yhwh, it is used as such elsewhere in E (most notably in Exod 3:13–15). The LXX interprets this word to refer to coming before magistrates. For an argument against this sort of interpretation, see C. H. Gordon, “Elohim in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935) 139–44. 137.  For other instances, see, e.g., Gen 20:6, 17; 22:3, 9; 35:7; 41:25. 138.  Possible oracular language in Exod 22:7, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98. For the use of a plural verb with ‫אלהים‬, see GKC 132h, 145i. Wright argues these passages reflect the belief that lesser divine beings are involved in judicial decisions (“LH as Source for CC,” 50). 139.  See my full discussion of this passage on pp. 86–89.

202

Chapter 4

The P Source While the location of the deity is unpredictable in P before Sinai, with the construction of the tabernacle, the divine presence is expressly and exclusively associated with the tabernacle. The phrase most typically employed by P to express the divine presence is ‫לפני יהוה‬. Milgrom defines ‫ לפני יהוה‬in P as such, “within the sacred precincts. It can also refer, in a more limited sense, to the outer court area, ‘the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.’” 140 As Levine has shown, this idiom means precisely “in the presence of Yhwh.” 141 The P source’s use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬falls almost exclusively within the cult, while the H supplements broaden this usage. 142 For ease of identification, I will limit my comparison between P and H to their compositions in Leviticus because it is here that the majority and highest concentration of uses of the idiom are found. 143 In the previous chapter, I focused my discussion on the nature of the divine presence in P, whereas here I will focus on the issue of location. That is, regardless of what part or whole of Yhwh is imag­ined to associate with the tabernacle, what can we say regarding the location of that presence? P employs this phrase more than four times as often as H does in Leviticus, though P has only 15% more verses in Leviticus than H. 144 This fact is likely a result of the greater amount of laws pertaining to sacrifice in P than in H, though it also brings into question Knohl’s assumption that H is more anthropomorphic than P. The reality of this phrase (that it refers to actual presence of the deity) is evidenced by the conflation of the location “before 140.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 150, 155. Haran asserts that any use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬in the Hebrew Bible “can be considered an indication of the existence of a temple at the site, since this expression stems from the basic conception of the temple as a divine dwelling-place and actually belongs to the temple’s technical terminology” (Temples and Temple Service, 26; see also p. 213). While the use and meaning of “before Yhwh” in P is generally agreed on by scholars, this is not the case for its use in D (Wilson, Out of the Fire, 131–32). See my discussion of cultic presence in D on pp. 207–214 for a broader examination of the possible nuances of “before Yhwh.” 141.  Levine, “Lpny Yhwh.” 142.  Exod 6:12 refers to Yhwh’s presence before the tabernacle was built and possibly represents an anachronism on the part of the P author. Exod 16:9 has been discussed above as likely referring to the tabernacle, as it is displaced by R. Num 32:22 refers twice in the P material to subduing the land “before Yhwh,” but Baden argues that the first originally read “before you [the Gadites and Reubenites]” and the second is a dittography (Redaction of the Pentateuch, 143). Finally, P uses the phrase “before God” (‫ )לפני האלהים‬in Gen 6:11, which cannot have cultic reference. 143.  The idiom is used 59 times in Leviticus and 50 times in the remaining Priestly material (Exod 6:12, 30; 16:9, 33; 27:21; 28:12, 29, 30, 35, 38; 29:11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 42; 30:8, 16; 34:34; 40:23, 25; Num 3:4; 5:16, 18, 25, 30; 6:16, 20; 7:3; 8:10, 11, 21; 10:9; 14:37; 15:15, 25, 28; 16:7, 16, 17; 17:3, 5, 22; 18:19; 20:3; 26:61; 27:5, 21; 31:50, 54). 144.  P has 48 apppearances: Lev 1:3, 5, 11; 3:1, 7, 12; 4:4 (twice), 6, 7, 15 (twice), 17, 18, 24; 5:26; 6:7, 18; 8:26, 27, 29; 9:2, 4, 5, 21; 10:1, 2, 15, 17, 19; 12:7; 14:11, 12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31; 15:14, 15, 30; 16:1, 7, 10, 13, 18. H has 11: Lev 7:30; 16:30; 19:22; 23:11, 20, 28, 40; 24:3, 4, 6, 8.

Divine Location

203

Yhwh” with ph­ysical locations in the tabernacle. That is, “before Yhwh” is identified by the P author to be equivalent to the following: “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [‫ ;”]אל פתח אהל מועד‬in proximity to “the altar [‫“ ;”]המזבח‬before the curtain of the sanctuary [‫ ;”]את פני פרכת הקדש‬and “to the priest [‫]אל הכהן‬.” 145 Yhwh is located in the Tent of Meeting, as are the altar, the curtain, and the officiating priest, just as these and the entrance of the tent are located “before Yhwh.” Lev 14:10–32 offers examples of the above, showing how they are conflated. Lev 14:1–9 explains the procedure for declaring a victim of scale disease ritually pure, allowing him or her to reenter the camp and to fulfill the required purification offering. Lev 14:23 notes that the offering is brought to the priest, which is equivalent to bringing it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, both of which are “before Yhwh.” “He shall bring them on the eighth day of his purity pronouncement to the priest to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before Yhwh [‫]אל הכהן אל פתח אהל מועד לפני יהוה‬.” The following verse then describes the priest, who is in the Tent of Meeting, elevating the elevation offering “before Yhwh.” “The priest shall take the male sheep of the reparation offering and the log of oil and the priest shall elevate them as an elevation offering before Yhwh [‫]והניף אתם הכהן תנופה לפני יהוה‬.” Thus, these verses confirm that the elevation offering happens in the tabernacle in the general vicinity of the sacrifice. Second, the act of expiation on account of the newly purified person is confirmed to take place in the tabernacle. The same expiation oil of 14:16 that is sprinkled “before Yhwh” (“The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left palm and sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before Yhwh [‫והזה מן‬ ‫ )”]השמן באצבעו שבע פעמים לפני יהוה‬is placed on the head of the offerer in v. 18 to effect purgation “before Yhwh.” “What remains of the oil which is in the priest’s palm he shall put over the head of the one pronounced pure and the priest shall atone on his account before Yhwh [‫וכפר עליו הכהן לפני‬ ‫]יהוה‬.” The sacrifice according to 14:13 occurs “in the place that he slaughters the purification and whole-burnt offering offerings, in the holy place.” Earlier, P locates these offerings as happening “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” more specifically “on the altar . . . that is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” also described as the altar “before Yhwh.” 146 The location “before Yhwh” is then the same location as the officiating priest, the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, the altar and the offerer. 147 145.  Tent of meeting: Lev 1:3; 3:1, 7, 8, 12, 13; 4:4 (twice), 7, 14–15, 18, 24; 8:26 (see 8:2–3); 9:2, 4, 5; 10:1, 2; 14:11, 12, 23; 15:14; 16:7, 10; Lev 14:16, 18, 27, 29, 31 refer back to the original placement at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Altar: Lev 1:11; 6:7, 16:18. Curtain: Lev 4:6, 17; 16:13. Priest: Lev 12:6–7. 146.  Lev 1:5 and 11 refer to the whole-burnt offering (‫)עלה‬. Lev 6:18 commands “in the place that the whole-burnt offering offering is sacrificed, the purification offering will be sacrificed, before Yhwh.” 147.  Haran, Temples, 26 n. 24. See also Lev 4:4–10.

204

Chapter 4

The Holiness Legislation H, as both a tradent and innovator of P, takes up the same conflation of cultic location with the divine presence. Similar to P, H locates the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, the sacrificial altar, the priest and the curtain as “before Yhwh.” 148 So, for instance: Lev 24:1–9: Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the Israelites that they take pure, pressed olive oil for the lamp to provide a perpetual light. Aaron shall arrange it outside the veil of the ark of the pact in the Tent of Meeting [‫ ]מחוץ לפרכת העדת באהל מועד‬from evening to morning before Yhwh [‫]לפני יהוה‬, regularly, an eternal statute for your generations. 149 He shall arrange on the pure menorah the lamps before Yhwh regularly [‫על‬ ‫]המנרה הטהרה יערך את הנרות לפני יהוה תמיד‬. You shall take fine flour and bake it into twelve cakes, one cake will be made of 2/10 of an ephah. You shall place them in two piles, six per pile, on the pure table before Yhwh [‫על‬ ‫]השלחן הטהר לפני יהוה‬. You shall put pure frankincense on each pile and it shall become bread for a memorial offering, a food gift for Yhwh. On every day of Shabbat, he shall arrange it before Yhwh regularly [‫יערכנו‬ ‫ ;]לפני יהוה תמיד‬from the Israelites, an eternal covenant. It shall belong to Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a holy place for it is holy of holies to him, from the food gifts of Yhwh, an eternal covenant.”

In H, as in P, the locative uses of ‫ לפני יהוה‬occur exclusively in a cultic setting, with one exception. The Yom Kippur regulations in Leviticus 16 contain two layers of material, Lev 16:1–28 and 16:29–34, the second section including a passage belonging to H (16:29–31): 150 It shall become for you an eternal statute; on the seventh month on the tenth of the month you shall afflict yourselves [‫ ]תענו את נפשתיכם‬and you shall not do any work; the citizen nor the alien that resides among you. For on this day it shall effect purgation on your account to purify you from all your sins, you shall be purified before Yhwh [‫]לפני יהוה תטהרו‬. It 148.  See Lev 7:30; 19:21–22; 23:11, 20; 24:3, 4, 6, 8. Lev 7:30 is a likely H addition to the main sacrificial legislation of P in Leviticus 1–16 (Knohl Sanctuary, 51). Lev 7:22–27 forbid the consumption of any fat by the Israelites. This legislation can be identified as H because it addresses noncultic purity, which is not a concern of P (compare with H’s regulations in Lev 17:10–16). 149.  Here, I follow Levine’s analysis of the adverbial use of ‫ תמיד‬to mean ‘regularly’ and not ‘always’ (Levine, Numbers 1–20, 299). 150.  All of Lev 16:29–34 has been identified as a later addition to Lev 16:1–28 (Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1064–65; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 27–29). Lev 16:29–31 in particular must belong to H given its concern with lay purity apart from the tabernacle. This section is also set apart by a chiastic structure in v. 29 (“It shall become an eternal statue for you . . . you shall afflict yourselves”) and v. 31 (“you shall affict yourselves; an eternal statute”). Verses 32–34 return to the topic of purging the sanctuary and Tent of Meeting found in Lev 16:1–28 and thus may belong to the original P layer, despite shifts in terminology and time frame (discussed in Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1064–65). I will focus my comments on Lev 16:29–31 because these verses are undoubtedly H.

Divine Location

205

is a Shabbat of Ceasing for you and you shall afflict yourselves; an eternal statute.

In P’s version (Lev 16:1–28), the ritual serves to purge the tabernacle of impurity. It is a ritual performed solely by the priests, though for the preservation of the entire community. H’s addition to this ritual extends its stipulations to the general public, who are to refrain from work and “afflict themselves” in order to purify themselves from sins, “For on this day, it shall effect purgation on your account [‫ ]יכפר עליכם‬in order to purify you from all your sins; you shall be purified before Yhwh [‫”]לפני יהוה תטהרו‬ (16:30). Typically, in both P and H, expiation is achieved through ritual offerings and is performed by the priest on behalf of another. It is used as such by both P and H: 151 Lev 16:6: Aaron shall offer the bull that belongs to him and effect purgation on his behalf and on behalf of his household [‫]וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו‬. Lev 19:22: The priest shall effect purgation on his account [‫]כפר עליו הכהן‬ with the ram of the purification before Yhwh [‫ ]באיל האשם לפני יהוה‬on account of his sin that he committed and it will be forgiven him regarding his sin that he committed.

When similar purgation is described as occurring “before Yhwh,” it refers to the location of the ritual, in the sacred precincts. 152 In contrast, in Lev 16:30 the act of self-affliction does not involve ritual offerings and is accomplished by the Israelites themselves, and not by proxy through an officiating priest. For this reason, J. Milgrom, argues that “before Yhwh” does not carry its typical locative nuance here: you shall become pure before the Lord. . . . The reference is not to the high priest’s rites “before the Lord,” that is, in the sanctuary. Rather, if Israel practices the prescribed cessation from labor (v 29) and self-denial (v 30), then it will become purified “before the Lord,” in other words, will be reconciled to him. 153 151.  For P, see Lev 16:6, 10, 11, 16, 17 (twice), 18, 20, 24, 27; for H, see Lev 16:32, 33 (three times), 34. The chiastic structure of 16:29–31 bears the mark of H (concern for lay purity apart from tabernacle); 16:32–34 continues 16:1–28 (Knohl considers vv. 32–34 HS as well). 152.  See, for example, Lev 5:26 (P) and Lev 19:22 (H). 153.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1056–57. In Lev 23:40, the law stipulates “and you shall rejoice before Yhwh, your god, for seven days [‫]ושמחתם לפני יהוה אלהיכם שבעת ימים‬.” There is no reason to presume that this reference does not refer to activities at a sanctuary, though possibly not the central sanctuary in Jerusalem (Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 110). This is especially so if H is familiar with D material (see Stackert, Rewriting the Torah) in which “rejoicing before Yhwh” always occurs at the temple (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2043; Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire, 146). Num 15:15 and 18:19 could be other examples of H expanding the P use of “before Yhwh.” Both are used in contexts discussing cultic activity meant to occur at the tabernacle, but neither explicitly refers to location. Num 15:15 may be understood as expressing the equality if the resident alien “when you come before

206

Chapter 4

H’s description of this ritual affliction in Lev 16:29–31 and 23:26–32 supports Milgrom’s argument that “before Yhwh” does not refer to action performed in the sacred precincts. This self-affliction is achieved, in part, through a cessation of work (16:29) and is analogous to Shabbat observance (16:31). 154 By its very nature, the cessation of work occurs throughout the camp, not at the tabernacle, 155 as is likely also true of self-affliction. This is confirmed by H’s legislation in Leviticus 23: Lev 23:26–32: Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying, “However, on the tenth of this the seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy proclamation for you and you shall afflict yourselves and you shall offer a food gift to Yhwh [‫]והקרבתם אשה ליהוה‬. All labor shall not be done [‫וכל מלאכה לא‬ ‫ ]תעשו‬on this very day for it is a day of atonement to atone on your behalf before Yhwh your god [‫]לכפר עליכם לפני יהוה אלהיכם‬. For every person who is not afflicted on this very day shall be cut off from their people. 156 And every person who does any labor on this very day, I shall destroy that person from among their people. All labor shall not be done, an eternal statute for your generations, in all your dwellings [‫]בכל משבתיכם‬. It is a Shabbat of Ceasing for you; you shall afflict yourselves on the seventh of the month in the evening, from one evening to the next, you shall cease for your shabbat.

The cessation of labor and self-affliction are practiced “in your dwellings” over the course of a 24-hour period. Thus, while the occasion involves ritual offerings (23:27), the process of self-affliction (and work cessation) does occurs not at the tabernacle but in the homes of individual Israelites. But, while “before Yhwh” in Lev 16:30 and 23:28 does not refer to activities performed at the sacred precincts, it may still carry a locative nuance, in contrast to Milgrom’s interpretation that “before Yhwh” in Lev 16:30 describes becoming “reconciled” to Yhwh. By expanding the Yom Kippur ritual to include lay self-affliction, H creates a parallel between the purification of the inner sanctum and the purification of the general public; just as there is a buildup of unpurged impurity in the sanctum over time, so too there is a buildup of sin in individual Israelites. 157 The ritual of abstention then serves to expunge this impurity so that the people can again be pure when they next come before Yhwh. In addition, as I have discussed above, H broadens the implications of the divine presence in the tabernacle Yhwh,” or may express their equality “in the estimation of Yhwh” (Gray, Numbers, 176). In Num 18:19, the reference to the regular arrangement of the priestly prebend could express the idea of divine consideration versus presence or proximity. 154.  Yom Kippur is a day of ceasing, like Shabbat, but is distinct from Shabbat (Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2026–27). 155.  In fact, the Shabbat sacrifices attest that at least some priests did not refrain from labor on Shabbat (Num 28:9–10). 156.  This is the only instance of a Pual form with the root ʿnh. Milgrom suggests it has a reflexive meaning “afflict oneself” (Leviticus 23–27, 2024). 157.  Ibid., 2021.

Divine Location

207

to affect the daily purity of the people. The abstention on Yom Kippur is necessary to purge the people not only for their next trip to the temple but in fact for their daily lives in the land, wherein Yhwh dwells. Thus, “before Yhwh” in Lev 16:30 carries a locative nuance, but refers to a location away from the tabernacle. In H, Yhwh dwells in the tabernacle but this presence affects the entire encampment (or land), requiring heightened purity laws from those found in P. H’s expansion of the meaning of ‫ לפני יהוה‬weakens its use as a reference to the specific location of the deity. It is perhaps for this reason, that it is only in the context of Yom Kippur that H uses “before Yhwh” to refer to a location apart from the tabernacle. 158 The D Source As I noted above, much has been made of D’s description of the central cult site as “the place wherein Yhwh will place his name [‫המקום אשר יבחר‬ ‫]יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם‬.” In von Rad’s classic theory, the name is D’s replacement for the divine body, believed to reside in the temple in earlier traditions. 159 Thus, D is less anthropomorphic since it relegates Yhwh to heaven and denies his presence on earth. The preceding discussion has shown that D, in fact, is quite comfortable with describing the divine presence on earth, going so far as to state that Yhwh “walks around” the camp. Thus, as recent studies have shown, it is inacc­urate to state that D’s program of centralization is antianthropomorphic or that it denies the presence of the deity at the temple. 160 First, if we were to accept von Rad’s theory that D believes Yhwh is only present in heaven, this is not an argument against the anthropomorphic nature of Yhwh, only his presence on earth. That is, D’s god could still have a human form and engage in human-like activities, simply not on earth. This is the approach of Sommer. 161 Second, there is nothing inherent in D’s use of “name [‫ ”]שם‬that denies the divine presence in the temple and, as Richter has shown, there is compelling comparative evidence to consider this phraseology to refer to possession and not presence. 162 Third, as Wilson has argued, D uses the phrase “before Yhwh” 158.  Num 10:9 (and 10:10) may be another exception, “If you come to war in your land against the tormentor who torments you then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets and you shall be called to mind before Yhwh your god [‫]אלהיכם‬.” 159. Von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology.” 160.  Richter and Wilson are the fullest treatments of this topic, but other scholars have questioned portions of the suppositions of name theology (see Richter, Name Theology, 26–36; Wilson, Out of the Midst, 131–97). 161.  Sommer, Bodies of God, 64. 162.  Richter, Name Theology; Sommer accepts the argument that D draws on the context of boundary markers but considers this as evidence that D rejects a corporeal understanding of ‫( שם‬Bodies of God, 66, 218–19). He misses the implication of Richter’s argument that this use of ‫ שם‬argues against its reference to the issue of presence at all. In addition, Richter’s major contribution is that ‫ לשכן‬in this phrase means ‘set’ and not ‘dwell’ and thus is misunderstood as statement about the location of deity (Name Theology, 209, 209). For a recent critique of Richter, see Hundley, “To Be or Not to Be.”

208

Chapter 4

repeatedly, implying the divine presence at the cult site. Through a close reading of D’s use of the phrase ‫לפני יהוה‬, I will add to Wilson’s argument to show how D does not reject but rather assumes the tradition that Yhwh dwells at the cult site. The phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬is found 25 times in the D ­material in Deuteronomy. 163 The reality of this phrase, that is, that it refers to the proximate presence of the deity in a specific site (and not merely his name as a stand in), is verified by the use of ‫ לפני‬with a human referent meaning physical presence and the juxtaposition of ‫ לפני יהוה‬with other, obviously present people or objects. The phrase x ‫לפני‬, when x is a person or thing, is found 34 times in D. 164 When used of humans or things, x ‫ לפני‬can be broadly divided into two categories: locative and temporal. The temporal category is far less common, found only three times. 165 Of the remaining uses referring to location, and these can be divided into 3 categories: immediate physical proximity, extended physical proximity, and immediate mental proximity. There are 16 examples in Deuteronomy of x ‫ לפני‬referring to the immediate, physical proximity of one subject to another, occurring in both the legal material and its framework. 166 For instance, in Deut 1:38, Yhwh says to Moses, “Joshua, son of Nun, who stands before you [‫]העמד לפניך‬,” or in Deut 22:6, “If a bird’s nest happens to be before you on the road [‫לפניך‬ ‫]בדרך‬.” In Deut 22:17, the parents of the accused newlywed woman unfurl the wedding sheets “before the elders [‫]לפני זקני העיר‬.” In these examples, to be ‫ לפני‬is to share both space and time. The second use of x ‫לפני‬, which appears 11 times, refers to an expanded understanding of physical location. 167 A typical example is God’s promise “to put the land before” the Israelites, as in Deut 1:21, “See, Yhwh your god has put before you the land [‫]נתן יהוה אלהיך לפניך‬. Go up, possess [it], as Yhwh the god of your ancestors, said to you.” This statement is figurative in the sense that Yhwh has not set the land down before the people, but locative 163.  Deut 1:45; 4:10; 6:25; 9:18, 25; 10:8; 12:7, 12, 18 (twice); 14:23, 26 (twice); 15:20; 16:11; 18:7; 19:17; 24:4, 13; 26:5, 10, 13; 27:7; 29:9, 14. 164.  Deut 1:8, 21, 30, 33, 38, 42; 2:31, 33, 36; 3:18, 28; 4:8, 44; 7:2, 23; 9:2, 3 (twice); 10:11; 11:26, 32; 19:17; 22:6, 17; 23:15; 25:2, 9; 26:4; 28:7, 25 (twice); 30:1, 15, 19. There are five instances in Deut 31:1–8 and 14–23 but these passages are best assigned to E (Baruch Schwartz, personal communication, December 16, 2010). Verses 14–15 describe the descent of Yhwh in the pillar to the Tent of Meeting as is found elsewhere in E but is absent from D. Deut 31:1 interrupts the preceding when it states that Moses “went and spoke all these maters to all of Israel,” but according to Deuteronomy 29–30 he has been addressing Israel this whole time. This narration fits better after the E passages in Numbers 32 in which Moses is negotiating with the Reubenites and Gadites. In addition, the content aligns with E’s accounts of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21–35, 32:33). 165.  Deut 1:22; 4:32, 33. Deut 1:22 shows the similarity between a locative and a temporal meaning, “Let us send men before us that they may search out the land for us.” The men preceed the people into the land both physically and temporally. 166.  Deut 1:30, 33, 38; 3:18, 28; 9:3 (twice); 10:11; 19:17; 22:6, 17; 25:2, 9; 26:4; 28:7, 25. 167.  Deut 1:8, 21, 42; 2:31, 33, 36; 7:2, 23; 9:2; 23:15; 28:25.

Divine Location

209

in that it still refers to the location of the people vis-à-vis the land. At this moment in the narrative, the people are located in the physical vicinity of the land in question (1:19–20). In other words, this expression would be nonsensical if uttered while the people were still in Egypt. So, while the larger context emphasizes the availability of the land for occupation, the use of ‫ לפני‬suggests the physical proximity of one to the other. In addition, if we presume that Deut 1:33 refers to the ongoing presence of Yhwh in the cloud and fire, leading the people through the wilderness (which seems the clear meaning of this verse), then Yhwh has quite literally placed the land before the people. Yhwh, in the cloud and fire, has lead them up to this point, with the land to be conquered stretching out before them. The D author uses x ‫ לפני‬often in the context of two opposing forces in battle. The location nuance of this phrase is reflected in Deut 2:31 and its larger context: Deut 2:31–35: Yhwh said to me, “See I have begun to put before you [‫ ]החלתי תת לפניך‬Sihon and his land. Begin to take possession, to dispossess his land.” Sihon came out to meet us, he and all his people for war at Yahats. Yhwh our god put him before us [‫ ]ויתנהו יהוה אלהינו לפנינו‬and we struck him and his sons and all his people. We captured all his cities at that time and we proscribed every city; men, women and infant, we left no survivor. Only the beasts did we plunder for ourselves and the booty of the cities which we captured.

The larger context shows that “to put before” refers to a favorable outcome in battle. 168 But at the same time, ‫ לפני‬here refers to physical proximity, as Sihon and his army stand opposite the Israelites in battle (‫)ויצא סיחן לקראתנו‬ allowing the Israelites to physically strike them down. Later, in Deut 28:25 these two nuances of x ‫ לפני‬are juxtaposed: “Yhwh shall make you smitten before your enemies [‫ ;]לפני איביך‬by one road shall you go out against him but by seven roads shall you flee before him [‫ ]תנוס לפניו‬and you shall become horrifying to all the kingdoms of the earth.” The third use of x ‫ לפני‬is the most abstract, when x has a nonmaterial referent. The seven examples of this use appear in Deut 4:8, 44; 11:26, 32; 30:1, 15, 19 wherein Moses sets before the people “this torah,” “blessings and curses,” and “life/goodness and death/evil.” So, for instance, in Deut 4:44, “This is the instruction that Moses set before the people [‫ׂשם‬ ‫]משה לפני בני ישראל‬,” which refers to the communication of the torah to the people. In Deut 27:1–8, after Moses has communicated this torah (Deuteronomy 12–26), he adjures the people to erect stones on the other side of the Jordan and “write upon them this torah [‫וכתבת עליהן את כל דברי התורה‬ ‫]הזאת‬.” 169 The context shows that the plain meaning of “to set x before 168.  The more common idiom is ‫‘ לתת ביד‬to give into (your) hand’, that is, ‘to hand over into your control’. 169.  Deut 27:3, 8. The double reference to erecting and inscribing a stele may indicate multiple compositional layers (Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 161–62).

210

Chapter 4

y” in these contexts is not placement in the immediate, physical proximity of the people. Rather, the nuance is one of “to present,” in this case, through recitation. At the same time, this presentation of the content of torah to the people is solemnized by a concrete action. The imagery associated with the presenting of the instruction (and its accompanying blessings and curses) imagines this instruction as physically present with the people. The blessings and curses of 11:26, 32, and 30:1 are recited to the people, who respond with an affirmation. 170 In Deut 30:11–14, the instruction is found in the mouth and heart of the people and in 6:8–9 and 11:18–20 the people are commanded to bind the words of Moses’ instruction on their bodies and homes. Physical proximity is likely also presumed in Deut 26:5, “and you shall respond and say before Yhwh your God [‫וענית ואמרת לפני יהוה‬ ‫]אלהיך‬.” 171 This use of x ‫ לפני‬then, while not explicitly referring to physical proximity here, contributes to the larger imagery of the presence of torahinstruction with the people. Ian Wilson has shown that Deuteronomy uses ‫ לפני יהוה‬when other verbpreposition combinations are more common outside Deuteronomy, contributing to the physicality of the composition as a whole: However, one feature stands out regarding the usage of ‫ לפני יהוה‬as it occurs in relation to the “chosen place.” There are five instances of the divine Name in combination with ‫ לפני‬rather than with the prepositions most commonly associated with the verbs in question. 172 Here it can be assumed that the writer was faced with a choice and deliberately opted for ‫ לפני‬in preference to the more usual alternatives. . . . This reveals, as far as the use of prepositions in relation to the Deity is concerned, a general compliance with Hebrew syntax where little or no choice is involved, but a definite favoring of ‫ לפני‬when there are alternatives from which to choose. Such a clear bias towards using the preposition ‫( לפני‬i.e., in preference to possible alternatives) with the divine Name when referring to the “chosen place,” together with the previously noted restriction of the resulting expression to that particular site, whenever one is specified, suggests a deliberate intention on the part of the writer to bring the phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬and the “chosen place” into close association with each other. 173 170. Deut 30:15 refers to putting “life and death” before the people, which is then equated with the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 27–28 in 30:19. 171.  While the speaker in 26:5–11 is not identified as a witness, the content of the speech approximates a vow in that the speaker attests to his or her fulfillment of the command to present first-fruits to Yhwh (see 26:10 and compare with 26:13–14). Tigay suggests the translation “By this declaration I acknowledge” (Deuteronomy, 239). 172.  Deut 12:12, 18b; 16:11; 26:5, 10. For a chart of the different uses of the idiom, see Wilson, Out of the Midst, 150. 173. Ibid., 152–53. Wilson notes that in Deuteronomy actions that happen “before Yhwh” always happen at the “chosen place” and never, for instance, “in the land.” This fact adds credence to a literal interpretation of “before Yhwh” as referring to the divine presence located at and limited to the central cult site (Wilson, Out of the Midst, 146).

Divine Location

211

The use of x ‫ לפני‬with human and nonphysical referents fits the pattern of increased physicality that Wilson identifies in Deuteronomy. The majority of uses of x ‫ לפני‬are explicitly in reference to location, and when they are not (type 3), they contribute to a larger theme of physical presence. The use of x ‫ לפני‬with other than the deity as its referent in the D source is overwhelmingly physical and locative. And when it is not explicitly physical, it retains a strong locative nuance. This fact alone suggests ‫לפני‬ ‫ יהוה‬should likewise be considered a statement of location. That is, given the strong locative nuance of ‫ לפני‬elsewhere in Deuteronomy, if the author wished to deny the physical location of Yhwh at the cult site, we would expect the use of a different preposition or some sort of qualification of its locative nuance when used with the deity as a referent. 174 That the phrase does in fact refer to the actual location of Yhwh is supported by the juxtaposition of ‫ לפני יהוה‬with other obviously present people or objects. So, in Deut 26:1–5: When you enter the land that Yhwh, your god, is giving to you as an inheritance to take possession of it and you settle in it, you shall take from the first of all the fruit of the land which you bring from your land that Yhwh, your god, is giving you and you shall set in a basket and go to the place where Yhwh, your god, shall choose to place his name [‫ושמת‬ ‫]בטנא והלכת אל המקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיך לשכן שמו שם‬, and you shall come to the priest [‫ ]באת אל הכהן‬who presides in those days and you shall say to him, “I declare today for Yhwh, your god, for I came to the land that Yhwh swore to our ancestors to give to us.” 175 The priest shall take the basket from your hand and place it before the altar of Yhwh, your god [‫]ולקח הכהן הטנא מידך והניחו לפני מזבח יהוה אלהיך‬. You shall answer and say before Yhwh, your god [‫ ]וענית ואמרת לפני יהוה אלהיך‬. . .

Here, the presence of the altar is conflated with the presence of the deity, and the priest and celebrant are “before” both, thereby asserting that Yhwh is lo­cated at the chosen place, just as are the priest and altar. Another example appears in Deut 19:17, “the two men who have the dispute shall stand before Yhwh, before the priests and the judges [‫לפני יהוה לפני הכהנים‬ ‫ ]והשפטים‬who shall preside in those days.” That is, being “before the priests and the judges” is equivalent to being “before Yhwh.” That Yhwh is physically present at the central cult site is further supported by references to seeing God there: Deut 31:10–12: Moses commanded them, “At the end of seven years, at the time of the year of release during the festival of Sukkot, when all Israel comes to see the face of Yhwh [‫]לראות את פני יהוה‬,  176 your god, in the place 174.  So ibid., 195. 175.  “Your god”: The second masculine singular object suffix may be a dittography of the ‫ כ‬of the following word. The LXX reading, “my god [τῶι θεῶι μου],” is more appropriate in the context of the verse. 176.  The MT points this as a Niphal, but the original reading was certainly Qal. I discuss Exod 23:14–17 and Deut 16:16 in chapter 3.

212

Chapter 4

that he will choose [‫]במקום אשר יבחר‬, you shall read this instruction before all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people—the men, the women, the infants, and your alien who is at your gates—so that they may hear and that they may learn and fear Yhwh, your god, and then they shall observe to do all the words of this commandment.” 177

I stated above that the juxtaposition of ‫ לפני יהוה‬with ‫ לפני‬followed by a person or object undermines a nonliteral reading of ‫לפני יהוה‬. If it were the case that D wished to assert something other than the physical location of Yhwh, the author would have chosen a different prepositional phrase or inserted a gloss that clarified the uncommon use of ‫ לפני‬as referring to something other than location. The D author is known for such clarifications, such as the strong assertion in Deut 4:12 that the people did not see the form of the deity but only heard his voice. The appearance of ‫לפני יהוה‬ with most attestations of the phrase “the place that Yhwh will choose to place his name” could be brought as evidence of D’s qualification of ‫לפני‬ ‫יהוה‬. That is, D is redefining ‫ לפני יהוה‬as ‫המקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו‬ ‫שם‬. Besides the evidence brought above showing the strong locative nuance of ‫ לפני‬and the conflation of something being “before Yhwh” just as it is “before” a human or thing, this argument falters of the use of ‫לפני יהוה‬ apart from references to the chosen place. That is, while the phrase ‫המקום‬ ‫ אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם‬appears in D in tandem with ‫ לפני יהוה‬in a majority of instances, the expression ‫ לפני יהוה‬commonly occurs with a locative nuance apart from reference to the chosen place. 178 Thus, the opposite may be the case: that ‫ לפני יהוה‬is meant as an equivalent of ‫המקום אשר‬ ‫יבחר יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם‬. If correct, then the use of ‫ שמו‬by the D source is not an attempt to deny the presence of Yhwh at the cult site. Rather, the juxtaposition of its ref­erence to the name with ‫ לפני יהוה‬along with the description of seeing Yhwh at that site suggests the author of D sought to 177. See pp. 86–89 and 106–108 for my discussion of “seeing” Yhwh in temple in E and D. 178.  The full idiom appears six times in Deuteronomy (Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2). In addition, there are three appearances of the idiom using the verb ‫ לשום‬in place of ‫( לשכן‬Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24; for a discussion of the form of the idiom in these verses; see Richter, Name Theology, 41–52). Six of these nine instances appear with ‫ לפני יהוה‬in close proximity and with reference to the same location. Instances when the idiom appears alone are Deut 12:21; 16:2, 6. In Deut 12:21, the topic is the slaughter of animals away from the central cult site and thus we would not expect a reference to the divine location. Deut 16:2 and 6 appear in the passage addressing the Passover sacrifice (Deut 16:1–8). Thus, there is in essence only one instance of the full name idiom appearing in D that describes ritual acts occurring at the central cult site that does not describe that site as ‫לפני יהוה‬. In addition, ‫ לפני יהוה‬typically appears in close proximity with any reference to the central, cult site in D (Deut 15:20, 18:6, 26:9). We may add to this Deut 16:16 and 31:11, which make reference to seeing the deity at the cult site. ‫ לפני יהוה‬does not appear in conjunction with the references to the cult site in Deut 12:26 or 17:8–10, but compare the latter with Deut 19:17. The phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬appears with a locative nuance apart from reference to the chosen place at Deut 1:45; 4:10; 9:18, 25; 10:8; 27:7; 29:9, 14. See also Deut 19:17, where ‫ לפני יהוה‬alone refers to the central cult site.

Divine Location

213

confirm the belief that God dwelt at the temple. That is, D’s program of centralization co-opts the Assyrian royal terminology to express possession, as argued by Richter, and juxtaposes this terminology with the traditional, Israelite terminology of cultic divine presence as a means of both confirming old beliefs while introducing new beliefs. This sort of move is consonant with the overall hermeneutic used by D, as discussed by Levinson. 179 A possible counter to my argument is the appeal to God in Deut 26:15, “Look down from the habitation of your holiness, from the heavens [‫השקיפה‬ ‫ ]ממעון קדשך מן השמים‬and bless your people Israel and the earth that you gave us as you swore to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.” 180 Here, we have an explicit and evocative reference to Yhwh’s dwelling in heaven. First, it is important to note that this passage never states that Yhwh is not pre­sent at the temple or only present in heaven, and the broader context, discussed above, uses the cultic language for divine presence “before Yhwh,” and even identifies “before Yhwh” as ‫לפני מזבח יהוה‬. Second, the fact that D requires Israelites to travel to the temple to make offerings and supplicate the deity supports the interpretation that the deity is present in the temple. 181 Thus, this verse does not support the argument that Yhwh is only located in heaven, though it may be read as contradictory to the many references to the location of the deity at the cult site. It is possible that this verse reflects the belief that Yhwh is simultaneously present in heaven and earth. 182 In this case, the cult site would represent the mytho-poetic conflation of divine earthly and heavenly dwelling. This argument is tempting, but it must be acknowledged that there are no overt indications from the text that this sort of conflation exists in the mind of D. 183 Nor are there any indications that, as at Horeb, “the heavens” refers more specifically to “the skies” and simply describes the deity’s elevated location vis-à-vis the cult site. Instead, I believe the explanation of this verse is found in its context as a prayer for protection. As I have just argued, the actions and declarations of the celebrant in Deut 26:1–15 occur at the cult site wherein the deity is also located. Each use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬in this passage refers to an action performed by the celebrant or priest: recitation (26:5–10a,13–15), presentation of the offering (26:4, 10b), prostration (26:10b). Divine location in these instances is directly correlated with ritual action. In contrast, the reference to divine location 179.  Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. 180.  See also Deut 11:17, 28:12. 181.  Tigay argues this second ritual does not occur at the cult site (Deuteronomy, 243). More likely, the Israelite comes to the sanctuary after having distributed the tithes (R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002] 306–7). 182.  Wilson, Out of Midst, 216. 183.  I made this argument earlier (A. Knafl, “Name Theology and Deuteronomy” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, November, 2010]), but I have since changed my thinking, in large part due to the helpful input of Baruch Schwartz (personal communicaton, December 16, 2010).

214

Chapter 4

in v. 15 is part of the celebrant’s prayer to Yhwh. The content of this prayer does not reflect the immediate location of the celebrant and thus need not refer to the immediate location of the deity. So, while the celebrant recites these words ‫לפני יהוה‬, he or she refers to activities that occurred before arriving at the cult site: Deut 26:13–14: You shall say before Yhwh, your god, “I have burned what is holy of my house and I have also given to the Levite, the alien, the orphan, and the widow according to all your commandment that you commanded me. I did not transgress from your commandments and I did not forget. I have not eaten from it while mourning and I have not given from it to the dead. I have obeyed Yhwh, my god, I have done according to all that you commanded me.

So, when the celebrant goes on to ask Yhwh to “look down from the habitation of your holiness, from the heavens,” this is a request for the ongoing, providential care of the deity for his people. The prayer does not request that Yhwh look down on and bless the celebrant at that moment but is directed to the overall well-being of the people and the land. It is this general and durative outlook of the prayer that suggests that the divine location found therein does not refer to the location of the deity at the moment of the prayer. “It is from heaven that God’s power originates, but it is from the temple that the deity appears and gives strength to the people.” 184 A logical tension does exist if we presume that Yhwh can only be located at one place at a time, but it does not appear that the D author was concerned with this tension. We can say, though, that the vast majority of references to divine location in D place the deity at the cult site and not in his heavenly abode. It is in this way, that D differs from P. For P, the divine presence (‫)כבוד‬, is the defining characteristic of the tabernacle, so much so that its later tradent, Ezekiel, describes the removal of the glory from the temple before it can be destroyed by the Babylonians and its traveling with the people into exile. 185 In D, rather, the cult site is legitimated by divine mandate and not divine presence, even though Yhwh is present at the cult site. 184.  Levine, “On the Presence,” 82. 185.  Especially Ezek 9:3, 10:18–20, 11:22–23.

Chapter 5

Divine Action and Interaction Definition This chapter will discuss the third prong of the anthropomorphic character of Yhwh, divine action. In particular, I will focus on divine interaction with humans. It is my contention that divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible and specifically the pentateuchal sources has been misinterpreted in part due to methodologically problematic comparisons both between sources and between the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern literature. For instance, Korpel offers an exhaustive list of divine anthropomorphisms in Ugaritic literature as compared with the Hebrew Bible. 1 She concludes from this analysis and comparison that the god of the Hebrew Bible shares in common only certain types of anthropomorphic characteristics with the Ugaritic deities. In particular, the authors of the Hebrew Bible avoided anthropomorphisms that presented their deity as weak or compromised. While it is certainly true that the Ugaritic myths describe their deities acting in ways that Yhwh is never described in the Hebrew Bible (for example, getting drunk), it is also true that these myths differ drastically in terms of content and style from the Hebrew Bible. That is, many of the Ugaritic myths describe interactions between the deities of the divine pantheon. So, for instance, the Baʿlu epic narrates the battle between the gods for supremacy. The Hebrew Bible contains no parallel epic (though certainly does contain isolated references to Yhwh defeating other supernatural forces, for example, Isa 51:9–11). In fact, the Hebrew Bible is almost entirely concerned with describing the activities of a single god, Yhwh, and his interaction with humans. It should not be assumed, nor does the literature assert, that divine beings interact with other divine beings in the same way as they do with human beings. 2 An analogy to a king is instructive. We see from ancient Near Eastern literature that kings did not act in a similar manner with the general populace as they did with family members and other kings. For instance, in 2  Sam  6:12–22 David dances in his loincloth before the ark, an act that Michal interprets as shameful for David as a king to do before maidservants 1.  Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds. 2. Another possible methodological problem for Korpel is the difference in time, place, and culture between Ugarit and ancient Israel. Why must the differences between the literatures of these two civilizations be assumed to be theologically inspired? Why not attribute these differences to different features of the cultures, such as era, location, or societal structures?

215

216

Chapter 5

(his inferiors). But, David’s act was not for the maidservants but was a sign of obedience to Yhwh (his superior), at which point the act is appropriate. The same may be said of deities; they interact with other deities (who belong to the same hierarchical level as they) differently from how they do with humans (who are inferior to deities). 3 A cursory comparison of the Baʿlu Myth with the Kirta Epic reveals that Ugaritic deities do not interact with humans in the same manner as with other deities. For instance, when gods fight each other, it is a true fight, even if one is weaker than the other. 4 By contrast, when ʿAnatu battles humans, it is a literal bloodbath. 5 In RS 24.258, the gods convene for a banquet at which they drink until drunk. 6 In the Kirta Epic, Kirta convenes a banquet for the gods. 7 The deities show none of the revelry described in the other composition, but instead graciously bless Kirta and then depart. Thus, we cannot compare the actions of the Ugaritic deities with Yhwh without a full consideration of at least the different literary contexts of the two. In particular, given that the Hebrew Bible is predominantely focused on the description of one particular deity’s interaction with humans (versus the entire divine pantheon’s interactions with each other) we should not be surprised that it does not share the full range of description with the Ugaritic texts. That the Hebrew Bible lacks those so-called “baser” descriptions of Yhwh then may be attributed to the subject matter of the Hebrew Bible and not, at least exclusively, to the supposed antianthropomorphic leanings of its authors. This holds particularly true for the Pentateuch, which contains the narratives of Israel’s development into a nation and its acceptance of a covenant with its primary deity, Yhwh. In practical terms, divine action includes all verbal forms of which Yhwh is the subject and agent. The main question this chapter seeks to answer is, how do the pentateuchal sources depict what Yhwh does and how he does it? How does Yhwh make things happen, according to the source authors? By “action” I mean simply something that is done. As I discussed in the previous section, the subject matter of the Hebrew Bible, and in particular the Pentateuch, is predominantly focused on the relationship between Yhwh and Israel. Thus, in order to gauge how divine actions are analogized to human actions in the sources, I will focus on action that can be characterized as interaction, or action that attempts to influence the world outside the body or allows it 3.  There are hierarchical differences between deities (as between royals and nobles) but there is also a fundamental distinction between nobles and non-nobles that is akin to the divine and human distinction (humans, in general, cannot become divine just as nonnobles, in general, cannot become nobles); see Handy, Among the Host of Heaven. 4.  COS 1:248–49; CTA 2 iv 11–32. 5.  COS 1:250; CTA 3 ii 5–16. 6.  COS 1:302–5. 7.  COS 1:337–38; CTA 15 ii 1–19. CTA 15 ii 1–11 is damaged. The presumption of a banquet setting is based on the reference to drinking vessels in ii 12–19 (Pardee, COS 1:337 n. 45).

Divine Action and Interaction

217

to influence the body. I will further distinguish between two major types of interaction: direct and indirect. By direct interaction, I mean acts that are achieved through concrete and identifiable means; in other words, actions that are possible due to the proximate presence of the agent and that logically could not occur otherwise, for instance, the act of Moses breaking the stone tablets. Moses must directly interact with the tablets in order to break them. In contrast, actions achieved through indirect interaction are accomplished by nonphysical means that do not require proximate presence. For example, the ability of the Israelites to break their covenant with Yhwh by not adhering to its stipulations is a type of indirect action.

A Survey of Divine Action in the Sources The number of actions attributed to Yhwh in each source is vast. In this section, I will provide a brief survey of the types of actions attributed to Yhwh shared in common by all sources or shared by only some. In the next section, I will address divine action as it is presented in the specific sources. As with the previous categories of location and body, each of the sources (including H) shares in common a number of anthropomorphic actions attributed to the deity. That is, each pentateuchal author describes Yhwh as: putting (with an abstract object, such as peace); seeing (also with an abstract object, such as rebellion); giving (with means unspecified); blessing or cursing; bringing to or from; destroying; making a situation good or bad for an individual or group; forging a covenant; acting as a ruler, judge, or warrior; and possessing a name to which he responds in a cultic setting. 8 In addition to these, there are many actions that the majority of sources attribute to Yhwh: making (P, E, D, J); possessing something, such as a people ( J, P, H, D); acting as a redeeming kinsman (P, D); communicating through a divine messenger ( J, E); sending ( J, E, D, H). 9 8.  Putting: see, for example, Gen 4:15 ( J), 9:12 (P), 21:13 (E); Lev 26:6 (H); Deut 2:25 (D). Seeing: Gen 1:4 (P), 6:5 ( J); Exod 3:9 (E); Deut 26:7 (D). This act is not present in H. Giving: Gen 13:15 ( J), 9:3 (P), 48:9 (E); Lev 17:11 (H); Deut 1:20 (D). Blessing or cursing: Gen 1:22 (P), 24:1 ( J); Exod 20:24 (E); Lev 25:21 (H); Deut 1:11 (D). Bringing to or from: Exod 3:8 ( J), 6:6 (P), 11:1 (E); Lev 18:3 (H); Deut 4:20 (D). Destroying: Gen 6:7 ( J), 19:29 (P); Exod 23:28 (E); Lev 26:6 (H); Deut 2:21 (D). Making a situation good or bad: Gen 17:20 (P), 39:3 ( J); Exod 1:20 (E); Lev 26:9 (H); Deut 4:40 (D). Forging a covenant: Gen 6:18 (P), 15:18 (E); Exod 34:10 ( J); Lev 26:9 (H); Deut 4:23 (D). P uses the term ‫ תירב‬in the ancestor narratives to describe a divine promise and not a treaty, as established at Sinai/Horeb. The analogy between divine and human action is present, but in different form. Acting as ruler, judge, or warrior: Gen 18:25 ( J); Exod 7:4 (P); Lev 26:32–33 (H); Num 32:20b (E); Deut 10:17–18 (D). Possessing a name to which he responds in a cultic setting: Gen 4:26 ( J); Exod 6:3 (P), 20:24 (E); Lev 19:12 (H); Deut 12:11 (D). 9.  Making: Gen 1:7 (P), 2:4b ( J); Deut 26:19 (D); 32:6 (E). Possessing something: Exod 6:7 (P), 7:26 ( J); Lev 20:26 (H); Deut 10:14 (D). If Exod 13 belongs to E, then also in E (13:1). Acting as a redeeming kinsman: Exod 6:6 (P); Deut 15:15 (D). Communicating through a divine messenger: Gen 19:1 ( J); Exod 23:20 (E). Sending: Exod 3:10 (E), 7:16 ( J); Lev 18:24 (H); Deut 7:20 (D).

218

Chapter 5

The broad distribution of similar actions used by the pentateuchal authors to describe the deity suggests that these authors shared in common basic assumptions about the anthropomorphic nature of divine action. That is, divine action shares much in common with human action. The fact that H shares 9 of the 10 shared types of anthropomorphic action further supports this claim. H is primarily supplemental and contains mostly legislation. These descriptions of divine action permeated ancient Israelite conceptions of their deity, if they emerge even in nonnarrative contexts. There are examples of divine action that occur only in one or two of the sources. These instances, for the most part, happen rarely or only once in their respective sources. For instance, in the J source Yhwh is described as closing the ark in Gen 7:16. Much has been made of this comment as it is a common example of how much more anthropomorphic J is when compared to the other sources. However, this is the only instance in J when Yhwh performs this sort of act and the act may be explained as literary artistry over brash anthropomorphism. For the J author, it was important to explain who closed the ark behind Noah and his family. It is also true that there is nothing in the other sources that prevents Yhwh from closing things on behalf of humans. That this detail is missing from P’s story of the flood may be interpreted as P’s lack of concern for this detail of the narrative. There are examples of divine actions specific to a single source that do happen on a regular basis. The D source regularly states that Yhwh will “dispossess’” (‫ ירש‬Hiphil) the Canaanites and transfer the land to the Israelites. Again, it is not that the D source imagines that Yhwh is capable of dispossessing the Canaanites while the other sources do not consider this something the deity does. Rather, this common refrain in D is a function of its broader subject matter (Moses’ speech just as the people are about to enter the land) and the nature of the D source (repetitive exhortation). 10

Divine Action with Direct or Indirect Interaction The distinction between action through direct interaction versus indirect interaction is not always clear, for either human or deity. For this reason, I will address them together for each individual source, instead of in two separate sections. I will begin with a discussion of how each source describes Yhwh’s direct interaction with humans and the world and then move to a discussion of indirect interaction in that source. As discussed above, the sources share in common many of the same divine actions. Instead of describing how the same actions are portrayed in the different sources, I will focus my discussion on those divine actions that are featured prominently in the individual sources. 10.  Levinson argues that the repetition found in D is a function of its multiple editorial layers (Levinson, Hermeneutics, 23–28 and throughout).

Divine Action and Interaction

219

The J Source A survey of the actions ascribed to Yhwh in J reveals that, while J does attribute a wider array of actions with explicit means to Yhwh than is found in the other sources, occurrences of these actions are concentrated in the J portions of the primeval narratives of Genesis 1–11 and the wilderness narratives of Exodus and Numbers. This distribution of divine action undermines the argument that J is more anthropomorphic than the other sources. It suggests instead that the J author uses explicit divine anthropomorphism for specific literary goals. That is, if the J source, per the common characterization of the composition, reflects a stage of Israelite religious belief that ascribed to an overtly anthropomorphic conception of its deity, then we would expect an even distribution of examples of explicit divine anthropomorphism throughout the J source. Instead, the concentration of explicit divine anthropomorphism in the primeval and wilderness narratives suggests that their presence is the result of something other than Zeitgeist. As I argued in the previous chapter, J’s narratives of Genesis 1–11 and the wilderness reflect eras of proximate divine presence. In J, humanity begins life in close proximity to Yhwh in the garden, but that proximity quickly disappears after their expulsion. Beginning with Moses’ encounter with the divine, Yhwh becomes ever more proximate to the Israelites, to the point of traveling in their midst in the wilderness and allowing Moses a partial view of the divine body. I would suggest then that in the J source instances of explicit, anthropomorphic action by the deity coincide with instances of explicit, anthropomorphic presence, or proximity, of the deity. In other words, it is at those times that the deity is expressly located in the proximate presence of humans that he engages in explicit, anthropomorphic actions. I will argue that the same is true for the other sources. This state of affairs reflects a certain logic on the part of the source authors: when the deity is present, the means of his actions are discernable; when he is absent, the means of his actions are largely beyond the scope of human knowledge. At the same time, even when the explicit means of divine action are unknown, source authors continue to analogize human and divine action, simply analogizing divine action to human action performed without explicit means. The J source is unique among the sources in the intimacy of the actions it ascribes to Yhwh. However, the most intimate actions are concentrated not simply in the primeval era but specifically in the Garden of Eden narrative. As Genesis 3 describes, this is an intimacy to which humanity cannot return. Thus, it is misleading to characterize J’s conception of the deity based on a human-divine relationship that, according to J, no longer exists. At the same time, intimacy is not a sign of greater anthropomorphism but simply a willingness on the part of the J author to describe the deity interacting intimately with humans. The means of the intimacy is anthropomorphic behavior, but an anthropomorphic deity need not engage in intimacy­to

220

Chapter 5

be anthropomorphic. That the other sources do not have parallel examples of Yhwh forming the first creatures from earth and bone, blowing into the man’s mouth, walking around the garden, and clothing the man and woman does not mean that E, P, and D believed the deity could not or would not do these things; simply, in their compositions, he does not. After the primeval era, the next example of explicit action by the deity in J comes in Yhwh’s appearance to Abraham in Genesis 18. While Hamori is correct to note the uniqueness of the appearance of Yhwh in Gen 18:1–15 as a man, 11 this manifestation is not as concrete as she asserts (that is, Yhwh has not become a man to appear to Abraham and Sarah). Yhwh does take realistic human shape in this passage, evidenced by the fact that he and the other two men eat the meal that Abraham prepares (Gen 18:8). Otherwise, divine action in this passage consists primarily of speech. The encounter is direct and thus Yhwh speaks directly with Abraham, as one human to another. This is the case even after Yhwh’s identity is fully apparent to Abraham and after the two other men have departed. The clear beginning (when Yhwh arrives, 18:2) and end (when Yhwh leaves, 18:33) of this passage emphasizes its realistic portrayal of the conversation. Yhwh a­ppears to Isaac in Gen 26:24 and to Jacob in 28:13, but in both cases he appears only to announce the blessing. Gen 28:13 describes Yhwh standing opposite Jacob (‫)והנה יהוה נצב עליו‬, but these appearances contain no other realistic, explicit actions by the deity. They also lack a report of Yhwh leaving, in contrast to Gen 18:1–33. The majority of divine action in the J portions of Genesis 12–50 is typically speech, in particular the promise of land and progeny (Gen 12:1–3), providing progeny (Gen 30:1–24), and providential care (Gen 39:2–6, 21–23). These instances of divine action are addressed in the next section. Thus, after Genesis 18–19, the means of most divine actions in J are not explicit until the Exodus period. The J author describes divine action in its narrative of the exodus as largely mediated, either through divine manipulation of nature or by human proxy. In his announcement of the death of the first born, Moses states in Exod 11:4 that Yhwh is “going out in the midst of Egypt [‫אני יוצא‬ ‫]בתוך מצרים‬,” narrated later as Yhwh striking the first born (12:29). While this description lacks the explicit means of attack, the physical presence of Yhwh in Egypt suggests a direct act, not unlike P’s description of Yhwh passing through Egypt (Exod 12:13, 23). J describes Yhwh’s plagues against Egypt as accomplishments of Yhwh’s hand (Exod 3:20, 6:1, and so on), as we saw in Exod 14:31. But, as in the J portions of Exodus 14, not all Yhwh’s signs in Egypt are the result of direct, divine intervention or action. For instance, in J’s plague of blood it is Moses’ staff that enacts the plague, though the act is explicitly ascribed to Yhwh: Exod 7:14–25 ( J account of plague of blood, with P removed): Yhwh said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is heavy. He has refused to send the people 11.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 5–13, 65–96.

Divine Action and Interaction

221

out. Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he is coming out to the water and station yourself so as to meet him on the bank of the Nile and the staff which changed into a snake you shall take in your hand. You will say to him, ‘Yhwh the god of the Hebrews sent me to you, saying, “Send out my people that they may serve me in the wilderness. But you have not listened until now.” Thus said Yhwh, “By this shall you know that I am Yhwh: I am str­iking the waters which are in the Nile, with the staff that is in my hand, and they will change into blood [‫כה אמר יהוה בזאת תדע כי‬ ‫]אני יהוה הנה אנכי מכה במטה אשר בידי על המים אשר ביאר ונהפכו לדם‬. The fish which are in the Nile will die and the Nile will stink and Egypt will work in vain to drink water from the Nile.”’” 12 He raised the staff and struck the waters which were in the Nile [‫ ]וירם במטה ויך את המים אשר ביאר‬in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants and all the water that was in the Nile changed to blood. The fish that were in the Nile died and the Nile stank and Egypt was unable to drink water from the Nile. Pharaoh turned and entered his house and did not set his heart to this again. All Egypt dug around the Nile for water to drink, for they were unable to drink from the water of the Nile. Seven days passed after Yhwh struck the Nile [‫אחרי‬ ‫]הכות יהוה את היאר‬.

7:25 summarizes the event as “Yhwh struck the Nile,” but 7:20aβ narrates Moses striking the Nile with his staff, mentioned also in 7:15. The act and speech of Yhwh and Moses are conflated in 7:17 as Moses is commanded to say to Pharaoh, “Thus said Yhwh, ‘By this shall you know that I am Yhwh: I am striking the waters which are in the Nile, with the staff that is in my hand, and they will change into blood.’” 13 Because it is clearly Moses (in J’s account) who holds the staff in his hand and strikes the Nile, Moses’ speech to Pharaoh intertwines his words with those of Yhwh’s. Moses acts as proxy for the deity by both delivering the pronouncements of Yhwh and performing miraculous feats on his behalf. Divine action is mediated through human action, though it is clear from the narrative that the ultimate source of events is Yhwh, not Moses, because the conflict is between Yhwh and Pharaoh, not Moses and Pharaoh. Of the intermediate signs, in the first three (frogs, swarms, and cattle plague) the J author leaves the means of divine action unspecified, stating simply that “Yhwh accomplished [‫( ”]יעש יהוה‬Exod 8:20, 9:6), followed by his removal of the plague (‫סור‬, 8:4, 27). 14 The preceding speech that 12. LXX reads καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες οἱ ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ τελευτήσουσιν καὶ ἐποζέσει ὁ ποταμός, which aligns with J’s use of ‫ ולא יכלו‬in 7:21, 24. 13.  It may instead be that Moses’ quotation of Yhwh’s words ends with “By this shall you know that I am Yhwh,” and the following pronouncement (“I am striking the waters”) are his own words. Even if so, there is a seamless shift from the words of the sender to the words of his messenger that contributes to the conflation of their words and actions. In addition, Moses is enacting this plague on Yhwh’s behalf. 14.  The canonical text does not contain J’s narration of Yhwh enacting the plague of frogs, if it originally had one (Exod 7:26–29, 8:4–10). There is no sign to remove for the plague on the cattle, because they all die.

222

Chapter 5

describes the coming plague is typically more detailed than the narration. As with the Israelites in the wilderness, the purpose of the signs are that Pharaoh and the Israelites will know the power of Yhwh, but also that he is present in Egypt (Exod 8:18). So too, the divine origin of the acts are perceptible not through witnessing the deity perform them but through their supernatural form. So, in Exod 8:18, Egypt will know that Yhwh is among them not simply because they are afflicted with biting insects (‫ )ערב‬but because the swarms spare Yhwh’s people in Goshen: “On that day, I will keep the land of Goshen separate [‫]הפליתי ביום ההוא את ארץ גשן‬, on which my people stand, that there are not swarms there in order that you know that I, Yhwh, am in the midst of the land.” 15 So too, the plague on the cattle is described as the hand of Yhwh being against the animals (9:3). In the two plagues of J before the death of the firstborn (hail and locusts), there is greater correspondence between the prediction of the sign and its enactment. In these cases, Yhwh enacts the signs through manipulation of nature. Yhwh states that he will rain down hail (Exod 9:18), which he achieves by providing thunder and hail, which induces fire (9:23aβ–b, 24aβ). Yhwh brings the locusts by changing wind patterns (Exod 10:4, 13aβ) and then changes them again to remove the locusts (10:19). 16 J equates Yhwh’s presence with the people with the occurrence of miraculous events, both positive and negative. In Num 14:40–45, it is the absence of the ark, and by association Yhwh, that results in the defeat of the people by Amalek (see especially Num 14:42, 44). This is in contrast to the events at the sea. Here, Yhwh does fight for the people. J explicitly locates Yhwh in the pillar (Exod 14:24). More specifically, J limits Yhwh’s presence to the pillar in this passage (he looks down from in the pillar). So, when J describes Yhwh “confusing the Egyptian camp” (Exod 14:24) and “binding the wheels of their chariots” (14:25), the implication is that Yhwh does not directly interact with the Egyptians but influences them through some means other than physical strength. 17 At the same time, J attributes direct actions to Yhwh in this narrative. In Exod 14:19–20, the pillar moves in between the Israelites and Egyptians to keep them separate through the night. 18 This then is a direct action Yhwh takes to save the Israelites from the Egyptians. While the scope of this act (traveling in a cloud pillar) is beyond human ability, the act of physically moving to protect someone is a realistic human analogy.

15.  The word ‫ ערב‬possibly means “beasts of prey”; see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 328. 16.  In addition to presenting divine action as largely mediated, the J source uses contextless speech to describe Yhwh’s communication with Moses in Egypt in Exod 7:14, 19; 8:1, 16; 9:1, 13; 10:1; see also Gen 7:1, 12:1. 17. For a discussion of alternative translations to “binding the wheels,” see Propp, Exodus 1–18, 500. 18.  I discuss this passage in chapter 4.

Divine Action and Interaction

223

Yhwh ne­xt moves the sea “with a strong easterly wind” (Exod 14:21aβ). 19 Here, we have direct action, but of a sort that is not realistically analogous to human action. J, for instance, does not claim that Yhwh blew the water back, rather that he uses his control over the wind to move the water. 20 J uses a similarly evocative but supernatural imagery in 14:27b when it describes Yhwh “shak­ing off” Egypt in the sea. Thus, while J does not describe Yhwh ph­ysically interacting with the Egyptians apart from movement of the pillar, it conceptualizes the effects of Egypt’s destruction as such. J summarizes the entire episode in Exod 14:31, “Israel saw the great feat [‫את היד‬ ‫ ]הגדלה‬that Yhwh accomplished.” The reference to Yhwh’s hand here is figurative, referring to his feat of power, and is contrasted with the “hand,” or power, of the Egyptians in the preceding verse, “Yhwh saved Israel that day from the power of Egypt [‫ ]מיד מצרים‬and Israel saw Egypt dead on the shore of the sea.” 21 While it is a figurative use of ‫יד‬, this description is evocative of direct engagement by Yhwh. 22 Yhwh does not ph­ysically interact with the Egyp­tians as a human would, but their defeat is the result of Yhwh’s manipulation of physical objects: turning the chariot wheels and forcing the Egyptians back into the sea, whose course Yhwh also controls. Yhwh is the power behind these events, acknowledged even by Egypt in 14:25b, “Egypt said, ‘I will flee from Israel since Yhwh fights for them against Egypt [‫כי יהוה‬ ‫ ”’!]נלחם להם במצרים‬The conflation of direct and indirect engagement with the enemy is further emphasized in J’s juxtaposition of its narrative account with the poetic account of Yhwh at the sea in Exod 15:1–18, which describes Yhwh as a man of war battling Egypt (see especially 15:8–12). As in the description of divine action at the sea, these actions have no direct human analogy. They are necessarily out of the range of human ability; this is what makes them signs of Yhwh’s power. At the same time, they are not abstracted divine actions; Yhwh is not presented as an allpowerful force that controls the world in ways beyond human conception. Instead, J presents divine action in Egypt and the wilderness as occurring 19.  Exod 14:21aα, b belong to P, with J portions separated (Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 201). P: ‫ויט משה את ידו על הים ויבקעו המים‬ J: ‫ויולך יהוה את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה וישם את הים לחרבה‬ 20. Yhwh does the same for the plague of locusts in Exod 10:13aβ–b. Here, Yhwh uses the same technique to end the plague (10:19). 21.  Propp, Exodus 1–18, 502. 22.  The divine hand, in both the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern material, is a manifestation of divine power, either through direct engagement in battle against the enemy or in the form of plagues and pestilence (P. D. Miller Jr. and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel [Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977] 47–51. See also J. J. M. Roberts, “The Hand of Yahweh,” VT 21 [1971] 244–52). Propp argues that Moses’ staff in J and Aaron’s in P represent the divine arm (‫ )יד‬and the manifestation of divine power (Exodus 1–18, 227–29). G. A. Klingbeil argues that references to God’s finger represent divine presence (“The Finger of God in the Old Testament.” ZAW 112 [2000] 409–15).

224

Chapter 5

largely behind the scenes. The indirect implementation of the signs does have a human analogy in the nature of the act if not its specific means. In J’s narrative of Moses and Aaron’s first encounter with Pharaoh (Exod 5:1–6:1) Pharaoh responds to their initial demands by forcing the Israelites to collect the straw to make bricks, straw that was previously provided to them. While Pharaoh himself never speaks directly to the Israelite workers or interacts with them in any way, he is credited with this action. Rather, he commands the overseers and officers of the people (5:6–8) who in turn deliver the message to the people. The content of this speech frames their act as that of Pharaoh’s, “Thus says Pharaoh, ‘I am not giving you straw [‫כה‬ ‫( ”’]אמר פרעה אינני נתן לכם תבן‬5:10). So too, when the officers object to being punished under the new system, they accuse Pharaoh (5:15). 23 Thus, while Pharaoh has no direct involvement in the actual enforcement of the new rules, that enforcement is described as though he were the direct agent, because he is the authority behind the enforcement. 24 We may also say that, while Moses manipulates the staff that turns the Nile to blood and Yhwh acts through signs instead of direct intervention in Egypt, the ultimate agent of these acts is Yhwh because he is the authority behind their enforcement. J’s presentation of divine action mirrors its presentation of divine location. In the primeval and ancestor period, when Yhwh was proximate to humans, he interacted with them directly, though less and less over time. Divine proximity returns for Moses and then the Israelites in the wilderness, but it is not the same direct proximity as the Garden of Eden. Furthermore, divine action is less direct. Yhwh is present when he acts and interacts with the world to accomplish his signs, but that presence and agency is revealed through the nature of the acts and not the intimate manifestation of Yhwh. The goal of both the plagues and the later signs for the Israelites is to show Egypt and the Israelites that Yhwh is present and supremely powerful. Action without Means As discussed in the preceding section, Yhwh’s acts in Egypt and the wilderness while not always described as direct interaction with humans or nature, are directly dependent on divine presence. This correlation suggests a degree of realistic conception of the means of divine action on the part of J; as with humans, Yhwh must be present to affect the world. So, while J never describes Yhwh as coming into direct contact with the Egyptians, the author does attribute the signs to the “hand” of Yhwh, which strikes the land of Egypt. 25 This description is figurative in that there is no indica23.  In 5:16, the officers accuse the Egyptians of guilt and thus do recognize the role played by Pharaoh’s subordinates, but their appeal to Pharaoh for a remedy shows they recognize him as the true originator of the acts. 24.  A trait shared by leaders and deities (K. van der Toorn, “God [I] ‫אלהים‬,” DDD 359). 25.  See n. 22, above.

Divine Action and Interaction

225

tion from J’s narrative that Yhwh physically attacked Egypt with his hand. But this does not mean that J’s entire description of Yhwh’s actions against Egypt should be understood figuratively. The J author asserts that Yhwh is in Egypt and is solely responsible for the plagues, a fact Pharaoh refuses to acknowledge even in the face of indisputable evidence. Also, J’s narrative reveals that at least for the plagues of hail, locusts, and death of the first born, Yhwh is directly engaged in their means. At the same time, in the J source Yhwh performs acts for which the means are not only left unspecified, but are acts that are not described as the result of any direct intervention by Yhwh. J shares with the other sources its attribution of good (and bad) fortune to Yhwh, otherwise out of the control of humans, in particular the fulfillment of the promise of progeny. So, for instance, when Eve bears Seth she states “For God has given me [‫ ]כי שת לי אלהים‬another seed in place of Abel, whom Cain killed” (Gen 4:25). The same is true of J’s narrative of Leah’s and Rachel’s competition to produce children for Jacob. 26 The etymologies of tribal names in Genesis 29–30 attribute the successful births to divine intervention, though they are as much the result of the maneuverings of the two sisters. On the one hand, Yhwh’s ability to control pregnancy and birth transcends human ability and reflects the differences between human and divine action. On the other hand, identifying Yhwh as the controller of otherwise uncontrollable events has human analogues. As discussed above, Pharaoh is recognized as the source of ill-treatment of the Israelites and their overseers. Also, while the ultimate decision may lie with Yhwh, as it does with Pharaoh, subordinates will attempt to create a positive outcome. Rachel and Leah employ more aggressive techniques when they, like Sarah before them, use their servants as surrogates. Unlike Sarah though, Leah and Rachel consider Zilpah’s and Bilhah’s sons to be their own; they have in effect born sons for Jacob, if not with their own wombs, with wombs whose rights they possess. In this way, Rachel and Leah influence divine action and prerogative. In other words, Yhwh’s ability to provide progeny is intertwined with human control over progeny. Yhwh possesses more ability in this arena than humans and thus the extent of control of events may be understood hierarchically: humans do what they can to create a positive outcome with the knowledge that forces out of their control may either aid or thwart them. But, these outside forces are neither incomprehensible nor above influence and humans act to influence divine action in much the same way 26.  Friedman divides the accounts Zilpah’s and Bilhah’s pregnancies between J and E (Bible with Sources Revealed, 77–81). If so, then R has combined only parts of both J’s and E’s accounts of the birth of Jacob’s children, while excluding large portions of each. I prefer to take Genesis 29–30 as belonging to one source, most likely J, as it accords with J’s account of Jacob’s initial encounter with Laban (Gen 29:1–30) and J’s account of Rebekah’s betrothal (Genesis 24). E and P know of Zilpah and Bilhah; see Gen 37:2 and 46:18, 25, respectively.

226

Chapter 5

as they do to influence the actions of human leaders. Leah’s and Rachel’s agency is mediated by their servants in a manner similar to the mediation of divine agency. Just as with Yhwh’s enactment of the blood plague through Moses’ mediation, Leah and Rachel are the ultimate agents of the births of Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. Zilpah and Bilhah conceive and deliver these children, but these pregnancies would not have occurred without the involvement of Leah and Rachel. The sisters bear children by proxy, not unlike Yhwh enacts plagues by proxy. The effectiveness of human (or subordinate) intervention to influence divine (or a superior’s) action suggests a certain limitation of divine action. Whereas in the case of Moses, Yhwh has chosen to mediate his power through human action, it is also possible for humans to co-opt divine power for their own interests. The story of Jacob stealing Esau’s blessing in Gen 27:1–45 exhibits this phenomenon well. The reason Rebekah’s plan succeeds is due to the fact that a blessing, as an oath, once uttered, is binding. 27 Thus, even though Isaac believes he is reciting the blessing for Esau, the intended recipient of his blessing, the fact that he recites it over Jacob makes it binding for Jacob: “He said, ‘Your brother has come in deception and taken your blessing [‫]ויקח ברכתך‬.’” 28 Isaac cannot remove or transfer the blessing. He can only confer on Esau a blessing that, while it does not supersede Jacob’s, nuances the power bestowed on Jacob (27:39–40). Nor does Yhwh alter the blessing, but he confirms Jacob as the inheritor of the divine blessing in the Gen 28:13–15. Rebekah and Jacob successfully co-opt both divine and patriarchal prerogatives by taking advantage of the nature of blessings and social institutions. A similar situation is reflected in Yhwh’s pronouncement of a curse on Cain. After Yhwh discovers that Cain has killed Abel, he states in Gen 4:10– 11, “What have you done [‫ ?]מה עשית‬Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Thus, now you are accursed [‫ ]ועתה ארור אתה‬with respect to the ground, which opened its mouth to take your brother’s blood from your hands.” Yhwh has no control over the resulting curse on Cain; it is the inevitable result of bloodguilt. Yhwh cannot reverse Cain’s curse any more than Isaac can retract Jacob’s blessing. Instead, Yhwh can only mitigate Cain’s curse by providing him protection for his new life (Gen 4:15). 27.  This is not due to magic or the power of certain words that makes Isaac’s blessing binding, but his social position and the situation of the blessing. “When the speech is properly performed in the appropriate context, society accepts the illocutionary utterance as an accomplished act” (C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of brk “to Bless” in the Old Testament [SBLDS 95; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987] 174; see also pp. 79–90, 168–77). Mitchell argues that Isaac does not rescind the blessing after learning that he has blessed Jacob and not Esau due to social and legal constraints, versus the magical power of the blessing itself. “Isaac’s response to Esau’s request (v. 37) indicates that Isaac felt that it was impossible for him to rescind the blessing. Because the testamental blessings were normally pronounced shortly before the father’s death, it is likely that there was no socially accepted legal procedure for rescinding them” (ibid., 83). 28.  Gen 27:35.

Divine Action and Interaction

227

The same is likely true for the curse on the snake and the earth that comes as a result of the first couple eating from the forbidden tree. Yhwh’s pronounce­ments in Gen 3:14–19 are presented not as curses that originate from divine prerogative but rather as announcements of the inevitable new circumstances brought on by the act of eating the fruit. Yhwh’s reaction when he hears the humans have eaten the forbidden fruit in Gen 3:13 expresses both dismay and powerlessness: “Yhwh, God, said to the women, ‘What have you done [‫ ”’?]מה זאת עשית‬Pharaoh asks the same of Abraham in Gen 12:18 when he discovers Abraham has deceived him and brought divine plagues on him: “Pharaoh summoned Abram and said, ‘What have you done to me [‫ ?]מה זאת עשית לי‬Why did you not tell me that she is your wife?’” 29 In both cases, the speaker has no control over the negative consequences of the act in question. Yhwh’s response is to salvage the situation by providing the humans with suitable clothing (3:21) and preventing another such debacle (3:22–24). 30 Yhwh can give blessings and curses but is constrained by them, because are humans. When constrained, like humans, Yhwh responds with mitigating actions. Though there are clear examples of realistic, physical interaction between Yhwh and his creation in J, these actions are not the norm for this source. Thus, they should not be used as proof that J’s deity is more anthropomorphic than the deity in the other sources and thereby likely an earlier composition. Divine action in J is more often not explicitly realistic, and those instances of direct interaction correlate with moments of divine proximity. Thus, Yhwh does not interact directly with creation in J because the author has a more anthropomorphic conception of the deity. Rather, the anthropomorphic nature of the deity is highlighted when the narrative maintains his proximate presence to his creation. In this way, divine anthropomorphism is a function of verisimilitude and plot versus a reflection of the theology of the author. While divine action can be physically realistic and explicit, it is more often mediated. In the exodus and wilderness narratives, divine action is mediated through either human proxy or nature. For instance, his human proxy, Moses, enacts some attacks on Egypt on Yhwh’s behalf, while others are the result of Yhwh manipulating nature and its creatures to attack Egypt for him. In both cases, there is a separation between the actor (Moses, locusts), who performs the action, and the agent (Yhwh), who is the power and authority behind the action.

29.  See also Gen 29:25; 42:28; Exod 14:5, 11. E uses this phraseology in Gen 26:10. In each case, the speaker is responding to a past act that has had negative consequences and cannot be reversed, only addressed through other actions. 30.  According to J’s account, Yhwh brings the flood as a curse (Gen 8:21). In this case, Yhwh has control over the curse as opposed to reacting to the curse induced by human action. This is similar to Noah’s curse on Canaan (Gen 9:25–27). In these cases, the curse comes in response to human action, but that action does not automatically induce a curse, as at Eden or with Cain.

228

Chapter 5

This mediation of divine action occurs when the deity is proximate to the action. When the deity is not proximate to the action, J describes divine action as the result of divine authority and providential care, as with the gift of progeny and land and the protection required to ensure the safety and perpetuation of these gifts. Divine action here is a function of divine power. This power is greater than human power but analogous to human power. Humans are also able to affect the birth of children and grant land in perpetuity. Divine power in these instances is likewise subject to outside constraints, particularly due to human action. The E Source The E source is characterized by the fewest examples of direct, divine interaction of all the sources. That is, it contains the fewest examples of divine actions that occur when the deity is proximate to humans and performs some act whose means is either explicitly described or reasonably presumed from the context. In E, Yhwh is proximate to the Israelites on Mt. Horeb, when he descends to the Tent of Meeting and possibly as they enter Canaan. Otherwise, the E source describes divine action as mediated, typically through a proxy or nature, which correlates with Yhwh’s absence. Action with Means As discussed in the previous chapter, the E source is explicit that Yhwh is present on Mt. Horeb and that Moses interacts with him there. An example of direct action is E’s claim that Yhwh wrote the Decalogue on the tablets (twice) and gave them to Moses: Exod 24:12: Yhwh said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay there and I will give you the stone tablets [‫]ואתנה לך את לחת האבן‬, the instruction, and the commandment, which I have written to instruct them.” Exod 32:15–16: Moses turned and went down from the mountain, the two tablets of the pact in his hand, tablets written on their two sides, on this and that side they were written. The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets [‫והלחת מעשה‬ ‫]אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלחת‬. Exod 34:1: Yhwh said to Moses, “Construct two stone tablets like the first ones that I may write on the tablets [‫ ]וכתבתי על הלחת‬the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Exod 34:28: He was there with Yhwh for forty days and forty nights; he did not eat food or drink water. He [Yhwh] wrote on the tablets the words of the treaty, the ten matters [‫]ויכתב על הלחת את דברי הברית עשרת הדברים‬. 31

31.  In the canonical context, the subject appears to be Moses, but once the sources are separated the subject must be God, per 34:1 (Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 167–69).

Divine Action and Interaction

229

The act of writing on the tablets and giving them to Moses should then be understood as a physical act. In addition, E’s comment in Exod 31:18 that the tablets were “written with the finger of God [‫ ”]כתבים באצבע אלהים‬suggests that the E author conceived of this as corporeal action. 32 E describes direct, divine interaction with humans in the wilderness by means of the Tent of Meeting. But the E source describes relatively few instances of direct interaction by the deity at those instances when he comes down to the tent. Moses is said to speak with Yhwh “mouth to mouth” in the tent in Exod 33:11. When Yhwh comes down to the tent though, he does not engage in direct interaction beyond speech. For instance, Yhwh descends on the tent to apportion the prophetic spirit among the elders to aid Moses (Num 11:16–17, 24b–30). Yhwh is present in the tent when he enacts this transfer, but E provides no explanation of the means by which this transfer occurs. E’s description suggests it is not by means of direct, divine interaction with the elders. Elders who were not present at the tent were affected by the transfer (11:26). Thus, while Yhwh’s presence in the tent may be integral in his act of transfer, the transfer itself is not achieved through direct interaction. Similarly, when Yhwh comes to the tent to reprove Aaron and Miriam, the presence of the deity causes Miriam’s affliction (Num 12:9–10), but E does not describe this as the result of direct, divine interaction with Miriam. The only direct, divine action is the descent on to the tent and the speech (Num 12:5–8). Before Horeb, there are very few examples of direct interaction by Yhwh. This fact coincides with the infrequency of the proximate presence of the deity in the E source before Horeb. So, in the ancestor narratives, God is only explicitly present to wrestle with Jacob. Otherwise, E describes God’s interactions with humans as occurring either through a vision or dream, mediated by a messenger, or calling from heaven. 33 In these cases, the deity may communicate directly with humans (that is, not through a mediator), but the act of communication itself is mediated by space or vision. God is described as directly interacting with Abraham in a vision in Gen 15:5, when he brings Abraham outside to show him the stars: “He 32.  The phrase ‫ באצבע אלהים‬has been interpreted as a superlative, meaning “supremely skillful writing” (D. W. Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Way of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 [1953] 120–21). But, E’s description of Yhwh’s presence­ on the mountain, the necessity of Moses bringing the tablets up the mountain to God, and its identification of the engraving as the work of Yhwh (Exod 32:16) support a corporeal interpretation. Exod 31:18 is a composite of P and E (Schwartz, “What Really Happened,” 26): E: “He then gave Moses two tablets, stone tablets, which had been inscribed by the finger of God.” P: “When He finished speaking with him on Mt. Sinai, He gave Moses the testimony.” 33.  Gen 15:1; 20:3; 21:17; 22:11; 31:11–13, 24; 46:2. Gen 15:13–15 may not be part of Abraham’s original vision, in which case it is an example of contextless divine speech, like Gen 35:1.

230

Chapter 5

took him outside­[‫ ]ויוצא אתו החוצה‬and said, ‘Look to the sky and count the stars, if you are able to count them.’ He said to him, ‘Thus shall be your seed.’” Hamori labels this “envisioned anthropomorphism,” a lesser form of anthropomorphism than her “concrete anthropomorphism,” since, as she asserts, “These visions can be more or less detailed, and the appearance of the deity can fall anywhere along a broad spectrum of characteristics, but in no case do they actually reflect the physical presence of the deity on earth.” 34 Even allowing that Yhwh is not physically present during a vision, his realistic actions in these visions should not be dismissed as less anthropomorphic than if performed in proximate presence. 35 There is no indication in E that Yhwh’s actions in visio­ns and dreams are other than what he may do in reality. For instance, the E author describes Yhwh’s interactions with Moses as direct, realistic, and not mediated by dream or vision (Exod 33:11, Num 12:8, Deut 34:10). In addition, it is possible for the vision or dream to represent a truer reality than is typically seen by humans, as in E’s narrative of Jacob at Bethel. The canonical text does not include E’s full narrative of the plagues in Egypt. 36 There are multiple references in E to Yhwh bringing the Israelites out of Egypt (see Gen 15:14; 50:24; Exod 18:1; 20:2; 32:4, 11–12), but without the actual description of these events, it is difficult to determine how E conceptualized divine action for this event. There are strong indications that E considered the Exodus to be achieved primarily through the acts of Moses, who was sent by Yhwh. In E’s version of Moses’ commission, Yhwh states that it is Moses who will bring the people out: Exod 3:9–10: Now, the cry of the Israelites comes up to me and, also, I have seen the oppression by which Egypt has oppressed them. Now, go, I am sending you to Pharaoh that you may bring out my people, the children of Israel, from Egypt [‫]ואשלחך אל פרעה והוצא את עמי בני ישראל ממצרים‬.

The means by which Moses achieves this, according to E, is proving his legitimacy to the people through the revelation of the divine name (Exod 3:11–15) and the performance of signs and wonders with “the staff of God” (Exod 4:17, 20b–21). E’s description of Moses’ career also supports the interpretation that Yhwh brought the people out of Egypt by proxy, through Moses’ intervention: Deut 34:10–12: A prophet like Moses did not arise in Israel again, who knew God face to face: with regard to all the signs and wonders that Yhwh sent him to do in the land of Egypt [‫אשר שלחו יהוה לעשות בארץ‬ ‫]מצרים‬, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and all his land, and the entire strong feat [‫ ]ולכל היד החזקה‬and every great spectacle that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel. 34.  Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 29. 35.  Barr, “Theophany,” 33; see also Hamori, When Gods Were Men, 29. 36.  See p. 118 n. 147.

Divine Action and Interaction

231

This interpretation is supported by the description of Moses, by both the Israelites and Yhwh, as the one responsible for bringing the people up from Egypt (Exod 32:1, 7). In addition, E claims that Yhwh sent a messenger (‫ )מלאך‬to bring the people out of Egypt and through the wilderness: Num 20:16: We cried out to Yhwh and he heard our voice. He sent a messenger and he brought us out of Egypt [‫ ]וישלח מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים‬and here we are in Qadesh, a city of your border’s edge. Exod 23:20–23: I am going to send a messenger before you to guard you on the road and to bring you to the place that I have established [‫הנה אנכי‬ ‫]שלח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך ולהביאך אל המקום אשר הכנתי‬. Be careful before him and obey him. Do not rebel against him, against his orders, and do everything I say and I will treat your enemies as enemies and trouble those who trouble you. For my messenger will go before you and bring you to the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite, and I shall efface them.

While the exact identity of this messenger is debated, the implication is that E does not imagine that Yhwh himself is present in Egypt to redeem the Israelites. 37 Rather, he works through his proxies, Moses and the messenger. Yhwh brings the people to him at his mountain: Exod 3:12: He said, “For I will be with you and this is your sign that it is I who have sent you: when you bring out the people from Egypt you will worship God on this mountain [‫בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את האלהים על‬ ‫]ההר הזה‬.” Exod 19:4: You, yourselves, have seen what I did to Egypt; I lifted you on eagle’s wings and brought you to me [‫]ואבא אתכם אלי‬.

The description of Moses in E suggests that, in contrast to the other sources, the E author did not attribute any direct intervention by Yhwh in Egypt. Yhwh sends Moses and his messenger to bring the people out of Egypt through miraculous feats to meet Yhwh at his mountain. 38 The same situation holds true for the wilderness period, at which time Yhwh is not continuously present with the camp, but only occasionally descends to the Tent of Meeting. At other times, Yhwh interacts with the Israelites through Moses or through the manipulation of nature. When the Israelites rebel in the wilderness, Yhwh uses nature to punish them (Num 16:29–30, 21:6), but does not appear at the tent as in P (see discussion 37.  For a summary of opinions on the identity of the messenger, see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 287. 38. In addition, E uses language of Yhwh’s providential protection and indirect involvement in Egypt, which further suggests he is not actually present in E’s narrative (Exod 3:12, 21; 11:3; 12:35–36). In contrast, in Exod 11:1 Yhwh states that he will bring the last plague on the Egyptians, which implies he is present with them in Egypt. Also, Exod 13:17–19 describes Yhwh leading the people out of Egypt.

232

Chapter 5

below). 39 E’s description of the golden calf suggests it was meant as a standin for the divine presence in lieu of Moses. The Israelites demand that Aaron build the calf when they think Moses will not return from Mt. Horeb (Exod 32:1). Without Moses, the Israelites have no clear divine proxy to travel with them; the calf is meant to serve this purpose. The E author describes the return of proximate divine presence for the conquest of Canaan and with it, Yhwh’s direct interaction with the world. E creates a parallel between Yhwh leading the people into the land and Joshua leading the people: Deut 31:1–8 40: Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel and he said to them, “I am 120 years old today. I am no longer able to go out and come back. Yhwh has said to me, ‘You shall not cross this Jordan.’ Yhwh, your god, he is the one crossing before you [‫]יהוה אלהיך הוא עבר לפניך‬, he shall destroy these nations from before you and you shall dispossess them; Joshua, he is crossing before you [‫]יהושע הוא עבר לפניך‬, as Yh wh spoke. Yhwh shall do to them as he did to Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorite—and to their land—whom he destroyed. Yhwh shall put them before you and you shall do to them according to every commandment that I commanded you. Be strong and resolute. Do not fear and do not tremble before them for Yhwh, your god, he is the one going with you [‫ ;]יהוה אלהיך הוא ההלך עמך‬he shall not leave you and he shall not abandon you.” Moses summoned Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel, “Be strong and resolute for you shall come with this people to the land that Yhwh swore to their ancestors to give to them and you shall lead them to it. Yhwh, he is the one going before you [‫]ויהוה הוא ההלך לפניך‬, he will be with you [‫ ;]הוא יהיה עמך‬he shall not leave you and he shall not abandon you; you shall not fear and you shall not be dismayed.”

In contrast to the exodus and wilderness period in which the messenger and Moses lead the people in Yhwh’s stead, here Yhwh and Joshua lead the people. This proximate presence is in addition to E’s description of divine providential care in v. 8 (‫)הוא יהיה עמך‬. The E portions of Numbers 32 support this interpretation because they refer to the Israelites’ invading Canaan “before Yhwh”: Num 32:20–21 41: {Moses said to them,} (“If you do this matter,) if you equip before Yhwh for war [‫]תחלצו לפני יהוה למלחמה‬, and each equipped man of yours crosses the Jordan before Yhwh [‫ועבר לכם כל חלוץ את הירדן לפני‬ ‫ ]יהוה‬until he dispossesses his enemies from before him.”

39.  The same is true in E’s story of Abimelek. Yhwh appears in a dream to Abimelek (Gen 20:3) and is never said to be present in Gerar. Instead, he afflicts Abimelek by obstructing the wombs of the women of his household, which can only be reversed through prophetic intervention (20:17–18). 40.  For why this passage is assigned to E, see p. 208 n. 164. 41.  See also Num 32:27, 32. Parentheses are placed around P material, braces around R material. For a full source division, see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141–53.

Divine Action and Interaction

233

E’s use of “before Yhwh” evokes actual divine presence. 42 Unlike in the wilderness period, then, Yhwh’s destruction of the Canaanites is a function of his presence with the people. Actions without Means The implication of the above discussion is that the majority of divine action in E is indirect action; action for which its means are not specified. As with such action in the J source, some of these actions have human analogues. In E, the promise to the ancestors is made only twice, in Gen 15:5, 18, and 46:1–4. 43 God’s appearance to Jacob is merely a reassurance of the original promise as Jacob prepares to descend into Egypt. Thus, the covenant is established once and for all with the original encounter with Abraham in Genesis 15. As in the other sources, the promise of land and offspring that Yhwh makes to Abraham are divine actions accomplished through indirect action. At the same time, E’s covenant is distinguished by the sacrificial ritual that Abraham performs. It is through this ritual that Abraham and God enter into a covenant. So, in Gen 15:8, Abraham asks, “by what shall I know that I will possess it [the land]?” God responds by instructing Abraham to prepare an animal sacrifice (15:9). The covenant is solemnized when the pot and torch pass through the slaughtered animals, after which the E author explains in 15:18, “On that day, Yhwh cut a covenant with Abram [‫]כרת יהוה את אברם ברית‬, ‘I have given to your seed this land [‫לזרעך נתתי את הארץ‬ ‫]הזאת‬, from the river of Egypt up to the big river, the Euphrates River.’” 44 The use of a performative perfect, “I hereby give,” emphasizes the accomplishment of granting the land to Abraham’s descendents by means of the ritual. 45 We may say then that in the E source, God gives Abraham’s descendants the land by means of ritual transfer. A similar use of ritual occurs in E to ratify the covenant at Horeb (Exod 24:3–8). This is indirect action, but it is a type of action analogous human behavior in E. According to E, Jacob makes a covenant with Laban in Gen 31:43–54 that resembles the covenant established between Abraham and God. First, both narratives label the agreement a covenant, ‫( ברית‬Gen 15:18, 31:44). Second, both agreements are marked by ritual acts, including the sacrifice of animals (Gen 15:9–10, 17, compared with 31:46, 54). 46 Finally, Jacob and Laban’s covenant effects the transfer of Laban’s wealth to Jacob (on the condition that Jacob treat Laban’s daughters well). The covenants do differ in that Laban and Jacob’s 42.  Levine suggests that the Reubenites and Gadites must in fact march out “in advance of Yhwh,” who will stay with the remaining tribes, as a show of their commitment (Numbers 21–36, 492). Either way, the presumption is that Yhwh accompanies the people into battle. 43.  Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 245–46. 44.  Westermann considers the pot and torch to represent the deity, who is present for the oath, but obscured by the darkness (Genesis 12–36, 228). 45.  On the performative perfect, see Joüon-Muraoka, 112–13. 46.  They differ in that the animals slaughtered by Jacob are consumed, while there is no explicit description of Abraham eating the slaughtered animals in Genesis 15.

234

Chapter 5

covenant is between two men who are basically equals versus a superior and inferior. But the basic act is parallel, creating an analogy between divine and human action. This analogy is also represented in the transfer of possessions from father to son in E (Gen 25:5, 48:22) and Moses’ grant of Sihon’s and Og’s lands to the tribes of Reuben and Gad in Num 32:33. 47 But there are also divine actions in E that lack human analogues. During the wilderness trek when Yhwh interacts with Moses through the Tent of Meeting, Yhwh’s presence is described as temporary; he comes down in the cloud to speak with Moses and then leaves. A similar system is reflected in E’s altar law in which Yhwh promises to come to altars that are properly built, but not necessarily remain there indefinitely. In addition, there are instances in the ancestor narratives of E in which the details of Yhwh’s communication are left unspecified. So, in Gen 21:12, 22:2, and 35:1 the E author simply narrates that God spoke (‫ )ויאמר‬to Abraham and Jacob, respectively. So, the means of communication is specified, namely, the deity communicates through speech, but the means by which this speech was experienced are not described. What is the means of the divine communication with Abraham and Jacob in these instances? Does Yhwh speak to them through a dream, a vision, a voice from heaven, direct theophany? The E source describes some communications between Moses and Yhwh similarly. For instance, Yhwh speaks in Num 11:16 before descending to the tent in 11:25. 48 And in Num 21:34, Yhwh speaks without later descending to the tent. Even more so than with Abraham and Jacob, the E author provides a detailed description of how Moses and Yhwh communicate during the wilderness journey: faceto-face in the Tent of Meeting. It is clear from the above examples though that there are occasions when Yhwh speaks to Moses away from the tent. These instances of divine speech lacking a description of location may then represent their own type of divine communication, apart from those seen thus far. Often, contextless speech marks the start of a narrative sequence that includes a second divine encounter for which E does provide narrative context. For instance, the Akedah begins with God speaking an initial command to Abraham (Gen 22:2), followed by the communication of the messenger from heaven (22:11). The same pattern occurs with Moses in Num 12:1–5. 49 In these cases, contextless divine speech anticipates a divine encounter. 47.  Friedman attributes Gen 25:5–6 to the redactor of J and E (Bible with Sources Revealed, 70), but because they agree with E’s narration in 25:1–4, there is no reason to attribute a new composition to R. For source division of Numbers 32, see Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141–53. Baden considers the phrase ‫לבני גד ולבני ראובן ולחצי שבט מנשה בן יוסף‬ in 32:33 to be redactional on the grounds that it interrupts the expected syntax (ibid., 144). 48.  The fact that Yhwh says in Num 11:16 that he will descend on the tent after Moses gathers the elders to the tent (and its narration in 11:25) suggests that Moses’ and Yhwh’s conversation in 11:11–12 and 14–17 does not take place at the Tent of Meeting. 49.  See also Gen 21:12, 17; Num 11:16, 25.

Divine Action and Interaction

235

This type of divine communication also reflects an intimate relationship with the deity. Yhwh only ever speaks in such a manner to privileged humans, namely, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. 50 These instances of divine speech may in fact not represent a concrete divine action. The E author uses the language of human interaction (“speaking, saying”) to describe a type of divine communication that consists only of the communication of information between the deity and a human. In these instances, E presents divine speech as minimally anthropomorphic (that is, it is spoken). Divine action in the E source predominately is mediated action. This mediation reflects E’s fairly systematic portrayal of Yhwh’s absence from human proximity. In the ancestor narratives, Yhwh typically remains in heaven and interacts with humans either from there or through dreams, visions, or messengers. For the exodus, Yhwh is located on his mountain and sends Moses and his messenger to bring the Israelites to him there. A similar situation may exist in the Akedah narrative, in which God’s interaction with Abraham is unspecified until he reaches the mountain. Yhwh’s power extends beyond his location but is achieved mainly through proxies and his ability to manipulate nature. Thus, E’s propensity for mediated divine action is a function not of his sensitivity to divine anthropomorphism but of his portrayal of a deity who interacts directly with creation and human only in exceptional events. The P Source More than any other source, P specifies the location of the deity in its narratives. From the Sinai event on, Yhwh is found first on the mountain and then in the tabernacle, a situation that for P is permanent. 51 P’s realistic presentation of Yhwh’s location in the midst of the Israelites in the wilderness adds credence to interpreting divine action during this time as direct and similarly realistic. So, when Yhwh is said to hear the people (Exod 16:8– 9; Num 14:27; 21:3), it is not unreasonable to consider that Yhwh hears them from within the inner sanctum. 52 Similarly, references to Yhwh bringing the people to the land of Canaan can be understood quite concretely as Yhwh leading the people through the wilderness in the cloud and fire. In P, Yhwh indicates when they should travel, where they should encamp and for how long by means of the movement of his glory, which is encased in the cloud. The most detailed explanation of this comes in Num 9:15–23: 53

50. Yhwh speaks once to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam together in Num 12:4. 51. It is permanent to the extent that the Israelites maintain the tabernacle, which P presumes they will do. Ezekiel takes P’s tabernacle theology/mythology to its logical conclusion and describes Yhwh leaving the temple when the Israelites fail to maintain its sanctity. 52. Yhwh’s hearing is described passively in Exod 28:35, which describes the sound of the bells on Aaron’s vestments. 53.  On the source ascription of this passage, see p. 141 n. 226.

236

Chapter 5

On the day the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle at the Tent of Meeting and in the evening it would be over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning. Thus the cloud was regularly covering it and an appearance of fire occurred at night. Whenever the cloud went up from the tent, after that the Israelites would travel and in the place where the cloud resided, there would the Israelites encamp [‫ולפי העלת הענן מעל האהל ואחרי כן יסעו בני ישראל ובמקום אשר ישכן שם הענן שם יחנו‬ ‫]בני ישראל‬. By the command of Yhwh would the Israelites travel and by the command of Yhwh would they encamp, all the days that the cloud dwelt on the tabernacle they would encamp [‫על פי יהוה יסעו בני ישראל ועל‬ ‫]פי יהוה יחנו כל ימי אשר ישכן הענן על המשכן יחנו‬. When the cloud spent many days on the tabernacle the Israelites observed the charge of Yhwh and they did not travel. When it was that the cloud was on the tabernacle a few days, by the command of Yhwh would they encamp and by the command of Yhwh would they travel. When it was that the cloud stayed from evening to morning, the cloud would be lifted in the morning and they would travel or by day and at night the cloud would be lifted and they would travel. Whether two days, a month, or a year that the cloud remained on the tabernacle to reside on it, the Israelites would encamp and they would not travel but when it was lifted they would travel. By the command of Yhwh they would encamp and by the command of Yhwh they would travel, they guarded the charge of Yhwh by the command of Yhwh b­y the hand of Moses [‫על פי יהוה יחנו ועל פי יהוה יסעו את משמרת יהוה‬ ‫]שמרו על פי יהוה ביד משה‬.

The movements of the camp in P are dependent on the prerogative of Yhwh. P does not describe this process explicitly each time the Israelites break or make camp, but it is insistent that this is the process for traveling through the wilderness. 54 At the same time, P describes Moses as bringing the people through the wilderness, and conferring this responsibility on Joshua before his death: Num 27:15–21: Moses spoke to Yhwh, “May Yhwh, god of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who will go out before them and who will come before them and bring them out and bring them back that the congregation of Yhwh not become like a flock that has no shepherd [‫אשר יצא לפניהם ואשר יבא לפניהם ואשר יוציאם ואשר יביאם ולא‬ ‫]תהיה עדת יהוה כצאן אשר אין להם רעה‬.” Yhwh said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man on whom there is a spirit, and lay your hand on him. Stand him before Elazar the priest before the entire congregation and command him in their sight. You shall give to him from your splendor in order that the entire congregation of the Israelites may hear. He shall stand before Elazar the priest and he shall inquire for him by the ruling 54.  See also Exod 40:36–38, Num 10:10–11. Thus, P describes the process when Yhwh first enters the tabernacle, gives full detail just before the Israelites are about to leave Sinai, and then provides a narrative description of the process for the inaugural decampment. It is then reasonable for the reader to presume this ritual whenever P states that Israel either traveled (‫ )נסע‬or encamped (‫)חנה‬.

Divine Action and Interaction

237

of the Urim before Yhwh; they shall go out by his command and by his command they shall come back. He and all the Israelites with him, the entire congregation [‫ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ושאל לו במשפט האורים לפני יהוה על‬ ‫]פיו יצאו ועל פיו יבאו הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה‬.”

Elsewhere P uses the same language of “taking the people out” and “bringing” them with Yhwh as a subject: Exod 6:6–8: Therefore, say to the Israelites, “I am Yhwh and I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt [‫]והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים‬ and rescue you from their service and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. I will take you to me as a people and I will become your god and you shall know that I am Yhwh, your god who brought you out from under the burdens of Egypt [‫המוציא אתכם‬ ‫]מתחת סבלות מצרים‬. I will bring you to the land [‫ ]והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ‬that I pledged to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and I will give it to you as an inheritance, I am Yhwh.”

As noted above, Yhwh “brings” the people through the wilderness and to Canaan by means of the movements of the glory. The people refer to this movement in Num 14:3: “Why did Yhwh bring us to this land [‫מביא אתנו‬ ‫ ]אל הארץ הזאת‬to fall by the sword, our wives and our children to become booty? Is it not better to return to Egypt?” So do Caleb and Joshua in 14:8: “If Yhwh is pleased with us he shall bring us to this land [‫והביא אתנו אל הארץ‬ ‫ ]הזאת‬and give it to us; a land flowing with milk and honey.” The same language (‫בוא‬, Hiphil) is used to describe the role of Moses and Aaron in Num 20:4–5 and 12 by both the Israelites and Yhwh. The P author not only provides a realistic description of how Yhwh is able to bring the people through the wilderness, but he also creates a direct analogy between divine and human action. Moses (and Aaron) and then Joshua are said to bring the people through the wilderness, as does Yhwh. P presents Moses as Yhwh’s emissary to the pe­ople. This is accomplished by P’s assertion, ‫על פי יהוה ביד‬ ‫ ;משה‬Yhwh commands Moses, who commands the people whereby both Yhwh and Mos­es bring the people through the wilderness. 55 In the case of Joshua, the Urim communicate the prerogative of Yhwh, and the Israelites follow Joshua’s command (Num 27:20–21). P is not so explicit regarding the means by which Yhwh brought the people out of Egypt. Yhwh and his glory do not appear in P until Sinai, so there was no visible manifestation to lead the people physically out of Egypt and to Sinai. 56 P explicitly establishes Moses’ and Aaron’s roles as divine mediators in Exod 7:1–5: 55.  Here it is meant in reference to the movements of the camp; see Num 9:23, 10:13, 33:1–2. For examples of reference to other activities, see Num 4:37, 45, 49. 56.  For a discussion of why P in Exodus 16 has been displaced by R from post-Sinai in P’s narrative, see p. 180. Even if one rejects this argument, the visual manifestation of Yhwh, which leads the people, is still absent for the exodus proper.

238

Chapter 5

Yhwh said to Moses, “See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh and Aaron your brother will be your prophet [‫]נתתיך אלהים לפרעה ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך‬. You will speak everything I command you and Aaron your brother will speak to Pharaoh [‫ ]אתה תדבר את כל אשר אצוך ואהרן אחיך ידבר אל פרעה‬and he will send out the Israelites from the land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart and increase my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. He will not listen to you and I will put my hand against Egypt and bring out my ranks [‫]ונתתי את ידי במצרים והוצאתי את צבאתי‬, my people the children of Israel, from the land of Egypt, with great judgments. Egypt shall know that I am Yhwh when I stretch out my hand over Egypt and bring out the Israelites from among them [‫]בנטתי את ידי על מצרים והוצאתי את בני ישראל מתוכם‬.”

In effect, Moses takes the role of Yhwh and Aaron of Moses, which involves Moses speaking commands to Aaron who carries them out. The source of the actions, their true agent, remains Yhwh, as the passage makes clear by summarizing the entire process as Yhwh stretching his hand out over Egypt and removing the Israelites. In this way, Moses and Aaron act out what is otherwise obscured from human observation, Yhwh attacking Egypt and rescuing his people. Divine action here is both mediated by human proxies and represented typologically by human action. 57 At the same time, as with J, divine action in Egypt is linked with divine proximity. The deity does not manifest as at Sinai, but still there are indications in P’s narrative that Moses had access to Yhwh while still in Egypt and that this access was facilitated by divine presence. The initial plagues are performed according to the system described in Exod 7:1–5, but Yhwh becomes more directly involved as time moves on. The initial wonders are performed by Aaron (under Moses’ command) and replicated by the Egyptian magicians, later just by Aaron (under Moses’ command), and then by Moses, and the final wonder is personally enacted by Yhwh. 58 According to P, Yhwh passes through Egypt to kill the firstborn: Exod 12:12–13: I will pass through the land of Egypt [‫]ועברתי בארץ מצרים‬ this night and strike every first born in the land of Egypt—from human to animal—and I will enact judgments against all the gods of Egypt, I am Yhwh. The b ­ lood will be a sign for you on the houses wherein you are and I will see the blood and protect you [‫ ]ראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עלכם‬and there will be no plague that devastates among you when I strike the land of Egypt. 59 57. Ulrich Mauser argues that prophetic acts are typological representations of divine acts (“God in Human Form,” Ex Auditu 16 [2000] 90). 58.  Aaron and magicians: Exod 7:10–12 (staff), 22 (blood), 8:1–3 (frogs). Just Aaron: Exod 8:12–15 (lice), 9:8–12 (boils: both Moses and Aaron take dust before Pharaoh, but only Moses throws the dust, which brings the boils [9:10]). Moses: Exod 9:22–23aα (hail), 10:12–13aα (locusts), 10:21–23 (darkness). Yhwh: Exod 12:12–13 (firstborn). 59.  The translation ‘protect’ instead of the traditional ‘pass over’ is more appropriate, especially given its use in Isa 31:5 (Propp, Exodus 1–18, 401–2).

Divine Action and Interaction

239

The evocative language of “seeing” the blood and “passing over” it suggests P meant to assert the real and effective presence of the deity in Egypt, at least for this plague. A further indication of Yhwh’s presence in Egypt is found in Exod  6:12/30, “Moses spoke before Yhwh [‫]לפני יהוה‬.” 60 This is the only instance in P in which the prepositional phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬does not refer to Yhwh’s presence in the tabernacle. 61 As I discuss in the previous chapter, in the P portions of Leviticus alone, ‫ לפני יהוה‬appears 48 times, each time with a locative nuance and referring to Yhwh’s presence in the tabernacle. 62 This fact is proven by the conflation of what is “before Yhwh” with physical locations in the tabernacle, as in Lev 14:10–32. We must then take seriously the possibility that Exod 6:12/30 refers to the proximate presence of Yhwh, though not in his fully manifest form. If meant locatively, then P imagines Yhwh as present in Egypt and Moses communicates with him in a similarly direct manner as later through the Tent of Meeting. If not, this is an example of contextless speech in P, which is the norm in P’s plague narrative. 63 Moses’ interactions with Yhwh in Egypt conform to P’s presentation of Yhwh during the ancestor period. As discussed in the previous chapter, Yhwh’s appearance to Abraham and Jacob is presented in realistic terms, with Yhwh making an appearance and then leaving. As a result, the communication between Yhwh and the ancestors at this time can be understood as direct and anthropomorphic. The covenant is verbal and signified by the decree of a name change for Abram/Abraham, Sarai/Sarah, and Jacob/Israel. Elsewhere in the P portions of Genesis, God only interacts with humans at creation and at the time of the flood. 64 There are no descriptions of Yhwh’s direct appearance to the first humans or Noah and his sons in P. As discussed in chapter 2, there are strong indications of God’s direct interaction with the world at the time of creation: he places the luminaries in Gen 1:17, and he directly addresses the divine council in 1:26. In this context, God’s speech to the human in 1:28 may be considered realistic, direct communication. 60.  Exod 6:30 is a resumption, likely marking the insertion of the genealogy in 6:13– 27 (ibid., 266–67). 61.  In Gen 6:11, the P author states, “The earth was spoiled before God [‫]לפני האלהים‬ and the earth was filled with violence.” Here though the nuance is estimation and not location and thus should likely not be considered a deviation on the part of P in the manner that Exod 6:12/30 is. 62.  Lev 1:3, 5, 11; 3:1, 7, 12; 4:4 (twice), 6, 7, 15 (twice), 17, 18, 24; 5:26; 6:7, 18; 8:26, 27, 29; 9:2, 4, 5, 21; 10:1, 2, 15, 17, 19; 12:7; 14:11, 12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31; 15:14, 15, 30; 16:1, 7, 10, 13, 18. 63.  See Exod 7:1, 8, 26; 8:12; 9:8, 22; 10:12, 21; 11:9; 12:1, 43. 64. In Gen 21:1b, 2b P states that God fulfills his promise of Gen 17:15–16 to give Abraham a son through Sarah. Otherwise, the only mention of divine action in P’s ancestor narrative is the reference by human characters to the divine promise at the original time of the theophany, for example, Gen 28:4.

240

Chapter 5

God’s actions at the time of the flood are not as easily categorized. Gen 6:11–13 describe the earth as ruined “before God” and that God “sees” this ruination. While these constructions may be imagined realistically (God looking down on the earth from heaven, for instance), there is nothing in the narrative to support (or deny) a realistic interpretation. The P author may just as likely have meant these constructions to express estimation. 65 Divine communication between Noah and God is similarly ambiguous. God speaks with Noah on three separate occasions: to warn him of the imminent flood (6:13), to command him to leave the ark (8:15), and to infer a blessing on Noah and his family and erect the Noahide covenant (9:1, 8, 12, 17). In none of these instances is the means of divine communication described, beyond the use of speech verbs (‫ דבר‬,‫)אמר‬. In Gen 9:13, however, God states “I have put my bow in the cloud [‫את‬ ‫ ”]קשתי נתתי בענן‬using the same language as Gen 1:17, “God put them in the vault of the heavens [‫]ויתן אתם אלהים ברקיע השמים‬.” As I discussed in chapter 2, ‫ לתת‬here describes a concrete act of interaction with the material world. So too, after God remembers Noah and the ark, he brings a wind to calm the waters (Gen 8:1). 66 The implication is that Yhwh is interacting directly with his creation as described in Gen­esis 1, in which case we should interpret his communication with Noah as direct, verbal communication. This would explain how God is able to speak simultaneously with both Noah and his sons (9:1, 8). While the establishment of promise-covenants in P is accomplished through direct interaction with humans, the means of fulfillment of the promises of these covenants are generally not described. Yhwh promises and is said to bless people, give the land of Canaan, and increase descendants, but the means are left unstated. In P, God blesses the sea animals, the humanity, Noah and his sons, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob. 67 The content of these blessings are commands to “be fruitful and increase,” as in Gen 1:22, “God blessed them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply [‫ ]פרו ורבו‬and fill the water of the seas and may the birds multiply on the earth.’” 68 The blessing 65.  Speiser, Genesis, 51. 66.  P describes the flood proper as starting and ending when the springs of the deep and the windows of heaven are opened and then shut (Gen 7:11, 8:2). The passive constructions leave God’s role unstated. If though we accept that P’s creation account describes Yhwh ordering the cosmos and overcoming the chaos of pre-creation, then the flood event reflects a reversal of this order (Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture, 33–34). The passive construction could then represent simply the removal of divine control, which allows the universe to return to its primeval, watery state. In Gen 8:1, God reasserts control through active engagement. 67.  Respectively, Gen 1:22, 28; 9:1; 17:16, 20; 25:11a; 35:9. P never states that God blesses (‫ )ברך‬Abraham. 68.  See also, Gen 1:28, 9:1, 17:20, 35:11. Yhwh promises Abraham that he will make him exceedingly fruitful (Gen 17:6). Thus, while P does not explicitly state that Yhwh blesses Abraham, the content of his covenant with Abraham is equivalent to a divine blessing elsewhere.

Divine Action and Interaction

241

of the patriarchs is part of the covenant promise that grants the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendent through Isaac and Jacob. Yhwh’s ability to bestow these blessings of progeny and land on humans are unique acts from human abilities. Humans are not able to ensure the reproductive success of other humans, for instance. In addition, while they are able to bequeath land to other humans, there is no human equivalent in P to Yhwh’s promise of the land of Canaan to future generations. Yhwh’s means of enacting these promises are likewise distinct from human abilities. Sarah conceives by divine prerogative; that this is no coincidence is confirmed by her advanced age (Gen 17:17; 21:1b, 2b). Taking into account the entire P narrative, Yhwh’s land grant to the Israelites is accomplished by the prolonged divine favor and protection each generation receives, feats of power that free the Israelites from Egypt, protection through the wilderness trek, and projected success in battle against the Canaanites. At the same time, P includes instances of human blessing and land grant. A comparison of human and divine action here reveals that Yhwh’s acts of blessing and land grant are analogous to human actions and thus may be considered examples of divine anthropomorphism. There are five instances in P of humans blessing other humans: Isaac blesses Jacob (Gen 28:3); Jacob blesses Pharaoh (47:10), Ephraim, and Manasseh (48:20) and his sons (49:28b); Aaron and Moses bless the people (Exod 29:43; 69 Lev 9:22–23). Only in Isaac’s and Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh do we have the content of these blessings: Gen 28:1–4: Isaac summoned Jacob, blessed him, commanded him and said to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Get up and go to Paddan Aram, to the house of Betu’el, your mother’s father and take your wife from there from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. El Shaddai will bless you and make your fruitful and multiplied and you will become a congregation of nations. May he give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your seed with you, to inherit the land of your wanderings, which God gave to Abraham.” Gen 48:20: He blessed them on that day, saying, “May Israel bless through you, saying, ‘May God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh.’” 70

In both cases, Isaac and Jacob do not themselves bless but rather invoke the deity to bless. 71 The prerogative to enact blessings then remains the deity’s. Isaac’s and Jacob’s blessings do reflect the human prerogative to pronounce 69.  Knohl considers Exodus 35–40 to belong to H (his HS). See my contra argument on p. 77 n. 26. 70.  “May Israel bless through you [‫”]בך יברך ישראל‬: MT points ‫ יברך‬as a Piel while LXX (εὐλογηθήσεται) suggests an original passive, Pual form. 71.  While Lev 9:22–23 does not include the content of Aaron’s and Moses’ blessings, we may infer the content from the Priestly Benediction found in Num 6:22–27. Levine argues that the content of the blessing (Num 6:24–26) may have been transposed from after Lev 6:22a (In the Presence of the Lord, 88).

242

Chapter 5

blessings. The act, in and of itself, reflects authority and power over the fortunes of the one blessed. That is, Isaac blesses Jacob, but not Esau, and marks him as the inheritor of Abraham’s blessing (which is confirmed by Yhwh in Gen 35:9–13). While Jacob blesses all his sons, he bestows a special blessing on his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and gives them an inheritance share equal to that of their uncles. An analogue then exists between the deity’s ability to bless humans through progeny and land and the human ability to invoke blessings and name heirs. In both cases, the agent favors one person or people over another and in both cases the person or people favored are not the socially favored; both Yhwh and the patriarchs choose to favor younger sons over the first born, grandsons over sons. 72 In P, then, Isaac and Jacob play a role in the allocation of the blessings of the promise-covenant. Abraham likely plays a similar role as it is his intercession with Yhwh in Gen 17:18 that guarantees Ishmael’s blessing. This is reflected in Yhwh’s statement in Gen 17:20, “But, as for Ishmael, I have heard you [‫]ולישמעאל שמעתיך‬, as I have blessed him so I will disperse him and increase him immensely. Twelve chieftains will he beget and I will make him a large nation.” In this way, divine prerogative respects the prerogative of the patriarch and the two are interdependent. A final divine-human analogy exists in the allocation of Egyptian land to the Israelites, found in Gen 47:5–6a, 11: Gen 47:5–6: [Jacob and his sons came to Egypt, to Joseph] and Pharaoh the king of Egypt heard. Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. 73 The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and brothers in the best part of the land [‫במיטב הארץ הושב את אביך‬ ‫]ואת אחיך‬.” Gen 47:11: Joseph settled [‫ ]ויושב יוסף‬his father and brothers and gave them a holding in the land of Egypt [‫]במיטב הארץ הושב את אביך ואת אחיך‬, in the best part of the land, in the land of Ra‘meseis as Pharaoh had commanded [‫]כאשר צוה פרעה‬.

Joseph gives the land of Raʿmeseis as an inheritance to the Israelites. P uses the same language of land grant as the promise-covenant to the patriarchs (‫)לתת לאחזה‬: 72. Yhwh’s choice of Isaac is not a complete overturn of the social hierarchy since Isaac is a firstborn son and the first born of Abraham’s first wife. So too for Jacob’s preference of Joseph’s sons, because Joseph is the first born of Rachel. P as we have it does not include a birth narrative of Esau and Jacob. If we accept J’s version, then Jacob was technically the younger son. In P’s narrative, Isaac seems to favor Jacob, not because of his birth, but in response to Esau’s actions (Gen 27:46–28:1, 28:6). This mirrors J’s story of Esau’s selling his birthright to Jacob. 73.  Reading with LXX, ἦλθον δὲ εἰς Αἴγυπτον πρὸς Ιωσηφ Ιακωβ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ

ἤκουσεν Φαραω βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου καὶ εἶπεν Φαραω πρὸς Ιωσηφ λέγων ὁ πατήρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἥκασι πρὸς σέ.

Divine Action and Interaction

243

Gen 17:7–8: I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you, and I will give to you and your seed after you [‫ונתתי לך‬ ‫ ]ולזרעך אחריך‬the land of your wanderings, all the land of Canaan, as an eternal holding [‫ ]לאחזת עולם‬and I will become their God.” Gen 48:3–4: Jacob said to Joseph, “El Shaddai appeared to me in Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me. He said to me, ‘I am about to make you fruitful and multiply you and make you into a congregation of peoples and I will give this land to your seed after you as an eternal holding [‫]ונתתי את הארץ הזאת לזרעך אחריך אחזת עולם‬.’”

Joseph bestows a land holding in Egypt to his family, just as Yhwh will bestow the land of Canaan to future generations. Joseph is the agent in Gen 47:11, but the power to grant land originates from Pharaoh. Thus, the true analogy drawn here is not simply between the deity and humans, but between Yhwh and Pharaoh. 74 Joseph’s grant of land is described by P as a fulfillment of royal decree in Gen 47:11, “Joseph settled his father and brothers and gave them a land holding in the land of Egypt in the best part of the land, in the land of Raʿmeseis as Pharaoh had commanded [‫כאשר צוה‬ ‫]פרעה‬.” P uses this same language to describe the fulfillment of divine decrees, as when Abraham circumcises Isaac in Gen 21:4: “Abraham circumcised Isaac, his son, when he was eight days old as God had commanded him [‫]כאשר צוה אתו אלהים‬.” 75 As with Pharaoh’s decree to grant land to Joseph’s family, Yhwh’s grant of Canaan is transferred to the Israelites through authoritative speech. All that is left then is for the recipient to occupy the land (see Gen 47:27, Num 14:6–9). The means of “giving” the land then is the declaration of allocation; any challenge to that allocation is a challenge to the benefactor’s authority over the land. 76 Jacob’s elevation of his grandsons to the social equivalent of sons is also an example of effecting inheritance through authoritative decree (Gen 48:5). When compared with human land/inheritance grants, Yhwh’s declaration to give Canaan to the Israelites mirrors the prerogatives of monarchs and patriarchs, who also bestow gifts through decree. 74.  See my discussion of Gen 1:1–2:4a for other instances of P’s analogy between Yhwh and Pharaoh. 75.  This phrase appears in both P and H, see Gen 7:9, 16; Exod 7:6, 10, 20; 12:28, 50; 16:34; 39:1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31, 43; 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32; Lev 8:4, 9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:7, 10; 10:15; 16:34; 24:23; Num 1:19; 2:33; 3:16, 42, 51; 8:3, 22; 15:36; 17:26; 20:27; 26:4; 27:11, 22; 31:7, 31, 41, 47; 36:10. For another example of the use of this terminology with a human agent, see Lev 9:1–21 (especially vv. 1–2, 21). 76.  The allocation of the priestly perquisite in Num 18:11–12 (H) parallels a land grant: Yhwh grants a portion of his offerings to the priests and Levites. Abraham’s allocation of an ancestral tomb from Ephron (Genesis 23) represents an alternative means of acquiring (vs. allocating) an ancestral holding. In this story, ‫( לתת לאחזה‬23:4, 9) describes the Hittites’ not granting Abraham rights to land in their territory but selling it to him (Ephron gives the land and Abraham gives money).

244

Chapter 5

Divine action in P is highly correlated with divine proximity. This is especially true from Sinai on, where we find the majority of P’s explicit references to direct interaction between Yhwh and creation. P’s description of divine action earlier is less detailed but also correlates divine presence with divine action. Yhwh is present to forge a promise with the ancestors and he is present in Egypt, at least for the final plague. Divine proximity is implied in P’s creation story and flood narrative. P then focuses primarily on divine action when the deity is proximate to humans and creation but is unconcerned with divine interaction from afar. The Holiness Legislation H presumes many of the divine actions and their means of accomplishment that are found in P. The nature of H is supplementary. It has been added to P’s narrative of the divine revelation at Sinai and of the wilderness trek. As such, H co-opts the narrative context of P from Sinai forward. Divine speech and references to Yhwh bringing the people out of Egypt and to Canaan are perceived through the lens of P’s description of the tabernacle and movement of the glory. At the same time, there is only one reference in H to the tabernacle within a narrative framework in Num 27:2, “They stood before Moses, before Elazar the priest, before the chiefs and the entire congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [‫פתח‬ ‫]אהל מועד‬.” This narrative presents an oracular use of the Tent of Meeting as Moses presents the dispute of Zelophahad’s daughters “before Yhwh” in Num 27:5, “Moses brought their case before Yhwh [‫ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני‬ ‫]יהוה‬.” This phrase refers to the divine presence in the tabernacle in both P and H, but here is combined with legal decisions. 77 Levine suggests the reference to the voice in Num 7:89 is meant to stress the oracular nature of the tabernacle, attested also in E. 78 If he is correct, then once again H is making explicit and expanding on a concept found latent in P. 79 The other H legal narratives lack explicit reference to the Tent of Meeting. 80 For instance, in Num 9:8 Moses replies to the men who are barred from celebrating Passover: “Moses said to them, ‘Stand and I shall hear what Yhwh will command for you [‫]ואשמעה מה יצוה יהוה לכם‬.’” Within its P context, this statement logically refers to hearing Yhwh speak from between the cherubim (Num 7:89), but the lack of reference to the tent here allows the interpretation that the H author had in mind another form of communication. 81 77.  See my discussion on pp. 201–207. 78.  Levine, Numbers 1–20, 258. 79. He does not consider Num 27:5 to constitute an oracle, however, because Moses would have presumably brought the case directly to Yhwh (Levine, Numbers 21–36, 346–47). 80.  For a discussion of the role of oracular rulings in the Priestly material, see S. Chavel, “Num 15,32–36: A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production,” in Strata of the Priestly Writings (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009) 45–55. 81.  For instance, there is nothing in Lev 24:10–23 that suggests the involvement of the Tent of Meeting.

Divine Action and Interaction

245

Yhwh’s actions in H are not of a different nature from in P, but they are expanded beyond what P explicates. For example, P describes the divine blessing and grant of the land to Abraham and his descendants. H presupposes these but adds to them the potential punishment for violating the commandments, including temporary exile from the land: Lev 26:32–33: I, myself, shall desolate the land and your enemies who settle on it shall be appalled by it. I shall scatter you in the nations [‫ואתכם‬ ‫ ]אזרה בגוים‬and I shall unsheathe a sword after you and your land shall be a desolation and your cities shall be a ruin.

In P, the closest example of this sort of punishment comes in Num 14:26–38, in which Yhwh delays the entrance into Canaan by a generation in response to the doubts of the people (Num 14:2–10). The difference between P and H here reflects their respective orientations. The P composition is an account of the creation of relationship between Yhwh and Israel, from creation to the settlement of Canaan. The H supplements describe, in addition to this, the implications and enactment of Priestly law once the Israelites are settled in Canaan. Thus, H includes descriptions of divine action not found in P, such as exiling the people from the land (and returning them). 82 That said, H does not conceive of Yhwh’s nature differently than P but rather, as a result of its content, H describes a different range of divine action. The D Source In the preceding chapter, I argued that D conceives of divine presence at its chosen cult site. In particular, that the phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬in a cultic setting in D should be understood as it is elsewhere as referring to divine presence at a sanctuary. The use of ‫ לפני יהוה‬outside a cultic setting in D similarly reflects divine presence, specifically, the presence of Yhwh with the Israelites at Horeb and in the wilderness. In this section, I will discuss D’s description of divine action that reflects real interaction with humans and creation. I will argue that certain divine actions in D should be understood as part of Yhwh’s interaction with Moses and the Israelites during the wilderness trek, the reality of which is implied by the presumption of Yhwh’s actual presence with the people in the wilderness. Actions with Means The majority of references to divine action in D do not stipulate the means by which Yhwh achieves these actions. For instance, descriptions in D of good or bad fortune brought on by Yhwh are described as the providential attention of the deity (for example, Deut 23:21). So too, the description in Deut 8:1–4 of the good fortune of the Israelites during the wilderness trek, during which time Yhwh’s intervention in the daily lives of the Israelites was felt in positive and negative effects: 83 82.  See Lev 26:44–45. 83.  See Deut 29:1–8.

246

Chapter 5

Deut 8:1–4: All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall observe to do in order that you may live and increase and enter and take possession of the land that Yhwh swore to your ancestors. You shall remember the whole journey on which Yhwh, your god, lead you [‫ ]אשר הליכך יהוה אלהיך‬these forty years in the wilderness in order that you be afflicted to test you, to know that which is in your heart; shall you observe commandments or not? He afflicted you and starved you and fed you manna [‫ ]ויענך וירעבך ויאכלך את המן‬which you had not known and your ancestors did not know in order that he make you know that not on bread alone shall a human live, rather by all that Yhwh commands [‫ ]על כל מוצא פי יהוה‬shall a human live. Your cloak did not wear off from you and your feet did not swell these forty years [‫שמלתך לא בלתה‬ ‫]מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה זה ארבעים שנה‬.

In particular, the miraculous actions of bringing manna and preserving the clothing and feet of the Israelites could fall under the category of divine providential care. At the same time, these events are clearly miraculous (not occurring in nature). These miraculous events are connected with Yhwh’s presence with the people in the wilderness as they are described in 8:2 as occurring on the path which “Yhwh your god led you these forty years.” It is possible then that we should distinguish between divine action linked with divine presence and action distinct from presence. For instance, when Yhwh speaks at Horeb, Moses and the people hear the voice, and thus the act of speaking may be considered realistic. This is in distinction to references to divine speech that lack a narrative description of that speech. 84 In other words, if Yhwh is present with the Israelites in the wilderness in actuality (as he was actually speaking at Horeb), then certain actions of Yhwh during the wilderness trek may be considered real in that they require the actual presence of the deity and his real interaction with his surroundings. D claims that Yhwh fights for the people in their military campaigns. 85 This presence begins before the campaign into Canaan, if Deut 1:33 may be considered normative for the entire D composition: Deut 1:29–33: I said to you, “You shall not be frightened and you shall not be afraid of them. Yhwh your god who goes before you [‫]ההלך לפניכם‬, he shall fight for you like all that he did with you in Egypt in your sight. In the wilderness you saw that Yhwh your god lifted you, as a man lifts his son, on every path that you went until you came up to this place. But in this matter you have not trusted in Yhwh your god, who goes before you on the path [‫ ]ההלך לפניכם בדרך‬to spy out a place for your encamp84.  For example Deut 2:1–2, see my discussion on p. 249. 85. In his work on holy war, von Rad acknowledges that Deuteronomy accepts the traditional conception that Yhwh was present during the battle and the ultimate cause of success. He seems to consider this to be an aspect of D’s theology that is distinct from its polemic, as he saw it, against the concept that Yhwh dwells at the temple (Holy War in Ancient Israel, Holy War in Ancient Israel [trans. Marva J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 115–27).

Divine Action and Interaction

247

ments with fire by night, for you to see on the path on which you go, and in the cloud by day.”

Yhwh is described as pres­ent with the Israelites in the wilderness in the fire and cloud, just as in E and J’s account of the wilderness trek. This presence continues even as the people are about to cross into the land (v. 30; see also 9:3). The D author presumes the presence of the deity with the camp as they travel through the wilderness, as in Deut 9:3, “You shall know today that Yhwh, your god, he is the one crossing bef­ore you as a consuming fire [‫הוא‬ ‫]העבר לפניך אש אכלה‬, he shall destroy them and he shall humble them before you and you shall dispossess them and you shall destroy them quickly, as Yhwh sp­oke to you.” This verse suggests that the D author imagines that it is the same fire pillar found in the J and E source that “crosses before the people.” D uses this imagery to emphasize the destructive force of Yhwh, that is, as a consuming fire that precedes the people; Yhwh will be able to conquer the Canaanites. The same may be the case for future warfare, as described in Deut 20:1–4: If you go out to war against your enemies and you see horse and rider, a people more numerous than you, you shall not fear them. For Yhwh, your god, is with you [‫]כי יהוה אלהיך עמך‬, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. When you draw near to the battle, the priest shall approach and speak to the people, and he shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are drawing near today to the battle against your enemies. Let your heart not be tender. Do not fear. Do not be alarmed. Do not tremble in front of them. For Yhwh, your god, is the one who goes with you to fight [‫ ]ההלך עמכם להלחם‬with your enemies for you, to deliver you.’

While the less evocative language of “being with” (v. 1) and “going with” (v. 4) are used here, 20:1 links Yhwh’s providential presence in battle with the Exodus, ‫כי יהוה אלהיך עמך המעלך מארץ מצרים‬. Yhwh’s presence in future battles may then be compared with his presence with the people when he brought them out of Egypt, which, at least according to Deut 1:33, occurred by means of Yhwh leading the people through the wilderness in fire and cloud. Yhwh’s act of fighting for the Israelites may then be considered anthropomorphic on two levels. First, there is the analogy drawn between Yhwh and a warrior-king. 86 Yhwh leads his people to victory, thereby asserting his right to rule over them. 87 At the same time, D draws a direct connection between divine presence and success in battle. The Israelites are exhorted not to fear not simply because Yhwh fights for them but because he goes 86.  For an example of how Yhwh’s conquests directly parallel the conquests of Assyrian kings, see M. Lindquist, “King Og’s Iron Bed,” CBQ 73:3 (2011) 477–92. 87.  “It is the conquering king who is demanding their obedience; it is the new sovereign of the region who is awarding to Israel her land grant” (Richter, Name Theology, 205, original emphasis).

248

Chapter 5

with them, by which D seems to mean that Yhwh travels before them in fire and cloud. The connection between presence and military success is made explicit in Deut 1:34–46. After the Israelites refuse to mount the conquest, Yhwh condemns them to 40 years in the wilderness. They attempt to make emends by mounting a campaign against the Amorite, but it is too late and they no longer have Yhwh as their military leader in the now doomed campaign: Deut 1:42–45: Yhwh said to me, “Say to them, ‘You shall not go up, and you shall not fight—for I am not in your midst [‫—]כי אינני בקרבכם‬that you not be stricken before your enemies.”’ I spoke to you but you did not listen and you rebelled against the command of Yhwh. You were presumptuous and you went up the mountain. The Amorite, who dwelt on that mountain, came out to meet you and they pursued you as bees do and they crushed you on Seir up to Hormah. You returned and wept before Yhwh [‫ ]ותבכו לפני יהוה‬but Yhwh did not hear your voice and did not give ear to you.

The Israelites fail because Yhwh is not in their “midst.” Elsewhere in D, this preposition has the nuance of proximate presence. 88 Here, the proximate presence of Yhwh is supported by v.  45, when the Israelites return from their campaign to cry “before Yhwh.” It is not simply that Yhwh’s providential care is absent from their endeavor, but his proximate presence is absent, having remained in the camp. 89 Thus, we may say that Yhwh’s act of fighting is anthropomorphic in that Yhwh must be present with the people in order to fight with them. He does not exercise this power by means of his sovereign control of the world and its inhabitants. Rather, he achieves victory by going out to war. It is true that D does not describe Yhwh engaging in realistic warfare, as for instance, is described of ʿAnatu. 90 At the same time, D consistently describes the military achievements of the wilderness, as well as other triumphant acts, as the acts of Yhwh and not the acts of Israel with the providential intervention of Yhwh. D even stresses the visual experience of these acts, as in Deut 3:21, “I commanded Joshua at that time, saying, ‘Your eyes that saw everything Yhwh your god did [‫עיניך הראת את כל אשר‬ ‫ ]עשה יהוה אלהיכם‬to these two kings, thus shall Yhwh do to all the kingdom through which you pass.” 91 While D does not describe Yhwh taking on corporeal form and engaging in combat with Israel’s enemies, the D author does present the military campaigns of the wilderness and conquest as 88.  See, for example, Deut 4:5; 11:6; 13:2, 12, 15; 16:11. 89.  The same is true of D’s source material, Num 14:40–45 ( J). D makes no reference to the ark, but this does not preclude divine presence, which D associates with the fire and cloud, and not the ark, in Deut 1:33. 90.  COS 1:250, CTA 3 ii 5–16. 91.  See also Deut 4:3, 9; 10:21; 11:2–7; 29:2–3.

Divine Action and Interaction

249

equivalent to a human warrior-king leading his people to victory and, like a human leader, the presence of Yhwh (and concomitant obedience of his people) is integral to the success of the campaigns. Yhwh may not realistically battle his enemies, but the true reality of the battle is the involvement of Yhwh, which is analogous to human leadership. The D author conveys the personality­and power of Yhwh by expressing it as a function of the deity’s humanlike qualities. Though D’s composition presumes Yhwh’s presence with the camp through the wilderness, Deuteronomy 1–3 contains multiple instances of contextless speech by the deity. For instance, Yhwh speaks directly to Moses in Deut 2:2, but the details of that communication are left unspecified: 92 Deut 2:1–2: We turned and traveled to the wilderness by the path of the Sea of Reeds as Yhwh had commanded me and we surrounded Mt. Seir for many days. Yhwh said to me [‫]ויאמר יהוה אלי לאמר‬.

Unlike in E or P, the D author never indicates how Moses and Yhwh communicate in the wilderness period, beyond the basic act of speech. Actions without Means While D’s composition is not a linear narrative, it still contains narrative portions, such as its description of the Horeb event and parts of the wilderness trek. As we have seen, the narrative context of these events aids our understanding of the means by which Yhwh achieved certain actions. Still, there remain a large number of divine actions for which the D author provides no explicit description of their means. For instance, D makes frequent reference to the promise Yhwh made to the patriarchs. 93 But, D does not include any description of the ancestor period and thus we do not know how D imagined these promises took place. The means of certain other divine actions may be inferred from analogy with the examples discussed in the previous section. In particular, D’s references to the exodus and the threat to lead the people back into exile if they break the covenant share features with D’s descriptions of Yhwh leading the people on the wilderness trek. 94 As with Yhwh leading the people through the wilderness, the exodus event is described as achieved through miraculous acts and feats of divine strength: Deut 6:20–23: For your son shall ask you tomorrow, “What are the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that Yhwh, our god, commanded you?” You shall say to your son, “We were servants to Pharaoh in Egypt and Yhwh brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand. Yhwh put signs and wonders, great and terrible things against Egypt, against Pharao­h 92.  See also Deut 1:37, 4; 2:9, 17, 31; 3:2, 23–28. Weinfeld argues these details add a “prophetic dimension” to Deuteronomy 1–3 (Deuteronomy 1–11, 158). 93.  Deut 1:8, 35; 4:31; 6:10, 18; 7:8, and so on. 94.  Deut 4:27, 7:18–19, 20:1, 26:8–9, 28:36–37.

250

Chapter 5

and against his whole house in our sight. [‫ויתן יהוה אותת ומפתים גדלים ורעים‬ ‫]במצרים בפרעה ובכל ביתו לעינינו‬. He brought us out from there in order that he bring us to give us the land that he swore to our ancestors.”

In addition, D stresses the importance of the witness of the people to these events, which he describes in terms of witnessing Yhwh’s acts (6:22). D presents the exodus event as one part of the entire salvific and triumphant act of Yhwh acquiring Israel as his people: Deut 7:18–21: You shall not fear them, you shall remember that which Yhwh, your god, did to Pharaoh and to all of Egy­pt. The great tribulations that your eyes saw and the signs and wonders and the strong hand and the outstretched arm with which Yhwh, your god, brought you out [‫מסת הגדלת אשר ראו עיניך והאתת והמפתים והיד החזקה והזרע הנטויה אשר הוצאך יהוה‬ ‫]אלהיך‬. Thus shall Yhwh, your god, do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid. And also Yhwh, your god, shall send the hornet out against them until the destruction of those that remain and those that hide from you. You shall not tremble because of them for Yhwh, your god, is in your midst, a great and terrifying god [‫]בקרבך אל גדול ונורא‬.

The exodus was precipitated by Yhwh’s desire to install Israel in the land promised to the patriarchs. The Israelites should not fear the Canaanites because they witnessed the prowess of Yhwh when he removed them from Egypt, and he will be “in their midst” as he is in the wilderness. D then draws a logical connection between the events of the exodus, the wilderness trek and the future conquest of the land (not unlike in J, E, and P narratives). It is reasonable to suppose that Yhwh’s great feats in Egypt were accomplished in analogous fashion to his feats in the wilderness. The same may be said of the threat of exile in the curses of Deuteronomy 28. Deut  28:68 describes this exile as a return to Egypt, and 28:36 describes Yhwh “leading” the people into another nation, the same language used to describe Yhwh leading the people through the wilderness (Deut 8:2, 15): Deut 28:36: Yhwh shall lead you and your king [‫]יולך יהוה אתך ואת מלכך‬ whom you raised over yourself into a nation that you do not know—you or your ancestors—and you shall serve other gods there, wood and stone. Deut 28:68: Yhwh shall return you to Egypt [‫ ]והשיבך יהוה מצרים‬in boats by the path that I said to you, “You shall not again see it.” And you shall sell each other there to your enemies as male and female slaves and there shall be no buyer.

There are still other divine acts that both lack a narrative context and any reasonable analogy to acts that are provided context elsewhere. The major difficulty of determining the force of such divine actions (do they constitute a realistic and intentional analogy with human action or are they an attempt to describe the indescribable?) is this lack of a description of how exactly these divine actions are accomplished. In D, the verb ‫ לתת‬is

Divine Action and Interaction

251

used with both human and divine subject. This, on its own, constitutes an example of a divine anthropomorphism, in the broadest sense, since the same language used to describe human action is used to describe divine action. But, such a similarity of language might be dismissed on the basis of necessity: to speak of god at all, humans must employ human language, but this does not translate into a concept of an anthropomorphic deity. I have argued against a strict adherence to this stance in chapter 2. Here, I will extend my argument. Not all descriptions of human action are literal or concrete. If authors commonly use figurative language to describe human action then the use of this same language for Yhwh constitutes a type of anthropomorphism. The abstract use of language stems not from the subject matter (god versus human) but from literary conventions. For what is of importance is not the use of the same verbal root for both humans and Yhwh (though it is suggestive) but rather if said root is used in the same manner for humans and Yhwh. The predominant uses of ‫ לתת‬with Yhwh as a subject in the D source are: “to give the land,” “to put x (before you),” “to give over,” “to turn into,” “to present to.” 95 The last is used in reference to the tablets of the Decalogue. In these instances (Deut 5:22; 9:10, 11; 10:4), ‫ לתת‬refers to a physical exchange between Moses and Yhwh: “These matters Yhwh spoke to all your assembly on the mountain from the midst of the fire the cloud and the smoke, a great voice, but he did not add [to this]. He wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me [‫ויכתבם על שני לחת אבנים‬ ‫]ויתנם אלי‬,” (Deut 5:22). The same act of presentation, using the verb ‫לתת‬, is described of Moses in Deut 31:9, “Moses wrote this instruction and gave it to the priests [‫]ויכתב משה את התורה הזאת ויתנה אל הכהנים‬, the sons of Levi who approach the ark of the covenant of Yhwh, and to all the elders of Israel.” Not only does this verse depict a human presenting something to someone (‫)לתת אל‬, as Yhwh presents the tablets to Moses, but in both cases written laws are being presented. Thus, an analogy between humans (in particular, Moses) and Yhwh is created both in the similar use of a specific type of action (‫ )לתת אל‬as well as the application of that action (presenting law). Divine law giving and human law giving take a similar form. 96 These concrete examples of “giving” are not the norm, though, for either humans or the deity. In the majority of cases, either the circumstances 95.  To give land: Deut 1:8, 20, 25, 35, 36, 39; 2:5 (twice), 9 (twice), 12, 19 (twice), 29; 3:18, 20; 4:1, 21, 38, 40; 5:16, 31; 6:10, 23; 7:13; 8:10; 9:6, 23; 10:11; 11:9, 21, 31; 12:1, 9; 13:13; 15:4, 7; 16:5, 20; 17:2, 14; 18:9; 19:1, 2, 8, 10, 14; 20:16; 21:1, 23; 24:4; 25:15, 19; 26:1, 2, 3, 9; 27:2–3; 28:8, 11, 52; 30:20. (See also instances when Yhwh gives products of the land or sustenance for the land: Deut 11:14, 15, 17; 12:15, 21; 26:10, 11; 28:12, 24, 53). To put x (before you): Deut 1:8, 21; 2:25, 33, 36; 6:22; 7:2, 15, 23; 11:25; 18:18; 23:15; 28:48. To give over, ‫לתת ביד‬: Deut 1:27; 2:24, 30; 3:2, 3; 7:16, 24; 28:7 (‫)לתת לפני‬. To turn into: Deut 1:15; 26:19; 28:1, 13, 25. To present to: Deut 5:22, 10:18, 18:14. With an abstract object, 8:18, 13:18, 28:65, 29:3, 30:7. 96.  See also Deut 14:21; 15:9–10, 14, 17; 22:19, 29; 23:25; 24:15.

252

Chapter 5

of the actual act of giving are left unstated, or the thing given or the act of giving is, by nature, noncorporeal. Yhwh is often described as performing acts whose means, given what we know of divine interaction with humans, are not easily imagined. The D source, more than any other source, describes Canaan as “the land that Yhwh has given us” (or some variation of this) as in Deut 1:25, “They took in their hands some of the fruit of the land and they brought [it] down for us. They returned word to us and they said, ‘The land that Yhwh our god is giving to us is good [‫טובה הארץ אשר‬ ‫]יהוה אלהינו נתן לנו‬.’” But how exactly has Yhwh “given” the Israelites the land? If the subject were human we would likely presume that the land was given through some act of sale, custom of inheritance, or ritual transfer. But can we assume the same of a divine subject? Yhwh has sworn an oath to the patriarchs to give the Israelites the land, rescued them from slavery in Egypt, sustained them in the wilderness, and promised to help them defeat the current occupants of the land. In essence then, Yhwh has provided the land for (‫ )לתת ל‬the Israelites through a string of related actions. Still, the use of ‫ לתת‬likely is not meant to refer to a specific, concrete act by the subject. The act of divine land grant is a function of divine authority over the land; as the conquering king, it is his land to give. This act of giving has a human analogue in Moses’ appropriation of the land to the tribes. Deut 3:1–10 relate that the Israelites conquered Og and claimed his lands. This act is the result of divine grant, described in 3:2, “Yhwh said to me, ‘Do not fear him [Og, King of Bashan] for I have given him into your hands and all his people and his land [‫כי בידך נתתי אתו ואת כל‬ ‫]עמו ואת ארצו‬. You shall deal with him as you dealt with Sihon, King of the Amorite, who dwells in Heshbon.’” After Yhwh fulfills this promise, Moses gives Og’s land to the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh, “We took possession of this land at that time from Aroʿeir which is on the Wadi Arnon and half of the mountain of the Gilad and its cities I gave to the Reubenites and the Gadites [‫]נתתי לראובני ולגדי‬.” 97 The means of giving is unstated and unimportant; the act is accomplished through Moses’ authority as leader to apportion land among the people. Another variation of ‫ לתת‬for both humans and Yhwh is the phrase “to give into the hand of” ‫לתת ביד‬. Yhwh is repeatedly described as placing enemies into Israelite hands as part of their conquest of Canaan. Deut 2:24, “Arise, travel and pass through the wadi Arnon. See I have given into your hands [‫ ]נתתי בידך‬Sihon, king of Heshbon of the Amorite, and his land. Begin to dispossess and rile yourself up against him for war.” Again, how exactly is this accomplished? Does the application of this phrasing to Yhwh undermine any potential concrete nuance or does the phrase not carry a concrete nuance? When used of a human subject again we can easily imagine a concrete physical transfer, as in Deut 19:12, “The elders of his 97.  Deut 3:12, see also 3:13, 15, 16. Compare with Deut 29:7.

Divine Action and Interaction

253

city shall send and shall take him from there and give him into the hand of the blood avenger [‫ ]ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אתו משם ונתנו אתו ביד גאל הדם‬and he shall die.” But, the presence of ‫ לשלוח‬suggests the elders act by proxy. Thus, the statement that “they give him over to the blood redeemer” may not be concrete if it is some appointed official who performs the actual transfer of the murderer. Rather, the elders “hand him over” in that they are the ones responsible for the murderer and thus they must be the ones to transfer responsibility (the actual transfer of the murderer need not be performed by them). We may even imagine that there is no actual transfer-act needed but only the removal of the protection of the elders, allowing the avenger to act without legal repercussions. Even more concrete are the laws regarding divorce in Deut 24:1. 98 “If a man takes a woman and becomes her husband and if she does not find favor in his eyes for he found in her an unpleasant thing and he writes a document of dissolution for her and puts it into her hand [‫ ]ונתן ביד‬and sends her off from his house.” Here it seems quite clear that the husband should place the divorce document into his wife’s hand. But is it possible that we over-read when we imagine such a supposition? Does a ritual of placing the document “in her hand” actuate the divorce or is it the document alone that authorizes the divorce and its transfer of possession to the divorced women (who would presumably need it to prove her legal right to remarry)? 99 The fact that the phrase ‫ לתת ביד‬in D is only used in contexts of power relationships strongly suggests the latter; the nuance of the phrase ‫ לתת ביד‬is one of possession and authority more than physical interaction. 100 The use of the phrase with Yhwh as the subject then is analogous to its use with human subjects and just with human subjects. It is not the physical act of transfer that is of importance but rather the recognition of possession and its subsequent implications: the Israelites will have control over the Canaanites. A nuance of ‫ לתת‬that is found in blessings and curses at the close of D is “to turn into.” So, in Deut 28:13, “Yhwh shall make you the head and not the tail [‫ ]ונתנך יהוה לראש ולא לזנב‬and you shall be only above and not below if you listen to the commandments of Yhwh, your god, which I am commanding you today to observe to do.” 101 Here again is an example of a divine act whose means are left unstated. The implication is that Yhwh has power over peopl­e and events to the degree that he can effect changes in the world. There is no exact human parallel to this sort of divine act in D. The closest analogy is Moses’ appointment of tribal heads as judicial 98.  See also Deut 24:3. 99.  Such details are only an issue if and when the law is enforced. Nelson considers the detail of “in her hand” to complement the fact that the document is written (versus spoken) and thus must be delivered (Deuteronomy, 287). 100.  Deut 1:27; 2:24, 30; 3:2, 3; 7:24; 20:13; 21:10. 101.  See also 26:19; 28:1, 7, 13, 25.

254

Chapter 5

leaders in Deut 1:15, “So, I took the heads of your tribes—men, wise and knowledgeable—and I made them leaders over you [‫]ואתן אתם ראשים עליכם‬, chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifty, and chiefs of tens, and overseers for your tribes.” The idiom is different than in 28:13 (‫לתת על‬ vs. ‫)לתת ל‬, 102 but the nuance is similar: the situation of a person is altered through the agent of the main verb. For both Moses and God, the process of turning someone into something else lacks any tangible action but rather stems from their respective powers as leaders. A final use of ‫ לתת‬in the D source is with the meaning “to put x (before).” Again, this is a nuance used of both God and humans. With God as the subject, the object is typically abstract. So, God is said to put the fear of the Israelites on the Canaanites (Deut 2:25). The abstract use is found with a human subject in Deut 11:26 wherein Moses places a blessing and a curse before the people (‫)ראה אנכי נתן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה‬. When the object for the deity is concrete it is typically an object that would be impossible for a human to “put.” So, God is said to put the land before the people (Deut 1:8, 21, and so on) or their enemies before them (Deut 2:31 and so on). Certainly, this use of (‫ לתת )לפני‬differs from the use with a human subject plus a concrete object. 103 The means of divine placement are left unstated here but, according to the setting of the D source, the people are located at the border of Canaan. 104 As such, God has quite concretely placed the land before them, further suggesting the reality of the phrasing. What constitutes a divine anthropomorphism then is not the use of a certain verb with Yhwh as the subject used also with human subjects. Rather, it is the larger contextual meanings and their similarities between descriptions of the interaction between humans and between Yhwh and humans that constitutes anthropomorphic expression. These verbs do not mean something different when applied to Yhwh—for that to be so, we would expect some indication of difference in the description of divine action. The attribution of actions to the deity for which we are hard pressed to imagine a physical scenario for their enactment reveals the true force of these actions as noncorporeal. This is the case whether they are used of a human or divine subject. The example of Yhwh’s acts of “giving” exhibits well both the similarities and differences between divine action and human action. The overwhelming majority of references to Yhwh giving to the people refer to either the land or its products. 105 In addition, six of the eight references to giving 102.  Deut 26:19 and 28:1 use the same idiom as Deut 1:15 (‫ )לתת על‬with the connotation of domination or authority. 103.  For example, Moses gives the written torah to the Levites in Deut 31:9. 104.  We can also say that that what differs between humans and God is the object and not the concreteness of the act. So, while no human could place the land before the Israelites as Yhwh does (ready for the conquering), a human could put before someone another human (for example, handing over murderer). 105.  This is the case for 62 of the 106 instances of ‫ לתת‬with Yhwh as the subject; see p. 251 n. 95 above.

Divine Action and Interaction

255

over refer to capturing enemies in the pursuit of claiming the land, and two thirds of the references to placing something (usually placing before the Israelites) refer to either the land or the people therein or fear of the Israelites in their conquest of the land. 106 The D source, then, is unique not in its attribution of these actions to Yhwh but in its preoccupation with describing how Yhwh bequeathed the land of Canaan to the Israelites. There is no exact human equivalent to the broad range of acts that constitute Yhwh bequeathing the land to the Israelites. But, as I have endeavored to show, each range of actions does have human counterparts. Yhwh then is more powerful than humans and has achieved something no human has (transfer of Canaan to the Israelites) but that power is exercised in a manner similar to that of human power. The objects of giving (land, enemies, blessings, and so on) are objects that humans are generally not capable of giving to each other, at least not on the scale of which Yhwh is capable. At the same time, the different types of “giving” are matched both in phraseology and implication. The act of giving, for both Yhwh and humans, is more often than not noncorporeal, further suggesting that we should not discount Yhwh’s giving as wholly different from human giving, because it too constitutes a type of divine anthropomorphism. As in the other sources, divine action in D differs when the deity is present versus when he is absent. Yhwh interacts directly with humans while he is present on Horeb. D contains fewer descriptions of his presence during the wilderness, but this presence is presumed during battle and the removal of presence results in failure for the Israelites. Unlike in E and P, though, the D author is unconcerned with the specifics of divine communication during the wilderness period, describing only direct speech between Yhwh and Moses. This lacuna in D may be a function of its homiletical and hortatory style or the absence of the Tent of Meeting as a site of divine communication in D. The majority of divine action in D does not specify the means of that action but is analogous to human action. Unlike in the other sources, this type of divine action is a function of divine power and authority, analogous to human authority, versus mediation. 106.  Capturing enemies: Deut 2:24, 30; 3:2, 3; 7:16, 24. Placing land, people or fear: 9 of 13; see Deut 1:8, 21; 2:25, 33, 36; 7:2, 23; 11:25; 23:15.

Chapter 6

Conclusion In chapter 1, I noted that what is lacking from research in biblical studies is a sustained attempt to answer the question did ancient Israel analogize its deity to humans and, if so, how? In the previous chapters, I have endeavored to show that ancient Israel, as reflected in the compositions of the Pentateuch, did indeed analogize their deity to humans in a variety of ways. In this chapter, I will survey my analysis of divine anthropomorphisms in chapters 2–5 by arranging them into a typology of divine anthropomorphism. This typology will exhibit the ways in which the deity was analogized to humans. It will focus on those divine anthropomorphisms shared by each source. In this way, the typology will reflect basic assumptions about the anthropomorphic nature of Yhwh present in ancient Israel. Second, I will describe the distinctiveness of each source: how each source utilizes different aspects of that shared anthropomorphic conception of Yhwh to serve its own purposes. The comparison and contrast of the sources will show that, while each source is distinctive, they share too much in common in their basic presumptions for divine anthropomorphism to be used either as a means of distinguishing between sources or for the relative dating of sources. At the same time, their shared assumptions about the anthropomorphic nature of the deity do not change the fact that each source is distinct and different with conflicting historical details that evince their independent origin. Third, I will discuss the implications of this study and note important, future avenues of research that were beyond its scope.

A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch In this section, I shall present a typology of divine anthropomorphism based on my analyses from chapters 2–5. Each type is a characteristic of the deity that appears in each of the sources ( J, E, D, and P, but not necessarily H). In this way, this typology serves as an outline of the anthropomorphic character of Yhwh as presented in the Pentateuch. It represents the common assumptions of the anthropomorphic nature of the deity. As with my divisions between body, location, and interaction, the assignment of specific examples to categorical types will not be absolute but is intended to represent the primary features of each example. The anthropomorphic characterizations of Yhwh in the Pentateuch can be represented by the following typology:

256

Conclusion

257

1. Corporeal a. Concrete i.  External ii. Internal 1. Emotional 2. Mental b. Figurative 2. Proximate a. Animate b. Passive 3. Interactive a. Power b. Speech i.  Realistic ii. Contextless 4. Characteristic a. Royal b. Martial c. Parental 5. Social a. Relational b. Ritual 6. Mediated a. Spatial-temporal b. Experiential c. Proxy

1.  Corporeal anthropomorphism is that which attributes human physicality to the deity. This attribution can be concrete, figurative, or ambiguous. Concrete corporeality involves reference to the actual divine body, be it the external body or its internal functions, specifically emotions or mental activities. Figurative corporeality includes the use of human body imagery to express an abstract characteristic of the deity. Figurative may still express a human-divine analogy, simply not one that realistically describes the corporeal form of the deity. Examples of concrete, corporeal divine anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch are typically expressed through language that presumes the functions of the human body. So, for instance, the claim that Yhwh wrote the Decalogue or that he heard the people, sees them, or smells sacrifices. The

258

Chapter 6

J source contains the most examples of explicit references to the divine body, which occur in its narrative of the events at Sinai. The delegation of Israelites sees Yhwh’s feet and Moses views his back and palm. The E source describes Moses’ interaction with Yhwh as speaking “face to face” and “mouth to mouth.” 1 D uses this same language. The P source generally lacks explicit, concrete references to the divine body. Rather, the anthropomorphic character of Yhwh’s body is expressed indirectly. As I discuss in chapter 3, each source shares the use of bodily idioms to describe divine emotion and intention, which reflect human mental capacities. These idioms are anthropomorphic on two counts: first, they describe human-like emotions by referencing the external body; and second, human emotions are described using the same idioms. The sources also share nonidiomatic descriptions of divine mental activity. In particular, each source describes a tension between divine anger and divine compassion that can be influenced by human intervention, a tension that the author does not always resolve systematically. Each source describes this tension distinctively. For instance, the P source presents divine anger as reactionary and automatic but tempered by appeals to divine memory and ritual acts. In contrast, E and D describe divine wrath that is provoked by human disobedience and disloyalty but which may be assuaged through appeals to Yhwh’s special relationship to the Israelites and their ancestors. This tension between wrath and compassion highlights Yhwh’s lack of omniscience in the pentateuchal sources. For instance, in J his relationship with the first humans through the wilderness period is one of trial and error in which both deity and humans can only claim approximate knowledge of how the other will act in the future. Descriptions of divine power are often expressed using body imagery that is best labeled figurative in that it expresses abstract characteristics of the deity, for instance, references to Yhwh’s hand, arm or finger. These references may still be considered anthropomorphic in that similar figurative language is used to describe human power, as with the body idioms that describe emotion mentioned above. They are figurative to the extent that they describe an abstract characteristic of the agent (pleasure, anger, intention). Unlike descriptions of power though, the abstract qualities this imagery describes are mental activities and thereby inherently linked with the body. 2.  Proximate anthropomorphism describes the ways in which the deity occupies space, typically in relation to humans, the earth, and heaven. It is more specific than “divine presence,” which can be expressed with or without the proximate presence of the deity. Proximate anthropomorphism presumes the concrete presence of the deity. This proximity can be further divided into animate and passive proximity. Animate proximity 1.  See also Gen 32:31.

Conclusion

259

features the physical interaction of the deity with his surroundings. Passive proximity imagines the concrete presence of the deity without physical interaction. Animate proximity is best represented by the divine presence at Sinai/ Horeb and in the wilderness. Each source describes the full manifestation of Yhwh at the desert mountain, though they differ on the details. In addition, each source describes the deity present with the people through the wilderness, again to varying degrees. In both cases, the proximate presence of the deity is a key element of experience: it is necessary so that Yhwh may authorize Moses, ratify the covenant, establish the cult, and discipline the people. There are also individual instances of animate proximity in each of the sources. J’s description of Yhwh walking through the garden is a paradigmatic example, as well as when he closes the ark. D uses the same verbal form to describe Yhwh walking through the camp. H applies this language to the movement of the divine presence (in the tabernacle) throughout the camp and land. 2 E describes God wrestling with Jacob. P’s descriptions of God’s appearance to Abraham and Jacob reflect realistic presence. In addition, the deity interacts with his creation when he places the luminaries and his bow in the skies. Passive proximity is best represented by sustained cultic presence. This is especially true of D and P, which use the terminology of divine presence ‫לפני‬ ‫‘ יהוה‬in the presence of Yhwh’. Cultic presence in J and E is more active as both sources describe altar sites at which the deity appears and then leaves. The E source, in addition, makes implied references to sustained presence in the Covenant Code. P’s description of cultic presence reflects a tension between animated and passive proximity due to the nature of its tabernacle narrative. The tabernacle is both the historical structure that accompanied the Israelites through the wilderness but also represents cultic practice at the temple. So, while the divine presence is described as passively present in the tabernacle (‫)לפני יהוה‬, it is likewise described as interacting with the camp and Moses. The passive aspect of the presence reflects the proximate presence of the deity once the tabernacle comes to rest in Canaan. H expands the affects of Yhwh’s passive proximity to the entire land of Israel. The D and E source also suggest a passive presence of the deity in heaven. The E source seems to favor depicting the sustained presence of the deity in heaven, as the majority of his appearances on earth are temporary, while the D source prioritizes the sustained presence of the deity at the cult site. Each of the sources associates divine theophany with altars, but none suggests that the sustained divine presence is necessarily found at altars. The exception is P (and H) but this is a function of P’s rejection of the use of altars apart from the tabernacle. Thus, it is not the altar that precipitates 2. In all three cases, the Hithpael of ‫ הלך‬appears only once in the entire source, Gen 3:8 ( J); Lev 26:12 (H); Deut 23:15 (D).

260

Chapter 6

the divine presence, but the tabernacle and its rituals, which includes altars. 3 Second, each source uses the language of proximity to describe divine location in cultic/ritual settings. So, for instance, J never describes sustained divine presence in a temple-like setting. However, when Yhwh is on Sinai, Moses and the elders engage in the same sort of attendant rituals associated elsewhere with the divine dwelling. In Exod 24:2, Moses approaches the deity (‫ )נגש‬and in 24:10–11 the priests and elders see the deity and eat in his presence. The E source likewise describes entering the divine presence as “approaching” (‫ )נגש‬and associates temple visits with seeing Yhwh/being seen by Yhwh. ­The P source prefers the language of “bringing near” (‫קרב‬, Hiphil) but also uses “approaching” (‫)נגש‬, and describes cultic acts occurring “before Yhwh.” The D source uses all these terms: the Levites approach the deity (Deut 21:5); the Israelites drew near Mt. Horeb (4:11); and the phrase “before Yhwh” is used with the same nuance as in P. The J and E sources present divine earthly location as primarily transitory while D and P emphasize the sustained presence of the deity at a cult site. The presentation of divine location in each source, then, reflects either an emphasis on an open-air altar system or a temple system. E and D source share many characteristics of the deity because the D author uses E as the primary template for his own work. So, for instance, D shares E’s claim that the people only hear Yhwh at Horeb. I have also endeavored to prove that D shares E’s description of Yhwh’s physical presence on Horeb. At the same time, just as D rejects E’s legitimation of decentralized cultic behavior, the D author rejects certain aspects of divine anthropomorphism emphasized by E. While E emphasizes the temporary nature of divine presence at an altar, D advocates a centralized cult that features the sustained presence of the deity. In this way, D closely resembles P’s characterization of divine presence. D, though sparsely, describes Yhwh continually present with the Israelites in the wilderness in contrast to E, which describes Yhwh making ­occasional visitations through the Tent of Meeting. Here too, D shares more in common with P, who describes Yhwh’s continued presence at the tabernacle. In the case of both sustained cultic presence and continuous presence with the camp, D is less explicit and systematic than P. These qualities are not as central to D’s characterization of the deity as they are for P. 3.  Interactive anthropomorphism describes divine action in relation to other creatures, specifically humans, meant to influence those creatures. While it may rely on corporeal and proximate imagery, its primary focus is its influence on the actions of others. I shall focus on examples of interac3.  The altar in Deut 27:1–8 may represent an exception within the D source. D uses the same language to describe sacrifice and ritual at this altar (27:7) as at the central cult site. This suggests that this altar is the exception, not the rule, not unlike the altar in P’s tabernacle. For a recent argument that Mt. Ebal is the chosen place in D, see S. Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” VT 57 (2007) 342–66.

Conclusion

261

tive anthropomorphism expressed either through the use of divine power over creation or the use of divine speech to communicate with humans. Divine speech may be further divided into speech that is described in a realistic, human fashion versus speech that lacks a narrative context describing its precise manner of enactment. Divine power is commonly presented by the sources as Yhwh affecting his creation by his power over nature. Examples include performing miracles, such as the miracle at the Sea and the plagues. Providential care is another type of divine interaction, by which the deity ensures the success of individual humans and groups. These types of divine action are perhaps the least anthropomorphic in Yhwh’s repertoire. Miracles are by their very nature supernatural and thereby outside the realm of humanity. When the means by which Yhwh accomplishes these miracles are described, they are clearly acts of which humans are incapable, such as bringing a wind to sweep locusts into and then out of Egypt (Exod 10:13aβ–b, 19). J and P describe Moses as a mediator of divine action, participating in the enactment of the plagues. E and J include narratives of Jacob employing magic to ensure the size of his flock against Laban’s. But, while humans perform these acts, the source of their efficacy lies outside human ability and thus may be better understood as cases of theomorphism than as anthropomorphism. At the same time, while the acts themselves are uniquely divine, the impetus behind the acts is anthropomorphic. First, theomorphism and anthropomorphism are in fact two sides of the same coin. When humans are depicted as engaging in acts considered divine by nature this undermines any strict division between humanity and divinity. The two are not ontologically distinct but rather share many abilities, while retaining their distinctiveness: there are supernatural acts and abilities that human beings can perform, but some that they cannot, just as deities share some aspects of human existence—but not all. Thus, human ability to perform supernatural acts is limited while Yhwh’s is largely unlimited, but the two share the ability to affect creation through nonnatural means. In addition, the use of divine power often mirrors the use of human power, as I have shown in the similarities between Pharaoh and Yhwh in J and P. They are described using similar terms (for example, “hand [‫ )”]יד‬and the source of power is often not the agent of the action for both. The same is true of divine providential care. The source authors do not describe the means by which Yhwh ensures Joseph’s success ( J) or prevents the Israelites’ clothes from deteriorating in the wilderness (D). As a result, these acts seem wholly miraculous. But, I have shown that human acts to control events mirror such providential care. One example of this is the means by which Leah and Rachel procure children for themselves through their servants. Yhwh’s motivation to perform such miraculous events is described by the sources in anthropomorphic terms. Yhwh brings plagues to redeem the people from Egypt and to fulfill

262

Chapter 6

the promise made to the ancestors. In P, these acts are inspired at least in part to prove his divine prowess to the Egyptians. In D, Yhwh cares for the people in the wilderness to prove his ability to do so and to prompt them to keep his commandments. In each of the sources, the special care and interest Yhwh has shown to Abraham and his descendants reflects Yhwh’s interest to enter into a relationship with this people, a highly emotional decision. Divine speech represents a clearer case of divine anthropomorphism in that it depicts the deity engaging in verbal communication with humans. While speech implies corporeality and proximity, I believe it is best understood as interactive anthropomorphism because it is the content of the speech that is the concern of the author and not the speech act itself. In this way, whether divine speech is described realistically or lacking narrative context, it may still be considered anthropomorphic (a) because it uses the imagery of verbal communication and (b) because speech reflects the desire to affect the external world, especially the human world. Instances of realistic divine speech, found in instances of theophany, are then not necessarily more anthropomorphic as much as anthropomorphic in multiple ways: they describe the corporeality and proximity of the divine speech while they imply an analogy with human communication and interaction. Contextless divine speech on the other hand is not concerned with the details of how the deity spoke, but only with the content of the speech. Contextless divine speech often stands in tension with realistic speech in the source narratives. Each source describes realistic speech at Sinai/Horeb and in the wilderness period. P and E are especially consistent in their depiction of the means by which Yhwh communicates with Moses. At the same time, each source includes instances of speech lacking narrative context in Egypt and the wilderness, implying that Yhwh does not always speak to Moses using the established means. It may be then that an author employs contextless speech out of expediency; it is the simplest means of describing direct communication from the deity. It is also possible that contextless speech is a sort of figurative action; the means of communication is unknown but it can be analogized to direct speech. 4.  Characteristic anthropomorphism refers to a description that associates a common ancient, literary trope with the Israelite God, in particular, a trope drawn from human experience and used elsewhere of human characters. The three most common such tropes are king (or leader), parent (specifically, father), and warrior. There is good reason to assume that the trope of king encapsulates the other two, but I will treat them as separate characteristics here. The most dominant form of characteristic divine anthropomorphism is the analogy of Yhwh to a king, or ruler. On a very basic level, each source tells the story of how Yhwh establishes a relationship of sovereignty over the Israelites, in which they are expected to follow his commands while

Conclusion

263

benefiting from his patronage. There are also many individual analogies made by the source authors between Yhwh and a king. The P source draws many connections between the acts of Pharaoh and of Yhwh. Similarly, in J, Yhwh does battle with Egypt. E and D use the language of divine visitation­ to describe pilgrimage to the cult site. As shown by Richter, D’s name formula [‫ ]המקום אשר יבחר יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם‬reflects ancient Near Eastern royal propaganda. The source authors understood the relationship between Yhwh and Israel as analogous to the relationship between a king and his people and presumed that Yhwh should be treated similarly to a king. King as a trope in the ancient Near East incorporates other common tropes, in particular, parent and warrior. In like manner, Yhwh’s royal characteristics do not end with simple leadership. Each source describes Yhwh as a warrior; he fights against Egypt and accompanies the people into war against aggressors in the wilderness and when they invade Canaan. Yhwh acts as a parent to individual humans and to the Israelites as a group. In particular, Yhwh is concerned with the well being of humans and endeavors to care for them. In J, for instance, Yhwh’s relationship with the first humans in the garden is quite parental: he lays down rules and chastises them for breaking the rules while continuing to provide for them. Each author’s description of the cycle of disobedience by the Israelites in the wilderness may be understood in similar terms. In addition, he allocates land, bestows blesses and curses, and redeems the people from slavery. Thus, Yhwh resembles not simply a parent but a kinsman or patriarch in his relationship with the Israelites. There is a certain amount of ambiguity regarding the anthropomorphic nature of the above examples. For instance, what I have labeled characteristic anthropomorphism may be better classified as metaphor. When Yhwh is described as a king it is not because he is a king but because he exhibits characteristics that are best understood within a royal framework. 4 At the same time, it is possible that biblical authors applied this language to Yhwh because they conceived of Yhwh as a true king. The reality of the analogy may be found not in the application of royal imagery to Yhwh alone, but the presence of such imagery in a broader context that affirms Yhwh’s role as a monarch. For instance, P’s presentation of the tabernacle as the dwelling of the deity and his main point of access for the Israelites mirrors a palace and royal court. This guiding theme of P lends greater reality to individual instances of royal imagery. Its analogy between Yhwh and a monarch then is not only a metaphor for divine power but also an attempt to describe the true nature of Yhwh and his relationship to Israel. 5.  Social anthropomorphism is an analogy between divine action and repeated human activity. It incorporates divine action into expressions of cultural behavior. Social anthropomorphism may be relational or ritual. 4.  Weiss, Figurative Language, 44–47.

264

Chapter 6

Relational refers to divine characteristics expressed as social conventions. When those conventions are specifically associated with cultic behavior, they will be considered ritual, social anthropomorphism. Each of the sources depicts the relationship between Yhwh and humans, at one point or another, as covenantal. In P, Yhwh forms a covenant (in the form of a divine promise) with the ancestors. 5 In J, E, and D, the promises to the ancestors are fulfilled in the treaty covenant established at Sinai/ Horeb. The relationship between Yhwh and humans is then analogous to human, social agreements. As with characteristic anthropomorphism, this example of social anthropomorphism is closely connected with the analogy between Yhwh and a human king, who makes land grants to subjects and establishes vassal treaties with lesser powers. The interaction between Yhwh and the Israelites in the cult models human social interactions. In particular, the sacrificial system, best described in P, is a ritualized meal shared between patron and supplicant. When the offerer does not share in the offering, the ritual is analogous to the offering of tribute to a patron-leader. Though the other sources do not contain the same detail as the P source when it comes to the sacrificial rites, those details that they do contain reflect a similar analogy with human social behavior. D and E mandate yearly pilgrimage to the deity to make offerings from agricultural produce. As discussed above, they employ the language of royal visitation at these times. In J, Noah’s sacrifice after the flood is meant to appease and thank the deity and the audience with Yhwh on Sinai is accompanied by a ritual meal. P’s description of Shabbat is another example of ritual, social anthropomorphism. The deity ceases on the 7th day of creation and later mandates that the Israelites cease every seven days in ritual remembrance of this act. While presented as modeling human behavior on divine behavior the reality of the composition history of P demands that the author modeled his description of divine behavior at creation on already existent human ritual observance. 6.  Mediated anthropomorphism occurs when the deity is described in anthropomorphic terms without the direct contact typical of their human analogues. Such mediation may be spatial-temporal (a voice from heaven, temporary presence), experiential (a dream or vision), or expressed through a proxy, either a supernatural or a human proxy. Mediated anthropomorphism is properly a subcategory of any type of divine anthropomorphism. That is, the deity can exhibit any of the above anthropomorphic characteristics, which are additionally presented as mediated in some manner. At the same time, mediation represents a specific type of anthropomorphism in that humans are also capable of mediating their interactions with other humans, as in the case of sending messengers to speak on one’s behalf. 5.  On P’s use of ‫ ברית‬in the ancestor narratives to describe a divine promise, and not a treaty, as established at Sinai/Horeb, see p. 68 n. 122.

Conclusion

265

The ancestor narratives of J, E, and P describe different means of spatial mediation of the divine presence. The deity will at times speak from heaven. There is no sustained cultic presence described during this era; instead, when the deity does appear, it is temporary. 6 While each source describes­the Sinai/Horeb theophany as the animated proximity of the deity, each source mediates that presence through spatial separation. The deity remains on the mountain and Moses (and others in J and E) come up to him. J, E, and D describe Moses coming into close contact with the deity on the mountain. In P, Moses comes closer than any other human, but the divine glory continues to separate Moses and Yhwh. J also describes Moses as coming closer than any other human, but he never has the unmediated access to the deity that is described in E and implied in D. Once the deity leaves the mountain, his proximate presence continues to be both spatially and experientially mediated. This is achieved in all the sources by the outward phenomena surrounding the deity, in the form of the cloud and fire pillar or the glory. In addition, in E the deity does not remain with the camp at all times in the wilderness but comes and goes from the Tent of Meeting. 7 P’s description of divine proximity in the cult is likewise spatially mediated through the design of the tabernacle and the priestly hierarchy, which together limit the access of individuals to the sacred space that surrounds the deity. Experiential mediation is primarily represented by the E source and its descriptions of divine communication through dreams and visions. The E source is unique in its preference for this manner of divine interaction. Mediation through a dream or vision though does not negate or temper the anthropomorphic character of the deity in these instances. These narratives show no concern for avoiding anthropomorphic descriptions of the deity, nor does the E source as a whole. Rather, experiential mediation limits direct access to the deity, which is a concern of E’s, as portrayed in its depiction of Moses’ unique intimacy with Yhwh. It is possible that J’s description of Yhwh’s theophany in Genesis 18 also represents experiential mediation, as found in E. Elsewhere, J describes direct access to the divine body as dangerous, which implies that the deity has taken on some mediated form to visit Abraham and Sarah. 8 The same may be true of the theophanies to the ancestors in P, which lack the outward phenomena of 6.  For this reason, such mediation may be better understood as temporal rather than spatial, though it is spatial in that there is no assurance of the divine presence at any specific location in these narratives. 7.  This is likely also the case with J, which describes the sustained presence of the pillar but does not always locate the deity in the pillar (see pp. 173–176). 8.  The first humans are likewise able to interact with Yhwh without fear of harm in J. In addition, the burning bush is a form of mediated communication, either experiential (or by proxy, if one considers the divine messenger to be original to passage). Thus, J’s presentation of the deity in the ancestor period may parallel theophanies in Homer, see Smith, “The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad,” 168.

266

Chapter 6

his presence in the tabernacle. The outward phenomena that accompanies the divine presence at Sinai/Horeb and in the wilderness is an experiential mediation that is shared by each source. While the deity is physically present on the mountain, this presence is experienced primarily through its attendant phenomena. Mediation by divine proxy (‫ )מלאך‬occurs only in J and E. It is unlikely that these messengers represent a small-scale manifestation of the deity himself but rather function like human messengers; only they are of supernatural origin. This sort of mediation then represents a type of social or interactive anthropomorphism because the human analogue is the sending of a messenger to speak or act on one’s behalf. If, on the other hand, one accepts the argument that the identity of the deity and messenger are conflated, then the divine messenger represents a type of experiential mediation. Mediation by a human proxy appears in each of the sources. Moses is the paradigmatic example for each, functioning as the representative of the deity. Moses’ role as proxy for the deity has many dimensions. He functions in the role of a messenger when he delivers the pronouncements to Pharaoh and the Israelites in Egypt. At the same time, both P and J describe his actions as part of the enactment of the plagues. This suggests his actions function typologically for Yhwh’s actions. At Sinai/Horeb, Moses speaks to the people on Yhwh’s behalf and affects the covenant between the two parties. 9 The E and D sources stress the prophetic nature of this mediation; a primary role of the prophet is divine mediator, of which Moses is the paradigmatic example. The E source describes Balaam functioning in a similar manner, though his interactions with the deity are not as direct as Moses’. 10 In the cultic system in P, it is the priests who both mediate access to the divine presence but also replicate divine acts within the cultic service. Their mandate to maintain a distinction between holy and profane, clean and unclean, mirrors divine ordering at creation. P’s attention to the proper enactment of divine commands reflects a mediation of divine prerogative. For instance, in the maintenance of the tabernacle, the divine command is carried out hierarchically: Moses commands Aaron and his sons, who in turn command the Levites, all of whom direct the actions of the laypeople. Lastly, human beings themselves, in P’s narrative, were created to serve as a mediated form of either divine presence or divine rule on earth. 11 9.  P does not describe its Sinai regulations as a covenant, but does describe Moses as a mediator between Yhwh and the people. 10.  Compare Num 12:6–8 with 24:3–4, 15–16. 11.  The nature of human mediation of the divine image depends on one’s interpretation of the function of the divine image in Gen 1:26–27: as equivalent to the statue of the deity in the Mesopotamian cult; or, as a statue of the monarch, representing royal power and control. It is also possible that both conceptions are implied.

Conclusion

267

Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuchal Sources The above typology presents a profile of the anthropomorphic nature of Yhwh in the Pentateuch. Each of the qualities appears at some point in each of the source documents and thus may be said to belong to a common understanding of the anthropomorphic character of the deity. That said, each source presents this anthropomorphic character differently. In this section, I will profile Yhwh’s anthropomorphic character as it appears in the individual sources. Although I see no evidence of a diachronic evolution of divine anthropomorphism from one source to the next or a polemical debate between source authors, each source certainly presents divine anthropomorphism in its own distinctive manner, which reflects the larger thematic and theological interests of the authors. The J Source In the J source, humans exist in close proximity to Yhwh at the start of creation. This close proximity is reflected in the author’s descriptions of the deity. J’s primeval era contains a high concentration of descriptions of close interactions between Yhwh and humans, explicitly realistic divine actions and divine mental activity. Yhwh is presented as curious about humans but unable to predict their actions, which leads to conflict. Already in this stage, Yhwh becomes progressively removed from human life. Yhwh’s anthropomorphic character in these narratives is widely accepted by scholars. Given the high percentage of concrete anthropomorphic descriptions of Yhwh in J’s primeval era in comparison to the rest of its composition, it is more likely that the anthropomorphic depictions in the primeval era reflect the proximity of Yhwh to his creation in the early period as opposed to a greater acceptance of divine anthropomorphism by the J author in comparison to the other source authors. If the J source were more anthropomorphic than the other sources, we would expect to see an even distribution of concrete, anthropomorphic descriptions of the deity throughout the composition. During the ancestor period, Yhwh appears directly to humans in human form. He is primarily identified by his actions and speech, not his form. J describes no attendant phenomena with this form or potential danger of viewing Yhwh’s form. Thus, unlike his theophany at Sinai, Yhwh’s appearances to the ancestors do not constitute a full-scale manifestation of the deity. The human form he adopts may instead represent a type of mediation of the grandeur of his true form. His appearances are temporary. Thus, while the ancestors establish cult sites (through altars, sacred trees, and ritual action), Yhwh does not dwell at any one site, but does show affinity for previous sites of theophany. Unlike in P, divine presence is not a prerequisite of cultic behavior in J, whose narratives reflect a system of open-air altars versus an established temple site. This preference for open-air altars may be J’s attempt at historical accuracy; an attempt to portray worship in

268

Chapter 6

olden days. In addition, the J source describes divine messengers that act as proxies for the deity, but do not appear to represent a manifestation of the deity himself. There are fewer explicit descriptions of divine emotion and mental activity than during the primeval era. Instead, Yhwh in the ancestor period and later is described as reacting to human suffering and need, while at the same time is capable of impulsive attacks on humans. Yhwh’s proximity does not return until Sinai and the wilderness journey. Here, J describes the full manifestation of Yhwh at Sinai, which is accompanied by outward phenomena and is dangerous to humans. Though the divine body is shielded from human view, those parts the J author does describe are anthropomorphic. So, the select group of elites who dine with Yhwh on Sinai see his feet. Moses is granted a fuller view of the deity, which includes his palm and back. In addition, J asserts that the deity possesses a face, though humans may not see it. These descriptions of Yhwh’s full manifestation on Sinai strongly suggest J understood the divine body to be humanoid but of superhuman size. This further supports the interpretation that the divine form witnessed by the ancestors is a mediation of the full manifestation in mundane, human form. 12 Thus, Yhwh’s presence on Sinai reflects his proximity to humans in the primeval era and is accompanied with a higher number of explicit, concrete actions than attributed to the deity in the interim. Divine action before Sinai is characterized by mediation, through space, time, experience, and proxy. The E Source Unlike the J source, the E source does not distinguish between the form of the deity in small-scale versus full-scale manifestations. Instead, E is concerned to mediate access to the deity. This mediation takes many forms, including spatial-temporal, experiential, and the use of proxies. E is distinctive among the sources for its reliance on dreams and visions to mediate access to the deity, but this mediation does not reflect an interest in softening earlier conceptions of divine anthropomorphism. Yhwh is presented anthropomorphically in these dreams and visions, just as he is in instances when a human has an unmediated encounter. However, the E author is fairly systematic in his presentation of Yhwh dwelling primarily in heaven, with occasional earthly visitations. While the interpretation of divine messengers in the E source is debatable, it is likely that they function much like human messengers and do not represent a manifestation of the deity himself. Though mediated, the divine body in E is assumed to be of human form. Jacob and Moses are the only humans in E to experience direct access to the 12.  It is not that we should dismiss the human form of these theophanies as merely concessions to human frailty. J clearly describes the divine form as anthropomorphic. Rather, Yhwh does not reveal his full manifestation to the ancestors but mutes this manifestation so as to avoid the dangers involved in a full-scale manifestation.

Conclusion

269

divine body, which is described as coming “face to face” with God. Jacob experiences this only once, while Moses has ongoing access to Yhwh first on Horeb and t­hen through the Tent of Meeting. The Israelites are allowed only to experience the divine voice from afar, and Yhwh does not travel with the camp through the wilderness but is accessible through the Tent of Meeting. According to E’s altar law and the Covenant Code, individual Israelites can have direct access to the deity through a properly constructed altar and at a temple site. As in the ancestor narratives, Yhwh does not dwell at the altar but visits it. The pilgrimage laws and use of “before God [‫ ”]לפני אלהים‬in the Covenant Code reflect the belief that Yhwh does dwell at a temple site. E’s narratives about Bethel may also reflect the current reality of the writer (Yhwh dwells at Bethel), though the E portions in Gen 28:10–22 emphasize B­ethel as a point of access between heaven and earth and not the dwelling place of Yhwh, or that Yhwh inhabits a cult object. The E source describes direct, divine action when Yhwh is proximate to humans, but prefers to describe mediated action, even when the deity is physically present. In addition, divine action follows human analogues, such as establishing covenant agreements. Yhwh’s mental activity in E consists primarily of divine reactions in the interests of humansn in particular, divine response to human suffering and protection of the divinely favored. E’s laws set up a system of reward and punishment for the human-divine relationship, but Yhwh’s actions may also be influenced by human intervention. In particular, humans (for example, Moses) can assuage divine wrath, and the resulting punishment, through an appeal to Yhwh’s emotional attachment to the Israelites. The P Source P’s description of the divine body is primarily indirect, focusing on its function as well as divine action and location. Though indirect, these descriptions portray a human form. In particular, P’s sacrificial system reflects both human-like desire and form. Yhwh performs actions that presume a human form, such as seeing and hearing. Such actions correlate to instances in the narrative when Yhwh is in proximity to humans, which strengthens the reality of the description. P’s focus on the tabernacle reflects its strong correlation between Yhwh and a king. Like a king, Yhwh is accessible through a highly structured dwelling, attended to by a hierarchically determined staff, where he accepts tribute from his people. 13 The anthropomorphic conception of Yhwh found in P’s description of its tabernacle is complemented by the descriptions of Yhwh before the establishment of the cult: humans and Yhwh share the same image; Yhwh communicates with the ancestors by direct theophany; and, he interacts directly with creation. 13.  In addition, P depicts Yhwh making land grants in a manner similar to a human king; see pp. 240–244.

270

Chapter 6

P also creates an analogy between human and divine acts. It analogizes Yhwh leading the people through the wilderness in the cloud pillar with Moses and later Joshua leading the people. In addition, P creates a hierarchy of command that analogizes Yhwh’s commands to Moses with Moses’ commands to Aaron (and the people) and with Aaron’s (and his sons’) commands to the Levites. P’s deity is not transcendent, as commonly claimed, unless this term is used to refer to the deity’s location vis-à-vis earth, and even then this is a temporary description of the deity. 14 Instead, Yhwh begins creation largely absent from human life, interceding at the flood and to form a covenant with the ancestors. Yhwh appears again to redeem the people from Egypt and then, at Sinai, establishes the cult so as to take up permanent residence on earth in his tabernacle. Thus, unlike in J and E, in P Yhwh remains with the Israelites throughout the entire wilderness journey. Yhwh’s presence and form at Sinai represent his full manifestation. While the divine body is mediated by the cloud and the glory as well as by limited human access, this mediation is not a replacement for the actual presence of the deity. This is confirmed by P’s use of the expression “before Yhwh [‫ ”]לפני יהוה‬to describe cultic acts, whose location is conflated with people and things physically present in the tabernacle. Thus, Yhwh is present in the tabernacle as is the altar and the officiating priest. Like J, P distinguishes between Yhwh’s full manifestation at Sinai versus his small-scale manifestation to the ancestors, which was lacking the attendant phenomena and rituals. P gives limited descriptions of this small-scale manifestation, but presents a realistic, though temporary, encounter with Abraham and Jacob. P uses the same body idioms as the other sources to describe divine emotion and mental activity, but focuses on divine memory in particular. While Yhwh is not depicted as becoming angry as often as in the other sources, he is protective of his creation and holy space. Human incursions against divinely established sanctity can lead to fatal outbursts from the deity, beginning with the flood. 15 The threat of these outbursts is heightened once Yhwh comes to dwell among the camp in his tabernacle, at which point unsanctioned incursions into holy space (willful or not) can result is human death. Appeals to divine memory are P’s solution to the tension that exists between the benefits versus the dangers of the divine presence. Yhwh establishes preordained memory triggers, in the form of signs and memorials, to invoke divine concern, which tempers divine retribution. Human suffering and need can also affect the divine memory. Thus, P presents the 14.  P does not, however, conceive of Yhwh as transcendent in the dominant meaning of the term, that is, nonmaterial. See my discussion of the use of the terms transcendent and immanent in biblical studies on pp. 14–18 15.  Though P does not state so explicitly, the cause of the flood in its composition is likely humans consuming blood. See my discussion of divine emotion in P on pp. 153 n. 252.

Conclusion

271

human-divine relationship as one that vacillates between chaos and order and in which Yhwh learns to compromise his zealous protection of order to account for human nature. The Holiness Legislation H supplements the P narrative with additional legislation. As a tradent of P, H presumes both the narrative framework of P and its basic assumptions about Yhwh’s anthropomorphism. Unlike P, H is concerned with legislation­that addresses life in the settled land and the expansion of the role of laypeople in cultic rituals. In particular, H enjoins all Israelites to achieve holiness, while in P this is a state unattainable for laypeople. As such, we find in H both a confirmation of the anthropomorphic character ascribed to Yhwh by P along with occasional examples of the expansion of that character. While there are instances of conflict, there is no evidence that H sought systematically to contradict or reconceptualize P’s stance on divine anthropomorphism. For instance, H supplements P’s presentation of the sacrificial cult as food offerings to Yhwh and suggests a correlation between food as sustenance for both Yhwh and his priests. Also, H correlates the presence of Yhwh in the tabe­rnacle to his presence in the entire camp and land. This correlation supports H’s program of lay holiness and expanded purity regulations for the people when away from the tabernacle. In addition, H uses the phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬in Lev 16:30 to refer to its expanded implications of divine presence. In this case, we may say that H does not contradict P, but rather is willing on occasion to abandon P’s precise use of language to promote the broader concerns of its holiness legislation. Last, H includes types of divine action not found in P, such as sending the people into exile. Again, these differences reflect the different focus of H in comparison to P and not differences in conceptions of the nature of the deity. The D Source In the D source, anthropomorphic descriptions of Yhwh are limited to the Horeb event and the wilderness journey. Contrary to majority opinion, the D source does not claim that Yhwh is located only in heaven. Rather, Yhwh was present on Mt. Horeb, traveled with (and within) the Israelite camp in the wilderness, and dwells at the central cult site. Like the P source, D has few direct descriptions of the divine body, but its description of divine action and location reflects the assumption of Yhwh’s human-like form. D mediates access to Yhwh at Horeb, much like in E; Yhwh is located at the top of the mountain, obscured by fire and smoke and only Moses is allowed to approach him. Divine emotion in D vacillates between anger and compassion. On the one hand, D creates a strict system of reward and punishment, typified by the blessings and curses of the covenant. On the other, Yhwh is willing to circumvent this system. In instances when humans are deserving of divine

272

Chapter 6

punishment, it may be avoided by human intervention. Likewise, Yhwh is capable of punishing in the absence of disobedience. D presents Yhwh as a conquering king, who has redeemed his people, leads them to victory and establishes a vassal loyalty treaty with them. He likewise acts as a caring father, who provides for the needs of his people in the wilderness through miraculous means. Divine action in D, as in the other sources, is achieved through direct interaction when the deity is in close proximity to humans. In D, this proximity occurred at Horeb and during the wilderness trek. The remaining majority of references to divine actions describe abstract action, that is, action achieved through indirect means. These actions are still analogous to abstract human action. The difference is that Yhwh is capable of achieving things humans cannot, but his means of action and motivations are depicted in anthropomorphic terms. D’s cult site is legitimated by divine mandate (it is the place where Yhwh places his name) as opposed to divine presence in P, but D maintains the belief that the deity is located at the cult site, as seen by his use of the phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬in its typical meaning as denoting “in the presence of Yhwh.” D retains the anthropomorphic language of E’s pilgrimage laws, which fits well with its depiction of Yhwh as a victorious king. Thus, as in E, while the Israelites are limited in their access to the divine presence at Horeb, they may access this presence once the cult is established. Unlike E, the D author does not allow for multiple altar sites to which the deity appears but limits divine presence to a single site. At the same time, there remains a tension in D between divine presence at the cult site and his presence in heaven, though the overwhelming majority of references to divine presence in D are at the cult site (or on Mt. Horeb). Dating the Sources Any comparison between texts raises the specter of dating. The issue of dating the sources is as controversial as the debate over their means of composition. I will not present an argument for the absolute dating of the sources here. Their relative dating is of more importance within the source critical approach, since later texts could have had access to earlier texts, which could have figured in the composition of the more recent text. 16 That said, the date of composition of the indivudal sources is irrelevant to their indentification or separation: We must be careful not to confuse the literary question with the historical one. Like thematic and stylistic considerations, the dating of the documents can be accomplished only after the sources have been isolated on other grounds. And at that point, the various datings of the documents have no effect on the literary analysis: if it could be demonstrated somehow that J is from the tenth century b.c.e. and that P is from the third 16.  A third avenue for the productive dating of texts is the use of linguistic data, such as the distinctions between Standard Biblical Hebrew and Late Biblical Hebrew; see my discussion on pp. 27–28.

Conclusion

273

century b.c.e., while E is from the second millennium b.c.e. and D was written during the Hoover administration, the literary evaluation of the text and the isolation of the sources on the grounds of narrative flow would be precisely the same. 17

That said, I accept the following relative dating of the pentateuchal sources: J and E precede D, which knows both, but relies significantly more on E. 18 P and D predate H, which supplements P, while responding to legislation found in D. 19 J and E do not show signs of familiarity with each other (or with D and P), just as D and P do not know each other. 20 As a result, it is difficult to date J relative to E, P relative to D, or P relative to J or E, and I will not attempt to do so here. In my analysis of divine anthropomorphism in the sources, I have found no evidence of significant shifts in the anthropomorphic character of the deity between the different sources. This absence of major differences or polemic argues against the existence of an evolutionary development of divine anthropomorphism in ancient Israelite religion and any subsequent use of divine anthropomorphism as a means to arrive at a relative dating of the sources. Divine anthropomorphism cannot be used to distinguish between sources or to date them relative to each other. At the same time, there do exist clear differences in the sources with regard to which aspects of the deity’s anthropomorphic nature each chooses to emphasize. Thus, it is possible to identify shifts within the sources and, when sources can be reliably dated relative to each other, those shifts can be analyzed in relation to chronological changes. The clearest example of such a shift exists between D and its source material, E (and to a lesser extent J), in particular, D’s rejection of E’s presumption of a decentralized cult. D’s program of cult centralization, which limits sacrifice to a single sanctuary site, has profound effects on its legislation of 17.  Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 31. For a discussion of the pitfalls of dating the sources, see B. D. Sommer, “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-­ Historicism,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 85–108. 18. Ibid., Redaction of the Pentateuch. 19.  Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, in distinction from Eckart Otto’s argument that H brings together earlier legal traditions to form the Pentateuch (“Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion”; “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26”). 20.  By P, I mean here the earlier layer apart from H. P shows no knowledge of the other sources (Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch, 184). D shows no knowledge of P as a narrative composition (ibid., 133). The most compelling case for correspondence between D and P can be found in the similarities between Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11 (W. L. Moran, “The Literary Connections Between LV 11, 13–19 and DT 14, 12–18,” CBQ 28 [1966] 271–76; Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 6–7). Thus, Weinfeld’s contention that D was familiar with P is largely incorrect (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 180–83; idem, Deuteronomy 1–11, 30–35). Weinfeld’s examples of correspondence between D and P can be explained as either examples of H responding to D or the result of shared terminology and content but not literary dependence.

274

Chapter 6

ritual. This change likewise affects D’s presentation of Yhwh’s anthropomorphic character. That is, while D shares many of the same presumptions of Yhwh’s anthropomorphic nature found in J and E, that anthropomorphism manifests itself differently. D emphasizes the sustained presence of Yhwh both with the Israelites in the wilderness and at the chosen cult site. This is in contrast to J and E, which both present the divine presence as primarily transitory, appearing at multiple altar sites and not as a permanent presence in the wilderness. In this way, D shares more in common with P (and H), which also emphasizes the sustained presence of the deity, which for P is located at the Tent of Meeting. Due to these similarities between P and D, it is tempting to date them as contemporaries, or at least to date P as later than J and E, just as with D. But this would be shaky logic. Unlike D, P does not contain an explicit rejection of one sacrificial system for another. 21 Though it has been argued that P’s lack of a polemic against a noncentralized cult is evidence of its late date of composition, it is just as reasonable that P’s composition simply reflects the reality of its authors: the centrality of the Jerusalem temple. 22 Thus, P’s composition could have been written before the debate over cult centralization that inspired D; before J, E, or D. The point being that specific manifestations of divine anthropomorphism in any given composition are not enough on which to base the dating of that composition. Instead of seeing divine anthropomorphism as a reflection of chronological changes within ancient Israelite religion, it is more productive to view the phenomenon as representing an inherent aspect of any biblical depiction of the deity that necessarily shifts with the concerns and focus of a particular author and the content of his or her composition.

Implications of this Study and Future Avenues of Research This study has focused on divine anthropomorphism as it is represented in the compositional sources of the Pentateuch. This focus was necessary to adequately address the issues at hand while allowing for in-depth exegesis. As a result, many important features of the discussion of divine anthropomorphism as it relates to the Hebrew Bible have been set aside for the time being. Here, I will enumerate those topics and their relevance to future discussion of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible, while noting the major implications of this study. First, the remainder of the Hebrew Bible needs to be incorporated into the typology I have built on the material from Genesis–Deuteronomy. Given the extent and variety of this material, any future typological studies 21.  This does appear in H, in Leviticus 17. 22.  This argument for a late composition date for P was popularized by Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 34–36.

Conclusion

275

that consider the nonpentateuchal material must take genre into account. One particularly pressing question is the role poetry plays in our evaluation of divine anthropomorphisms. Are the instances of divine anthropomorphism in the psalms and prophetic texts comparable to those found in narrative texts? Do these authors seek to assert realistic qualities of the deity, or are their descriptions figurative? If figurative, do they still possess human analogues, or do they not represent a serious analogy between the human and divine? A second important question is that of the diachronic development of divine anthropomorphism. I have rejected the evolutionary approach prevalent in past (and latent in many contemporary) discussions of divine anthropomorphism. But, it is a historical fact that at some point in the history of early Judaism and Christianity, divine anthropomorphism became a philosophical problem. I have argued that this philosophical problem is absent from the compositions of the Pentateuch, but can the same be said of the remaining compositions of the Hebrew Bible? Is it possible to identify early antianthropomorphic tendencies within these texts, and if so, what may have influenced their development? In addition, as I mention above, while divine anthropomorphism in the sources may not be plotted as an evolutionary development, can certain shifts in emphasis and presentation between the sources be charted chronologically, with the help of relative and linguistic dating? Closely related to this question is the second avenue of future research, namely, comparison between the Hebrew Bible and its early history of interpretation as represented in the ancient translations. Scholars have long identified antianthropomorphic tendencies in the Greek and Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. While there is convincing evidence to identify this trend in these works, it is less clear that antianthropomorphism was a guiding concern for each translator at each stage of the process. Certain changes considered antianthropomorphic may be otherwise explained while translators do not alter every example of divine anthropomorphism. A close analysis of a wider range of translations (say across an entire book versus a focus on individual examples) would help determine the scope of the ancient response to the divine anthropomorphisms contained in the Hebrew Bible, as well as contribute to our understanding of what precisely they found offensive and why. On the other side of the temporal perspective, a typology of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible begs for comparison with examples of divine anthropomorphism found in other ancient Near Eastern compositions. Biblical scholars have largely accepted as fact the assertion that ancient Israel’s deity was less anthropomorphic than the deities of its neighbors, the distinction growing more acute over time. I have argued that ancient Israel’s deity was in fact deeply anthropomorphic, an argument that challenges presuppositions about the distinctions between conceptions of divinity in ancient Israel versus the ancient Near East. At the same time,

276

Chapter 6

Assyriologists now question the presumption that ancient Mesopotamian deities were perceived as primarily anthropomorphic in nature. 23 As with inner-biblical comparisons, any comparison between the texts of the Hebrew Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts must take seriously the issue of genre. For instance, the common comparisons between Genesis 1 and Enūma eliš rarely acknowledge the differences in genre between these two compositions (not to mention length) or how such differences may contribute to their differing depictions of divinity. Related to the issue of genre is that of textual corpus. On the one hand, the Hebrew Bible has a vastly different compositional and scribal history than other ancient Near Eastern texts. The Hebrew Bible has come to us through a long and complicated transmission process as opposed to in the form of material artifact. On the other hand, the Hebrew Bible as a unified corpus is a relatively recent development in the history of ancient Near Eastern literature. It is problematic to approach the Hebrew Bible as a unified whole that can be compared with say Mesopotamian literature (also a problematic category). So, while a typology of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible would be enriched through comparisons with ancient Near Eastern examples of divine anthropomorphism, such an endeavor demands careful and detailed analysis that avoids generalizations. In this study, I have hoped to make certain contributions to the study of divine anthropomorphism both in biblical studies and religious studies. My primary goal has been to show the complexity and diversity of divine anthropomorphism. To this end, I have presented an alternative paradigm for understanding divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible. This paradigm seeks to correct earlier flaws in the analysis of this phenomenon, specifically, a general lack of definition; the importation of philosophical and theological perspectives, such as the use of the terminology transcendent and immanent; an evolutionary approach; and a bias for ancient Israel, its religion, and its literature against that of the rest of the ancient Near East. Instead, my approach to divine anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch has been to treat the phenomenon as primarily a literary issue and secondarily a theological issue. I have sought to show the breadth and depth of human-divine analogy in the Hebrew Bible by adopting a broad definition, which is based on the form, nature, and function of the body. I avoid analyzing texts in isolation from their larger compositional context or placing texts into comparison before first analyzing them on their own terms. As such, I have endeavored to show that presumptions of the evolutionary development of divine anthropomorphism or polemic over the phenomenon have negatively affected past interpretations of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible. Such problematic interpretations occur in the common 23.  Porter, What Is a God?

Conclusion

277

comparison between the two creation stories in Genesis 1–3 or between the P and D compositions. Reading Gen 1:1–2:4a apart from its broader context in P and instead in comparison with Gen 2:4b–3:24 has blinded scholars to the anthropomorphic features of the deity found therein. Likewise, presumptions of a polemic or competing world views between P and D have undermined the accurate analysis of divine anthropomorphism in both. In contrast, I have shown that, while the two works differ greatly in their focus and interests, they share many presumptions about the anthropomorphic character of the deity. Last, I have sought to avoid any apologetic for the descriptions of Yhwh found in the Pentateuch. Once we set aside the concerns of classical theism and classical philosophy, the vibrancy and depth of the deity as a character becomes clear, as well as the separation and distinction between biblical concepts of the deity and later reflections on biblical texts. My hope is that I have provided a template for the analysis of divine anthropomorphism in the Hebrew Bible that is apropos of the Hebrew Bible, as it is grounded in the interests and conventions of the biblical authors and not beholden to those of later interpreters.

Bibliography Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery. Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Abusch, Tzvi. “Sacrifice in Mesopotamia.” Pp. 39–48 in Sacrifice in Religious Experience, edited by Albert I. Baumgarten. Studies in the History of Religions 93. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Achenbach, Reinhard. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Allen, Spencer. The Splintered Divine: A Study of Ištar, Baal and Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Amit, Yairah. “Creation and the Calendar of Holiness.” Pp. *13–*29 in Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ———. Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative. Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Anderson, Gary A. “Sacrifice and Sacrificial Offerings: Old Testament.” Pp. 870– 86 in vol. 5 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Averbeck, Richard. “Tabernacle.” Pp. 807–27 in The Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Baden, Joel S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. ———. “Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Considerations.” Pp. 187–204 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. ———. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Bahar, Shlomo. “‘He Erected Altars to Baal’ [2Kgs 21,3]: The Absence of Iconic Objects in Cultic Sites for ‘Other Gods’ in the Biblical Narrative.” Biblische Notizen 145 (2010): 25–36. Bar-On, Shimon. “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26.” Vetus Testamentum 4 (1998): 161–95. Barr, James. “Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the Old Testament.” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 1–10. ———. Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961.

278

Bibliography

279

———. “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament.” Pp. 31–38 in Congress Volume. Leiden: Brill, 1959. Barton, John. The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Basson, Alec. Divine Metaphors in Selected Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Batto, Bernard F. “The Divine Sovereign: The Image of God in the Priestly Account.” Pp. 143–86 in David and Zion: Studies in Honor of J. J. Roberts, edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Baumgartner, Walter, and Ludwig Koehler. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited and translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Becking, Bob, and Marjo C. J. Korpel, “To Create, to Separate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1–2:4a.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10, article 3 (2010): 1–21. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Berlinerblau, Jacques. “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60 (1993): 3–26. Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 495–518. ———. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ———. “The Structure of P.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 275–92. Boer, Pieter Arie Hendrik de. “An Aspect of Sacrifice: Divine Bread, God’s Fragrance.” Pp. 27–47 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Booth, Wayne C. “Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation.” Critical Inquiry 5/1 (1978): 49–72. Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2001. Brayford, Susan Ann. Genesis. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill,  2007. Brettler, Marc Zvi. God Is King: Understanding and Israelite Metaphor. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Brodie, Thomas L. Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical and Theological Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. 6 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982. ———. Old Testament Theology: An Introduction. Library of Biblical Theology. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008.

280

Bibliography

Burnett, Joel S. Where Is God?: Divine Absence in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Carpenter, J. Estlin, and George Harford-Battersby. The Hexateuch according to the Revised Version: Edited with Introduction, Notes, Marginal References and Synoptical Tables. 2 vols. Facsimile of the first edition. New York: Longmans, Green, 1902. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978. First published as ‫בראשית ספר‬ ‫על פירוש‬, Jerusalem, 1944. Chavel, Simeon. “The Face of God and the Etiquette of Eye-Contact: Visitation, Pilgrimage, and Prophetic Vision in Ancient Isralite and Early Jewish Imagination.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 19 (2012): 1–55. ———. “Num 15,32–36: A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production.” Pp. 45–55 in Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, . Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Cherbonnier, Edmond Lab. “The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism.” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 187–206. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple: The Presence of God in Israel’s Worship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. Clifford, Richard J., and John J. Collins, eds. Creation in the Biblical Traditions. CBQ Monograph Series 24. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992. Cornelius, Izak. “The Many Faces of God: Divine Images and Symbols in Ancient Near Eastern Religions.” Pp. 21–43 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Books Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by Karel van der Toorn. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Cotter, David W. Genesis. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Curtis, John Briggs, and Susan Lee Shearman. “Divine-Human Conflicts in the Old Testament.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28 (1969): 231–42. Di Vito, Robert A. “The Demarcation of Divine and Human Realms in Genesis 2–11.” Pp. 39–56 in Creation in the Biblical Traditions. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 24. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1992. ———. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 217–38. Dick, Michael B. “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image.” Pp. 1–53 in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, edited by Michael B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Bibliography

281

Dobbs-Allsopp, F. “Rethinking Historical Criticism.” Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999): 235–71. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Vol. 1. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Harmondworth: Penguin, 1970. Dozeman, Thomas B., and Konrad Schmid, eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. International Critical Commentary. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. ———. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. International Theological Library. 10th ed. New York: Scribners, 1900. Eakins, J. Kenneth. “Anthropomorphisms in Isaiah 40–55.” Hebrew Studies 20– 21 (1979): 47–50. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Ellis, Peter F. The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian. Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1968. Eslinger, Lyle. “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18 (1980): 91–99. Firmage, Edwin B. “Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 97–114. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. ———. Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oxford: Oneworld, 1998. Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005. Fowler, Mervyn D. “The Meaning of lipnê Yhwh in the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 384–90. Frankel, David. “Two Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wilderness.” Journal of the Study of the Old Testament 81 (1998): 31–37. Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Fretheim, Terence E. “Ark in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 1–14. Friedman, Richard E. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New Look into the Five Books of Moses. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ———. Commentary on the Torah: With a New English Translation. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. ———. “Torah (Pentateuch).” Pp. 605–22 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Fritsch, Charles T. The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943.

282

Bibliography

Gane, Roy. “‘Bread of the Presence’ and Creator-in-Residence.” Vetus Testamentum 42 (1992): 179–203. Garr, W. Randall. “God’s Creation: BR’ in the Priestly Source.” Harvard Theological Review 97 (2004): 83–90. ———. “‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh.” Israel Exploration Journal 50 (2000): 227–34. ———. In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Gass, Erasmus. “Modes of Divine Communication in the Balaam Narrative.” Biblische Notizen 139 (2008): 19–38. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums. Breslau: Hainauer, 1857. Geller, Stephen A. “God, Humanity, and Nature in the Pentateuch.” Pp. 421–65 in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, edited by Jeffrey Stackert, Barbara Nevling Porter, and David P. Wright. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2010. ———. “The God of the Covenant.” In One God Or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, edited by Barbara Nevling Porter, 273–319. Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. George, Mark K. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Gertz, Jan C. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion dea Pentateuch. FRLANT 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Gesundheit, Shimon. Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by Emil F. Kautzsch, edited by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd English ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. Gibson, John C. L. Language and Imagery in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Gilders, William K. “Why Does Eleazar Sprinkle the Red Cow Blood? Making Sense of a Biblical Ritual.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6, article 9 (2006): 1–16. Gitin, Seymour. “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective.” Pp. 95–123 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeologogy of the Religion of Israel, edited by Barry M. Gittlen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Gordon, Cyrus H. “Elohim in Its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges.” Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935): 139–44. Grant, Deena. “A Brief Discussion of the Difference between Human and Divine hmh.” Biblica 91 (2010): 418–24. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976. Greenberg, Moshe. “nsh in Exodus 20:30 and the Purpose of the Sinai Theophany.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 273–76.

Bibliography

283

———. “The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus.” Pp. 243–52 in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971. ———. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” Pp. 5–28 in Sefer ha-yovel li-Yeḥezḳeʾel Koifman: meḥḳarim ba-miḳra uve-toldot ha-emunah ha-Yiśreʾelit, edited by Menahem Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. Grelot, Pierre, and Christopher R. Smith. The Language of Symbolism: Biblical Theology, Semantics, and Exegesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Gruber, Mayer. “?‫[ ’בצלם אלהים‘–מהו‬What Is ‘in the Image of God’?].” Pp. 81–87 in ‫ מחקרים בעולם המקרא‬:‫[ תשורה לשמואל‬Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible], edited by Tsiporah Talshir, Shamir Yonah and Daniyel Sivan. Jerusalem: Bialik and Ben-Gurion Univ. Press, 2001. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. First published as Genesis: Übersetst und erklärt von Hermann Gunkel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901. Guthrie, Stewart Elliott. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hallam, A. Dudley. “Old Testament Anthropomorphism.” Milla Wa-Milla 13 (1973): 14–19. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Halpern, B. “The Assyrian Astronomy of Genesis 1 and the Birth of Milesian Philosophy.” Eretz-Israel 27 (1999): 74*–83*. Hamilton, Mark W. The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. Biblical Interpretation Series 78. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. ———. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hamori, Esther J. When Gods Were Men: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Handy, Lowell K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Haran, Menahem. “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual.” Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959): 30–38. ———. “Behind the Scenes of History: Detrermining the Date of the Priestly Source.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 321–23. ———. “The Complex of Ritual Acts Performed Inside the Tabernacle.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 272–302. ———. “Divine Presence in the Israelite Cult and the Cultic Institutions.” Biblica 50 (1969): 251–67. ———. “Nature of the ‘ʾOhel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources.” Journal of Semitic Studies 5 (1960): 50–65. ———. “Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 14–24. ———. “The Shining of Moses’ Face: A Case Study in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography.” Pp. 159–73 in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient

284

Bibliography

Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström, edited by W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. ———. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Hartenstein, Friedhelm. Das Angesicht Jhwhs: Studien zum seinen höfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32–34. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Heidt, William George. Angelology of the Old Testament: A Study in Biblical Theology. Studies in Sacred Theology 24. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1949. Hempel, Johannes. “Die Grenzen des Anthropomorphismus Jahwes im Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 16 (1939): 75–85. Hendel, Ronald S. “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel.” Pp. 205–28 in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, edited by Karel van der Toorn. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. “Table and Altar: The Anthropology of Food in the Priestly Torah.” Pp. 131–48 in To Break Every Yoke: Essays in Honor of Marvin L. Chaney, edited by Robert B. Coote and Norman K. Gottwald. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007. ———. The Text of Genesis I–II: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Herring, Stephen L. “A ‘Transubstantiated’ Humanity: The Relationship between the Divine Image and the Presence of God in Genesis i 26f.” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 480–94. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Translated by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra. 4 vols. Kampen: KOK, 1993–2002. ———. “What Did Jacob See in His Dream at Bethel: Some Remarks on Genesis 28:10–22.” Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977): 337–51. Hulster, Izaak J. de, and R. Schmitt, eds. Iconography and Biblical Studies: Proceedings of the Iconography Sessions at the Joint EABS/SBL Conference, 22–26 July 2007, Vienna, Austria. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 361. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2009. Hundley, Michael. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. “To Be Or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History.” Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 533–55. Hurowitz, Victor. “The Divinity of Humankind in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: A New Mesopotamian Parallel.” Pp. 263–74 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, edited by Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Bibliography

285

———. “From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant from Exodus to Deuteronomy.” Bible Review (Washington, D.C.) 14/5 (1998): 40–47. Hurvitz, Avi. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. ———. “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age: A Response to J. Blenkinsopp.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112 (2000): 180–91. ———. “The Recent Debate on Late Biblical Hebrew: Solid Data, Experts’ Opinions, and Inconclusive Arguments.” Hebrew Studies 47 (2006): 191–210. Hutzli, Jürg. “Tradition and Interpretation in Gen 1:1–2:4a.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10, article 12 (2010): 1–22. Insole, Christopher J. “Anthropomorphism and the Apophatic God.” Modern Theology 17 (2001): 475–83. Irvin, Dorothy. Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1978. Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976. Japhet, Sara. “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Space.” Pp. 54–72 in Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land: Proceedings of the International Conference in Memory of Joshua Prawer, edited by Benjamin Kedar and Raphael J. Z. Werblowsky. New York: Macmillian, 1993. Jónsson, Gunnlaugur A. The Image of God: Genesis 1:26–28 in a Century of Old Testament Research. Translated by Lorraine Svendsen. Revised by Michael S. Cheney. Coniectanea Biblica 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Joosten, Jan. “The Distinction between Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax.” Hebrew Studies 46 (2005): 327–39. ———. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 10. Jerusalem: Simor, 2012. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 14. 2 vols. Rome: Editrice Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996. Kasher, Rimon. “Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110 (1998): 192–208. ———. “‫מא‬-‫ קדושה ופולחן—מבט חדש על יחזקאל מ‬,‫אנתרופומורפיזם‬.” Beth Mikra 40 (1995): 359–75. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. Religion of Israel: From Its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. First published as ‫ מימי קדם עד סוף‬:‫תולודות האמונה הישראלית‬ ‫בית שני‬. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1937–56. Kawashima, Robert. “The Priestly Tent of Meeting and the Problem of Divine Transcendence: An ‘Archaeology’ of the Sacred.” Journal of Religion 86 (2006): 226–57. Keel, Othmar. Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

286

Bibliography

———. Jahwes Entgegnung an Ijob: Eine Deutung von Ijob 38–41 vor dem Hindergrund der zeitgenöss Bildkunst. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Kensky, Meira. Trying Man, Trying God: The Divine Courtroom in Early Jewish and Christinan Literature. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/289. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Klawans, Jonathan. “Pure Violence: Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 133–55. ———. “Sacrifice and Defilement in Ancient Israel.” Harvard Theological Review 94 [2004]: 133–55. Klingbeil, Gerald A. “The Finger of God in the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112 (2000): 409–15. Knafl, Anne. “Name Theology and Deuteronomy.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, November, 2010. Knight, Douglas A. “Wellhausen and the Interpretation of Israel’s Literature.” Semeia 25 (1982): 21–36. Knohl, Israel. ‫ גבולות המהפכה המקראית‬:‫[ אמונות המקרא‬Biblical Beliefs]. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2007. ———. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting.’” Pp. 73–79 in Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ———. “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” Pp. 359–67 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Korpel, Marjo C. A. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. Kugel, James L. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2003. Kuitert, H. M. Gott in Menschengestalt: Eine dogmatisch-hermeneutische Studie über die Anthropomorphismen der Bibel. Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie 45. Munich: Walter Kaiser, 1967. Kutsko, John F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Labuschagne, C. J. The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Pretoria Oriental Series 5. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Lambert, W. G. “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pp. 191–201 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, edited by J. Quaegebeur. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peetersen Department Orientalistiek, 1993. Levenson, Jon Douglas. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Levine, Baruch A. “The Cultic Scene in Biblical Religion: Hebrew ʿal panaî and the Ban on Divine Images.” Pp. 358–69 in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of

Bibliography

287

Seymour Gitin, edited by S. W. Crawford et al. Jerusalem: W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Israel Exploration Society, 2007. ———. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. ———. Leviticus ‫ויקרא‬. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. ———. “Lpny Yhwh–Phenomenology of the Open-Air Altar in Biblical Israel.” Pp. 196–205 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology: June–July, 1990. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. ———. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. “On the Presence of God in Biblical Religion.” Pp. 71–87 in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, edited by Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Levinson, Bernard. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Levtow, Nathaniel B. Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel. Biblical and Judaic Studies 11. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Lindblom, Johannes. “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 91–106. Lindquist, Maria. “King Og’s Iron Bed.” CBQ 73 (2011): 477–92. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980. Lorberbaum, Yair. “Blood and the Image of God: On the Sanctity of Life in Biblical and Early Rabbinic Law, Myth and Ritual.” The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse, edited by David Kretzmer and Eckart Klein, 55–85. London : Kluwer Law, 2002. Louth, Andrew, ed. Genesis 1–11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 1. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism.” Forschungen zum Alte Testament 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Machinist, Peter. “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay.” Pp. 196–212 in Ah, Assyria . . . Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephʿal. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1991. Mauser, Ulrich W. “God in Human Form.” Ex Auditu 16 (2000): 81–99. ———. “Image of God and Incarnation.” Interpretation 24 (1970): 336–56. McBride, Samuel Dean. The Deuteronomic Name Theology. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1969. McConville, J. G. “God’s ‘Name’ and God’s ‘Glory.’” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979): 149–63. McEvenue, Sean E. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Analecta Biblica 50. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971.

288

Bibliography

Meier, Samuel A. “Angel of Yahweh ‫מלאך יהוה‬.” Pp. 53–59 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 18. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. Lund: Gleerup, 1982. Meyers, Carol L. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Middlemas, Jill. “Exclusively Yahweh: Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ezekiel.” Pp. 309–24 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel, edited by John Day. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010. Milgrom, Jacob. “Alleged Demythologization and Secularization in Deuteronomy.” Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973): 156–61. ———. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. ———. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ———. Numbers ‫במדבר‬. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. ———. Studies in Levitical Terminology. Near Eastern Studies 14. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Miller, P. D., Jr., and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Mirguet, Françoise. La représentation du divin dans les récits du pentateuque: médiations syntaxiques et narratives. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 123. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Mitchell, Christopher W. The Meaning of brk “to Bless” in the Old Testament. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 95. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. Moore, Anne. Moving beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible Through Metaphor. Studies in Biblical Literature 99. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Moore, Stephen D. “Gigantic God: Yahweh’s Body.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70 (1996): 87–115. Moran, William L. “Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 77–87. ———. “Literary Connection between Lev 11:13–19 and Deut 14:12–18.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 271–77. Muffs, Yochanan. Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992. ———. The Personhood of God: Biblical Theology, Human Faith, and the Divine Image. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2005. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Nicholson, Ernest W. The Pentateuch in the 20th Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.

Bibliography

289

Nihan, Christoph. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Olyan, Saul M. “Ascription of Physical Disability as a Stigmatizing Strategy in Biblical Iconic Polemics.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9, article 15 (2009): 1–15. ———. “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath According to H, or the Sabbath According to P and H?” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 201–9. ———. “Is Isaiah 40–55 Really Monotheistic?” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 12 (2012): 190–201. Oppenheim, A. L. “Akkadian pul(u)ḫ(t)u and melammu.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 63 (March, 1943): 31–34. Orlinsky, Harry M. “Review of The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch, by Charles T. Fritsch.” The Crozer Quarterly 21 (1944): 156–60. Otto, Eckart. “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26 in der Pentateuchredaktion.” Pp. 65–80 in Altes Testament—Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift für Henning Graf Reventlow, edited by P. Mommer and W. Thiel. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1994. ———. “Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26.” Pp. 125– 96 in Levitikus als Buch, edited by H-J. Fabry and H-W. Jüngling. Bonner biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Otto, Rudolf. Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen. 1924. Reprint, Munich: Beck, 1987. Paran, Meir. ‫ מבנים‬,‫ שימושי לשון‬,‫ דגמים‬:‫[ דרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה‬Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures]. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Parpola, Simo. “Monotheism in Ancient Assyria.” Pp. 165–209 in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, edited by Barbara Nevling Porter. Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. Pitkänen, Pekka. Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple. Gorgias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2003. ———. “Temple Building and Exodus 25–40.” Pp. 255–80 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, edited by Richard S. Ellis, Mark J. Boda, and Jamie R. Novotny. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010. Pope, Marvin H. “Review of A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine.” Ugarit-Forschungen 22 (1990): 497–502. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “The Anxiety of Multiplicity: Concepts of Divinity as One and Many in Ancient Assyria.” Pp. 211–71 in One God Or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World, edited by Barbara Nevling Porter. Chebeague Island, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2000. ———. What Is a God?: Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2. Chebeague, ME: Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, 2009. Propp, William H. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

290

Bibliography

———. Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. ———. “The Skin of Moses’ Face­: Transfigured or Disfigured.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 375–86. Pury, Albert de. “Yahwist (“J”) Source.” Pp. 1012–20 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Rad, Gerhard von. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. ———. Holy War in Ancient Israel, Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated by Marva J. Dawn. Bibliography by Judith E. Sanderson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by David Stalker. Studies in Biblical Theology 9. London: SCM, 1956. ———. “The Tent and the Ark.” Pp. 103–24 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997): 43–65. ———. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Renehan, Robert. “On the Greek Origins of the Concepts Incorporeality and Immateriality.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980) 105–38. Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: Lesakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 318. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ———. “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy.” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 342–66. Roberts, J. J. M. “The Hand of Yahweh.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 244–52. Rofé, Alexander. ‫[ האמונה במלאכים במקרא‬The Belief in Angels in the Bible and in Early Israel]. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Makor, 1979. ———. Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Röllig, Wolfgang. “Bethel ‫ב)י(תאל‬.” Pp. 173–75 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Rogerson, John W. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Römer, Thomas. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und der deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 99. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990. Saggs, H. W. F. The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 12. London: Athlone, 1978. Sanders, Seth L. “Old Light on Moses’ Shining Face.” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002): 400–406. Sarna, Nahum M. Exodus ‫שמות‬. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

Bibliography

291

———. Genesis ‫בראשית‬. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 420. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Schaudig, Hanspeter. “‘Bel bows, Nabu Stoops’: A Prophecy of Isa xlvi 1–2 as a Reflection of Babylonian ‘Procession Omens.’” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008): 557–72. Schellenberg, Annette. “Humankind as the ‘Image of God’: On the Priestly Predication (Gen 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6) and Its Relationship to the Ancient Near Eastern Understanding of Images.” Theologische Zeitschrift 65 (2009): 97–115. Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story. Translated by J. D. Nogalski. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Schmidt, Brian B. “Moon ‫ ירח‬,‫ כסא‬,‫ לבנה‬,‫חדש‬.” Pp. 585–93 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Schoen, Edward L. “Anthropomorphic Concepts of God.” Religious Studies 26 (1990): 123–39. Schüle, Andreas. “Made in the ‘Image of God’: The Concepts of Divine Images in Gen 1–3.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117 (2005): 1–20. Schwartz, Baruch J. ‫ עיונים בחוקה הכוהנים שבתורה‬:‫[ תורת הקדושה‬The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code]. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999. ———. “Introduction: The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H.” Pp. 1–12 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. ———. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pp. 103–34 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by Menahem Haran and Michael V. Fox. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. ———. “‘Profane’ Slaughter and the Integrity of the Priestly Code.” Hebrew Union College Annual 67 (1996): 15–42. ———. “The Sabbath in the Torah Sources.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November, 2007. ———. “The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The SourceCritical Solution.” Pp. 29–48 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, edited by Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. ———. “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? Four Biblical Answers to One Question.” Bible Review (Washington, D.C.) 135 (1997): 20–30, 46. Scurlock, Jo Ann. “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through Comparison. Part 1.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 13–49.

292

Bibliography

———. “The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through Comparison. Part 2.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 241–64. Seidel, Moshe. “Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms.” Sinai 38 (1955–56):  149–72. Shectman, Sarah. Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis. Hebrew Bible Monographs 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Ska, Jean-Louis. The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ———. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Translated by Pascale Dominique. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976. Smith, Jonathan Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Smith, Mark S. “Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-Exilic Israelite Religion.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 424–27. ———. “Like Deities, Like Temples (Like People).” Pp. 3–27 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John Day. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. ———. Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010. Smith, Mark S., and Patrick D. Miller. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Dearborn, MI: Dove, 2002. Smith, Morton. “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 135–47. Smith, Warren. “The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad.” Numen 35 (1988): 161–78. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Taber­ nacle.” Biblical Interpretation 9 (2001): 41–63. ———. “Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism.” Pp. 85–108 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. “Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 601–24. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. Anchor Bible 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. Stackert, Jeffrey. “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case.” Pp. 369–86 in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz, . Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ———. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Bibliography

293

———. “The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 239–50. Steck, Odil H. Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1–2,4a. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 115. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Stern, David. “Imitatio Hominis: Anthropomorphism and the Character(s) of God in Rabbinic Literature.” Prooftexts 12 (1992): 151–74. Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. Rev ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Talon, Philippe. The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma eliš. State Archives of Assyria 4. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2005. Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy ‫דברים‬. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. ———. “‘He Begot a Son in His Likeness After His Image’ (Genesis 5:3).” Pp. 139–47 in Tehillah Le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, and Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ———. “The Presence of God in the Coherence of Exodus 20:22–26.” Pp. 195– 211 in Sefer Moshe: the Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Thomas, David W. “A Consideration of Some Unusual Way of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 109–24. Toorn, Karel van der. “God [I] ‫אלהים‬.” Pp. 352–65 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd rev. edition. Leiden: Brill / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “Yahweh ‫יהוה‬.” Pp. 910–19 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd edition. Leiden: Brill / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Toorn, Karel van der, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. edition. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress / Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001. Vanderhooft, David S. “The Israelite mispaha, the Priestly Writings, and Changing Valences in Israel’s Kinship Terminology.” Pp. 485–96 in Exploring the Logue Duree: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by David S. Schloen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. Vervenne, Marc. “Genesis 1,1–2,4: The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch.” Pp. 35–79 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, edited by André Wénin. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001.

294

Bibliography

Vogt, Peter T. Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Wade, Martha Lynn. Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wagner, Andreas. Gottes Körper: zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung der Menschengestaltigkeit Gottes. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010. Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. Word Biblical Commentary 1–2. Waco, TX: Word, 1987–94. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Weiss, Andrea L. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allen Menzies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Werblowsky, Raphael J. Z., Gershom Scholem, and Cecil Roth. “Anthropomorphism.” Pp. 188–92 in vol. 2 of Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 22 vols. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan, 2007. Wessner, Mark D. “Toward a Literary Understanding of Moses and the Lord ‘Face to Face’ (PANÎM ’EL-PANÎM) in Exodus 33:7–11.” Restoration Quarterly 44 (2002): 109–16. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. ———. Genesis 12–36: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ———. Genesis 37–50: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. ———. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. ———. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. ———. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Wildberger, Hans. “Das Abbild Gottes, Gen 1,26–30.” Theologische Zeitschrift 21 (1965): 481–501. Wilson, Ian. “‘Face to Face’ with God: Another Look.” Restoration Quarterly 51 (2009): 107–14. ———. “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy.” Pp. 212–49 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, edited by John Day. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.

Bibliography

295

———. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Winter, Irene. “‘Idols of the Kings’: Royal Images as the Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of Ritual Studies (1992): 13–42. Wittstruck, Thorne. “So-Called Anti-Anthropomorphisms in the Greek Text of Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38 (1976): 29–34. Woulde, Ellen J. van. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meets Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Wright, David P. “The Laws of Hammurabi and a Source for the Covenant Collection (Exodus 20:23–23:19).” Maarav 10 (2003): 11–87. ———. “The Study of Ritual in the Hebrew Bible.” Pp. 120–38 in Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship, edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn. Jewish Studies in the 21st Century. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Wyatt, N. The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. Bible World. London: Equinox, 2005. ———. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. Ugaritisch-Bibliche Literatur 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1999. Xenophanes. Fragments. Xenophanes of Colophon: A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J. H. Lesher. Phoenix. Supplementary vol. 30, pre-­Socratics 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. Yadin, Azzan. “‫ קול‬as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 601–26. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religions.” Bibliotheca Sacra 125 (1968): 29–44.

Index of Authors Aaron, D. H.  14, 37, 38, 39, 43, 54, 81, 134 Abusch, T.  47, 94, 126, 144 Achenbach, R.  23 Allen, S.  10 Alter, R.  125 Amit, Y.  42, 47 Anderson, G. A.  94 Arnold, B. T.  50, 53, 164 Averbeck, R.  16

Cotterell, P.  35 Cross, F. M.  8, 17, 26, 45, 46 Curtis, J. B.  120

Baden, J. S.  2, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 45, 65, 66, 70, 76, 77, 79, 86, 96, 118, 121, 122, 126, 129, 135, 137, 141, 155, 158, 159, 161, 170, 175, 191, 202, 222, 229, 233, 234, 235, 272, 274 Bar-On, S.  77 Barr, J.  9, 10, 14, 34, 56, 73, 123, 125, 169, 231 Barton, J.  35 Basson, A.  37 Batto, B. F.  47, 63, 64 Baumgartner, W.  280 Becking, B.  56 Berlin, A.  159 Black, M.  43 Blenkinsopp, J.  27, 89 Boer, P. A. H. de  133 Booth, W.  39, 40, 55 Boyer, P.  36 Brettler, M. Z.  34, 59, 69 Brodie, T. L.  166 Brueggemann, W.  38, 53

Eakins, J. K.  30, 34, 67 Eilberg-Schwartz, H.  72 Eslinger, L.  124

Caird, G. B.  40, 54 Carpenter, J. E.  82, 118, 121, 180 Carr, D. M.  23, 26 Cassuto, U.  53, 190, 191, 192, 195 Chavel, S.  104, 117, 245 Cherbonnier, E. L.  16, 35, 36 Clements, R. E.  16, 166 Cornelius, I.  30 Cotter, D. W.  195

Dick, M.  42 Di Vito, R. A.  32, 144 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.  36 Donner, H.  165 Douglas, M.  69, 185 Driver, S. R.  53, 131, 132, 186

Firmage, E.  45, 47 Fishbane, M.  8, 37, 38, 42, 45, 48, 50, 55, 62, 67, 89, 124, 140, 146, 166, 201, 205, 209, 241 Fowler, M. D.  190 Frankel, D.  142, 180 Fretheim, T. E.  131 Friedman, R. E.  4, 23, 52, 65, 66, 118, 121, 141, 170, 180, 226, 233 Fritsch, C. T.  1 Gane, R.  31 Garr, W. R.  48, 56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 Gass, E.  199 Geiger, A.  86, 116, 122 Geller, S. A.  16, 48, 54, 56, 60 George, M. K.  91 Gertz, J. C.  23 Gesenius, W.  123, 165 Gesundheit, S.  77, 108 Gibson, J. C. L.  55, 56 Gitin, S.  188 Gordon, C. H.  201 Grant, D.  136 Gray, G. B.  181, 206 Greenberg, M.  66 Gruber, M.  63, 64 Gunkel, H.  53, 111, 120, 162, 169

296

Index of Authors Guthrie, S. E.  35 Hallam, A. D.  20 Halpern, B.  60, 61 Hamilton, M. W.  70 Hamori, E.  9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 29, 34, 37, 38, 72, 73, 84, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 160, 171, 177, 221, 229, 231 Handy, L. K.  36, 217 Haran, M.  3, 27, 41, 42, 50, 59, 69, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 107, 177, 178, 179, 188, 196, 201, 202, 203 Harford-Battersby, G.  82, 118, 119, 180 Hartenstein, F.  87 Hayes, J. H.  37 Heidt, W. G.  112 Hempel, J.  19, 20, 65 Hendel, R.  14, 45, 51, 61, 93, 94, 153 Herring, S. L.  62, 64 Holladay, C. R.  37 Houtman, C.  79, 80, 84, 128, 129, 148, 163, 180 Hundley, M.  90, 99, 179, 180, 207 Hurowitz, V.  66 Hurvitz, A.  27, 41, 63, 154, 172 Hutzli, J.  57, 64 Insole, C.  34, 56 Irvin, D.  75, 114, 115 Jacobson, T.  54 Japhet, S.  189 Jónsson, G. A.  62 Joosten, J.  27 Joüon-Muraoka  58, 159, 161, 162, 165, 176, 234 Kasher, R.  63 Kaufmann, Y.  6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 41, 76, 91, 92, 104, 173 Kautzsch, E.  123, 165 Kawashima, R.  16, 17, 125 Keel, O.  11 Kensky, M.  70 Klawans, J.  69, 92, 93 Klingbeil, G. A.  224 Knafl, A.  213 Knight, D.  2, 3

297

Knohl, I.  3, 8, 17, 26, 27, 41, 45, 52, 54, 68, 77, 89, 95, 97, 98, 99, 137, 139, 140, 141, 150, 170, 179, 202, 204, 205, 242 Koehler, L.  169 Korpel, M. C. A.  7, 8, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 54, 55, 56, 60, 67, 216 Kugel, J. L.  111, 114 Kuitert, H. M.  18, 30 Kutsko, J. F.  16 Labuschagne, C. J.  36 Lambert, W. G.  94, 126 Levenson, J. D.  45 Levine, B.  31, 40, 84, 88, 92, 93, 96, 121, 137, 140, 148, 153, 174, 181, 182, 188, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 214, , 232, 241, 245 Levinson, B.  42, 107, 196, 213, 219 Levtow, N. B.  42 Lindquist, M.  247 Loewenstamm, S. L.  67 Lorberbaum, Y.  66 Machinist, P.  39 Mauser, U.  20, 36, 42, 43, 239 McEvenue, S. E.  5, 61 Meier, S. A.  75, 116, 117, 123 Mettinger, T. N. D.  99 Meyers, C. L.  177 Middlemas, J.  64, 90 Milgrom, J.  7, 8, 68, 85, 95, 96, 97, 179, 180, 181, 183, 202, 204, 205, 206 Miller, P. D., Jr.  1, 224 Mirguet, F.  111, 117, 194 Mitchell, C. W.  227 Moore, A.  59 Moore, S. D.  14 Moran, W. L.  155, 274 Morgenstern, J.  57 Muffs, Y.  9, 10, 17, 21, 50 Nelson, R. D.  213, 254 Nicholson, E. W.  23 Nihan, C.  8, 23, 26, 45, 89 O’Conner, M.  159 Olyan, S.  41, 55 Oppenheim, A. L.  90 Orlinsky, H. M.  1

Otto, E.  8, 274 Otto, R.  45, 54 Paran, M.  5, 41 Pardee, D.  217 Parpola, S.  16, 51 Pitkänen, P.  94 Pope, M. H.  55 Porter, B. N.  51, 275 Procksch, O.  2 Propp, W. H. C.  70, 87, 109, 118, 128, 129, 137, 149, 174, 179, 180, 223, 224, 232, 238 Pury, A. de  12 Rad, G. von  2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 45, 47, 53, 57, 114, 131, 164, 184, 185, 187, 188, 207, 247 Rendtorff, R.  23, 25 Renehan, R.  16 Richter, S.  7, 20, 99, 100, 207, 212, 213, 247, 261, 264 Roberts, J. J. M.  224 Rofé, A.  16, 64, 185 Röllig, W.  165 Römer, T.  23 Roth, C.  19 Saggs, H. W. F.  20 Sanders, S.  81 Sarna, N.  53, 60, 61 Savran, G. W.  165 Schaudig, H.  41 Schellenberg, A.  63, 66 Schmid, K.  23 Schmidt, B. B.  61 Schoen, E.  36 Scholem, G.  19 Schüle, A.  63 Schwally, F.  57 Schwartz, B. J.  23, 27, 32, 49, 52, 76, 77, 78, 82, 95, 96, 150, 197, 208, 213, 230 Scurlock, J.  94 Seidel, M.  107 Shearman, S. L.  120 Shectman, S.  72 Ska, J.-L.  2, 23, 52, 80 Skinner, J.  53, 162, 164, 166, 190 Smith, J. Z.  189

Smith, M. S.  1, 8, 14, 39, 45, 47, 48, 61, 70, 80, 89 Smith, W.  113, 265 Sommer, B.  10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 29, 34, 52, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 99, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 118, 119, 124, 125, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 173, 179, 181, 182, 185, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 207, 272 Speiser, E. A.  53, 63, 65, 114, 116, 119, 129, 139, 146, 164, 192, 239 Stackert, J.  23, 68, 70, 128, 150, 176, 205, 274 Stade, B.  57 Steck, O. H.  57 Stern, D.  35, 56, 67, 70 Swinburne, R.  30 Talon, P.  51 Thomas, D. W.  228 Tigay, J. H.  65, 87, 132, 185, 186, 198, 210, 213 Toorn, K. van der  13, 34, 225 Turner, M.  35 Vanderhooft, D. S.  27 Vervenne, M.  57 Wagner, A.  11, 12, 20, 31, 35, 36, 43, 63, 72 Waltke, B. K.  159 Weavers, J. W.  162 Weinfeld, M.  7, 8, 13, 48, 60, 63, 107, 131, 154, 179, 250, 274 Weiss, A. L.  37, 43, 264 Wellhausen, J.  2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 21, 26, 41, 48, 50, 52, 56, 92, 168, 275 Wenham, G. J.  53, 61, 114, 145, 160, 191 Werblowsky, R. J. Z.  19, 34, 35 Wessner, M.  81 Westermann, C.  53, 57, 58, 59, 63, 113, 120, 122, 162, 192, 234 Wildberger, H.  66 Wilson, I.  31, 81, 100, 101, 104, 131, 202, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213 Winter, I.  64 Wittstruck, T.  1

298

Index of Authors Wolde, E. van  56 Wright, D. P.  86, 91, 201 Wyatt, N.  15

Xenophanes  49 Yadin, A.  139 Yamauchi, E. M.  35

299

Index of Scripture Genesis 1  45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 59, 61, 62, 65, 89, 126, 241, 275 1–3  276 1–11  6, 46, 53, 144, 220 1:1  56, 57 1:1–2:3  50, 57 1:1–2:4  1, 32, 37, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 244, 276 1:2  48 1:4  57, 58, 218 1:7  56, 57, 218 1:9–10  48 1:10  58 1:11–12  57 1:12  51, 58 1:14–18  60 1:14–19  61 1:16  56 1:17  57, 60, 61, 68, 239, 241 1:18  58 1:20  57 1:20–21  62 1:20–22  48 1:20–25  69 1:21  56, 58 1:22  57, 61, 62, 68, 70, 218, 240, 241 1:25  58 1:25–26  56 1:26  44, 56, 57, 63, 64, 69, 239 1:26–27  46, 52, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 126, 267 1:26–28  47 1:27  56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66

Genesis (cont.) 1:28  57, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 153, 239, 240, 242 1:28–30  62 1:29  153 1:31  56 2–3  52 2–11  32 2:1–3  70 2:1–4:16  194 2:2  56 2:3  57, 58, 70 2:3–4  56 2:4  25, 48, 57, 218 2:4–3:24  2, 32, 44, 46, 48, 276 2:4–5  51 2:18  144 2:19  145 3  220 3:4–5  145 3:6–7  145 3:8  4, 186, 190, 132 3:8–13  47 3:9  145 3:10–13  145 3:13  228 3:14–19  226 3:20  62 3:21  228 3:22  63 3:22–23  81 3:22–24  228 4:1  53, 194 4:1–6  190 4:1–16  190 4:3–4  190 4:5–6  190 4:9–10  145 4:10–11  227 4:15  218, 227 4:16  190 4:25  53, 226 4:26  190, 191, 218

300

Genesis (cont.) 5  62, 65 5:1  57, 63 5:1–2  47, 67 5:1–3  65 5:1–5  48 5:1–32  65 5:3  65, 66 6:1–3  66 6:5  218 6:5–7  144 6:6  148 6:7  53, 57, 218 6:8  135 6:9  58 6:11  129, 153, 202, 240 6:11–12  153 6:11–13  239 6:12  128 6:13  127, 241 6:13–22  152 6:18  218 6:18–20  62 7:1  191, 194, 223 7:9  244 7:11  241 7:16  191, 219, 244 8:1  68, 151, 241 8:2  241 8:9  81 8:15  241 8:20  191 8:21  47, 228 8:21–22  144 9  150, 151 9:1  45, 61, 128, 240, 241 9:1–6  47 9:1–7  62, 153 9:3  153, 218 9:4–6  67 9:6  57, 63, 66, 67 9:8  61, 128, 241 9:11–12  153

Index of Scripture Genesis (cont.) 9:12  218, 241 9:12–17  149 9:13  60, 128, 241 9:15  68 9:16  151 9:17  241 9:22  132 9:25–27  228 11:5  79, 145, 194 11:7  63, 79 11:31–32  195 12–49  6 12–50  221 12:1  191, 194, 223 12:1–3  221 12:6  162 12:6–7  161, 192 12:7  42, 159, 168, 171, 195 12:8  161, 190, 192, 193, 195 12:18  228 13:3–4  192 13:4  193 13:14  192 13:14–17  192, 193 13:15  218 13:17  186 13:18  114, 192, 194 14:19  70 15  234 15:1  120, 230 15:5  230, 234 15:6  147 15:8  234 15:9  234 15:9–10  234 15:13–15  230 15:14  231 15:17  234 15:18  218, 234 16  75, 117 16:7  116, 117 16:7–14  116, 121 16:9–11  117 16:10  116 16:13  116, 117, 159, 194 17  125, 127 17:1  68, 125, 168, 169 17:1–22  89, 125

Genesis (cont.) 17:4  152 17:6  240 17:7–8  242 17:15–16  240 17:16  241 17:17  111, 242 17:17–18  127 17:18  243 17:20  218, 240, 241, 243 17:22  126, 168, 169 18  38, 78, 109, 110, 117, 118, 167, 194, 221, 266 18–19  63, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 221 18:1  5, 113, 115, 118, 161, 168, 194 18:1–2  159 18:1–15  10, 73, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 120, 160, 171, 194, 221 18:1–19:28  110, 117 18:1–33  221 18:2  113, 115, 124, 160, 221 18:3  114, 135 18:4–5  114 18:5  114 18:8  114, 221 18:12–15  111 18:13  113, 115 18:13–14  111, 113 18:16  111, 112 18:16–19:1  115 18:16–33  112 18:17–21  145 18:20–22  116 18:21  79, 114, 116, 145, 146 18:22  111, 112, 114 18:23  112, 136 18:24  161 18:25  112, 136, 218 18:27  112 18:30  136 18:32  136 18:33  115, 221 19  112, 114, 115

301 Genesis (cont.) 19:1  112, 114, 116, 124, 218 19:1–18  112 19:1–28  110, 111, 116 19:4  159 19:11  110, 111 19:13  114, 115, 116 19:14  115, 116, 135 19:19  135 19:20–25  77 19:21–22  115 19:22  115 19:24  115, 116 19:29  151, 218 19:32–35  159 20:3  4, 120, 230, 231 20:6  146, 201 20:17  201 20:17–18  231 21  122, 123 21–22  75 21:1–2  240, 242 21:4  244 21:11  135 21:12  147, 234, 235 21:13  218 21:14–21  121 21:17  117, 120, 121, 122, 147, 230, 234 21:18  121 21:19  121 21:20  121 21:33  193, 194, 195 22  123 22:1  120, 122, 123 22:1–14  167 22:2  235 22:3  121, 201 22:9  201 22:9–10  147 22:11  120, 121, 122, 123, 230, 234 22:11–14  121 22:12  122, 147 22:14  122, 167 22:15–18  122 23  127, 244 23:4  243 23:7–8  127 23:9  243 24  226

302 Genesis (cont.) 24:1  218 24:13  160 24:30  160 25:1–4  233 25:5  233 25:5–6  233 25:8  58 25:11  241 26:2  168, 193, 194 26:10  228 26:23  195 26:23–25  193 26:24  109, 117, 168, 221 26:25  193 26:27  161 27:1–45  113, 227 27:10  40 27:35  227 27:39–40  227 27:45  136 27:46–28:1  243 28  75, 119, 120, 163 28:1–4  242 28:3  242 28:4  240 28:6  243 28:8  135 28:10  159, 195 28:10–22  5, 126, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 193, 195, 270 28:11  159 28:11–12  159 28:11–22  114 28:12  165, 166, 194 28:13  114, 159, 160, 221 28:13–15  227 28:13–16  159 28:14–15  161 28:16  159, 160, 162, 171 28:16–19  162, 164 28:16–20  159 28:17  163, 164, 166 28:18  91 28:20–21  159, 161 28:22  159, 165 29–30  226 29:1  195 29:1–30  226

Index of Scripture Genesis (cont.) 29:25  228 30:1–24  221 30:2  136 30:27  135 31:4–16  122 31:11  123 31:11–13  120, 230 31:13  162, 163, 164, 165, 167 31:24  120, 147, 230 31:29  147 31:42  123 31:43–54  234 31:44  234 31:44–54  200 31:46  234 31:49  200 31:54  234 32  38, 110 32–33  113 32:1–2  120 32:1–3  118 32:1–22  112, 113 32:4–22  118 32:6  135 32:23  10 32:23–24  118 32:23–33  73, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, 124, 167, 171, 200 32:25  120 32:25–33  118, 119 32:27  119 32:29  120, 124 32:30  112 32:31  119, 120, 177, 259 33:1–17  118 33:1–20  112, 113 33:8  135 33:10  109, 117 33:20  200 35  125, 158, 163 35:1  120, 121, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 200, 230, 235 35:1–8  159, 163 35:1–15  158 35:3  200 35:7  42, 163, 166, 167, 197, 200, 201 35:9  5, 159, 168, 241

Genesis (cont.) 35:9–10  68, 126 35:9–13  5, 89, 125, 159, 241 35:11  240 35:13  126, 168, 170, 171 35:14  159, 162, 164 35:15  159, 168 35:20  200 37:2  226 38:10  135 39:2–6  195, 221 39:3  218 39:4  135 39:19  136 39:21  135 39:21–23  221 41:25  201 41:37  135 41:40  139 42:9  132 42:12  132 42:28  228 44:18  136 45:1–9  195 45:5  136 45:21  139 46:1–4  234 46:2  120, 122, 167, 230 46:3  147 46:18  226 46:25  226 46:29  169 47:5–6  243 47:10  242 47:11  242, 243, 244 47:27  244 47:29  135 47:30  159 48:3  163, 168 48:3–4  68, 242 48:5  243 48:9  218 48:20  242 48:22  233 49:28  242 50:4  135 50:24  231 Exodus 1–5  118

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 1:20  218 2:23–25  129, 152 2:24  68, 129, 130 2:25  152 3  79, 83, 122 3:1  79, 84 3:2  78, 79 3:2–4  79 3:2–8  195 3:3  79 3:4  79, 84, 122 3:5  79 3:6  79, 84 3:7–8  146 3:8  79, 218 3:9  218 3:9–10  147, 231 3:9–15  84 3:10  218 3:11–15  197, 231 3:12  232 3:13–15  120, 201 3:20  221 3:21  232 4:4  81 4:14  136 4:17  231 4:20–21  231 4:24  146 4:24–26  120, 159 4:27  175 5:1  74 5:1–6:1  223 5:6–8  225 5:10  225 5:15  225 5:16  225 5:21  135 5:22  79 6  52 6–11  118 6:1  221 6:2  5, 125, 127 6:2–3  54, 68, 163 6:2–6  152 6:3  168, 218 6:3–4  52 6:6  218 6:6–8  238 6:7  218 6:8  127 6:12  31, 202

Exodus (cont.) 6:12–30  128, 238, 240 6:13–27  128, 238 6:30  128, 202, 238 7:1  127, 240 7:1–5  237, 239 7:4  60, 218 7:4–5  68 7:5  127 7:6  244 7:8  240 7:8–12  59 7:10  31, 244 7:10–12  239 7:14  223 7:14–25  220 7:15  222 7:16  74, 218 7:17  222 7:19  223 7:20  174, 222, 244 7:21  222 7:22  59, 239 7:24  222 7:25  222 7:26  74, 218, 240 7:26–29  221 8:1  223 8:1–3  239 8:2  59 8:4  221 8:4–10  221 8:8  79 8:12  240 8:12–15  239 8:14–15  59 8:15  68, 127 8:16  223 8:18  223 8:20  222 8:27  221 9:1  223 9:3  223 9:6  222 9:8  240 9:8–12  239 9:10  239 9:13  223 9:13–15  81 9:14  81 9:15  81 9:18  223

303 Exodus (cont.) 9:20  140 9:22  240 9:22–23  239 9:23  140 9:23–24  223 10:1  223 10:4  223 10:12  240 10:12–13  239 10:13  140, 223, 224, 262 10:19  223, 224, 262 10:21  240 10:21–23  239 11:1  218, 232 11:3  60, 232 11:4  221 11:8  136 11:9  240 12:1  240 12:12–13  129, 239 12:13  221 12:23  221 12:28  244 12:29  221 12:35–36  232 12:43  240 12:50  244 13  218 13:1  218 13:17–19  232 13:21  173, 174, 175 13:21–22  78, 173, 195 13:22  174, 175 14  221 14:2  40 14:5  228 14:19  78, 174 14:19–20  223 14:21  222 14:24  78, 174, 223 14:25  223, 224 14:27  224 14:31  221, 224 14:42–45  174 15:1–18  224 15:8–12  224 16  70, 128, 178, 182, 237 16:3  60 16:8–9  236

304 Exodus (cont.) 16:9  202 16:9–10  180 16:10  137, 180, 181 16:33  202 16:33–34  180 16:34  244 17:1  140, 174 17:5  175 17:6  78, 79, 172, 174, 175 17:7  175, 182 17:14  86 18:1  231 18:12  83 19  83, 118, 122 19–24  83 19–40  73 19:1–2  77, 89 19:2  83 19:2–9  77 19:3  82, 83, 84 19:4  232 19:9  5, 83, 84, 85 19:9–11  77 19:9–16  77, 78 19:11  79, 101 19:14  101, 195 19:16–17  77, 84, 101, 198 19:18  77, 78, 79, 80, 103 19:19  77, 84, 85 19:20  79, 101 19:20–21  82 19:20–24  78 19:20–25  78 19:21–24  176 19:22  80 19:22–24  195 20:1–23:33  77 20:2  231 20:4–6  38 20:5–6  148 20:11  70 20:18  83 20:19  83 20:21  83, 84, 91, 201 20:22  83, 122 20:22–26  198 20:23–23:19  86 20:23–26  196 20:24  42, 197, 218

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 20:24–25  199 21:6  201 22:7  201 22:8  201 22:22–23  147 22:23  136 22:26  159 23  117 23:7  58 23:14  108 23:14–17  106, 107, 211 23:14–18  106 23:14–19  86, 201 23:15  85, 86, 87, 107, 108 23:15–17  88, 107 23:17  85, 86, 87, 107, 108 23:20  177, 218 23:20–23  232 23:21  177 23:24  198 23:28  218 24  82, 118 24:1  80 24:1–2  77, 78, 80, 195 24:2  80, 261 24:3  108 24:3–8  77, 234 24:4  198, 199, 200 24:5  198 24:6–8  198 24:9–11  78, 80, 81, 195 24:10  80 24:10–11  73, 87, 261 24:11  81, 109 24:12  83, 84, 198, 229 24:12–15  77 24:15–17  89 24:15–18  5, 77, 178 24:16  89, 179 24:17  181 24:18  77 25–30  51, 69, 77, 149 25–40  94 25:1–2  179 25:1–9  77, 179 25:1–33:18  77 25:8  89, 179

Exodus (cont.) 25:9  89, 179 25:16  89 25:21  89 25:22  140 25:29  91 25:40  89 26:30  89 27:21  202 28:12  149, 202 28:29–30  149, 202 28:35  202, 236 28:38  150, 202 29:1  114 29:11  202 29:23–26  202 29:42  202 29:42–46  89 29:43  242 29:43–44  179 30:8  202 30:9  91 30:16  150, 202 30:26  164 30:36  89 31:12–17  45, 47, 70, 151 31:15–17  70 31:17  70 31:18  77, 228, 230 32:1  230, 233 32:1–25  77, 177 32:4  231 32:5  198 32:7  230 32:10  136 32:10–11  136 32:11–12  231 32:12  136 32:12–14  148 32:14  55, 148, 149 32:15–16  229 32:16  85, 230 32:19  136 32:22  136 32:25  137 32:26–29  77 32:30  137 32:30–35  77 32:32  85 32:34  177 33  109 33–34  118

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 33:1–3  174, 175 33:1–6  77, 176, 177 33:1–11  77 33:2  177 33:4  177 33:5  177 33:6  77 33:7–11  81, 141, 176, 177 33:9  135, 177 33:11  81, 84, 85, 104, 119, 177, 230, 231 33:12–13  135 33:12–23  77, 78 33:17  135 33:18–23  73, 78, 81, 82, 117, 172 33:19  146 33:20  82, 85, 118 33:21–23  113 33:22  81 34:1  77, 83, 84, 86, 229 34:2  82 34:2–4  77, 78 34:4  77 34:4–5  77, 176 34:5  82, 84, 101, 195 34:5–6  78, 82 34:5–10  77 34:9  135, 175 34:10  57, 218 34:10–16  195 34:11–26  77 34:23  86 34:28  77, 86, 229 34:29–35  31 34:29–40:38  77 34:32  89 34:34  202 34:56  82 35–39  140 35–40  77, 140, 242 37:16  91 38:21  140 38:31  244 39–40  89 39:1  244 39:5  244 39:7  244 39:21  244 39:26  244

Exodus (cont.) 39:29  244 39:43  244 40  77, 95, 140, 170, 180 40:9–11  164 40:19  244 40:21  244 40:23  202, 244 40:25  202, 244 40:27  244 40:29  244 40:32  244 40:34–38  68, 69, 89, 170, 179 40:36–37  180 40:36–38  237 Leviticus 1–16  51, 68, 96, 204 1:1  68, 77, 89 1:2–3  68 1:2–16:28  68 1:3  202, 203, 240 1:5  202, 203, 240 1:9  98 1:11  202, 203, 240 1:13  98 1:17  98 2:2  98 2:9  98 2:11  98 2:16  98 3:1  202, 203, 240 3:1–16  97 3:3  98 3:5  98 3:7  202, 240 3:7–8  203 3:9  98 3:11  96, 98 3:12  202, 240 3:12–13  203 3:14  98 3:16  96, 98 4:4  69, 202, 203, 240 4:4–10  203 4:6  203 4:6–7  202, 240 4:7  69, 203 4:14–15  203 4:15  202, 240 4:17  203

305 Leviticus (cont.) 4:17–18  202, 240 4:18  69, 203 4:24  202, 203, 240 5:20–26  139 5:26  202, 205, 240 6:7  202, 203, 240 6:18  202, 203, 240 6:22  241 7:5  98 7:11–21  97 7:13  96 7:14  96 7:17  97 7:22–27  204 7:25  98 7:30  202, 204 7:35  96 8:2–3  203 8:4  244 8:9  244 8:10–11  164 8:13  244 8:17  244 8:21  98, 244 8:22–28  97 8:22–32  97 8:26  96, 203 8:26–27  202, 240 8:28  97, 98 8:29  202, 240, 244 8:31  96, 97 8:31–32  98 8:32  96, 97 8:33–35  97 8:35  142 9:1–21  244 9:2  202, 203, 240 9:4–5  202, 203, 240 9:7  244 9:10  244 9:21  202, 240 9:22–23  241, 242 9:23  137, 168, 180, 181 9:24  181, 182 10:1  60 10:1–2  181, 182, 202, 203, 240 10:2  181, 182 10:15  202, 240, 244 10:17  202, 240 10:19  202, 240

306 Leviticus (cont.) 11  274 11:46  69 11:46–47  69 12:6–7  203 12:7  202, 240 12:16  240 13  169 13:7  169 13:19  169 14:1–9  203 14:10–32  203, 240 14:11  69 14:11–12  202, 203, 240 14:13  203 14:16  202, 203 14:18  202, 203, 240 14:23  69, 203 14:23–24  202, 240 14:27  202, 203, 240 14:29  202, 203, 240 14:31  202, 203, 240 15:14  69, 203 15:14_15  240 15:14–15  202 15:30  202, 240 16  89 16:1  202, 240 16:1–28  204, 205 16:6  205 16:7  69, 202, 203, 240 16:9–10  63 16:10  202, 203, 240 16:10–11  205 16:13  202, 203, 240 16:16–17  205 16:18  202, 203, 240 16:29  206 16:29–31  204, 205, 206 16:29–34  204 16:30  202, 205, 206, 207, 272 16:31  206 16:32–33  205 16:32–34  205 16:34  244 17  275 17–26  95, 274 17–27  68 17:10–16  204

Index of Scripture Leviticus (cont.) 17:11  218 18:3  218 18:24  218 19:12  218 19:21–22  204 19:22  202, 205 20:6  204 20:26  218 21  98 21–22  98 21:6  97, 98 21:7  98 21:8  97, 98 21:17  98 21:21–22  97, 98 22:7  97, 98 22:10  98 22:11  98 22:13  98 22:25  97, 98 22:27  98 23:8  98 23:11  202, 204 23:13  98 23:18  98 23:20  202, 204 23:25  98 23:26–32  206 23:27  98, 206 23:28  202, 206 23:36–37  98 23:40  202, 205 24:1–9  204 24:3–4  202, 204 24:6  202 24:7  98 24:8  202, 204 24:9  96 24:10–23  244 24:12  140 24:23  244 25:21  218 26:6  218 26:9  218 26:11–13  183 26:12  260 26:32–33  218, 244 26:42  152 26:44–45  246 26:45  152

Numbers 1–10  139, 141 1:1  139 1:19  244 1:53  142 2:33  244 3:4  202 3:7–8  142 3:16  139, 244 3:28  142 3:32  142 3:36  142 3:38  142 3:39  139 3:42  244 3:51  139, 244 4:27  140 4:31–32  142 4:37  139, 140, 238 4:41  139 4:45  139, 238 4:49  139, 238 5–6  139 5:1–4  183 5:3  183 5:5–10  139 5:16  202 5:18  202 5:25  202 5:30  202 6:16  202 6:20  202 6:22–26  70 6:22–27  241 6:24–26  241 7:1  164 7:3  202 7:89  139, 244, 245 8:3  244 8:10–11  202 8:21  202 8:22  244 8:26  142 9:8  120, 244 9:15–23  141, 180, 235 9:16  180 9:18  140 9:23  142, 238 10:9  202, 207 10:9–10  151 10:10  207 10:10–11  237

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 10:11  169 10:11–12  180, 182 10:13  238 11:1  136 11:10  135, 136 11:11  135 11:11–12  235 11:14–17  235 11:16  234, 235 11:16–17  230 11:20  175 11:24–30  230 11:25  178, 234, 235 11:26  230 11:33  136 12:1–5  234 12:4  234 12:4–5  178 12:5–8  230 12:6–8  84, 124, 267 12:8  85, 87, 119, 231 12:9  136 12:9–10  230 12:13–14  149 13–14  137 13:3  139 14  153 14:2–10  129, 152, 246 14:3  58, 238 14:6–9  244 14:7  58, 59 14:8  58, 238 14:10  137, 180, 181 14:13–20  146 14:14  174, 175 14:18  146 14:26–28  152 14:26–35  152 14:26–38  246 14:27  236 14:27–28  129 14:29  153 14:36  153 14:37  202 14:40–45  131, 223, 249 14:41  139 14:42  131, 223 14:44  131, 223 15:15  202, 205 15:24–25  96

Numbers (cont.) 15:25  202 15:28  202 15:36  244 15:37–41  151 15:39  151 16  170 16–17  150 16:3  150 16:7  60, 150, 202 16:15  138 16:16–17  202 16:19  137, 168, 180, 181 16:21  153 16:22  137, 138 16:24  170 16:26  170 16:27  170 16:29–30  232 16:32  170 16:35  137, 181, 182 17  151 17:1–5  150 17:3  202 17:5  202 17:7  137, 168, 180, 181 17:10  181 17:10–11  153 17:11  137, 138 17:22  202 17:26  244 18:4–5  142 18:8  142 18:11–12  244 18:19  202, 205, 206 20:3  202 20:4–5  238 20:6  137, 168, 180, 181 20:12  137, 238 20:16  147, 232 20:24  139 20:27  244 21:3  236 21:6  232 21:21–35  208 21:34  235 22  136 22–24  121, 136, 198 22:18  139 22:21–35  121

307 Numbers (cont.) 22:22  121, 136 22:27  136 22:28  121 22:31  121, 167, 168 22:41  199 23:1–4  199 23:3–4  199 23:11–12  148 23:11–17  199 23:13–14  199 23:15–16  199 23:19  55, 148 23:25–26  148 23:27  199 23:27–24:2  199 23:27–28  199 24:3–4  267 24:10  136, 148 24:13  139 24:15–16  198, 267 25:11  153 26:4  244 26:56  140 26:61  202 27:2  245 27:5  202, 245 27:11  244 27:14  139 27:15–21  237 27:20–21  238 27:21  138, 141, 202 27:22  244 28:2  98 28:9–10  206 30:3  140 31:3  60 31:7  244 31:14  138 31:30  142 31:31  244 31:41  244 31:47  244 31:49  142 31:50  202 31:54  202 32  135, 137, 208, 233, 235 32:5  135 32:10  137 32:13  135 32:20  218 32:20–21  233

308 Numbers (cont.) 32:22  202 32:24  140 32:27  233 32:32  233 32:33  208, 233, 235 33:1–2  238 33:2  139 33:38  139 33:52  66 35:33–34  184 36:5  140 36:10  244 Deuteronomy 1–3  100, 250 1:1–5  101 1:4  250 1:8  133, 208, 250, 252, 255, 256 1:11  218 1:15  252, 253, 255 1:19–20  209 1:19–21  143 1:19–46  143 1:20  218, 252 1:21  208, 252, 255, 256 1:22  208 1:23  136 1:25  252, 253 1:26  142 1:27  143, 252, 254 1:27–28  132 1:28  143 1:29–33  246 1:30  130, 143, 186, 208 1:30–33  186, 187 1:31  143 1:32–33  130 1:33  103, 130, 132, 186, 208, 209, 247, 248, 249 1:34  132 1:34–46  247 1:35  133, 250 1:35–36  252 1:37  138, 250 1:38  208 1:39  252 1:42  131, 208 1:42–43  142

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 1:42–45  249 1:44  130 1:45  130, 132, 133, 155, 208, 212 2:1–2  247, 250 2:2  250 2:5  252 2:9  172, 250, 252 2:12  252 2:17  172, 250 2:19  252 2:21  218 2:24  252, 253, 254, 256 2:25  218, 252, 255, 256 2:29  252 2:30  252, 254, 256 2:31  172, 208, 209, 250, 255 2:31–35  209 2:33  208, 252, 256 2:36  208, 252, 256 3:1–10  253 3:2  172, 250, 253 3:2–3  252, 254, 256 3:12  253 3:13  253 3:15–16  253 3:18  208, 252 3:20  252 3:21  248 3:23–28  155, 172, 250 3:24  184 3:26  133 3:28  208 4–5  100, 101 4:1  252 4:1–5:5  77 4:3  248 4:5  187, 249 4:8  208, 209 4:9  248 4:10  100, 184, 208, 212 4:11  101, 103, 187, 261 4:11–12  101 4:12  4, 103, 142, 143, 212 4:13  105

Deuteronomy (cont.) 4:15  101 4:15–16  99 4:15–20  38 4:20  218 4:21  138, 252 4:23  218 4:24  103 4:24–28  148 4:25  136 4:27  250 4:28  133 4:31  133, 155, 250 4:32–33  208 4:33  102 4:36  100, 102, 103, 105, 184 4:37  156 4:38  252 4:39  15, 184 4:40  218, 252 4:44  208, 209 5:4  102, 104, 106 5:5  104, 105, 143 5:16  252 5:22  105, 187, 252 5:22–26  102 5:24  83, 104, 105 5:25  105 5:28  106, 133 5:31  252 6:8–9  210 6:10  133, 250, 252 6:14–15  138 6:15  148 6:18  133, 136, 250 6:20–23  249 6:22  249, 252 6:23  133, 252 6:25  208 7:2  208, 252, 256 7:4  138 7:6–8  156 7:8  133, 155, 250 7:9–10  154 7:12  134 7:12–13  133 7:13  252 7:15  252 7:16  252, 256 7:18–19  250 7:18–21  251 7:20  218

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 7:23  208, 252, 256 7:24  252, 254, 256 8:1  133 8:1–4  245 8:2  130, 186, 247, 251 8:3  133, 142 8:10  252 8:15  130, 186, 251 8:18  133, 252 9–10  100 9:1  106 9:1–10:22  77 9:2  208 9:2–3  208 9:3  103, 130, 186, 208, 248 9:5  133 9:6  252 9:8  138 9:10  100, 102, 105, 106 9:10–11  252 9:15  102, 105 9:18  136, 208, 212 9:19  138, 155 9:20  138 9:23  142, 252 9:23–29  172 9:25  208, 212 9:25–29  155 9:28  156 10:1–3  131 10:1–5  105 10:2  105 10:4  100, 102, 105, 252 10:5  131 10:8  131, 208, 212 10:10  105, 155 10:11  133, 208, 252 10:14  184, 218 10:15  156 10:17–18  218 10:18  156, 252 10:21  248 11:2–7  248 11:6  187, 249 11:9  133, 252 11:12  106 11:14–15  252 11:17  138, 213, 252

Deuteronomy (cont.) 11:18–20  210 11:21  133, 252 11:25  252, 256 11:26  208, 209, 210, 255 11:31  252 11:32  208, 209, 210 12  4, 42, 135 12–26  100, 108, 209 12:1  252 12:5  212 12:7  208 12:8  136 12:9  252 12:11  136, 212, 218 12:12  210, 211 12:13  42 12:15  252 12:18  208, 210 12:21  212, 252 12:26  212 12:28  136 12:31  143, 155 13:1  42 13:2  249 13:12  249 13:13  252 13:15  249 13:18  155, 252 13:19  136 14  274 14:1  67 14:2  156 14:21  251 14:23  208, 212 14:24  212 14:26  208 15:4  252 15:7  252 15:9  136 15:9–10  251 15:14  251 15:15  218 15:17  251 15:18  136 15:20  208, 212 16  117 16:1–8  212 16:2  212 16:5  252 16:6  212

309 Deuteronomy (cont.) 16:11  208, 210, 212, 249 16:16  107, 108, 185, 211, 212 16:16–17  108 16:20  252 16:22  143 17:2  136, 252 17:6  142 17:8–10  212 17:10–11  142 17:12  131 17:14  252 17:20  187 18:1  96 18:2  187 18:5  156 18:6  212 18:7  131, 208 18:9  252 18:10  252 18:12  155 18:14  252 18:16  102 18:18  142, 252 19:1–2  252 19:6  138 19:8  252 19:10  187 19:12  252 19:14  252 19:15  142 19:17  208, 211, 212 20:1  248, 250 20:1–4  248 20:4  132, 186 20:13  254 20:16  252 21:1  252 21:5  142, 261 21:8  187 21:9  136 21:10  254 21:23  252 22:5  155 22:6  208 22:17  208 22:19  251 22:29  251 23:6  133, 155, 156 23:11–12  187 23:13–15  185, 187

310 Deuteronomy (cont.) 23:15  132, 183, 185, 186, 208, 252, 256, 260 23:15–17  187 23:21  245 23:24  133, 142 23:25  251 24:1  132, 136, 254 24:3  254 24:4  208, 252 24:13  208 24:15  251 25:2  208 25:9  208 25:15  252 25:16  155 25:19  252 26:1–3  252 26:1–5  211 26:1–15  213 26:2  212 26:4  208, 213 26:5  208, 210 26:5–10  213 26:5–11  210 26:7  218 26:8–9  250 26:9  212, 252 26:10  208, 210, 213 26:10–11  252 26:13  184, 208 26:13–14  210, 214 26:13–15  213 26:15  184, 213 26:19  218, 252, 253, 255 27–28  210 27:1–8  209, 261 27:2–3  252 27:3  209 27:7  208, 212, 261 27:8  209 28  155, 251 28:1  252, 253, 255 28:7  208, 252, 253 28:8  252 28:11  252 28:12  213, 252 28:13  252, 253, 254 28:24  252 28:25  208, 209, 252, 253

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 28:36  132, 251 28:36–37  250 28:48  252 28:52  252 28:53  252 28:63  156 28:65  252 28:68  251 29–30  208 29:1–8  245 29:2–3  248 29:3  252 29:7  253 29:9  208, 212 29:10  187 29:14  208, 212 29:15  187 29:19  138 29:22  138 29:23  138 29:26  138 30:1  208, 209, 210 30:7  252 30:9  156 30:11–14  210 30:15  208, 209, 210 30:19  208, 209, 210 30:20  252 31  117 31:1  208 31:1–8  208, 233 31:3  130 31:6  130 31:8  130, 131 31:9  106, 131, 252, 255 31:10–12  211 31:11  108, 212 31:14–23  208 31:15  168, 178 31:17  138 31:20  133 31:25–26  131 31:29  136 32:6  218 32:22  138 34:4  149 34:5  139 34:10  84, 85, 104, 119, 177, 231 34:10–12  231

Joshua 4:5  200 4:6  200 4:8  200 4:20  200 4:21  200 5  110 13:14  96 18  89 24:24  148 Judges 4:22  159 6:22  124, 177 6:22–23  76 13  110, 111 13:10  169 13:16  124 13:22  76 1 Samuel 1:20  70 1:22  86, 87 2:28  96 3:4  122 3:6  122 3:8  122 15:1  164 15:12  185 15:17  164 2 Samuel 3:13  88, 107 6:12–22  216 7:6–7  186 12:4  114 14:28  87, 88 14:32  87 14:33  88 21:1  87 1 Kings 6  69 7  69 7:12  69 8  100 8:19  91 10:3  131 10:24  87 12:8  131 17:1  131

311

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 18:1–2  169 18:5  131 2 Kings 3:14  131 5:16  131 25:19  87 Isaiah 6  14 6:1  80 31:5  129, 238 40–55  67 40:1–8  55 40:25  55 40:25–26  55 40:55  55 45:12  55 51:9–11  55, 216 Jeremiah 52:12  131

Ezekiel 1  14 9–10  63 9:3  214 10:18–20  214 11:22–12  214 40–48  63 44:7  97, 98 Hosea 11  37 11:8  20 11:8–9  36, 42, 43 11:9  36 12:4–6  124, 165 12:5  119, 124 13:4  148 Zechariah 1:8  124 1:11  124 Psalms 2:7  67

Psalms (cont.) 8:4  60 51:8  144 82:7  49 104:19  61 Job 12:14  36 13:15  154 21:31  154 31:26–28  61 38  61 Proverbs 18:8  144 Esther 1:14  87 Daniel 9:21  124 9:24  164 2 Chronicles 9:23  87

Deuterocanonical Literature Sirach 45:15  70

New Testament Luke 15:27–30  114