Esther J. Hamori ''When Gods Were Men'' - The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft) 20
100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
559 tayangan204 halaman
An interesting description about biblical language.
Judul Asli
Esther J. Hamori ''When Gods Were Men''- The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft) 20
100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
559 tayangan204 halaman
Esther J. Hamori ''When Gods Were Men'' - The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft) 20
Hamori When Gods Were Men Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von John Barton Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow Markus Witte Band 384
Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
Esther J. Hamori When Gods Were Men The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature
Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. ISBN 978-3-11-020348-6 ISSN 0934-2575 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permis- sion in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin To my dear parents, Andras and Ruth Hamori and to Daniel Fleming, teacher and friend
Acknowledgments This book is dedicated to my parents, who listened to me work through these ideas for years over walks in Central Park, paint rollers in Ithaca, and everything bagels in Princeton; and to Daniel leming, whose inte! gration of rigorous criti"ue and unwavering support was instrumental in the growth of the pro#ect$ %e is the most wonderful mentor a young scholar could ask for$ I am grateful to several people for reading drafts of various chap! ters, including &ark 'mith, whose constructive challenges helped me to sharpen my own views, and (atharyn )aidler, whose philosophical criti"ues propelled me into e*citing new territory$ I would like to thank my colleagues and students at +nion Theological 'eminary, my former colleagues at Cornell +niversity and 'arah ,awrence College, and the faculty of the Department of %ebrew and -udaic 'tudies at .ew /ork +niversity$
nx:: xc: cc: ;:nv:: nx:: x: :v::: ;:nc: 0Isaac Ibn 1hiyath TabIe of Conlenls TabIe of Conlenls AcknovIedgmenls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII TabIe of Conlenls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Abbrevialions and SigIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI ooks, }ournaIs, and Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI Ancienl and MedievaI Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV Linguislic, HisloricaI, and TechnicaI Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV SigIa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XVI 1. Inlroduclion: The )|<s] Theohany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The Theohany of Genesis 18:1-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 The Theohany of Genesis 32:23-33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Varielies of Anlhroomorhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.1 Varielies of IhysicaI Anlhroomorhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.2 A Mixed Tradilion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. IhiIosohicaI Aroaches lo Anlhroomorhism . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.1 The DeveIomenl of Oosilion lo Anlhroomorhism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3.2 AIlernalive Aroaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3 Inlerrelalion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4. Anlhroomorhic ReaIism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1 The Texl of Genesis 18:1-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.2 IsraeIile Anlhroomorhic ReaIism and Ils ReIalion lo Canaan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.3 The Texl of Genesis 32:23-33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.4 Anlhroomorhic ReaIism in Genesis 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 5. The )|<s] Theohany and Divine Sociely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Table of Contents 3 9$6 Mal)a4k{|<m $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6=> 9$: The Divine )orld $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 668 9$2 The )|<s] Theophany and Divine 'ociety $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6:9 ;$ Anthropomorphic ?ealism and the Ancient .ear Dast $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6:C ;$6 Anthropomorphism in &esopotamian &ythology $ $ $ $ $ $ 6:C ;$: Anthropomorphism in +garitic &ythology $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6>> ;$2 Anthropomorphism in Dgyptian &ythology $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6>; ;$> Anthropomorphism in %ittite &ythology $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6>8 B$ Conclusions7 The Dmbodied 1od $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 69= 4ibliography $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 69; Inde* of 4iblical ?eferences $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6B> Inde* of .ames and 'ub#ects $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 686 Abbreviations and 'igla Abbreviations and 'igla 4ooks, -ournals, and 'eries 4ooks, -ournals, and 'eries A4 Anchor 4ible A,A'P Abhandlungen Eur ,iteratur Alt!'yrien!PalFstinas und &e! sopotamiens ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ddited by -$ 4$ Pritchard$ 2d ed$ Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C;C$ A.DT' Ancient .ear Dastern Te*ts and 'tudies An<r Analecta orientalia Ant Anatolian tudies A<AT Alter <rient und Altes Testament A?& Archives royals de &ari !A !i"lical Archaeologist !AOR !ulletin of the American chools of Oriental Research 444 4onner biblische 4eitrFge 4D4 The Ne# !ro#n$Dri%er$!riggs$&esenius He"re# and English 'exicon$ $ 4rown, '$ ?$ Driver, and C$ A$ 4riggs$ Peabody, &ass7 %endrickson, 6CBC$ 4er<l 4erit <lam !H !i"lia He"raica tuttgartensia$ Ddited by ?$ (ittel$ 'tuttgart7 Deutsche 4ibelgesellschaft, 6CC=$ !i" !i"lica 4ibInt 4iblical Interpretation 4ib<r 4iblica et <rientalia 4-' 4rown -udaic 'tudies 4& 4eth &i"ra !ac !i"liotheca sacra Abbreviations and Sigla 3II (AD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental )nstitute of the *ni%ersity of (hicago$ Ddited by Ignace -$ 1elb et al$ Chicago7 <riental In! stitute, 6C9;! (AT The (uneiform Alpha"etic Texts from *garit, Ras )"n Hani and Other +laces$ Ddited by &$ Dietrich, <$ ,oretE, and -$ 'an! marlin. 2d enIarged ed. (of Die ,eilalpha"etischen Texte aus *garit, 1976). ALASI. Mnsler: Ugaril-VerIag, 1995. CC Cambridge ibIe Commenlary CIT Conlribulions lo ibIicaI Ixegesis and TheoIogy (!- (atholic !i"lical -uarterly CT Cuneiform Texls from abyIonian TabIels in lhe rilish Mu- seum. London: Truslees of lhe rilish Museum, 1896- CTHI Cambridge Texls in lhe Hislory of IhiIosohy IC Ivorlh Commenlaries Eph( Ephemerides (armelitica IOTL Iorms of lhe OId Teslamenl Lileralure &A& &rundriss der a,,adischen &rammati,. W. von Soden. 2d ed. AnOr 33. Rome: Ionlificium inslilulum bibIicum, 1969. GKC &esenius. He"re# &rammar. Idiled by I. Kaulzsch. TransIaled by A. I. CovIey. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress, 1910. HdO Handbuch der OrienlaIislik HRef Historical Reflections HSM Harvard Semilic Monograhs HTR Har%ard Theological Re%ie# IC Inlerrelalion: A ibIe Commenlary for Teaching and Ireach- ing ICC InlernalionaI CrilicaI Commenlary )E/ )srael Exploration /ournal )/+R )nternational /ournal for +hilosophy of Religion /ANE /ournal of the Ancient Near Eastern ociety /AO /ournal of the American Oriental ociety /!' /ournal of !i"lical 'iterature /( /ournal of (uneiform tudies }LCRS }ordan Leclures in Comaralive ReIigion Series Abbreviations and Sigla 3III /NE /ournal of Near Eastern tudies -P' -ewish Publication 'ociety Tanakh -P'TC -ewish Publication 'ociety Torah Commentary /-R /e#ish -uarterly Re%ie# /OT /ournal for the tudy of the Old Testament /T /ournal of Theological tudies 0T* Die ,eilalpha"etischen Texte aus *garit$ Ddited by &$ Dietrich, <$ ,oretE, and -$ 'anmartGn$ A<AT :>K6$ .eukirchen!5luyn, 6CB;$ ,AP< ,ittLratures anciennes du Proche!<rient '-HR The 'ondon -uarterly and Hol"orn Re%ie# 1)OF 1itteilungen des )nstituts f2r Orientforschung .A'4 .ew American 'tandard 4ible .C4C .ew Century 4ible Commentary .I4C<T .ew International 4iblical Commentary on the <ld Testa! ment .IC<T .ew International Commentary on the <ld Testament <IP <riental Institute Publications O'+ Orientalia lo%aniensia periodica Or Orientalia OrN Orientalia No%a eries <T1 <ld Testament 1uides <T, <ld Testament ,ibrary <T' <ld Testament 'tudies Ott Oudtestamentische tudi3n PAP' Proceedings of the American Philosophical 'ociety P4' Publications of the 4abylonian 'ection, +niversity &useum, +niversity of Pennsylvania +T 'e point th4ologi5ue MD Muaestiones disputatae RA Re%ue d.assyriologie et d.arch4ologie orientale Rel Religious tudies R+ Ras hamra +arallels Abbreviations and Sigla 3I5 'AA' 'tate Archives of Assyria 'tudies 'A.D 'ources and &onographs on the Ancient .ear Dast '44 'tuttgarter biblische 4eitrFge '4, 'ociety of 4iblical ,iterature '4,)A) 'ociety of 4iblical ,iterature )ritings from the Ancient )orld cEs cience et Esprit '<r 'ources orientales 't'em 'tudi 'emitici T6 Theologische 6eitschrift TC, Te*tes cunLiformes$ &usLe du ,ouvre *F *garit$Forschungen *-R *nion eminary -uarterly Re%ie# 5A4 5orderasiatische 4ibliothek 5A' 5orderasiatische 'chriftdenkmFler 7T 7etus Testamentum 5T'up 5etus Testamentum 'upplements )4C )ord 4iblical Commentary )C )estminster 4ible Companion )%P )estview %istories of Philosophy )&A.T )issenschaftliche &onographien Eum Alten und .euen Tes! tament )<C An )ntroduction to !i"lical He"re# yntax$ 4ruce ($ )altke and &$ <NConnor$ )inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, 6CC=$ 6A 6eitschrift f2r Assyriologie 6A8 6eitschrift f2r die alttestamentliche 8issenschaft 6R&& 6eitschrift f2r Religions$ und &eistesgeschichte 6T0 6eitschrift f2r Theologie und 0irche Ancient and &edieval 'ources Ancient and &edieval 'ources Aen$ 5irgil, Aeneid Ana"$ 3enophon, Ana"asis Abbreviations and Sigla 35 !i"lio$ Apollodorus, !i"liotheca Fast$ <vid, Fasti 1en$ ?$ 1enesis ?abbah H.F. Hercules Furens Hymn$ Aphr$ Hymn to Aphrodite )l$ %omer, )liad 'uc$ Plutarch, 'ucullus ,33 'eptuagint &as$ &asechetK&asechta 1etam$ <vid, 1etamorphoses &T &asoretic Te*t Od$ %omer, Odyssey Op$ %esiod, 8or,s and Days 'am$ Pent$ 'amaritan Pentateuch 'ong ?$ 'ong of 'ongs ?abbah 'T umma Theologiae Tg$ <n"$ Targum <n"elos 7ar. hist. Aelian, 7aria historia ,inguistic, %istorical, and Technical Terms ,inguistic, %istorical, and Technical Terms acc$ accusative adv$ adverbial aor$ aorist ch$, chs$ chapter, chapters fem$ feminine frg$, frgs$ fragment, fragments gen$ genitive impv$ imperative inf$ infinitive masc$ masculine &4 &iddle 4abyonian Abbreviations and Sigla 35I &( &iddle (ingdom ms masculine singular n$ note .( .ew (ingdom no$ number nom$ nominative <4H5I <ld 4abylonian H5ersionI <( <ld (ingdom P Pennsylvania Tablet HTablet II, <45I of the 1ilgamesh Dpic Pi$ Piel pl$ plural; plateHsI pret$ preterite ptc$ participle '45 'tandard 4abylonian 5ersion sg$ singular v$, vv$ verse, verses x illegible sign 6 first person : second person 2 third person 'igla
O hypothetical form KK terms used in parallel P Q broken te*t R S scribal error7 letters missing RR SS scribal error7 letters added S becomes T U partially visible sign 6$ Introduction7 The )|<s] Theophany Introduction: The Theophany Introduction: The Theophany There are two biblical te*ts in which 1od appears to a patriarch in per! son and is referred to by the narrator as a @man,A both times by the %ebrew word )|<s]$ 4oth of these identifications of 1od as an )|<s] are ac! companied by graphic human description$ As a result of the highly unusual nature of these depictions, each has been the ob#ect of widely varying interpretations$ The figure defined as an )|<s] who wrestles with -acob H1enesis 2:7:2!22I 6 has been identified in modern scholarship as an angel, a demon, a man, 1od, and various other alternatives$ The three men H)a6na4s] |<mI who visit Abraham, dine with him, and announce the birth of his son H1enesis 6876!69I have been understood as angels, gods, men, and more$ %owever, while the identities of the )a6na4s]|<m in each te*t have been much discussed, the te*ts sharing this unusual terminology have not been studied together with regard to this issue$ : It will be argued here that these two 1enesis stories reflect the same phenomenon, that is, human theophany, or more specifically, the @)|<s] theophany$A &any types of biblical theophany have long been recogniEed, such as the storm theophany, dream theophany, and the ka4b{o=d$ %owever, there has been no discussion in biblical studies of such a thing as @hu! man theophany$A Dven specialiEed work on the sub#ect of theophany has not included this as a category$ At times, it is merely absent, as in the work of &argret Peek!%orn, whose discussion of the variety of manners of revelation includes dreams, angels, the ka4b{o=d, and more, but not human form$ 2 At other times, it appears to be e*cluded through circular logic, as in the work of 1wyneth )indsor, who notes in her work on theophany that she will not be concerned with the patriarchal
6 Dnglish 2:7::!2:$ All biblical translations are original$ : The scholarship on 1enesis 68!6C and 2: deals almost e*clusively with only one te*t or the other; the natural e*ceptions are 1enesis commentaries$ )illiam T$ &illerNs work is "uite unusual in that he takes 1enesis 68 and 2: as his two base te*ts, but his interest is in hermeneutics, and his only reason for pairing the te*ts is that they are both provocative te*ts portraying mysterious encounters H1ysterious Encounters at 1amre and /a""o, P4-' 9=; Chicago7 'cholars Press, 6C8>Q, 62CI$ 2 &argret Peek!%orn, @V<ffenbarungsNphFnomenologische und VoffenbarungsNtheolo! gische 4eobachtungen an der 4et!Dl!1eschichte H1en :8, 6=!::I und an anderen Theophanieschilderungen,A in Offen"arungsanspruch und Fundamentalistische 7er$ suchung HMD 6:C; reiburg7 %erder, 6CC6I, 28$ Introduction: The Theophany : narratives in part because they @do not bear the characteristic of almost stereotyped vocabularyA of other theophany passages$ > In work on 1enesis 68 and 2: as well, it sometimes seems that the presentation of divine appearance in human form is not considered theophany rather by definition$ In his discussion of 1enesis 68, )estermann argues that this type of realistic human interaction cannot constitute a theophany because it takes place amidst @earthly, every! day, utterly secular life without any element of a theophany$A 9 'uch an argument cannot be accepted as sufficient reason to dismiss this Hor anyI encounter as a theophany$ In these two te*ts, 1od appears in fully human form, without the dramatic aspect of other types of theopha! nies$ ?ather than assuming that an earthly, person!to!person encounter cannot constitute a theophany, it would be wise to e*amine the unusual nature of this type of theophany$ 'ome have considered one of the 1enesis te*ts or the other to rep! resent an appearance of 1od, but have not thought it to constitute a type of theophany$ 5on ?ad, for e*ample, concludes regarding 1enesis 68, @This way of appearing, to be sure, is so strange and singular in the <ld Testament that it must belong to the peculiarity of this tradition and this tradition only$A ; The peculiarity of 1enesis 68, to which von ?ad refers, and the e"ual peculiarity of 1enesis 2:7:2!22, have led to a variety of interpreta! tions regarding the )|<s] in each story$ 'ome scholars working with one te*t or the other do not consider the )|<s] to be 1od$ )hile some have specific opposing interpretations, others are either inconsistent or am! biguous in their identifications of the figures$ In a discussion of 1enesis 2:, for instance, von ?ad refers to -acobNs @encounter with 1od,A then to @the heavenly being,A and then to @the demon whom -acob took onW this nocturnal assailant was later considered to be /ahweh him! self$A B In his work on )e6lo4h|<m, -oel 4urnett refers to -acobNs opponent as @1odW portrayed in concrete and anthropomorphic terms,A as well as @)e6lo4h|<mNs messenger,A and @a divine being$A 8 <ther scholars share similar mi*ed interpretations$ C > 1wyneth )indsor, @Theophany7 Traditions of the <ld Testament,A Theology B9 H6CB:I7 >66$ 9 Claus )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<= A (ommentary Htrans$ -ohn -$ 'cullion; &inneapo! lis7 Augsburg, 6C89; orig$ 6C86I, :B9$ ; 1erhard von ?ad, &enesis= A (ommentary Htrans$ -ohn %$ &arks; Philadelphia7 )estminster, 6C;6; orig$ 6C>CX;6I, :=>$ B 5on ?ad, &enesis, 2::$ 8 -oel '$ 4urnett, A Reassessment of !i"lical Elohim HAtlanta7 '4,, :==6I, 6:>!26$ C 'ee, for e*ample, 1ordon -$ )enham, &enesis 9<$>? H)4C :; Dallas7 )ord 4ooks, 6CC>I, 96, ;:; .ahum 'arna, &enesis @ !e$reshit= The Traditional He"re# Text #ith Ne# /+ TranslationA(ommentary H-P'TC; Philadelphia7 -P', 6C8CI, 2=2$ Introduction: The Theophany 2 In other cases, scholars working with either te*t0such as 'eebass, )enham, 'peiser, von ?ad, and others0have interpreted the term )|<s] metaphorically, placing the words @manA and @menA in "uotes re! peatedly throughout their discussions$ 6= Indeed, there are two te*ts which describe /ahweh as an )|<s] in a metaphor or simile$ In D*odus 6972, /ahweh is called an )|<s] milh[a4ma= , @man of warA or @warrior,A and in Isaiah >:762, he is said to be like an )|<s] milh[a4ma= $ The )|<s] terminology in 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22, however, is not used metaphorically$ <n the contrary, these )a6na4s] |<m are described in graphic, physical hu! man terms$ In his important work on theophany in the %ebrew 4ible, -ames 4arr notes the use of the word @manA in connection with some divine appearances, and states that @there is ade"uate evidence for a strong tradition in early Israel that /ahweh let himself be seen at times in the form of man$A /et even 4arr, who recogniEes the phenomenon of di! vine appearance in human form, and includes these two 1enesis te*ts in his discussion, offers the visions of 1enesis :8762, Amos B7B and Amos C76 as primary e*amples$ )hile he has made an important ob! servation regarding /ahwehNs appearance in the form of a man, he has not distinguished between anthropomorphic form in visions, and what might be called @concrete anthropomorphism,A as in the )|<s] te*ts of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22$ 66
It is in this area that the most striking similarity between the two 1enesis te*ts may be observed$ 1od does not merely appear anthro! pomorphically in a vision; he in fact appears in the literal, physical body of a man$ 6: 4oth appearances are characteriEed by this @concrete anthropomorphismA; that is, tangible, physical human form, not in a metaphor, or in a vision, or in a dream, but in a body$ &oreover, both appearances will be shown to display a radical degree of what might be
6= 'ee, for e*ample, %orst 'eebass, &enesis H2 vols$; .eukirchen!5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6CC;!:===I, :72C>!C9; )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, :C>; Dphraim A$ 'peiser, &enesis= )ntro$ duction, Translation, and Notes H2d ed$; A4 6; 1arden City, .$/$7 Doubleday, 6CBCI, 62C; 5on ?ad, &enesis, 2:=; David &$ Carr, Reading the Fractures of &enesis= Historical and 'iterary Approaches H,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CC;I, :;9$ ,etellier also does not address the specific use of the )|<s] terminology, and his register of impor! tant %ebrew words in a book on 1enesis 68!6C does not include )|<s] $ ?obert Ignatius ,etellier, Day in 1amre, Night in odom= A"raham and 'ot in &enesis 9B and 9C H4ibInt 6=; ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC9I$ 66 4arr understands 1enesis 68 as an appearance of /ahweh, and comments on 1ene! sis 2:7:2!22 that the figure @may or may not be taken to be /ahwehA H@Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the <ld Testament,A in (ongress 7olume= Oxford 9C>C P5T'up B; ,eiden7 4rill, 6C;=Q, 2:I$ 6: Throughout this book, references to 1od as understood by the ancient Israelites will include the gendered language appropriate to the original conte*t, and broader theological discussion will include gender!neutral language$ Introduction: The Theophany > called @anthropomorphic realismA0that is, realistic human presenta! tion and action throughout the appearance in human form$ The two stories share many other features as well$ In each story, 1od is identified by the narrator as a man, and is also initially believed by the patriarch to be an ordinary man$ <nly during the course of the interaction do Abraham and -acob come to recogniEe whom they are facing$ /et even after they recogniEe him, their responses are not like responses to other divine appearances$ They do not build altars, or engage in immediate acts of worship, as is common after other theo! phanies$ .either do the faces of the patriarchs shine, like that of &oses HD*odus 2>7:CI$ <ther similarities between the stories, such as the pur! pose of each theophany, will be discussed during the course of this work$ It should be noted that the stories also contain important differ! ences$ It is /ahweh who appears to Abraham in 1enesis 68, and 1od H)e6lo4h|<mI who wrestles with -acob in 1enesis 2:$ In 1enesis 6876, /ah! weh is specifically said to @appearA Hwayye4ra4) I to Abraham$ In 1enesis 2:7:9, 1od is not introduced by either his name or a typical verb of theophany; it is simply said that -acob was left alone, @and a man wres! tled with himA Hwayye4)a4b{e4q )|<s] (immo= I$ In 1enesis 68, /ahweh is ac! companied by two angels, and shares a meal with Abraham; in 1enesis 2:, 1od fights -acob alone$ )hile there are important differences between 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22, these are the only two te*ts in which 1od is identified literally as an )|<s] and portrayed in concretely embodied human form$ In the midst of their differences, the two te*ts have far more in common with one another than either has with other theophany te*ts, te*ts portray! ing angels in human form, describing 1od anthropomorphically but in visions, or portraying 1od metaphorically as an )|<s] milh[a4ma= , and the like$ There is every indication that the two te*ts do not stem from the same source, so their similarities cannot be attributed to shared author! ship$ ?ather, the phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany is evident in two separate sources$ In their current forms, both te*ts e"uate the man with 1od$ 'ome may consider the possibility that this e"uation is the result of revision and not part of the original narratives$ This solution is not satisfactory, however$ In religious and theological terms, it is no easier to conceive of 1od making such a tangible appearance in later biblical times than it is in earlier periods$ If the appearance of 1od as a man could be attrib! uted to later redaction and later religious perspectives, this would be e"ually difficult and interesting$ 'omeone was envisioning a human theophany; we may then consider who did so$ This notion either be! longs to the cultures of Israel and -udah as small states set between The Theophany of Genesis 18:1-15 9 lowland cities and inland peoples, or came out of the strict monotheism of early -udaism and -ewish communities$ In the end, the chronologi! cally later alternative does not best e*plain the contents of 1enesis 68 and 2:$ 6$6 The Theophany of 1enesis 6876!69 The Theophany of 1enesis 6876!69 A great variety of interpretations have been offered in response to the te*t of 1enesis 6876!69$ 'everal unusual features of the te*t have caused scholars difficulty$ irstly, there is the #u*taposition of verses 6!:$ In the introduction to the story in verse 6, it is stated that @/ahweh appearedA Hwayye4ra4) )e4la4yw yhwhI to Abraham Plit$ @himAQ; in verse :, Abraham looks up and sees three men$ This has often been read as a discrepancy in the number and identity of AbrahamNs visitors$ 'econdly, there is the shifting between singular and plural forms, as in verses 2!9 and C!6=$ AbrahamNs initial invitation in verse 2 is to an individual; the rest of his address in verses >!9 uses the plural$ 'imilarly, in verse C, the visitors HpluralI in"uire as to 'arahNs whereabouts; in verse 6=, it is an individ! ual who tells Abraham that he will return in a yearNs time, and that 'arah will have a son$ In response to these unusual features, some scholars have sug! gested that the te*t reflects multiple original sources$ The #u*taposition of the identification of one visitor and the reference to the three to! gether is indeed striking, and the shifting between singular and plural forms is certainly atypical$ The impulse to suggest multiple sources in such a case is "uite understandable$ %owever, neither literary device is otherwise absent from biblical narrative$ )e even have at our disposal another te*t in which these two narrative devices occur in combination$ In : (ings 6876B!68, it is written that the king of Assyria sent three officials to -erusalem to bring a message to %eEekiah7 the Tartan, the ?absaris, and the ?abshakeh$ 62 These three men arrive in -erusalem, and are met by three of %eEekiahNs officials7 Dliakim son of %ilkiah, 'hebna, and -oah son of Asaph$ In verse 6C, the ?abshakeh alone ad! dresses %eEekiahNs three officials$ %eEekiahNs men respond as a unit to the ?abshakeh7 @And Dliakim son of %ilkiah, 'hebna, and -oah said to the ?abshakeh, V'peak to your Psg$Q servants in AramaicNA H: (ings 687:; Y Isaiah 2;766I$ The following verse is noteworthy7 @4ut the ?ab!
62 The accounts of : (ings and Isaiah differ in this regard7 in Isaiah 2;76!2, there is no mention of the ?abshakehNs two associates$ The abbreviated story in : Chronicles notes that 'ennacherib sent multiple officers, but does not refer to the ?abshakeh in particular H: Chronicles 2:7CI$ )ith the e*ception of the mention of the ?abshakehNs associates, while the : (ings and Isaiah versions contain minor differences, all ele! ments of the shifting between singular and plural forms in the present discussion are identical in the two te*ts$ Introduction: The Theophany ; shakeh said to them, V%as my master sent me to your Psg$Q master and to you Psg$Q to speak these wordsZNA %e continues, arguing that he was sent to speak to all of the men, who would drink their own urine @with you Ppl$QA H: (ings 687:B Y Isaiah 2;76:I$ )e have then in : (ings another te*t in which three men come to deliver a message, one of whom is set apart both through speaking individually, and through speech addressed individually to him Hthough the implication is not that the relationship between the three men in : (ings is identical to that in 1enesis 68I$ In both the : (ings and Isaiah versions of the story, we also see a group of three men speaking as a unit, and then the ?abshakehNs response to them, which shifts between plural and singular forms within one verse$ .othing in this account suggests that this variation should be attributed to differ! ent sources$ The presence of the same features in 1enesis 6876!69, then, is not reason enough to conclude that the e*isting te*t is the composite of two originally separate stories$ It is therefore proposed here that a straight! forward reading of the e*isting te*t reflects its original intention$ The te*t tells the story of AbrahamNs three visitors, and it is built into the framework of the te*t that among these are one leader and two associ! ates$ Abraham sees the three of them and runs to meet them, begins by addressing his invitation to one of the men individually Hv$ 2I, and then includes the group Hvv$ >!9I$ 6> In : (ings 68 too, %eEekiahNs men went to meet the three Assyrian officials, and then conversed specifically with their leader$ AbrahamNs three visitors later ask about 'arah, #ust as %eEekiahNs men addressed the ?abshakeh along with his company$ )hen Abraham has replied that she is in the tent, the leader speaks, delivering the message that is at the heart of the visit$ Abraham himself is portrayed as recogniEing the general relationship between the leader and the two associates$ This relationship is deeply embedded in the te*t, and continues through the visit of the two delegates to 'odom in chapter 6C$ It should not be surprising, then, that the story begins with the statement that /ahweh in particular appeared to Abraham; this, after all, would be the chief concern of the story$ In some cases, source divisions have been proposed as a response to the unusual nature of /ahwehNs appearance in the te*t, rather than in response to the unusual literary features of the te*t$ )estermann, for e*ample, argues7 There is no way in which one can consider the present event an appearance of 1od, though the ma#ority of e*egetes speak of it in this way$ The narra! tive 6876!6;b does not belong to any of the types of divine appearance in
6> .ote that the reference to the tree in verse > assumes the location specified in verse 6$ The Theophany of Genesis 18:1-15 B the <ld Testament$ It follows from this that the title in v$ 6a, @/ahweh ap! peared to Abraham,A is redactional; so %$ 1unkel and others$ A later orien! tation has smoothed over the difference between the meeting with a divine messenger and an appearance of 1od$ 69
)estermannNs suggestion of a redactional layer stems from a presup! position that the story cannot refer to an appearance of /ahweh, pre! cisely because its @earthy, everydayA nature does not conform to any known type of theophany$ It is unclear, however, under what circum! stances a @later orientationA might prefer such a reading$ The identifica! tion of /ahweh as an )|<s] does not @smooth overA a previously difficult te*t$ <n the contrary, a far more common scenario would involve a later redactor offering a simpler reading, and the earlier layer contain! ing the more une*pected phenomenon$ +ffenheimerNs suggestion of multiple sources also references the problematic nature of /ahwehNs appearance, but in his view the redac! tion functioned differently$ +nlike )estermann, who argues that a @later orientationA associated /ahweh with the three )a6na4s]|<m, +ffen! heimer suggests that it was /ahwehNs anthropomorphic appearance in an original layer that inspired redaction$ %e proposes that the te*t of 1enesis 68!6C as a whole @deliberately intermingles two parallel narra! tives, one concerning the personal appearance of the ,ord and the other the arrival of three male angels, in order to obscure the anthropomor! phic nature of 1od and the distinction between the ,ord and %is an! gels$A 6;
It is also difficult to imagine this scenario$ If a redactor attempted to obscure the anthropomorphic portrayal of /ahweh by combining two narratives, he was far from successful, since the present te*t does still reflect an anthropomorphic appearance$ Thus, suggestions regarding redaction from both starting points are found wanting$ The anthropo! morphic appearance of /ahweh presumably would not have been the result of later editing, which would be more likely to try to reduce such anthropomorphism than to create it$ %owever, if a later redactor at! tempted to obscure an e*isting anthropomorphic appearance of /ah! weh, the attempt failed$ In short, while the anthropomorphic nature of /ahwehNs appearance in 1enesis 6876!69 is highly unusual, it would be difficult to argue that it occurred solely as the earlier or later of two opposing layers of the te*t$ A few other ma#or categories of responses to the unusual nature of the divine appearance in 1enesis 6876!69 have predominated$ 'ome
69 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :B9$ 6; 4en#amin +ffenheimer, @&yth and ?eality in Ancient Israel,A in The Origins and Di%ersity of Axial Age (i%iliDations Hed$ '$ .$ Disenstadt; Albany7 '+./ Press, 6C8;I, 6>B$ Introduction: The Theophany 8 scholars e*plain the mention of /ahweh throughout the te*t as a refer! ence to his indirect presence via his messengers$ AndrL Ca"uot sees 1enesis 68!6C as an e*ample of common confusion between /ahweh and his angels, arguing that messengers identified themselves with their senders$ 6B -osL ,oEa writes that while the current te*t presents /ahweh as one of the three visitors, originally these three were @a plu! rality acting and speaking in the name of /ahweh$ The narrator simpli! fies the relationship of the VthreeN with /ahweh,A adding 6876a as if /ahweh himself were present$ ,oEa concludes that @the characteristic feature of an envoyL Hml)k or same without this titleI is to speak in the name of another$ rom then on one can suppose that /ahweh is not present, that he is not one of the three, but that he speaks through his representatives$A 68 )estermann writes that @a messenger Hwhether of 1od or of manI represents the one who sends him as he delivers his message; hence the one who gives the commission can be named in place of the one commissioned$A 6C 'arna describes the encounter as a theophany @mediatedW through angelic messengers$A %e adds that this is the only biblical instance of a grouping of three angels, and that the separation of the two angels in 6C76 may indicate that these are the attendants of the one to whom Abraham speaks$ := .evertheless, he does not identify this unusual grouping as /ahweh and two attendants, in spite of the fact that the one separated from the two is indeed called /ahweh$ <ne widespread interpretation is that the primary concern of the passage is hospitality$ :6 In many cases, this argument has the effect of reducing the importance of precisely identifying the three )a6na4s]|<m, as the characters become secondary to the motif$ )illiam &iller, presum! ing a not altogether human form for the )a6na4s]|<m, "uestions @whether or not the angels actually consumed the meal,A and emphasiEes that the point made is their acceptance of AbrahamNs hospitality @in some way$A :: )estermann argues that the story consists of two original nar! ratives, one concerning the promise of the child, and the other concern! ing @the visit of a divine messengerHsI or a godHsI who rewards the
6B AndrL Ca"uot, @Anges et dLmons en Isra[l,A in &4nies, anges et d4mons H'<r 8; Paris7 \ditions du 'euil, 6CB6I, 6:6$ 68 -osL ,oEa, @1en]se 68!6C7 prLsence ou reprLsentation de /ahvLZ Dssai sur la criti"ue littLraire et la signification du rLcit,A in (ongress 7olume= +aris 9CC: H5T'up ;6; ,ei! den7 4rill, 6CC9I, 6C6!C:$ 6C )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :86$ := 'arna, &enesis, 6:8!:C$ :6 In many discussions this is not specific to the theme of receiving divine guests$ :: &iller, 1ysterious Encounters, :8$ The Theophany of Genesis 18:1-15 C reception and hospitality with a gift$A :2 In this case, the prioritiEing of the theme of hospitality has allowed for a core of the story to remain intact, while allowing for changes to the identification of the visitors$ 'arna too identifies the primary purpose of the te*t as a presentation of hospitality$ :> It is not a coincidence that this line of argument generally coincides with the premise that /ahweh was not originally among the three visitors, for surely if a te*t were to relate an event so striking as the appearance of /ahweh as an )|<s], this theophany itself would be the chief concern of the story$ &oreover, this line of interpretation seems to overlook the fact that such hospitality might be e*ceptional in modern )estern culture, but not in AbrahamNs, in which it would have been much more the norm$ Another common response to the unusual nature of the te*t has been to suggest that the author intentionally created a sense of mystery$ 'eebass argues that the differentiation of the three men into 1od and his deputies, first into 1od and two men and then into 1od and two angels, is done @to stress the mystery of 1od$A :9 1ordon )enham e*! plains that the relationships between the men, the angels, and the ,ord are @shrouded in mystery,A and remarks that he sees @these confusions as deliberate7 they e*press the difficulty of human comprehension of the divine world$A :; This attribution of the difficulty of the te*t to the aim of the writer is seen fre"uently$ %owever, evidence for such eso! teric goals, characteristic of much later writing, is found nowhere in the patriarchal narratives as a whole or in any biblical writing that may be understood to pre!date the great changes wrought by the end of -udah$ This approach is theologically anachronistic, and reflects the views of the e*egete more than those of the biblical author$ 5iews of the te*t as intentionally mysterious have often also in! cluded a lack of concern with establishing precisely who the characters are$ )enham concludes in regard to 687:: that @here at last the identity of the visitors is clarified7 one is or represents the ,ord; the other two are angelic companions$A %e does not differentiate between @is or represents,A although the implications of the two ideas should be "uite different; and in fact, he soon thereafter refers to AbrahamNs @midday lunch with three angels$A :B In a work on 1enesis 68, ?obert ,etellier, who does consider the te*t to reflect an appearance of /ahweh in hu! man form, likewise states without differentiation that @/ahweh appears
:2 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :B>$ :> 'arna, &enesis, 62;$ :9 'eebass, &enesis, :76:B$ :; )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, 96$ :B )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, 96, 9>$ Introduction: The Theophany 6= here as a man Heither with two companions or in the form of three menI$A :8
<thers claim that the te*t does portray an appearance of /ahweh, but without commentary as to the highly unusual nature of the theophany$ &oberly mentions that /ahweh @does sometimes appear in the form HapparentlyI of a normal human being, most famously to Abraham at &amre H1en$ 6876!22I and to -acob at the ford of -abbok H1en$ 2:7::!2:I,A :C but says no more$ (Jmpel assumes a theophany in his argument that this passage represents the original encounter for! mula on which many other stories of 1od meeting men were based, but also delves no further into the nature of the theophany in particular$ 2=
-ean!Paul (lein notes that /ahweh has appeared to Abraham before, specifically in 6B76, but does not address any distinctions between the portrayals of 6B76 and 6876!69, or the unusual nature of the latter$ 26
And the theophany of 1enesis 6876!69 is indeed unusual$ irstly, the human form itself in this theophany is e*tremely uncommon$ or this reason, while the peculiarity of the incident has given rise to much speculation, few interpretations of the te*t have taken literally both those features of the te*t which identify one of the figures as /ahweh, and those features which identify the figures as men$ Dven among scholars who understand the te*t to present an appearance of /ahweh, the )|<s] language is generally understood metaphorically, though once again without commentary regarding this reading$ This is evident, for instance, in &oberlyNs comment that /ahweh @does sometimes appear in the form HapparentlyI of a normal human being$A 2: There is no indi! cation in the te*t, however, that term )a6na4s] |<m is intended metaphori! cally7 the men accept AbrahamNs invitation to sit, wash their feet, and rest, and then share a meal with him$ The )|<s] language in this te*t should be taken as literally as the language in other theophany te*ts$
:8 ,etellier, Day in 1amre, Night in odom, 8C!C6$ 'ome who espouse a view of the te*t as insurmountably mysterious do so from a more christological approach$ 5on ?ad, for instance, writes that in the present te*t /ahweh appears to be one of the three men, but that in the tradition of 6876!6;, he is all three H&enesis, :=>I$ 'imilarly, Tho! mas ,$ 4rodie writes, @The guest is 1od in the form of three humans,A and com! ments that the @mysterious figureA has human, divine, and demonic dimensions, but does not e*plain further what this might mean H&enesis as Dialogue= A 'iterary, His$ torical and Theological (ommentary P<*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==6Q, :>;, 22:I$ :C ?$ )$ ,$ &oberly, &enesis 9:$>? H<T1; 'heffield7 -'<T, 6CC:I, :=$ 2= ?$ (Jmpel, @Die V4egegnungstraditionN von &amre,A in !austeine "i"lischer Theologie= Festga"e f2r &. /ohannes !otter#ec, Dum <?. &e"urtstag darge"r. %on seinen ch2lern H444 9=; (^ln7 %anstein, 6CBBI, 6;8$ 26 -ean!Paul (lein, @Mue se passL!t!il en 1en]se 68ZA +T :> H6CBBI7 B;$ 2: &oberly, &enesis 9:$>?, :=$ The Theophany of Genesis 18:1-15 66 The human form is no more metaphorical in the )|<s] theophany of 1enesis 68 than is the fire in the )e4s] theophany of D*odus 2$ The graphic human portrayal of the )a6na4s]|<m continues throughout the story$ Two of the men, soon further identified as angels, leave for 'odom while /ahweh remains behind with Abraham$ &eanwhile, back in 'odom, the angels have arrived in the town s"uare$ The human de! scriptions are again "uite vivid$ The men of the town want to have se* with them, they and ,ot resist, they pull ,ot physically into the house H6C76=I, and the ne*t morning they must physically seiEe ,ot and his family and drag them back out of the house in order to escape destruc! tion H6C76;I$ The portrayal of the angels in chapter 6C includes a significant dif! ference to that of /ahweh in 6876!69, however$ Along with the physi! cally anthropomorphic acts of the angels, and the reference to them as )a6na4s] |<m in 6C79, 8, 6=, 6:, and 6;, the angels also strike the men of 'odom with blindness, thereby revealing their divine nature H6C766I$ +nlike these angels, and others with human appearance who also re! veal their divinity through miraculous feats Has discussed in Chapter iveI, the )|<s] of 6876!69 does nothing miraculous, nothing out of the ordinary for any human being in such a situation, barring the fact of the announcement itself$ /ahweh arrives, washes up, rests, eats, and speaks with Abraham and 'arah, all in entirely concrete human form$ In fact, /ahwehNs appearance in human form is so realistic that Abraham does not initially recogniEe him$ It is not entirely clear when Abraham finally does realiEe that it is /ahweh with whom he is speak! ing$ It is not yet in verse >7 he has set one of the men apart from the others in his initial invitation, and had he already recogniEed that this was /ahweh, surely he would not then cease to set him apart$ &ore! over, it could hardly be imagined that he would then invite the three men together to wash their own feet Hwe6rah[a6s[u= ragle=k{em, impv$ pl$I$ The recognition comes before verse :2, however7 Abraham begins the nego! tiation aware of /ahwehNs identity$ The redactor responsible for the dialogue of verses :2!2:, whether creating an original story or rewriting a negotiation between Abraham and /ahweh from an archaic core, assumed that Abraham had recogniEed /ahweh before this point in the story$ 4etween these certain indicators in verses > and :2, Abraham serves his guests a meal, receives a stunning pronouncement from the visitor whom the narrator then identifies as /ahweh, and witnesses a startling further interaction between /ahweh and 'arah$ )ithin the verses de! scribing the preparation and serving of the meal, there is no indication that Abraham suddenly knows that it is /ahweh before him$ The impli! cation of the te*t seems to be that it is through /ahwehNs speech in Introduction: The Theophany 6: verses 6=, 62!6> or more likely #ust 62!6>, that Abraham understands$ In verse 6=, one of the men, soon to be identified by the narrator as /ah! weh, tells Abraham that he will return in a yearNs time, and that 'arah will have a son$ )hile it is possible that Abraham might recogniEe /ahweh through this statement, three primary indicators suggest that it is not until verses 62!6> that he understands$ irstly, 'arahNs response to /ahwehNs announcement that she will have a son is to laugh Hv$ 6:I, which implies that she has not recogniEed /ahweh, and the narrator does nothing to suggest that this is different for Abraham$ 'econdly, verses 62!6> include both the revelation that /ahweh knows that 'arah laughed, even though they were separated by the tent door, and /ah! wehNs "uestion to Abraham, @Is anything too e*traordinary for /ah! wehZA Thirdly, the narrator introduces the loaded statements of verses 62!6> with the phrase @/ahweh said,A unlike the previous verses, ap! parently indicating a moment of revelation$ Thus, in the second highly unusual feature of the )|<s] theophany, it is seen that this theophany is recogniEed verbally, rather than visually$ .o remarkable visual clues set /ahweh apart from other men; only by hearing his speech does Abraham realiEe the identity of his visitor$ ,ooking to the speech, then, to determine when Abraham recogniEes /ahweh, it is the statements of verses 62!6> that can best be read as a self!revelation on the part of /ahweh$ This probability is strengthened by the narratorNs shift in perspective, naming /ahweh as the speaker only when his words finally reveal his identity to Abraham$ A related narrative device is employed in verses 6!:$ It was observed previously that a similar shift from the mention of three visitors to a focus solely on the leader of the three Halso all bearing a messageI can be found in : (ings 68, and that this is not reason enough to posit two separate narra! tive sources$ The narratorNs shift in 1enesis 6876!: serves the additional function of bringing the audience into the perspective of Abraham, who does not yet know the identity of his visitors$ 22 It is elo"uently built into the very phrasing of the te*t that there is something Abraham does not understand, from verse : to the narratorNs introduction of /ahwehNs verbal self!revelation in verse 62$ This is not to imply that the initial reference to the character as a man simply reflects a misperception on the part of Abraham, who will soon learn better$ 'uch a view is apparently assumed by ,etellier, who compares the te*t to -udges ;762, in which 1ideon sees an angel whom he at first believes to be human$ 2> 1enesis 68, however, does not offer
22 or similar views of the narrative device employed in verses 6!:, see -ean ,uis 'ka, @,Narbre et la tente7 la fonction du dLcor en 1n 68,6!69,A !i" ;8K2 H6C8BI7 289; )en! ham, &enesis 9<$>?, >9; 'peiser, &enesis, 6:C; and ,etellier, Day in 1amre, 86!8:$ 2> ,etellier, Day in 1amre, 86!8:$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 62 any indication that the human form itself is simply a narrative device$ <n the contrary, the men eat and drink with Abraham, and continue to function as men, and be described accordingly, well into the ne*t chap! ter$ The human form here is no more a misperception than the cloud atop &ount 'inai; rather, it is an intentional choice of theophanic por! trayal from the start of the te*t$ In the )|<s] theophany, /ahweh appears as a man, with such anthropomorphic realism that Abraham does not recogniEe him until /ahwehNs verbal self!revelation$ 6$: The Theophany of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 The Theophany of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 It was once imagined that the te*t of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 was comprised of two separate literary sources$ 1unkel, for instance, suggested that in verse :;a, -acobNs hip is in#ured by an attack, while in :;b, the in#ury is accidental in the course of the wrestling match; that in verses :8!:C, the naming of -acob constitutes a blessing, while in verse 2=, he receives a different blessing; etc$ 1unkel himself then acknowledged that his two proposed recensions were @very closely related$A 29 The idea that the te*t was composed from two original sources is no longer held by most scholars$ 2;
<thers have suggested the removal of particular verses from the te*t$ &any of these arguments are based on prior interpretive choices, however$ As de Pury summariEes, for e*ample, many would separate out verse 26, in which -acob proclaims that he has seen 1od face to face, as a later addition @because it does not fit in with the preceding narra! tive$A 2B The assumption that -acob seeing 1od @face to faceA cannot fit in with the story of -acob wrestling @)e6lo4h|<mA will not be made here$ The te*t of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 will be treated as an original literary unit$ ,ike 1enesis 68, the story of -acob wrestling the )|<s] in 1enesis 2:7:2!22 has been the ob#ect of widely varying interpretations$ &any have argued specifically that the )|<s] in the story is not 1od$ Perhaps the most common recent interpretation is that the figure is the numen of the river -abbok, based on 1unkelNs idea that -acobNs fight resembles struggles with river!demons known from folklore$ 28
29 %ermann 1unkel, &enesis Htrans$ &ark D$ 4iddle; &acon, 1a7 &ercer +niversity Press, 6CCB; orig$ 6C=6I, 2>B!>8$ 'ee also e$g$ %$ -$ Dlhorst, @1en$ 2:7:2!22,A 6A8 2: H6C6:I7 :CC!2=$ 2; 'ee the discussion by )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 96>$ 2B Albert de Pury, @-akob am -abbok, 1en 2:,:2!22 im ,icht einer alt!iranischen DrEFh! lung,A T6 29 H6CBCI7 6C!::$ 28 1unkel, &enesis, 29:!92$ Introduction: The Theophany 6> 1unkelNs idea, in fact first suggested by raEer, is problematic$ 2C The theory rests on literary parallels which 1unkel mentions only briefly, and which do not correspond well to the picture in the biblical te*t$ urthermore, raEerNs full list of literary and anthropological parallels overwhelmingly indicates that the phenomena represented are wholly distinct$ >= .evertheless, those who have espoused the river!demon theory have been satisfied to cite 1unkel, and have not returned to the literary and anthropological evidence$ 1unkel first writes of the )|<s] that @we may imagine that he is the numen of the river who is angry with -acob because one crosses his ford$ The belief that whoever traverses a river or a ford must appease the numen is also attested elsewhere,A and he cites raEer Hto be ad! dressed belowI$ %e describes the character as bloodthirsty and aiming to fight travelers to the death, although it is hard to find evidence to support either of these claims in the passage$ >6
The supposed parallels that 1unkel cites do not support his argu! ment$ %e e*tends the theme of the numen to include the general motif of fights involving monsters, demons, and phantoms, and the devil himself$ %e mentions 4eowulf and 1rendel, as well as Icelandic legend, and 1erman, 5endic, and ,ithuanian fairy tales, arguing that the pas! sage in 1enesis 2: has closer parallels in legends and fairy tales that portray @a god compelled by a human through deceit or force to leave behind his secret knowledge or something else divine$A %e cites the story of &enelaus catching the sea!god Proteus and forcing him to share his knowledge; >: the similar story of &idas, the king of Phrygia, catching the god 'ilenus and holding him captive until he shared his legendary knowledge; >2 and king .uma capturing the gods Picas and aunus and compelling them to bring -upiter to earth$ >> raEer had previously mentioned each of these in his discussion, suggesting that @-acobNs mysterious adversary was the spirit or #innee of the river, and that the struggle was purposely sought by -acob for the sake of obtain! ing his blessing$A >9
2C 1unkel cites 'ir -ames 1eorge raEer, @olk!lore in the <ld Testament,A in Anthropo$ logical Essays +resented to Ed#ard !urnett Tylor in Honour of His E> th !irthday, Oct. :, 9C?E Heds$ )$ %$ ?$ ?ivers et al$; <*ford7 Clarendon, 6C=BI, 62;ff$ >= The full discussion may be found in 'ir -ames 1eorge raEer, Fol,$lore in the Old Testament H2 vols$; ,ondon7 &ac&illan _ Co$, 6C6CI, :7>6:!:>$ >6 1unkel, &enesis, 29:$ >: %omer, Od$ >$29>!9B=, as cited by raEer$ 1unkel cites this as Od$6=$28>ff$ >2 3enophon, Ana". I :$62; and elsewhere, as cited in raEer, Fol,$lore$ >> <vid, Fast$ 2$:8C!2>8$ >9 raEer, Fol,$lore, >6:$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 69 %owever, raEerNs accounts are "uite a bit fuller$ After the story of &enelaus, he discusses the story of Peleus catching the sea!goddess Thetis$ >; %e then notes that in both te*ts, @the supple, slippery water! spirit writhes in the grip of his or her captor, slipping through his hands again and again, and shifting his or her shape from lion to ser! pent, from serpent to water, and so forth, in the effort to escape; not till he is at the end of his shifts and sees no hope of evading his determined adversary does he at last consent to grant the wished!for boon$A >B It should be immediately evident that the slippery, shape!shifting water creature described in these first te*ts bears no relation to the concretely human figure who grapples with -acob$ raEer then cites the story of %ercules wrestling with the river!god Achelous in order to win De! #anira for himself$ %ere too, as raEer notes, @the water!sprite turned himself first into a serpent and then into a bull in order to give the brawny hero the slip; but all in vain$A >8 raEer suggests after naming these te*ts as literary parallels that -acobNs opponent may have shifted shape in the original tale$ This argument is rather backwards$ Insofar as there is absolutely no indication that the )|<s], realistically anthropomor! phic throughout, ever changes form, these shape!shifting stories should not be taken as literary parallels$ The bulk of raEerNs discussion following this presentation of the few te*ts referenced later by 1unkel is telling$ %e presents a multitude of evidence spanning ancient te*ts and modern anthropological stud! ies, all showing that a central aspect of the widespread belief in river! spirits is the propitiation of the spirit by the traveler$ or e*ample, %e! siod notes that one should pray before crossing a river or be sub#ect to wrath$ >C The 'partan king Cleomenes wanted to cross the river Drasinus in order to invade Argolis, and sacrificed to the river before crossing$ The omen was unfavorable, so he instead went and sacrificed a bull to the sea$ 9= +nder 3er*es, the Persians came to the river 'trymon in Thrace, where the &agians sacrificed white horses in order to cross the river safely$ 96 ,ucullus sacrificed a bull to the Duphrates before crossing with the ?oman army$ 9:
According to raEer, anthropological evidence shows the same widespread practice$ Peoples commonly practicing sacrifices to rivers or river!spirits in order to remain safe in crossing include nineteenth
>; Apollodorus, !i"lio$ 2$62$ >B raEer, Fol,$lore, >62$ >8 <vid, 1etam$ C$;:!8;; raEer, Fol,$lore, >62$ >C %esiod, Op$ B2B!>6$ 9= %erodotus ;$B;$ 96 %erodotus B$662$ 9: Plutarch, 'uc$ :>$ Introduction: The Theophany 6; century Peruvians, the <ld )elsh, the 4antu tribes of southeastern Africa, the &asai of eastern Africa, the 4aganda of central Africa, the Ibos of the Awka district in southern .igeria, the 4anyoro at the cross! ing of the +pper .ile, the 4adagas tribe of south India, the nearby To! das tribe, and more$ The Angoni in central Africa have a related prac! tice of a form of confession while crossing$ In most of these cases, raEer does not specify the form of the feared water!spirit; when he does, however, it is the form of animals, as in +ganda, or the shape of snakes, as among the Torad#as of central Celebes$ 92 1unkelNs presenta! tion of the river!spirit phenomenon does not include this overwhelm! ing evidence that the need to propitiate the spirit was a central feature of that belief$ This feature is found nowhere in the 1enesis story$ -acob e*plicitly did not remain on the far side of the -abbok in order to sacri! fice; the te*t states that he has sent everything that is his across already Hdangerously before any hypothetical appeasing sacrificeI, and has nothing left with him$ Also related are the many literary and anthropological accounts of attempts to wound the water itself$ The Dgyptian king Pheron hurled a dart into the flooding .ile, and was punished with loss of his sight$ 3er*es sentenced the river %ellespont to receive three hundred lashes and be chained$ raEerNs charming rendering of the words of the @e*e! cutionersA reflects the same focus on propitiation discussed above7 @< bitter water, thy master inflicts this punishment on thee because thou hast wronged him who did no wrong to thee$ 4ut king 3er*es will cross thee, willy nilly$ And it serves thee right that no man sacrifices to thee, because thou art a treacherous and a briny river$A 9> An account of ancient Celts @hewing and stabbingA the ocean is similar$ 99
In the introductory section in which raEer discusses the 1reek te*ts mentioned above, he also refers to the stories of &idas and .uma, later mentioned by 1unkel$ These e*amples, it should be noted, are not related to water!spirits, but refer to gods with knowledge desired by a king$ )hile these stories also do not provide particularly close parallels to the passage in 1enesis, it is worth observing that they do refer to human heroes holding gods captive until they receive something they desire$ In fact, 1unkel himself closes his argument with the e*ample of `eus coming in human form to wrestle his son %ercules, only revealing his identity after wrestling evenly matched for "uite some time$ This is the only close parallel, and it demonstrates that in fact a deity in human
92 raEer, Fol,$lore, >6>!:=$ 9> %erodotus B$29; raEer, Fol,$lore, >:6!::$ 99 Aelian, 7ar. hist. 6:$:2$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 6B form is a better model for the 1enesis te*t than a water guardian$ 9;
Indeed, as many refer to the river!spirit theory as 1unkelNs interpreta! tion of the te*t, it bears repeating that 1unkel himself wrote that stories of @a god compelled by a human through deceit or force to leave be! hind his secret knowledge or something else divineA supply closer par! allels to the te*t of 1enesis 2:$ 9B
The common conclusion that -acobNs fight resembles struggles with river!demons known from folklore is based on 1unkelNs observations$ 1unkel, however, presented a very few te*ts, and these in fact show firstly that such river!spirits are portrayed as slippery, shape!shifting creatures, and secondly that there are many te*ts in which it is a god who fights the hero, and is held captive until he gives the hero what he desires$ &oreover, 1unkelNs presentation omits any mention of the vast evidence from literary and anthropological sources, ancient and mod! ern, which overwhelmingly indicates that a primary concern regarding river!spirits is propitiation or sacrifice$ This concern, once again, plays no part in the 1enesis te*t at all$ raEerNs method was not the model on which to base this type of analysis$ %is several volumes full of count! less anecdotes which he viewed as parallels to a vast number of biblical passages reflect a methodology not to be emulated here$ To accept ra! EerNs simplistic association of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 with attacks by river! spirits is to accept any or all of raEerNs volumes of supposed parallels$ Again, even 1unkel viewed te*ts which portray a human fighting with a god as more closely related to 1enesis 2:$ oremost among those who have adopted the river!demon theory, and adopted it as a certainty, )estermann claims that the story @bears distinct animistic traits and is not to be dissociated from the region, the ford, the river$ The danger of the ford is personified in the spirit or de! mon who does not want to let the traveler cross the riverW and attacks him so as to prevent him doing so$A %e defines the figure as a @hostile demonA and @evil spirit,A and argues further that there is @no basis in the te*t for the idea of -acobNs supposed encounter with 1od$A 98
)estermannNs short discussion of the theory of a river!spirit in 1enesis 2:, in which he cites 1unkel but not the supposed parallels, includes his observation that the idea @accords neither with the religion of Israel nor with that of the patriarchs, but with animistic belief in spirits or demons and has parallels among many peoples H%$ 1unkelI$A 9C )hile it is true that this idea does not accord with what is
9; 1unkel, &enesis, 292$ 1unkel cites the scholia on ,ycophron as discussed by 'cheer$ 9B 1unkel, &enesis, 29:$ 98 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 969!6C$ 9C )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 969$ Introduction: The Theophany 68 known of Israelite religion, it can now be seen that it also does not ac! cord with the literary and anthropological evidence regarding river! spirits$ )estermannNs argument is further based on three features of the 1enesis story which he claims show that the man is a demon7 the man attacks so as to cause harm, watches for daybreak, and hides his iden! tity$ %owever, )estermann himself compares each of these characteris! tics to those of a robber$ ;= In doing this, he counters his own argument that because of these characteristics the figure must be a demon$ ol! lowing this logic, one would have to presume the hypothetical robber to be a demon as well$ )estermannNs argument also fails in that he must finally put the word @blessingA in "uotes in his discussion, since it does not cohere with his demon interpretation$ ;6
A recent theory which takes the common view of the river!demon or evil spirit into account, yet still understands the te*t to refer to a theophany, comes from 'eebass$ %e argues in his 1enesis commentary that while at first -acob did not know if he was dealing with a demon or a deity, the @manA Hwhich 'eebass, like countless others, keeps in "uo! tation marksI then revealed himself as a divine being through the bless! ing and naming of -acob, and through refusing to give his own name$ ;:
'eebass contends that the entirety of this tradition is archaic and mono! theistic; i$e$, that it is not the case that only the @uncanny manA or sinis! ter being is original, and not 1od$ <n the contrary, he argues, @the transformation of the man to 1od can function as a completely original e*perience of 1od$ It can Hand within the canon, mustI be understood as meaning that the e*clusive divine character in Israel does not repress the uncanny$A %e concludes on a more general theological note that @the uncanny can originate from 1od himself; it is 1od himself; that it regularly descends upon humans,A and that @in -acobNs life, this hap! pens according to his e*pectations in perfectly real form as a VmanN$A ;2
)hile the view of the )|<s] as a river guardian has become rather popular, some have interpreted the figure as a spirit of a different sort$ %ermann )ohlstein, for instance, considers )e6lo4h|<m in this te*t to refer to the spirit of a dead man Hhence the use of )|<s] I, as in the post!mortem appearance of 'amuel to 'aul in 6 'amuel :8762$ %e argues that this reflects the tradition of the ancestor spirits who punish the living for
;= )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 96;$ ;6 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 9:6$ ;: 'eebass, &enesis, :72C>!C;$ ;2 'eebass, &enesis, :7>=:!2$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 6C neglecting to sacrifice to them$ ;> H%e does not offer any ideas regarding the sacrifice -acob might have neglected to give$I The most traditional interpretation, of course, is that the )|<s] is an angel$ &uch of the time this is presented as a given, oddly enough, since the te*t uses the terms )|<s] and )e6lo4h|<m, but not mal)a4k{$ <ccasion! ally, however, a defense is offered$ +ffenheimer brings up 1enesis 2: in the conte*t of a discussion of the human form of angels, claiming that @-acob thought that &od had fought with him,A but that the 1enesis te*t @maintains a certain lack of clarity$A %e notes that according to %osea 6:79, the @manA Hwhich he too keeps in "uotation marksI was an angel, indicating that he may prefer this interpretation for the 1enesis te*t as well$ ;9 'arna, in something of a mi*ture between psychology and midrash, suggests that the figure @must stand for Dsau in some manner$ %e is, as it were, DsauNs alter ego,A noting the tradition of the @celestial patron of DsauA as in 1en$ ?$ BB7:, B87;, and 'ong ?$ 27;$ ;;
'tephen 1eller has aptly described the historical problem in the in! terpretation of the passage7 @This is a famously enigmatic story$ The weird struggle in darkness and blessing in the twilight of dawn tempt normally sober e*egetes to flights of allegory, often disguised as psy! chological symbolismW <thers despair of ever finding coherent mean! ing in it$A ;B Indeed, he too concludes that there is no clear meaning, that the story @contains tensions which can never be resolved$A ;8 <n the "uestion of the identity of the )|<s], he observes that in the first section of the story @there is no reason to suppose -acobNs attacker was anything other than human, a brigand, perhaps,A while the second section @is written ambiguously, to allow both interpretationsW <n the other hand, section two also contains clues to the VmanNsN divinity$A ;C %e con! cludes7 -acobNs defeating 1od is blasphemous; his defeating a man is meaningless$ <ne naturally tries to posit some intermediary, but still supernatural being7 an angel$ 4ut why is the term mal)a4 k{ then avoided, especially since it al!
;> %ermann )ohlstein, @`u einigen altisraelitischen 5olksvorstellungen von Toten! und Ahnengeistern in biblischer aberlieferung,A 6R&& 6C H6C;BI7 292$ ;9 +ffenheimer, @&yth and ?eality,A6>8$ ;; 'arna, &enesis, >=2!>$ 'arna agrees with 1unkel that the river!demon idea may have provided a literary model, but with a @careful and radical purging of all elements of! fensive to the monotheism of Israel$A This seems rather at odds with 'arnaNs brief appraisal of 1unkelNs idea, in which he acknowledges some of the points made above, such as the fact that travelers would propitiate the river!spirit, and that this is not present in the 1enesis te*t$ ;B 'tephen 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok7 The +ses of Dnigma in a 4iblical .arra! tive,A /ANE 6> H6C8:I7 28$ ;8 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A 9;$ ;C 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A >;$ Introduction: The Theophany := ready forms one of the 'eit#Frter, and angels play prominent roles else! where in the -acob sagaZ <n the other hand, )e6lo4h|<m can certainly refer by itself to angels; cf$ 2:7:!>b The only reasonable answer is that it is not the authorNs intention that we resolve this issue; i$e$, the ambiguity is precisely his aimW The point is this7 the meaning is in the restless activity of the mind as it tests each option$ 4y being unclear on such a vital point the te*t allows intimations of all possi! ble answersW The concept of pregnant ambiguity is a cornerstone of modern literary analysis$ This biblical story presents an e*treme e*ample of its useW B=
1eller suggests that the author intentionally wrote an ambiguous story because in the Pentateuch, @human!divine relations have become, in their usual form, almost routine events,A and the naming of Israel was @an event that called for a truly special effect$A B6 )hile 1eller rightly points out that the te*t does not portray a @routineA e*ample of divine! human relations, his suggestion that this is the authorNs intentional use of @pregnant ambiguityA is anachronistic$ As discussed in regard to the many similar analyses of 1enesis 68, such appraisals of the intentional @mysteryA of the te*t reflect the interests of a different time$ This te*t does break away from @routineA types of divine!human contact and communication$ The author accomplishes this not through lack of clar! ity, however, but by presenting a picture of a startling theophanic ap! pearance$ <thers come to similar conclusions regarding the mystery of the passage$ As in the case of 1enesis 68, the evaluation of this te*t as mys! terious has led to a certain lack of resolve to identify the )|<s]$ 'peiser notes only that the figure is @not specifically V1odN,A and that @the reader, of course, should not try to spell out the details that the author himself glimpsed as if through a haEe$A B: )enham likewise describes the story as @the encounter with the VmanN Hi$e$ 1odI,A and argues, like so many in the case of 1enesis 68, that the use of the term @manA Hwhich he keeps in "uotes throughoutI reflects -acobNs perspective$ %e then states that @the nature of the e*perience still remains mysterious as all encounters with 1od must necessarily be$A B2 %e concludes that due to the @opacity of the narrativeW the identity of the unknown opponent is as obscure to modern readers as to -acob$A B> 4arthes refers to the fig! ure as @someone, a man, &od or the Angel,A though to be fair, he notes
B= 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A 9>$ B6 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A ;=$ B: 'peiser, &enesis, :99!9;$ B2 )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, :C>!C9$ B> )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, 2=:$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 :6 that this is not important for his focus on the structure of the story$ B9
5on ?ad states that @the word VmanN is open to all possible interpreta! tions$A B; As mentioned previously, -oel 4urnett, in his book on Dlohim, assigns a variety of identities to the figure$ <ther e*egetes simply leave terms such as @angelA and @manA in "uotation marks and refer, like ?ichard 4odLJs, to the @singularityA of the passage$ BB
It is interesting to note that both depictions of the )|<s] theophany have been chalked up to mystery$ In an intriguing concurrence in the history of scholarship, the same vagueness that characteriEed many analyses of 1enesis 68 is also apparent in those concerned with 1enesis 2:$ In both cases, the common lack of precision in identifying the )|<s] is a generally accepted byproduct of the evaluation of the te*t as mysteri! ous0or perhaps the cause and effect are in #ust the other direction$ There have been various attempts to draw parallels between the story of -acobNs wrestling and other stories, from both within the an! cient .ear Dast and without$ irstly, there have been several compari! sons between this passage and other peculiar biblical te*ts, especially D*odus >7:>!:;$ 4odLJs, for e*ample, comments that perhaps D*odus >7:>ff$ could supply a parallel, although that is @to e*plain the obscure by the more obscure$A %e also suggests a comparison with Deuteron! omy 2278 and 1enesis 2=72 for references to struggles with 1od, and -udges ;766ff$ for the @manA Hwhich he places in "uotesI later recog! niEed as an angel of /ahweh$ B8 1unkel has written, in the same place as his statement that the figure in the -acob story is a numen and not 1od, that D*odus >7:>!:;, in which @/ahweh attacks &oses with the inten! tion of killing him, is an instructive parallel$ This is also 1odNs intention here$A BC 'eebass too compares the te*t to D*odus >, 8= as does 1eller, who cites the assault at night and the touch of the leg$ 86 1eller also points to the le=l s]|3mmu4r|<m, the @night of watchfulnessA HD*odus 6:7>:I, which @e*presses an apprehension of holiness similar to 1enesis 2:$A )estermann draws a parallel with D*odus >7:>!:; Hwhere /ahweh is namedI, arguing that there too @the attacker is a demon,A and also compares -udges 62768, in which the angel of /ahweh refuses to give
B9 ?oland 4arthes, @,a lutte avec lNange,A in ?oland 4arthes et al$, Analyse structurale et ex4gGse "i"li5ue= Essais d.interpr4tation H.euchctel7 Delachau* et .iestlL, 6CB:I, 22$ B; 5on ?ad, &enesis, 2:=$ BB ?ichard 4odLJs, @Parall]le pour interprLtation du Vcombat de -acob,NA O'+ > H6CB2I7 629$ B8 4odLJs, @Parall]le,A 629!2;$ BC 1unkel, &enesis, 2>C$ 8= 'eebass, &enesis, :7>=6$ 86 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A 9;$ Introduction: The Theophany :: his name$ 8: 'hearman and Curtis connect the -acob te*t to the D*odus passage, arguing that both are originally stories of bloody conflicts with demons$ 82 <thers have compared the passage to te*ts in which a patri! arch is tested$ 8>
These attempted parallels have not succeeded in illuminating the te*t of 1enesis 2:7:2!22$ This is partly due to the variety of reasons for te*tual comparison$ 'ome of the te*ts seem less than clearly related to the 1enesis passage He$g$, the struggle with 1od of Deuteronomy 2278 or the night of vigilI, some are used simply to argue further for a previ! ous interpretation He$g$, that the figure in both passages is a demonI, and some offer parallels but do not e*plain them further He$g$, -udges ; and 62, which both feature a being clearly defined as an angelI$ <thers have tried to connect the 1enesis story to a Canaanite ori! gin$ )ohlstein attempts to draw a connection to Dl and his destructive son &ot, proposing that @with the transmission of the Penuel!Dpisode to -acob the Canaanite traditions had been significantly blurred$A 89 De &oor cites 0T* 6$6 II 62!6; as a parallel$ 8; (orpel agrees, and adds 0T* 6$2 II in which Anat battles humans and 0T* 6$2 5 6!> in which Anat, speaking to 4aal, threatens Dl$ 8B
<thers have gone further afield for their comparisons$ Tsevat at! tempts to draw a parallel between the -acob story and a %ittite story of a battle between a king and a god$ 88 4odLJs leaves the .ear Dast en! tirely and compares the story of -acob to that of the divine!human fight between 'iva and Ar#una in the &ahabharata$ 8C As mentioned previ!
8: )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 96B!68$ 82 'usan ,ee 'hearman and -ohn 4riggs Curtis, @Divine!%uman Conflicts in the <ld Testament,A /NE :8 H6C;CI7 :>:$ 8> 'eebass, for e*ample, interprets this as a test like that of Abraham in ch$ ::, noting that this time @-acob had to stand against the dark side of 1odA H&enesis, :7>=>I$ 'peiser also refers to this as @-acobNs ultimate test, like Abraham at &oriahA H&enesis, :9;I$ ?obert &artin!Achard argues that the motif of the struggle, which he believes was originally independent from other motifs in the story, @belongs to the narratives dedicated to the theme of Vthe test of the heroes,NA and he compares foreign tradi! tions as well H@+n e*Lg]te devant 1en]se 2:$:2!22,A in ?oland 4arthes et al$, Analyse structurale et ex4gGse "i"li5ue, 92I$ 89 )ohlstein, @Toten! und Ahnengeistern,A 292$ 8; -ohannes C$ de &oor, The Rise of Hah#ism= The Roots of )sraelite 1onotheism H,euven7 +niversity Press, 6CC=I, :2:$ 0T* references throughout e"uate to the updated (AT7 &anfried Dietrich, <swald ,oretE, and -!!!!in Sanmarlin, eds., The (uneiform Al$ pha"etic Texts from *garit, Ras )"n Hani and Other +laces (2d enIarged ed. |of Die ,eilal$ pha"etischen Texte aus *garit, 1976j, ALASI, Mnsler: Ugaril-VerIag, 1995). 87 Mar|o Chrislina Annelle KoreI, A Rift in the (louds= *garitic and He"re# Descriptions of the Di%ine (Mnsler: Ugaril-VerIag, 1990), 500, 510. 88 M. Tseval, Tvo OId Teslamenl Slories and lheir Hillile AnaIogues, /AO 103 (1983): 321-22. 89 odes, IaraIIeIe, 137-40. The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 :2 ously, 1unkelNs suggested parallels include Icelandic, 1erman, Anglo! 'a*on and ,ithuanian stories, and include both tests of heroes against demons and monsters, and circumstances in which humans compel deities to grant them something they desire$ C= %owever, as these two simultaneously!suggested motifs are very different, one must regard this0as in so many other cases0as the search for a literary template, not an analysis of the 1enesis te*t itself$ &any of the preceding interpretations add unnecessary comple*ity to the te*t$ In 1enesis 2:7:9, after sending his family and all that he has across the -abbok, -acob is left alone$ The te*t is blunt and concise re! garding what follows7 @a man H)|<s] I wrestled with him$A The ensuing description leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the manNs physical form$ %e cannot prevail against -acob0that is, he is not supernaturally strong, but is fully tied to the realistic human form$ %e therefore resorts to dislocating -acobNs hip$ /et even now he is not stronger than -acob, but rather must ask to be let gob It is clear that he is in physical form concretely a man, and not simply a disguised divinity with superhu! man strength$ It is in the subse"uent dialogue that his divine identity becomes e"ually clear$ -acob re"uests a blessing, and the man responds by re! naming him, an act which reflects his divine nature$ A similar concept is seen in %osea 67;!:72 HDng$ 67;!:76I$ /ahweh tells %osea to name his daughter Lo4) ruh[ a4ma= H@'he has not received compassionAI, and e*! plains, @for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel$A %e then tells %osea to name his son Lo4) (amm|< H@.ot my peopleAI, and e*plains, @for you are not my people$A 4oth e*planations of the new names begin with a k|< formula, as in 1enesis 2:7:C$ Immediately fol! lowing this, /ahweh proclaims hope for the children of Israel, saying, @In the place where it is said to them, V/ou are not my people Hlo4)$ (amm|< )attemI, it will be said to them, V'ons of the living 1odbNA /ahweh then instructs %osea, @'ay to your brothers, V(Amm|< ,N and to your sis! ters, VRuh[ a4ma= $NA )hile this is not a formal renaming of an individual, the concept of the symbolic renaming is closely related, as is the k|< construction employed in the giving of names and e*planations$ Again, this is a divine activity$ It is not only the act of renaming -acob that betrays the identity of the )|<s] in 1enesis 2:$ The giving of a new name does reflect his divine nature, but moreover, the )|<s] names -acob Yis8ra4)e4l, or @1od strives$A %owever the name originally came about, the etymology offered in this te*t clearly depends upon an understanding of the )|<s] as 1od$ Perhaps some "uestion lingers regarding whether this confirms the identity of
C= 1unkel, &enesis, 29:$ Introduction: The Theophany :> the man as 1od himself; -acob too has this lingering doubt, and asks for the manNs name$ It is at this final "uestion that the man demonstrates to -acob that he is no mere man, through word and deed$ %is returned "uestion is e*planation enough7 @)hy do you ask my nameZA Hv$ 2=I$ C6
In con#unction with this statement, the man blesses him$ -acob has no further "uestions regarding the manNs identity, and claims immediately that he has seen 1od face to face$ As in 1enesis 68, the deity is not recogniEed here through a distin! guishable appearance; his appearance is as an ordinary man, and the revelation of theophany does not come through a visibly distinctive divine "uality, but through divine speech$ As /ahweh finally an! nounced himself to Abraham, asking, @Is anything too e*traordinary for /ahwehZA H6876>I, -acobNs wrestling opponent gives him a new name, Israel, and e*plains, @/ou have striven with 1od and men H(im$ )e6lo4h|<m we6(im$)a6na4s]|<mI and have prevailedA H2:7:CI$ It has been argued that the term )e6lo4h|<m in this verse does not mean @1od,A but @godsA or @divine beings$A C: It has also been suggested that )e6lo4h|<m here refers to a ghost or ancestor spirit, as in 6 'amuel :8762$ C2
%owever, the phrase @for you have striven with )e6lo4h|<m and with )a6na4s] |<m A cannot be separated from the new name given to -acob, for which it offers e*planation$ The name given in 2:7:C is /isra$El, and its e*planation is k|<$s8a4r|<ta4 (im$)e6lo4h|<m, @for you have striven with )e6lo4h|<m$A The term )e6lo4h|<m is used to e*plain the name /isra!El, and thus is used as an e"uivalent to El$ C>
%owever, -acob himself does not appear to understand the situa! tion thoroughly, and asks this )e6lo4h|<m for his name$ As 'mith suggests, -acob may ask this "uestion in order to establish what type of )e6lo4h|<m he is$ C9 1od challenges the "uestion and blesses -acob, who responds in verse 26 with a formula parallel to 1odNs own in verse :C, indicating that he now realiEes whom he faces$ -acobNs declaration in
C6 Interestingly, 1odNs "uestion to -acob, la4mma= zeh tis])al lis] m|<, has both the same form and the same function as his "uestion to Abraham in 68762, la4 mma= zeh s[ a4h[a6qa= s8a4ra= H@why did 'arah laughZAI$ There too, /ahwehNs "uestion to the patriarch comes at the moment of self!revelation$ C: 5ersions of this argument are found in 'peiser, &enesis, :9>!99; 'eebass, &enesis, :72C;; )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 968; and references$ C2 'ee especially )ohlstein, @Toten! und Ahnengeistern,A 292$ 'ee also Cooper and 1oldstein, @D*odus and Mas[s[o=t,A :C!2>$ C> <n the name /isra!El referring to the god Dl, see &ark '$ 'mith, The Origins of !i"li$ cal 1onotheism H<*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==6I, 6>:!>2$ C9 &ark '$ 'mith, @?emembering 1od7 Collective &emory in Israelite ?eligion,A (!- ;> H:==:I7 ;>6$ <n the theme of confusion in encounters with )e6lo4h|<m, see Alan &$ Cooper and 4ernard ?$ 1oldstein, @D*odus and Mas[s[o= t in %istory and Tradition,A 1aara% 8 H6CC:I7 26!2>$ The Theophany of Genesis 32:23-33 :9 verse 26, @I have seen )e6lo4h|<m face to face, and my life has been deliv! ered,A cannot be separated from the name he gives the place, for which it provides e*planation$ %e names the place Peni!El, and in his e*plana! tion immediately following he declares, k|<$ra4)|<t|< )e6lo4h|<m pa4n|<m )el$pa4n|<m, @for I have seen )e6lo4h|<m face to face$A This second use of the term )e6lo4h|<m in the te*t is also ine*tricably linked to an XEl name, and is thus used as an e"uivalent to El$ &oreover, both of these XEl names and their respective e*plana! tions concern an encounter with 1od in person$ The name Peniel and its e*planation reflect the immediacy of 1odNs presence; the name Israel and its e*planation reflect 1odNs concrete presence$ The e*planations offered in this story for the names Peniel and Israel cannot simply refer to )e6lo4h|<m outside of the conte*t of the story of a direct encounter, and specifically a physical encounter in the case of /isra!El, k|<$s8a4r|<ta4 (im$ )e6lo4h|<m$ The use of these names in the story cannot be separated from the e*planations offered for them, as e*planations are consistently pro! vided when new names are given; this connection establishes that the uses of )e6lo4h|<m in the e*planations refer to El, 1od$ The e*planations, in turn, cannot be separated from the encounter with 1od in the story$ All of these elements are linked, and tell of a physical encounter with 1od$ The )|<s] who wrestles -acob is identified through multiple, irreducible elements of the story as )e6lo4h|<m, )el, 1od$ As in 1enesis 68, 1od appears here in anthropomorphically realis! tic form$ There is no indication that there is anything unusual about his physical form as a man$ %e is scarcely a match for -acob, who is himself not drawn as a terrifically intimidating character$ The man is thus im! plicitly not larger than human siEe nor beyond human strength$ %e is not stronger than -acob even when the latter has a dislocated hip$ %e engages in very human activity, as in 1enesis 68, and never acts out! side of the bounds of his human form$ The most straightforward reading of each of these two te*ts is that 1od appears to the patriarch in theophany, #ust as we see in myriad other te*ts, and that in these two cases, the form of theophany is hu! man$ 4efore addressing the nature of anthropomorphic theophany in more detail, it will be helpful to e*amine the range of types of anthro! pomorphism evident in biblical te*ts, as well as a number of deeply ingrained philosophical and theological reasons why some might be disinclined to read these te*ts as depicting the appearance of 1od to a patriarch in concretely embodied human form$ :$ 5arieties of Anthropomorphism 5arieties of Anthropomorphism 5arieties of Anthropomorphism The anthropomorphism of biblical depictions of 1od is inescapable0 even the second commandment is inscribed by the finger of 1od$ 6 %owever, while anthropomorphism in a general sense is unavoidable, the use of specific types of anthropomorphic depiction, including physical embodiment, is certainly avoidable$ Problems relating to anthropomorphism have always been of great concern to scholars of philosophy and theology$ : Throughout the his! tory of scholarship, however, these discussions have relied upon an e*tremely broad definition of anthropomorphism$ There are, in fact, many varieties of anthropomorphic portrayal of deity which have never been distinguished from one another, and which serve different narrative and theological functions$ A ta*onomy of basic types of an! thropomorphic portrayal of deity should be fruitful in understanding the role the phenomenon plays in different te*ts$ +ntil now, scholars have only distinguished between anthropo! morphism Hi$e$, any reference to physicalityI and anthropopathism Hi$e$, 1od thinking and feeling as humans doI$ These have also been called physical and psychical anthropomorphism, which is the same basic binary distinction we see in the scholarship of a full century ago$ 2 Those
6 4revard Childs similarly comments on the @remarkable anthropomorphismA of 1od in preventing &oses from seeing his back by shielding &osesN eyes with his hand HThe !oo, of Exodus= A (ritical, Theological (ommentary P<T,; Philadelphia7 )estmin! ster Press, 6CB>Q, 9C;I$ rederick errL likewise points out that without IsaiahNs @harmless anthropomorphisms, the prophet!poet could never have e*pressed so well his wonderfully ironic #udgment upon vicious anthropocentrism,A citing e$g$ Isaiah >=7:6!:9$ rederick errL, @In Praise of Anthropomorphism,A )/+R 6; H6C8>I7 :=B$ : 'ee e$g$ ?$ -$ `wi )erblowsky, @Anthropomorphism,A Encyclopedia of Religion Hed$ &ircea Dliade; .ew /ork7 &acmillan, 6C8BI, 26B, on anthropomorphism as @a central problem in the history of religions, theology, and religious philosophy,A and %ans %$ Penner, )mpasse and Resolution= A (riti5ue of the tudy of Religion H.ew /ork7 Peter ,ang, 6C8CI, 66, on the relationship between human and superhuman beings as @one of the ma#or unresolved puEEles in the study of religion$A 2 $ 4$ -evons, @Anthropomorphism,A in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics Hed$ -ames %astings; .ew /ork7 Charles 'cribnerNs 'ons, 6C=8I, 679B2; 1$ van der ,eeuw, Relig$ ion in Essence and 1anifestation Htrans$ -$ D$ Turner with additions by %ans %$ Penner; Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C8;; from 1erman original +hInomenologie der Religion, 6C22I, 6B:!B;; )erblowsky, @Anthropomorphism,A Encyclopedia of Relig$ ion, 26B$ Varieties of Anthropomorphism :B who have differentiated between these in name have not then dis! cussed what differences these types of anthropomorphism might have in nature and function$ > The same problem occurs in the study of the %ebrew 4ible, but here the issue is more acute$ Due to scholarsN limited involvement in the discussions regarding philosophical theories of anthropomorphism, even the fundamental distinction between physical and @psychicalA anthropomorphism is often wanting$ An e*ception is -ames 4arr, who is more precise, distinguishing be! tween the anthropomorphism of theophany in human form, and that of 1od having human!like abilities, such as smelling incense$ 4arr ob! serves that these are not the same phenomenon, although he then in! cludes in his e*amples of theophany in human form not only 1enesis 687:, but also such te*ts as 1enesis :8762, Amos B7B and C76, and later Isaiah ;79!B, all of which occur in dreams or visions$ 9 4arr made a sig! nificant advance by bringing the distinction between physical anthro! pomorphism and anthropopathism into the discussion of biblical theophany$ ; %owever, even within the category of physical anthropo! morphism, a distinction must be made between the concrete anthro! pomorphism of 1enesis 68, for e*ample, in which /ahweh appears in human form in person, and other te*ts in which he appears in anthro! pomorphic form in a vision or dream theophany$ A very few scholars discuss various aspects of anthropomorphism in the %ebrew 4ible$ riedrich 4aumgFrtel understands a primary func! tion of biblical anthropomorphism to be the emphasiEing of 1odNs tran! scendence above nature, as opposed to the ancient .ear Dastern godsN personification in nature, for e*ample, B and -ohannes %empel claims
> )erblowsky differentiates on another level as well, distinguishing between @pri! maryA and @secondaryA anthropomorphism, the first of which refers to a @simple, nadve, uncritical Hor precriticalI level of immediate, concrete, Vmassive,N and mytho! logical imagination,A and the second of which is @more dogmatic and deliberateW not because they reflect the immediate level of religious consciousness but because they reflect a dogmatic position,A i$e$, that biblical anthropomorphic language must be taken literally on principle H@Anthropomorphism,A Encyclopedia of Religion, 26BI$ Dlsewhere, )erblowsky refers to the need to distinguish between types of anthro! pomorphism, but then discusses @personificationA Hof radically different kindsI as a unit, distinguished only from less @nadveA allegory H@Anthropomorphism,A Encyclo$ pedia /udaica Hed$ $ 'kolnik; :d ed$; Detroit7 &acmillan, :==BI, 688!C=$ 9 4arr also includes 6 'amuel 276=, which may occur in a dream$ 'amuel is asleep each time /ahweh calls Hcf$ 6 (ings 6C79!C, as discussed in Chapter iveI$ &oreover, the first two times he believed it was Dli speaking to him, indicating that those were not physical appearances, and v$ 6= notes that /ahweh called @as before$A %owever, v$ 69 refers to the event as a mar)a=$ ; -ames 4arr, @Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the <ld Testament,A 26!2:, 2;$ B riedrich 4aumgFrtel, @Das <ffenbarungsEeugnis des Alten Testaments im ,ichte der religionsgeschichtlich!vergleichenden orschung,A 6T0 ;> H6C;BI7 >=6$ or a Varieties of Anthropomorphism :8 that anthropomorphism serves to relate 1od and humanity as @belong! ing together,A rather than 1od and the animals$ 8 &ark 'mith discusses the relationship between anthropomorphic deities and @divine mon! sters,A and recogniEes that even the biblical te*ts which re#ect @ma*i! malA anthropomorphism still include @minimal$A C <thers have con! cluded specifically that there is no divine embodiment in the %ebrew 4ible$ 6=
or the purposes of better understanding the )|<s] theophany, it is most pertinent to distinguish various types of physical anthropomor! phism$ To be sure, varieties of psychical anthropomorphism could also be fruitfully categoriEed$ or instance, independent mental or emo! tional anthropomorphism like divine #ealousy should be distinguished from relational anthropomorphism, as in descriptions of 1od in human roles such as father or husband H%os 6!2, 66I$ This difference pertains to whether 1od is like humans or only chooses to relate like humans$ The following ta*onomy covers varieties of physical anthropomor! phism in the %ebrew 4ible$ The Israelite authors would not have made choices from among neatly discrete categories, of course, and it is not necessary for the modern interpreter to fit every te*t into e*actly one bo*$ There are overlaps between these varieties, and not every reader will interpret a te*t to fit into the same category$ .onetheless, these distinctions should be helpful in considering the range of form and function in this broad phenomenon called anthropomorphism$ :$6 5arieties of Physical Anthropomorphism 5arieties of Physical Anthropomorphism Concrete Anthropomorphism The phenomenon of concrete physical embodiment is evident in a small number of biblical te*ts, including 1odNs walk in the garden in 1enesis
similar comparison with related results see Ddwin /amauchi, @Anthropomorphism in Ancient ?eligions,A !ac 6:9 H6C;8I7 :C!>>$ 8 -ohannes %empel, @Die 1renEen des Anthropomorphismus -ahwes im Alten Testa! ment,A 6A8 9B H6C2CI7 BC$ C 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism, :B!>=$ 6= 'ee e$g$ %$ )$ $ 'aggs, The Encounter #ith the Di%ine in 1esopotamia and )srael H-,C?' 6:; ,ondon7 Athlone Press, 6CB8I, C:; +ffenheimer, @&yth and ?eality in Ancient Is! rael,A 6>=, 6>;; David '$ 'hapiro, @Possible Deus %omoZA /udaism 2: H6C82I7 29C!;6; %oward )ettstein, @Theological Impressionism,A /udaism >C H:===I7 626!22; and -acob .eusner, The )ncarnation of &od= The (haracter of Di%inity in Formati%e /udaism HPhiladelphia7 ortress, 6C88I$ Interestingly, .eusner, in a whole work on incarna! tion in -udaism, barely mentions 1enesis 68, and then only as involving @angelsA H)ncarnation of &od, :6I$ Varieties of Physical Anthropomorphism :C 2, and the theophanies of 1enesis 68 and 2:$ The phenomenon of con! crete anthropomorphism is familiar, for instance, from 1reek mythol! ogy, in which we regularly see `eus interacting with humans on earth$ H'ome may think of .ear Dastern mythology in this regard; important differences will be covered in Chapter 'i*$I As discussed in Chapter <ne, an additional peculiarity of the theo! phanies of 1enesis 68 and 2: is the realistic human nature of the deity, who eats, rests, wrestles, and is unable to defeat a mortal man$ This is not a necessary feature of concrete anthropomorphism, which could e"ually include portrayals of divine beings in concrete physical bodies, but of unrealistic nature, such as angels who perform miraculous feats and .ear Dastern gods of immense siEe or strength$ The following chapters will address this in more detail$ This additional characteristic of anthropomorphic realism should be understood as a subcategory of concrete anthropomorphism$ Dnvisioned Anthropomorphism A common type of biblical anthropomorphism which must be distin! guished from concrete embodiment is the sight of the deity in a dream or vision$ These visions can be more or less detailed, and the appear! ance of the deity can fall anywhere along a broad spectrum of charac! teristics, but in no case do they actually reflect the physical presence of the deity on earth$ In other words, even a vision in which /ahwehNs appearance could be interpreted as realistically human must be distin! guished from an actual earthly appearance of the deity$ or e*ample, in 1enesis :8762, -acob sees /ahweh @standing beside himA Hnis[s[a4b{ (a4la4ywI, presumably in anthropomorphic form, though his physicality is not e*plicitly described$ The vision in Amos C76 of /ahweh @standing by the altarA Hnis[s[ a4b{ (a4l$hammizbe4ah9 I is similar$ In both te*ts the form of /ahweh is ambiguous with regard to realism Hi$e$, he could be imag! ined to have realistic human "ualities and proportionsI, but his appear! ance is restricted to the vision$ The vision of /ahweh on the throne in Isaiah ; is more e*plicit Hhe even wears human garmentsI, though in this case his vast siEe is highlighted$ The defining feature of this cate! gory of anthropomorphism is its restriction to an appearance within a vision or dream; the range of characteristics within these appearances is of secondary interest$ Varieties of Anthropomorphism 2= Immanent Anthropomorphism In some te*ts, 1od is described in anthropomorphic terms and seems to be immanent, but is not e*plicitly depicted as physically embodied$ 'ome readers may interpret the te*ts this way, but the lack of any de! scription of full physical embodiment should not be overlooked; as a narrative device with its own function, this is distinct from e*plicit description of literal embodiment$ The concept of anthropomorphic immediacy is evident in several te*ts that describe encounters with 1od$ In the theophany to Dli#ah at %oreb, the point emphasiEed in the passage is that /ahweh was not in the most furious wind, earth"uake, or fire, but in the still small voice7 @And then /ahweh passed byb A great and strong wind was splitting mountains and shattering rocks before /ahweh; but /ahweh was not in the wind$ And after the wind an earth"uake, but /ahweh was not in the earth"uake$ And after the earth"uake, fire, but /ahweh was not in the fire; and after the fire, a sound of a small whisperA H6 (ings 6C766! 6:I$ The anthropomorphic nature of the voice is evident, and the deity is immanent, but #ust as the presence of /ahweh is not in the wind or fire, it is overtly not embodied in any form$ 'ome appearances of /ahweh to &oses also reflect a type of an! thropomorphic immediacy$ D*odus 227C says, @And when &oses en! tered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stand at the entrance to the tent and Phe wouldQ speak with &oses$A Though verse 66 says that @/ahweh spoke to &oses face to face, #ust as a man speaks to his friend,A the only physical image in this te*t is the pillar of cloud$ /ahweh cannot be both concretely anthropomorphic and also in the cloud, as if standing guard at the door for himself, in a double theophany; rather, he speaks to &oses from the cloud, as he does in other te*ts within the Pentateuch, as well as in -ob$ The phrase in verse 66 must refer not literally to the face or physicality of 1od, but to the intimacy of how he speaks with &oses, @as a man to his friend$A )e see this elsewhere as well$ In D*odus 2>79!;, /ahweh descends in the cloud, stands with &oses, passes by, and proclaims his name$ It is clear in this conte*t that the anthropomorphic immediacy of /ahweh standing in the presence of &oses, passing by him, and speaking, is all from within the cloud$ 4etween these two te*ts, in D*odus 22768!:2, the separation maintained between 1odNs physicality and &osesN vision and e*peri! ence is e*pressed in an odd way$ &oses says to /ahweh, @'how me your gloryA; /ahweh says he will make his glory pass by, but not his face, for no one can see his face and live$ %is glory will pass by, and his hand will cover &oses till he has passed$ &oses will see his back, but not his face$ Varieties of Physical Anthropomorphism 26 .umbers 6:78 says that /ahweh speaks to &oses @mouth to mouthA Hpeh )el$pehI and @PinQ visionPsQ, not in riddles, and he beholds the form of /ahweh$A Deuteronomy 2>76= is similar7 @Another prophet has not risen in Israel like &oses, whom /ahweh knew face to face Hpa4n|<m el$pa4n|<mI$A 'oon after the statement in .umbers 6:, there is an! other intriguing idiom similar to the use of @face to faceA or @mouth to mouthA in reference to /ahweh$ In this case, it is clear that this phrase still refers only to the cloud$ In .umbers 6>76>, &oses tells /ahweh that the Dgyptians have heard that /ahweh is in the midst of the Israelite people, and that @you, /ahweh, appear eye to eye H(ayin be6(ayinI when your cloud stands over them$A Immediately preceding this, in .umbers 667:9, we have an e*plicit description of /ahweh coming down to the tent in a cloud and speak! ing to &oses$ 'hortly before this, in .umbers B78C, it is e*plained that when &oses would enter the tent, he would @hear the voiceA speaking to him from above the cover over the Ark$ Again, the anthropomorphic nature of this is evident Hspeaking directly to him, hearing a literal voice as if a human spoke to himI, but from above the Ark$ In .um! bers C769!:2 it is e*plained further that when the Tabernacle was erected, the cloud covered it$ Interestingly, the cloud covered it @in the likeness of fireA at night Hboth verses 69 and 6;I, indicating the degree to which /ahweh was associated with the cloud itself$ Throughout the ne*t several verses, the movements of the cloud are associated with the command of /ahweh, so that when the cloud lifted the Israelites would break camp, and when it rested they would rest$ The IsraelitesN actions following the cloud are referred to repeatedly as observing the man! date of /ahweh, and acting at his command, literally HrepeatedlyI (al$p|<, demonstrating a clear set of repeated references to the @mouthA of /ahweh indicating the word he spoke from the cloud Hi$e$, not from a bodyI$ The non!literal or non!embodied nature of these idioms is apparent again in Deuteronomy 97>, in which &oses reminds the Israelites that /ahweh had spoken to them @face to faceA Hpa4n|<m be6p4a4n|<mI, from the midst of the fire$ Deuteronomy 2>76=!66 demonstrates a similar usage7 it is said that /ahweh knew &oses @face to faceA Hpa4n|<m el$pa4n|<mI, for all of the signs and wonders which /ahweh sent him to do0in other words, the thrust of the idiom once again relates to the intimacy of the communication, not to literal faces$ 'hortly earlier, in Deuteronomy 26769, it is said that /ahweh appeared in the cloud at the entrance to the tent, and spoke$ )hile of course it is not necessary to presume that these te*ts all re! flect the same assumptions regarding divine form, it should be noted that such provocative phrases as @eye to eye,A @face to face,A and Varieties of Anthropomorphism 2: @mouth to mouthA are fre"uently used even when it is clear that /ah! weh appears only in the cloud$ )hile a few te*ts describe the special nature of &osesN communica! tion with /ahweh using these highly anthropomorphic idioms, others emphasiEe the aural aspect of the theophany$ In D*odus 6C7C, for e*am! ple, /ahweh tells &oses that he will come to him in order that the peo! ple would hear when he spoke to &oses, and trust him$ In D*odus :>7C!68, &oses and others see 1od with a pavement of sapphire under his feet$ The te*t is vague, and could be interpreted as envisioned, immanent, or transcendent anthropomorphism Hsee ne*t categoryI$ 1odNs speech to -ob also displays radical immanent anthropomor! phism, as 1od delivers his solilo"uy from the whirlwind$ Interestingly, this is all set in the conte*t of a profoundly anti!anthropocentric narra! tive, again reflecting the intrabiblical tension surrounding divine an! thropomorphism$ In the poetic core of the book, 1od is deemed unfa! thomable; he eventually speaks to -ob directly and at great length, but from the whirlwind, and apparently not to e*plain himself$ These te*ts portray the closeness of 1od in anthropomorphic terms, but to varying degrees lack e*plicit presentation of the deity in con! cretely embodied human form$ Transcendent Anthropomorphism In many other te*ts, /ahweh is described in anthropomorphic terms, but is not concretely embodied, not e*plicitly envisioned, and not im! manent$ Instead, he is portrayed in anthropomorphic terms, but in the heavens$ 66 These te*ts include references to /ahweh as enthroned in heaven, riding on the cherubim, and so on$ 'ome te*ts portray 1od alone Hi$e$, in himself, not in relation to humankindI with anthropo! morphic traits or engaged in seemingly human activities$ In 1enesis 6, 1od speaks and creates$ In 1enesis :, /ahweh plants a garden and forms animals out of the earth Hthough this could also be interpreted as immanent anthropomorphismI$ &any other te*ts depict 1odNs activi! ties in heaven in anthropomorphic terms, such as his presiding over the
66 %endel uses this term in a very different way, to refer to descriptions of certain deities Hsuch as &arduk and .inurtaI as less anthropomorphic than others, thus by implication transcending their power$ 'ince the emphasis is that the deities are less anthropomorphic, I would prefer @transcending anthropomorphismA in these cases$ ?onald '$ %endel, @Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,A in The )mage and the !oo,= )conic (ults, Aniconism, and the Rise of !oo, Religion in )srael and the Ancient Near East Hed$ (arel van der Toorn; C4DT :6; ,euven7 +itgeveri# Peeters, 6CCBI, :=B!:=8$ A Mixed Tradition 22 divine council He$g$, Psalm 8:76I, and myriad petitions assume a tran! scendent anthropomorphism, such as IsaiahNs @look from heaven and seebA HIsaiah ;2769I$ In some te*ts, 1od speaks to people from heaven, with no reference to any vision, appearance or presence$ igurative Anthropomorphism This might also be called @metaphorical anthropomorphism,A but the tumultuous history of @metaphorA in which the term has often carried the connotation of a dismissal should not be permitted to complicate the matter$ The term @figurativeA Hespecially with its connotation or innuendo of figureI is preferable here$ A common e*ample of this is the mention of 1odNs body parts, such as the strong hand and outstretched arm, the eye of 1od and nose of 1od$ This representational language should not be muddled with other more literal types of anthropomorphism$ Dven allowing for a holdover from more literal conceptions of a divine saving arm Hand so onI, these e*pressions as preserved are symbolic imagery$ In some cases this is especially clear, as when /ahweh says to Israel, @I have taken you by the handA HIsaiah >:7;I, or @Do not fear, for I am with youW I will hold you up in my righteous right handA HIsaiah >676=I$ This figurative language may overlap in some cases with other types of anthropomorphism, simply because they are all based on the idea of 1od having a human!es"ue form$ %owever, the narrative func! tion of metaphor0whether it comes from making a conscious rhetori! cal choice or from imagining 1od in human terms because we cannot do otherwise0is theologically and philosophically distinct from each of the other categories in "uestion$ :$: A &i*ed Tradition A&i*ed Tradition &any te*ts reflect a mi*ed approach to divine anthropomorphism$ The recurring theme of 1od smelling sacrifices0but most assuredly not eating them0demonstrates a certain willingness to portray 1od an! thropomorphically, even while resisting a more graphic @grossA an! thropomorphism common to the ancient .ear Dast$ The concept of the empty throne may reflect this mi*ed approach as well$ 'ome te*ts specifically define 1od and humankind over against one another, emphasiEing the distance some biblical authors or traditions sought to preserve between the human and divine$ %owever, these constructions themselves assume anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od$ Varieties of Anthropomorphism 2> 4alaamNs oracle includes the assurance that 1od will fulfill his promises because @1od is not a man H)|<s] I, that he should lie, or a human Hben$ )a4da4mI, that he should regretA H.umbers :276CI$ 1od is emphatically distanced from some human traits here, but implicitly associated with others$ %osea 667C is similar, as /ahweh e*presses his compassion for Dphraim and proclaims that he will not destroy the people, giving this reason7 @or I am 1od, and not a man H)|<s] I$A The human traits assumed in this te*t are even more pronounced$ In the preceding verse of this oracle, 1od refers to the physical feelings of his heart turning over within him, and probably also to @hisA womb H%osea 6678I$ -ob laments that 1od is not a man H)|<s] I, that they might confront one another as at a trial H-ob C72:I$ ,ater in the te*t, they do #ust that$ ?eferences to 1odNs presence through his .ame Hs]e4mI or 1lory Hka4b{o= dI are recogniEed as attempts to avoid anthropomorphism$ 'ome te*ts display a more avid resistance, such as DEekielNs description of the appearance of the likeness of the glory of /ahweh Hmar)e4h de6mu=t ke6b{o=d$ yhwhI HDEekiel 67:8I$ These te*ts do not avoid anthropomorphism, however, but only replace one type of anthropomorphism with an! other$ As in all of the above e*amples, this mi*ed tradition reflects the innate tension in portraying a 1od with a personal interest in humans and human history while attempting to avoid too crass an outline of the deity$ It is evident from this ta*onomy that the anthropomorphic por! trayal of 1od is a spectrum$ There is value in understanding the variety of types above partly in order to understand the phenomena in differ! ent te*ts$ Additionally, the recognition of this spectrum may bring into "uestion the internal logic of the position that 1enesis 68 and 2: cannot represent instances of concrete anthropomorphism, despite the fact that every other type on the spectrum is manifested in a multitude of other te*ts$ It will be seen in the ne*t chapter that there is a long!established precedent for this position$ Classical theism assumes that 1od has a mind and a will, but must be immaterial$ This has been read backwards into ancient Israel, leading to the common acceptance of the notion that the %ebrew 4ible might include many e*amples Hor here, categoriesI of anthropomorphism, but not concrete embodiment$ 2$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism The negative appraisal of anthropomorphic portrayal of deity has a long and formidable history$ Discomfort with anthropomorphism is seen already within the %ebrew 4ible itself, and this became far more pronounced in -ewish writings of later centuries$ The strongly anti! anthropomorphic tendencies of 1reek philosophy influenced early and medieval Christian theology, both directly and via Islamic philosophy and kala4m Hspeculative theologyI$ Through the interaction of all of these ideas, the ob#ection to anthropomorphic portrayal of 1od became a fundamental aspect of classical theism, as influential today as nearly a millennium ago$ The influences of certain classical theistic doctrines Hespecially those related to divine simplicityI may be seen in the resistance to interpret! ing human theophany te*ts on their most straightforward level$ &ore broadly, it is difficult to reconcile some of these traditional concepts of 1od with the te*ts of the %ebrew 4ible, and we must therefore be rig! orous in our e*amination of the presuppositions which affect our bibli! cal interpretation$ After a survey of philosophical opposition to anthro! pomorphism, I will suggest some alternative approaches to theophany te*ts through application of other philosophical models$ 2$6 The Development of <pposition to Anthropomorphism The Development of <pposition to Anthropomorphism The view of anthropomorphism as a philosophical weakness has been pervasive at least since the time of 3enophanes of Colophon Hca$ 9B=X ca$ >B8 4$C$D$I, who wrote7 4ut mortals believe the gods to be created by birth, and to have their own HmortalsNI raiment, voice and body$ 4ut if o*en Hand horsesI and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and o*en of gods like o*en, and they would make the bodies Hof their godsI in accordance with the form that each species itself possesses$ Aethiopians have gods Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 2; with snub noses and black hair, Thracians have gods with grey eyes and red hair$A 6 3enophanes did not find a way to characteriEe the divine without use of anthropomorphism$ Dven while stating that the one god was @not at all like mortals in body or in mind,A he e*plained that @he always re! mains in the same place, not moving at all, nor is it fitting for him to change his position at different times$A : In his attempt to argue against one form of anthropomorphism, he utiliEes another$ In the terms of the preceding chapter, he argues against both concrete and transcendent anthropomorphism, but in doing so resorts to figurative$ Already for 3enophanes, the core of this criti"ue is the implied similarity between the human and divine$ This argument, along with 3enophanesN two other main reasons for opposing anthropomor! phism0the attribution to 1od of undignified "ualities, and the "ues! tionable origins of anthropomorphism0has lasted into our period$ 2 ,ater philosophers would focus more on the implied limitations to the deity, but this was not yet a common concern$ In his work @<n .a! ture,A for instance, Dmpedocles of Acragas Hca$ >C9Xca$ >29 4$C$D$I at! tempts to describe 1od in non!anthropomorphic terms as @e"ual in all directions to himself and altogether eternal, a rounded 'phere en#oying a circular solitude$A > This reflects a re#ection of anthropomorphism similar to that of 3enophanes, with no apparent concern for problems relating to depiction or limitation of the divine$ The philosophical push to counter the common mythological depic! tion of gods essentially as divine humans is also evident in 1reek drama$ Duripides Hca$ >8>X>=BK>=; 4$C$D$I is thought to have been influ! enced by 3enophanes in his criti"ues of 1reek religion, as in the Hippo$ lytus and Heracles Hor Hercules FurensI$ In the latter, the hero, who has suffered tragedy born of divine whim and lust, mourns7
I deem not that the 1ods for spousals crave +nhallowed7 tales of 1odsN hands manacled Dver I scorned nor ever will believe, .or that one 1od is born anotherNs lord$
6 3enophanes, frgs$ 6>!6;, in (athleen reeman, Ancilla to the +re$ocratic +hilosophers HCambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6C;:I, ::$ : 3enophanes, frgs$ :2 and :;, in reeman, Ancilla to the +re$ocratic +hilosophers, :2$ 2 <n 3enophanesN arguments against anthropomorphism, see Ddward 'choen, @An! thropomorphic Concepts of 1od,A )/+R :; H6CC=I, 6:2$ > Dmpedocles, frg$ :8, in reeman, Ancilla to the +re$ocratic +hilosophers, 9;$ The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism 2B or 1od hath need, if 1od indeed he be, <f naught7 these be the minstrelsN sorry tales$ 9 'oon afterwards, Plato H>:BX2>B 4$C$D$I penned his ideas which would affect religious and philosophical thought forever$ %e argued that the most valuable and most real things are immaterial, invisible, and eter! nal, and whatever we know through the senses is less real, less valu! able$ Aristotle H28>X2:: 4$C$D$I followed some aspects of PlatoNs thought here Hbut not, for e*ample, the notion of the Platonic heaven where orms resideI, arguing that it is form which animates matter, or the immaterial which animates the material$ Aristotle also applied his view of the relationship between form and matter Hi$e$, hylomorphismI to the body and soul, so that the soul is the form of the body, and ani! mates the body$ ; In his emphasis on 1od as a metaphysical entity, he maintained that whatever 1od is, 1od is above all non!physical, the +nmoved &over, the irst Cause$ The movement away from overt divine anthropomorphism may be seen in some .ew Testament interpretations of %ebrew 4ible te*ts as well$ In Acts B, for e*ample, 'tephen refers in his short history of Israel to the angel who spoke to &oses on &ount 'inai, and then to the law as ordained by angels HB728, 92I$ B ,ike so many elements of 1reek philosophy, the reactions against anthropomorphism and the ensuing emphasis on the immaterial influ! enced patristic literature$ Augustine H29>X>2= C$D$I had re#ected Chris! tianity in his youth because he was troubled by 1odNs physicality in the 4ible$ %e turned to &anichaeanism, which he saw as a more intellectu! ally sophisticated religious and philosophical system, but after a dec! ade he found the &anicheesN views indefensible$ After he began to study Platonist and .eoplatonist philosophy Hespecially PlotinusI, however, he converted to Christianity$ 8 %e attributed his new ways of thinking about 1odNs incorporeality to the influence of Platonist
9 Duripides, H.F. 62>6 ff$; Clifford %erschel &oore, Religious Thought of the &ree,s HCambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6C6;I, 62;!2B; and Chapter 2, @?eligion of the Poets of the 'i*th and ifth Centuries 4C,A B>!6=8$ ; 1ail ine, @The <b#ect of Thought Argument7 orms and Thoughts,A in On )deas= Aristotle.s (riticism of +lato.s Theory of Forms H<*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6CC2I, 6:=!>6; Ddwin %artman, u"stance, !ody and oul= Aristotelian )n%estigations HPrinceton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6CBBI$ B 1iven the theology of incarnation, there are of course more comple* issues at play in .ew Testament views of anthropomorphism$ )hile an e*amination of these views warrants a book of its own, it should be noted here simply that the divine being with whom &oses speaks face to face has become an angel$ 8 'cott &acDonald, @Augustine,A in A (ompanion to +hilosophy in the 1iddle Ages Heds$ -orge -$ D$ 1racia and Timothy 4$ .oone; 4lackwell Companions to Philosophy; <*! ford7 4lackwell, :==2I, 69>!99, 6;>!;9$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 28 thought, with its emphasis on the reality of the immaterial over the material, and on the importance of looking @with the eye of the mind rather than with the bodily senses$A C To reconcile these views with the 4ible, Ambrose, 4ishop of &ilan Halso influenced by the .eoplatonistsI, taught Augustine to read the 4ible allegorically$ The .eoplatonist Pseudo!Dionysius Hlate fifth or early si*th century C$D$I developed this line of thought, arguing that the first state of knowledge and meaning in our understanding of 1od is negation$ This negative theology Hi$e$, that the best one can do is to predicate what 1od is notI was overwhelmingly influential$ .otably, for Pseudo! Dionysius a central part of this was the statement that 1od is not a body, not in a place, cannot be seen, and so on$ 6= This was an important foundation of the idea that the non!embodiment of 1od is the begin! ning of knowledge Hor at least, of what we can say and know about 1odI$ This concept, verging on philosophical doctrine, became a core feature of philosophical theology$ The ongoing tension within -ewish tradition surrounding anthro! pomorphic portrayal of 1od is famously evident in Targum <n"elos, which regularly replaces references to the appearance of 1od with the appearance of his glory, to the speech of 1od with the speech of his word Hm|<mra4) I, and so on$ 66 In 1enesis 2, for e*ample, Adam hears 1od in the garden, and tells 1od that he hears @the voice of your word$A There is a great range of vividly anthropomorphic depictions of 1od in Talmudic literature as well, and these depictions appear side by side with similar sorts of linguistic circumlocutions and theological dis! claimers$ As in &as$ ?osh %a'hana 6Bb, @And the ,ord passed by be! fore him and proclaimed Petc$Q$ ?$ -ohanan said7 )ere it not written in the te*t, it would be impossible for us to say such a thing; this verse teaches us that the %oly <ne, blessed be %e, drew his robe round %im like the reader of a congregation and showed &oses the order of prayer$A 'imilarly in &egilah :6a, @A Tanna stated7 VThis Pthat one may read sittingQ is not the case with the Torah$N )hence this ruleZ X ?$ Ab! bahu said7 4ecause 'cripture says, 4ut as for thee, stand thou here by me$ ?$ Abbahu also said7 )ere it not written in the 'cripture, it would be impossible for us to say it7 as it were, the %oly <ne, blessed be %e, also was standing$A 6:
C &acDonald, @Augustine,A 6;9$ 6= -ames ?oss, @?eligious ,anguage,A in +hilosophy of Religion= A &uide to the u"Ject Hed$ 4rian Davies; )ashington, D$C$7 1eorgetown +niversity Press, 6CC8I, 6=C$ 66 &oses Aberbach and 4ernard 1rossfeld, Targum On,elos to &enesis= A (ritical Analy$ sis Together #ith an English Translation of the Text H.ew /ork7 (tav, 6C8:I$ 6: The oncino Talmud Pelectronic resourceQ HChicago7 Institute for Computers in -ewish ,ife; Davka Corp$; -udaica Press, 6CC6X6CC>I$ The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism 2C In later -ewish writing, terms of substitution began to overshadow the overt embrace of anthropomorphism$ 'aadya 1aon H88:XC>: C$D$I maintained that references to the physicality of 1od should be inter! preted non!physically$ According to 'aadya, the visions of the prophets were not of 1od, but of 1odNs presence Hs]e6k{|<na4hI or glory Hka4b{o=dI$ %e argued that no attribution could be predicated for 1od e*cept e*is! tence$ 62 HDven this would become problematic in later philosophical theology$I -udah %alevi Hca$ 6=89KB9X66>6 C$D$I also re#ected the notion of physical anthropomorphism, arguing that even those biblical te*ts which describe 1od in corporeal terms were only written this way for a didactic purpose, and that it was in fact the inner eye which appre! hended these images$ %e e*plained in the 0uDari, @Those prophets without doubt saw the divine world with the inner eye; they beheld a sight which harmoniEed with their natural imagination$ )hatever they wrote down, they endowed with attributes as if they had seen them in corporeal form$ These attributes are true as far as regards what is sought by inspiration, imagination, and feeling; they are untrue as re! gards the reality which is sought by reasonA H0uDari I5 2I$ 6> +nlike some of his predecessors, however, %alevi did not see anthropomor! phism merely as a necessary concession for those who could not con! ceive of 1od otherwise$ Dspecially in his later writings, %alevi empha! siEed the irreducible "uality of these e*pressions of 1odNs nature and actions$ 69
+ntil the &iddle Ages, however, anthropomorphism was still fre! "uently welcomed within -ewish thought$ )erblowsky points to -edaiah ha!Penini in the thirteenth century and &oses Alashkar in the fifteenth as evidence that it was not until the acceptance of the work of &aimonides that anthropomorphism was firmly re#ected in -udaism$ HAs he also notes, &aimonidesN orthodo*y was "uestioned in his life! time due to his re#ection of anthropomorphism; 'pinoEa was later con! demned for his criti"ue of &aimonidesN re#ection of anthropomor! phism, which he argued was intended to be taken at face value$I 6;
Developments in Islamic kala4m Hspeculative theologyI and philoso! phy directly influenced &aimonidesN virulent anti!anthropomorphic stance, which in turn heavily influenced A"uinas, and thus Christian theology and western philosophy$ In an ironic twist that would surely
62 )erblowsky, @Anthropomorphism,A Encyclopedia /udaica, 6C=$ 6> -udah %alevi, /udah Halle%i.s 0ita" Al 0haDari Htrans$ %artwig %irschfeld; ,ondon7 1eorge ?outledge _ 'ons, 6C=9I$ 69 /ochanan 'ilman, +hilosopher and +rophet= /udah Ha'e%i, the 0uDari, and the E%olution of His Thought HAlbany7 'tate +niversity of .ew /ork Press, 6CC9I, 688, :>B, 2:8!2=$ 6; )erblowsky, @Anthropomorphism,A Encyclopedia /udaica, 6C=$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism >= leave him dismayed, this was spurred by the work of Al!1haEali H6=98X 6666 C$D$I$ %e wrote The )ncoherence of the +hilosophers HTaha4fut al$ fala4sifaI with the goal of countering the positions he saw as reflecting problematic %ellenistic influence on Islam$ %e targeted Ibn 'ina HAvicenna; C8=X6=2B C$D$I for his Aristotelian philosophy, and in doing so spread the ideas he criticiEed far more broadly$ After the pivotal work of Al!1haEali, serious philosophers could not be unfamiliar with the ideas he had criticiEed$ 6B Ibn ?ushd HAverroes; 66:;X66C8 C$D$I systematically addressed Al!1haEaliNs work in The )ncoherence of the )ncoherence HTaha4fut al$Taha4fut I, which he arranged according to Al! 1haEaliNs twenty!section Hor !@DiscussionAI structure, countering each argument in turn$ In addition to refuting Al!1haEaliNs arguments against Avicenna Hand a few othersI, he defended what he understood as a more accurate application of Aristotelian thought to Islam$ 'ome of these Discussions dealt with issues which would become central to western classical theism, such as the nature of 1odNs action, form, and immutability$ 68 In the .inth Discussion, Al!1haEali e*plains his dissat! isfaction with philosophical arguments against divine embodiment Hliterally, @that the irst is not PinQ a body,A )a4nna al$awwal laysa bijismI; AverroesN .inth Discussion contains his refutation of Al!1haEali$ 5ari! ous parts of the Third Discussion dealing with metaphor Hmaja4zI are also intriguing in their influence on the developing debate regarding religious language$ Influenced by both -ewish thought and the .eoplatonist idea that knowledge does not come through the physical senses, &aimonides argued virulently against anthropomorphism, and indeed against any positive predication for 1od$ The ideas of thinkers ranging from <n! "elos 6C to Al!arabi H8B=XC9= C$D$I and Avicenna have traces in the &uide of the +erplexed$ &aimonides praised <n"elos for his re#ection of concepts of divine corporeality$ ,ike 'aadya, %alevi and others, &ai! monides argued that all references to @seeingA 1od refer to @intellectual apprehension and in no way to the eyeNs seeingA H&uide, I >I$ := or e*!
6B Al!1haEali, The )ncoherence of the +hilosophers, Taha4fut al$fala4sifa= A +arallel English$ Ara"ic Text Htrans$ &ichael D$ &armura; Provo, +tah7 4righam /oung +niversity Press, 6CCBI, *v!*i*$ 68 'imon van den 4ergh, A%erroes. Tahafut Al$Tahafut= The )ncoherence of the )ncoherence HD$ -$ )$ 1ibb &emorial 'eries 6C; ,ondon7 ,uEac, 6C98I$ Averroes had 68 sections, leaving aside two of Al!1haEaliNs sections$ <n many of the relevant sub"uestions, see <liver ,eaman, A%erroes and His +hilosophy H?ichmond, 5a$; CurEon, 6C88I, Part I, subsection @)hat Can 1od DoZA, >:!86$ 6C I$e$, the ideas in Tg$ <n"$ attributed to <n"elos$ := &oses &aimonides, &uide of the +erplexed Htrans$ 'hlomo Pines; introd$ ,eo 'trauss; Chicago7 +niversity of Chicago Press, 6C;2I, :B!:8$ 'ee 'traussN classic introduction The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism >6 ample, in his discussion of the terms @to approach P"arobQ, to touch PnagoNaQ, to come near PnagoshQ,A he writes that these terms relate to @knowledge and drawing near through apprehension, not in space$A %e mentions 1enesis 687:2 in this conte*t, that Abraham drew near to 1od only through apprehension and not physically$ Though the com! bination of the second verb and the sub#ect matter might bring up thoughts of the -abbok, he does not mention -acob HI 68I$ Indeed, when &aimonides does address 1enesis 2:, he asserts that @it is finally made clear that he who was there was an angelA HII >:I$ %e argues further that whenever angels are seen, this too is to be taken only as prophetic vision He$g$, I >C, II ;, II >:I$ or &aimonides, then, -acobNs encounter in 1enesis 2: is twice removed from the deity7 he interprets the figure to be an angel rather than 1od, and asserts that even the angel was seen only in a vision$ The repudiation of the concept of divine corporeality is of course a core principle of the &uide, along with other aspects of apophatic theol! ogy$ The opening words address this central premise7 )mage Ps[elemQ and li,eness PdemuthQ$ People have thought that in the %ebrew language image denotes the shape and configuration of a thing$ This suppo! sition led them to the pure doctrine of the corporeality of 1od, on account of %is saying7 'et us ma,e man in our image, after our li,eness$ or they thought that 1od has a manNs form, I mean his shape and configuration HI 6I$
orty!si* chapters later, &aimonides writes the following summary of what such corporeal language for 1od is meant to e*press7 To sum up all this7 1od, may %e be e*alted above every deficiency, has had bodily organs figuratively ascribed to %im in order that %is acts should be indicated by this means$ And those particular acts are figura! tively ascribed to %im in order to indicate a certain perfection, which is not identical with the particular act mentioned HI >;I$
The philosophy of Avicenna, Averroes, and &aimonides was strongly influential for A"uinas H6::>K;X6:B> C$D$I$ In addition, he received Ar! istotelian philosophy through &uslim translations and commentaries, especially through the work of Avicenna and Averroes$ The combined influences of several of the earlier thinkers already mentioned among those most significant in the development of anti!anthropomorphic theology He$g$, Plato, Aristotle, AugustineI, and these &uslim and -ew! ish philosophers, were pivotal in the development of A"uinasN theol! ogy$ This range of earlier ideas continued to shape classical theistic
for a survey of &aimonidesN 1reek and Islamic influences$ All "uotations from the &uide are from PinesN edition$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism >: thought through A"uinasN systematic delineation of the doctrine of divine simplicity$ A"uinas follows earlier thinkers on the incorporeality of 1od$ An! other central aspect of his doctrine of divine simplicity is his discussion of the immutability of 1od$ In the umma Theologiae, he begins Mues! tion C on 1odNs immutability with the claim that 1od must be @abso! lutely actual and with no potentiality at all,A because for a thing to change it must be composite HIa C$6I$ :6 That is, if every part or aspect of a thing changes, it becomes a different thing; thus, for something to remain the same entity but undergo change, some of it must change while some of it stays the same, i$e$, it must be composite$ A"uinas concludes that because 1od is not composite, 1od cannot change at all$ Although A"uinasN concept of divine simplicity does not allow for any intrinsic change to 1od, it does allow for e*trinsic change, that is, a change in how something outside of 1od relates to 1od$ %e addresses this in Muestion 62, on the names of 1od, within Article B on using names for 1od which imply temporal succession$ %e offers as an e*! ample that the word @lordA is relational, and so @1od was not lord until he had a creature sub#ect to himA HIa 62$BI$ %aving argued that 1od does not change, and does not occupy space or time, A"uinas does not need to address motion Hwhich would constitute intrinsic change, and re"uire e*isting in both space and timeI$ ::
The concept of divine simplicity necessarily raises some difficulty in ascribing attributes to 1od, and thus in speaking about 1od$ Attrib! utes in humans diverge7 that is, a person can have one attribute, such as love, without another, such as wisdom$ )hen applied to humans, these terms refer to distinct traits$ According to the doctrine of divine sim! plicity, however, attributes in 1od do not diverge, because 1od is not composite$ 4ecause 1od is simple, 1od must be identical with 1odNs attributes and 1odNs essence, and so terms such as @wisdomA and @loveA when applied to 1od must be @nonsynonymous but coreferen! tial,A i$e$, they can be used to refer to inseparable features of a simple entity, @capturing those features in different ways$A If attributes are distinct in reference to people, but not distinct in reference to 1od, then
:6 All "uotations and citations from the T are from Thomas A"uinas, umma Theolo$ giae Heds$ 4rian Davies and 4rian ,eftow; CT%P; Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, :==;I$ In some cases, especially regarding titles of Muestions and Articles, it is preferable to refer to the standard edition, The Kumma TheologicaL of t. Thomas A5uinas, 'iterally Translated "y Fathers of the English Dominican +ro%ince H,ondon7 Thomas 4aker, 6C66I$ :: Though as Davies and ,eftow point out, ability to e*perience even e*trinsic change should place 1od in time$ umma Theologiae, **iii!**iv$ The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism >2 the terms mean something different when applied to people than when applied to 1od$ :2 A"uinasN solution to this problem was the concept of analogical predication$ ?esisting the use of predicates for humans and for 1od in both a univocal sense Hin which two uses of a predicate have identical meaningI and in an e"uivocal sense Hin which they have altogether different meaningsI, A"uinas strove to define precisely how one can speak about 1od$ In both the umma (ontra &entiles and the umma Theologiae, he e*plains his ob#ections to both univocal and e"uivocal predication for 1od, and argues for the third or @middle wayA of analogous predication, in which a predicate or signifier has a meaning appropriate to what is signified$ :>
Though the theology of analogy is persistently attributed to A"ui! nas, his great contribution is in the application of an older concept to language about 1od in particular$ The theoryNs comple* history e*! tends from AristotleNs categoriEation of univocal and e"uivocal lan! guage through the discussions of Avicenna and Averroes$ Throughout these many phases and discussions, the term @analogyA itself has been understood to have several different meanings$ A key formulation of the concept of analogy for A"uinas was that of using a term in a prior and a posterior sense0that is, one term He$g$, @loveAI is applicable to 1od in a prior sense, and to humankind in a posterior sense; another term He$g$, @rockAI is applicable to 1od in a posterior sense$ HThough better known from Avicenna, this phrase originated with Al!arabi$I :9
A"uinas also used the term @analogyA in its sense of participation, that is, that a predicate Hsuch as @wiseAI may be used of 1od in reference to 1odNs essence, and of humans in reference to their sharing or @partici! pationA in this$ This might also be thought of as a relationship of source$ In other words, while we know of @loveA or @wisdomA through human e*perience, these are attributes we have only because 1od has them first$
:2 <n the relationship between A"uinasN doctrine of absolute simplicity and his con! cept of analogical language, see especially ?obert Pasnau and Christopher 'hields, The +hilosophy of A5uinas H)%P; 4oulder, Co$7 )estview Press, :==>I, CC!6:=; "uoted phrases from 6=2, 66:$ or their tracking of A"uinasN arguments regarding 1odNs at! tributes in a concise list of B2 points, see CB!CC$ :> .ote that this use of @analogyA to describe how predicates might be applied to both humans and to 1od is different than the modern literary sense of the term$ )hile A"uinas also discusses the use of metaphor in applying names to 1od, the two terms should not be confused$ :9 %arry A$ )olfson, @The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and &aimonides,A HTR 26 (6C28I7 696!B2; repr$ in tudies in the History of +hilosophy and Religion Heds$ I$ Twersky and 1$ %$ )illiams; Cambridge, &ass$7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB2I, 67>99!BB$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism >> or instance, in Muestion 62 of the umma, within Article 2 on ap! plying names to 1od literally, A"uinas observes that some words can be used of 1od only metaphorically, for instance @lionA and @rock,A and others Hsuch as @loveAI pertain to 1od more e*actly than to hu! mans$ As he puts it, @)e know 1od from the perfections that flow from him to creatures, and these perfections certainly e*ist in him in a more e*cellent way than they do in themA HIa 62$2I$ As he continues in Article ;, some descriptors apply primarily to 1od and only secondarily to humans, and some primarily to the created and only metaphorically to the Creator$ A"uinas viewed knowledge as beginning in the senses, and his es! timation of metaphorical language reflects this$ In Muestion 6 of the umma, on the nature and e*tent of sacred doctrine, within Article C on whether scripture should use metaphorical language, A"uinas writes7 'acred 'cripture fittingly teaches about divine and spiritual things by means of likenesses drawn from physical thingsW .ow it naturally be! longs to us to reach intelligible things through sensible ones, for all our cognition originates from the senses$ It is, then, appropriate for sacred 'cripture to teach spiritual things to us by means of metaphors drawn from bodily things HIa 6$CI$
A"uinas concludes that @metaphors drawn from bodily thingsA have @indispensable usefulness,A but is careful to note that these e*pressions @cannot be taken literally and be crudely ascribed to divine thingsA HIa 6$CI$ %e follows &aimonides Hafter 'aadya, %alevi, and othersI in at! tributing all anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od to the sight of the in! ner eye$ In Muestion 6:, on how 1od is known, within Article 66 on whether anyone can see the essence of 1od in this life, A"uinas dis! cusses -acob seeing 1od face to face in 1enesis 2:72=$ %e writes, @It belongs to an especially high form of prophecy to see 1od represented as something speaking, even though it is only in a vision of the imagi! nationA HIa 6:$66I$ Darlier in Muestion 6:, within Article 2 on whether 1odNs essence can be seen with the bodily eye, he states, @1odNs essence is not seen PevenQ in the imagination$ )hat appears there is an image representing 1od according to some likeness, as the divine 'criptures describe 1od metaphorically by means of material thingsA HIa 6:$2I$ A"uinas thus emphasiEes through his application of the theory of anal! ogy that a predicate must be attributable primarily either to 1od or to humans and only secondarily to the other, and emphasiEes through his interpretation of biblical anthropomorphism that even the mindNs eye envisions only metaphor$ A"uinasN systematic articulation of the tenets that 1od is immate! rial, immutable and atemporal has had lasting influence on the inter! pretation of biblical anthropomorphism$ Together with influences rang! The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism >9 ing from PlatoNs concept of orm and 3enophanesN re#ection of 1reek mythology, to the -ewish, Christian, and &uslim thinkers who opposed various kinds of attribution of traits to 1od, these philosophical defini! tions of 1od as non!anthropomorphic have come to form the core of classical theism$ In the opening line of his classic work, The (oherence of Theism, ?ichard 'winburne offers this representative definition7 @4y a theist I understand a man who believes that there is a 1od$ 4y a V1odN he understands something like a VpersonN without a body Hi$e$ a spiritIWA :; %e e*pands later, @4y a VspiritN is understood a person without a body, a non!embodied personW That 1od is a person, yet one without a body, seems the most elementary claim of theism$A :B Ian CrombieNs summary is similar7 @To know that 1od may not be identi! fied with anything that can be indicated is only the first step in theol! ogy$A :8
'ome argue adamantly that anthropomorphism is inherently unso! phisticated, such as (ai .ielsen, who refers repeatedly to the difference between this and @sophisticated theism,A that is, theism without an! thropomorphic portrayal of deity$ :C <thers rely on similar assumptions, without the e*plicit argumentation$ The evaluation of anthropomor! phism as unsophisticated is evident in various methodologies, sub! fields and approaches, from euerbach to reud and from Piaget to lew$ 2= In a recent evaluation of the nature of anthropomorphism, 'tewart 1uthrie argues that anthropomorphism is not a category within religion, but rather that religion itself is a type of anthropomor! phism$ In other words, the mere notion that there is a living heavenly being is nothing more than one e*ample of the human tendency to anthropomorphiEe$ 26 'everal scholars have voiced agreement with 1uthrie, such as -$ 'amuel Preus, who concurs that @religion is not really about Vthirst for the infiniteN, or transcendence,A but that religion @demands a universe that pays attention to us0literally$A 2: 1uthrieNs
:; ?ichard 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism H<*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6CBBI, 6$ :B 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism, CC$ or an interesting discussion of the coher! ence of identity without body, see 'winburne, chapter B, CB!6:9$ :8 Ian &$ Crombie, @The Possibility of Theological 'tatements,A in The +hilosophy of Religion Hed$ 4asil &itchell; <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6CB6I, :9$ :C (ai .ielsen, (ontemporary (riti5ues of Religion H,ondon7 &ac&illan, 6CB6I$ 2= <n Antony lewNs challenge to theism, see 1ary Colwell, @The lew!.ielsen Chal! lenge7 A Critical D*position of Its ðodology,A )/+R 6B H6C86I7 2:2!>:$ or a discus! sion of the more comple* aspects of euerbachNs views of anthropomorphism, see -$ ,$ &ackie, The 1iracle of Theism H<*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C8:I 6C:!C2$ 26 'tewart 1uthrie, Faces in the (louds H<*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6CC2I$ 'ee also 1uthrie, @?esponse,A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 29!>=; and 1uthrie, @%ow ?eligion is Causal0and )hat is It, D*actlyZA HRef :9 H6CCCI7 >=9!6:$ 2: -$ 'amuel Preus, @Anthropomorphism and 'pinoEaNs Innovations,A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 ;$ These views all follow Tylor, who already thought that religion was inher! Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism >; work reopened "uestions regarding the nature of anthropomorphism among scholars of religious studies Hfor even there, conversation on the topic had been dormant for some timeI, but after some flutters of re! sponse the discussion waned once again, and the standard negative appraisal of anthropomorphism remained$ )ith these combined factors, the core of classical theism includes the doctrine that 1od is immaterial and the doctrine that 1od is immu! table Hthus is not embodied, and cannot become embodiedI, and in! cludes the idea that the prevailing model of all language about 1od is necessarily analogical$ In some circles it is thus understood as a given that biblical passages describing 1od in such terms must be interpreted metaphorically$ The influence of this standard framework Hthe philoso! phically @orthodo*A viewI in modern biblical interpretation is radical and pervasive, even among those who would not think themselves influenced by 3enophanes, Averroes, &aimonides and A"uinas$ 'pecifically, this has led to a preponderance of biblical scholars ac! cepting the all!or!nothing framework7 either 1enesis 68 and 2: are not meant to contain anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od Hbecause they are angels, or men, or something intentionally mysteriousI, or they are in fact anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od, and are thus theologically unsophisticated$ It is possible, however, that this is not an either!or from which interpreters must choose$ It is indeed possible that the Isra! elite authorHsI and tradition meant the te*ts literally, but not naively$ 4efore addressing alternative possibilities, two inherent difficulties with the classical theistic approach should be noted$ irstly, all theism is anthropomorphic, and secondly, this is "uite overtly the case in the te*ts of the %ebrew 4ible$ All Theism is Anthropomorphic All theism is anthropomorphic, and there is no escaping it$ The re#ec! tion of anthropomorphism is a bungled endeavor from the start, be! cause at best one can oppose a certain point along the spectrum of an! thropomorphism, but never the phenomenon outright0at least, if one should remain a theist$ A few e*amples should suffice$ rom the simplest @1od, you are my 1odA HPsalm ;276I to the e*plication of 4uberNs @primary Thou,A 22
ently anthropomorphic$ 'ee ?obert A$ 'egal, @TylorNs Anthropomorphic Theory of ?eligion,A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 :2!2=$ 'ee also 1ustavo 4enavides, @Cognitive and Ideological Aspects of Divine Anthropomorphism,A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 C!::$ 22 &artin 4uber, Eclipse of &od= tudies in the Relation "et#een Religion and +hilosophy H.ew /ork7 %arper, 6C9:I, 6>!69$ The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism >B the very notion of a 1od one can address is anthropomorphic$ )ithout any kind of anthropomorphism, there can be no religion as we know it$ Positing a deity with a mind or a will at all is e*cluded$ Turning oneNs will over to something without a will is senseless, and worshiping a thing without a mind is idolatry$ Prayer is certainly out of the "uestion$ The classic philosophical arguments for the e*istence of 1od as! sume anthropomorphism$ To cite a couple of e*amples, according to the cosmological argument for theism, the answer to the "uestion @)hy does anything e*istZA is 1od$ )hether framed as the abstract philosophical concept of AristotleNs +nmoved &over, as A"uinasN irst Cause, or otherwise, 1od as the source of anything is anthropomor! phic$ According to the argument from design, PaleyNs watchmaker 1od is necessarily characteriEed as having a mind and a will, not to mention an aesthetic sense$ ,ikewise, the three primary philosophical challenges to theism0 the concept of the natural history of religion, the problem of evil, and the impossibility of religious language0all relate to the difficulty of anthropomorphism$ ?egarding the first, different versions of the idea that the origins of religion can be found in human nature, instinct, or social need all relate to a concept of human creation of an elevated su! perhuman figure$ ?egarding the second challenge, the problem of evil is based on the notion that if there be a 1od, this should refer to a 1od with mind, #udgment, personal responsibility, and relational life with individuals and communities Hi$e$, a non!anthropomorphic 1od would not give rise to a problem of evil, because there could be no logical ba! sis for the e*pectation of protection from harmI$ ,astly, on religious language, we have already seen that &aimonides resorted to negative predication and A"uinas to analogous predication precisely because all 1od!talk is anthropomorphic, and it is only a matter of degree$ The classic e*pression of this problem is that one has two apparent choices7 to speak of 1od in anthropomorphic terms, or to accept that one cannot speak of 1od at all$ It has been seen that some earlier philosophers Hsuch as 3eno! phanesI had primarily opposed the attribution of indecorous character! istics to 1od, and that later developments included opposition to the attribution of any human traits to 1od, or even the attribution of any traits at all Has for &aimonidesI$ A"uinas ob#ected to the attribution of any human traits Hat least in a univocal senseI, giving particular atten! tion to characteristics he understood as limiting, such as corporeality and mutability$ A few later philosophers would find some of these arguments themselves to have tragic conse"uences for theism$ As the father of the @natural history of religionA Hhe coined the phraseI, %ume H6B66X6BB;I of course found fault with anthropomor! Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism >8 phic portrayal of deity$ .onetheless, he saw that its loss would consti! tute the end of religious practice$ 2> In the Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion, the discussion between the characters Demea Hthe nadve or! thodo* theistI, Philo Hthe skepticI and Cleanthes Hthe philosophical theistI e*emplifies some of these issues$ In an e*tended dialogue re! garding anthropomorphism and the knowability of 1od, Cleanthes speaks thus to Demea, who has argued that 1od is so utterly incom! prehensible that we should not even imagine him to have human ideas7 29
It seems strange to me, said (leanthes, that you, Demea, who are so sincere in the cause of religion, should still maintain the mysterious, incomprehen! sible nature of the deity, and should insist so strenuously, that he has no manner of likeness or resemblance to human creatures$ The deity, I can readily allow, possesses many powers and attributes, of which we can have no comprehension7 4ut if our ideas, so far as they go, be not #ust, and ade! "uate, and correspondent to his real nature, I know not what there is in this sub#ect worth insisting on$
%ume continues to treat the difficulty of the choice between anthropo! morphism and silence in DemeaNs response$ Demea, having been called a @mysticA Halong with PhiloI for his re#ection of philosophical analysis of theism, asks whether Cleanthes perceives that @anthropomorphite is an appellation as invidious, and implies as dangerous conse"uences, as the epithet of mystic, with which he has honoured usZA HThis is the point at which Demea re#ects the notion of 1odNs mutability, as dis! cussed previously$I Cleanthes responds regarding mystics, who @main! tain the perfect simplicity of the supreme beingA7 They are, in a word, atheists, without knowing it$ or though it be allowed, that the deity possesses attributes, of which we have no comprehension; yet ought we never to ascribe to him any attributes, which are absolutely incompatible with that intelligent nature, essential to him$ A mind, whose acts and sentiments and ideas are not distinctive and successive; one, that is wholly simple, and totally immutable; is a mind, which has no thought, no reason, no will, no sentiment, no love, no hatred; or, in a word, is no mind at all$ 2;
,ater, Philo points out to Cleanthes that @by removing him so much from all similarity to human creatures, we give in to the most arbitrary
2> David &$ %olley, @The ?ole of Anthropomorphism in %umeNs Criti"ue of Theism,A )/+R 96 H:==:I7 C:$ 29 David %ume, Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion and Other 8ritings Hed$ Dorothy Coleman; CT%P; Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, :==BI, :$:$ 2; %ume, Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion, >$6!>$2$ The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism >C hypothesis, and at the same time, weaken all proofs of his e*istence$A 2B
%umeNs criticism of anthropomorphism, leading to a criti"ue of religion overall, was influential in its many parts$ Anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od are problematic, but without them we cannot e*press or claim to know anything about 1od, and if we cannot know anything about 1od, religion is pointless or uninteresting$ (ant H6B:>X68=>I responds to %ume in the +rolegomena to Any Fu$ ture 1etaphysics, noting that %ume was not satisfied to name 1od Hor an @original beingAI as cause, but re"uired further e*planation of the nature of 1odNs causality, especially as having understanding and will$ Thus for %ume, (ant summariEes, anthropomorphism and theism are necessarily linked, and @if the former be abandoned, the latter must vanish with it and nothing remain but deism, of which nothing can come, which is of no value and which cannot serve as any foundation to religion or morals$A 28 (ant agrees with %umeNs criti"ue that anthro! pomorphism is profoundly flawed and destructive to theism, continu! ing7 @If this anthropomorphism were really unavoidable, no proofs whatever of the e*istence of a 'upreme 4eing, even were they all granted, could determine for us the concept of this 4eing without in! volving us in contradictions$A 2C
%owever, (ant disagrees with %ume that anthropomorphism and theism are ine*tricably linked, and argues that the danger of falling into anthropomorphism H@which transfers predicates from the world of sense to a 4eing "uite distinct from the worldA >= I can be avoided$ %e argues this in part through his idea that there can be no human cogni! tion of a divine or @noumenalA realm Has opposed to the @phenomenalA realm which we perceiveI$ >6 If we acknowledge this, then we should be
2B %ume, Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion, 9$9$ errL has picked up on this and noted the oddity of the arbitrary #udgment that nothing can be like humans but hu! mans, so nothing can be understood$ 28 (antNs distinction is between deism, based solely on transcendental theology and positing knowledge of 1od from a theoretical perspective, and theism, based on both transcendental and natural theology and positing knowledge of 1od from both a theoretical and practical or #udicial perspective$ 2C Immanuel (ant, +rolegomena to Any Future 1etaphysics Htrans$ ,ewis )$ 4eck; .ew /ork7 The ,iberal Arts Press, 6C9=I, 6=9$ (ant found %umeNs ob#ections to deism weak, but his arguments regarding theism very strong Hand sometimes @irrefutableA; +rolegomena, 6=>I$ Page numbers cited in this section H6=>!6=8I correspond to pages >7299!;= in the critical edition of the +rolegomena by 4enno Drdmann HPreussische Akademie der )issenshaften, 6C66I, which is used in most (ant commentaries$ <n the puEEle of (antNs response to %ume, see &anfred (uehn, @(antNs Conception of V%umeNs ProblemN,A in )mmanuel 0ant.s +rolegomena to Any Future 1etaphysics= )n Fo$ cus Hed$ 4eryl ,ogan; ?outledge Philosophers in ocus; ,ondon7 ?outledge, 6CC;I, 69;!BB$ >= (ant, +rolegomena, 6=B$ >6 or later interesting views of this problem, see (ai .ielsen, who maintains that @there is a coherent logical ban on observing 1odA H@<n &ucking Around About Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 9= able to maintain a theistic understanding of the 'upreme 4eing as @"uite inscrutable and even unthinkable in any definite way as to what it is in itself,A >: while still articulating our perception of it$ 1iven this, he suggests that it is possible for us to @not attribute to the 'upreme 4eing any of the properties in themselves by which we represent ob! #ects of e*perience, and thereby avoid dogmatic anthropomorphism; but we attribute them to the relation of this 4eing to the world and allow ourselves a sym"olical anthropomorphism, which in fact concerns lan! guage only and not the ob#ect itself$A >2
%owever, (antNs transcendental argument for the e*istence of 1od seems to assume anthropomorphic traits of 1od which are difficult to separate from @the ob#ect itselfA as if they described only human per! ception$ %is discussion of 1od as a necessary postulate for the possibil! ity of the summum "onum Hthe @highest good,A where 1od is the guar! antor that virtue will be rewarded by happinessI assumes a 1od with a mind and a will$ %e dealt with this difficulty partly through distin! guishing between @thinkingA of 1od and @cogniEingA him$ >>
<thers more recently have e*pressed the difficulty of attempting theism without anthropomorphism in appealing ways$ -ohn ,$ &c(en! Eie addresses the inherent difficulties of positing a 1od stripped of an! thropomorphism$ %e writes7 I summariEe, perhaps unfairly, the deity of systematic theology by saying that he is formed according to what a philosopher thinks 1od must be; and this is not necessarily the reality which 1od is$ A philosopher has no more direct e*perience of 1od than the unlearned; and it is possible that he may unconsciously think that 1od is the 1reat PhilosopherWThe Thomistic es! sence of 1od is a bundle of attributes which taken together deny all the re! ality of e*perience and raise the little that is left above the level of e*peri! enceWwith all due respect to Thomas A"uinas and the late Paul TillichW no one was ever inclined to shout, V< Pure Act, come to my assistance; < 1round of 4eing, make haste to help me$N /ou would not want to bother the Pure Act or 1round of 4eing with your personal concerns$ >9
1od7 'ome ðodological Animadversions,A )/+R 6; P6C8>Q7 6:=I, and &ichael %$ 4arnes, @?ationality in ?eligion,A Religion :B H6CCBI7 2B9!C=$ >: (ant, +rolegomena, 6=8$ >2 (ant, +rolegomena, 6=9!6=;$ >> <n (antNs more refined distinctions between thinking of 1od in anthropomorphic terms in order to discuss him as a postulate for the summum "onum, and supposing to cogniEe him through this, see e$g$, errL, who refers to this as (antNs @special ana! logical dispensationA HerrL, @In Praise of Anthropomorphism,A :=9!:=8I$ 'ee also Immanuel (ant, (riti5ue of +ure Reason Heds$ Paul 1uyer and Allen )$ )ood; Cam! bridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, 6CC8I, A ;CB!B=6K4 B:9!:C$ >9 -ohn ,$ &c(enEie, @4iblical Anthropomorphism and the %umaneness of 1od,A in Religion and the HumaniDing of 1an= +lenary Addresses Hed$ -ames &$ ?obinson; :d ed$; )aterloo, <nt7 Council on the 'tudy of ?eligion, 6CB2I, 68;$ -ohn 4aker similarly de! scribes the philosophical preference for non!anthropomorphic views as a @flight into The Development of Opposition to Anthropomorphism 96 1od in the %ebrew 4ible The second ma#or problem with the influence of classical theistic doc! trine on biblical criticism is that several of these tenets simply do not line up well with Israelite conceptions of 1od Hnor should they be e*! pected toI$ The 1od of the %ebrew 4ible is profoundly anthropomor! phic, mutable, free and able to be localiEed in space and time, able to move, change, and be influenced to change$ In biblical te*ts, this in! cludes both intrinsic and e*trinsic change$ Theophany of any kind demonstrates divine mutability, but so do portrayals of 1od grieving before the flood, rebuking the prophets, forgiving Israel, or indeed having any thoughts, actions, responses, or interaction with people at all$ Again, this is a spectrum$ Classical the! ism assumes that mind and will are divine "ualities; nonetheless, al! lowing 1od anthropomorphic "ualities beyond this such as mood but not speech, or mood and speech but not the mutability of any kind of theophany, is arbitrary$ urthermore, allowing 1od other physical forms of theophany, but not human theophany, is meaningless$ The Israelite 1od is hardly the immutable, atemporal 1od of classical the! ism$ HA"uinas, for e*ample, argued that 1od is not affected by any! thing, does not have emotional or mental responses, does not have @characterA and is not an @individualA in any way humans can con! ceive$I >; The 1od of the %ebrew 4ible is receptive, responsive, active and reactive$ A few contemporary analytical philosophers have addressed this problem, most notably )olterstorff in his essay on 1od as everlasting rather than eternal Hi$e$, e*isting in time, rather than atemporalI$ %e argues that the biblical writers present a redeeming 1od, and that if we accept this, we must understand 1od as an active agent within human history, and thus as changing; 1od must then have awareness and memory of temporal events$ Thus, if 1od is redeeming, 1od must Has )olterstorff concludesI be noneternal, and fundamentally in time$ As he writes regarding 1od as active in human history specifically7 Indeed, so basic to the biblical writings is their speaking of 1od as agent within history that if one viewed 1od as only an impassive factor in reality, or as one whose agency does not occur within human history, one would have to regard the biblical speech about 1od as at best one long se"uence
abstraction$A -ohn 4aker, @Anthropomorphism and the Idea of 1od,A '-HR 68= H6C99I7 6:9$ >; 4rian Davies, @A"uinas on )hat 1od is .ot,A Re%ue )nternationale de +hilosophie 9: H6CC8I7 6>=$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 9: of metaphors pointing to a reality for which they are singularly inept, and as at worst one long se"uence of falsehoods$ >B
'tump and (retEmann have addressed the same problem, but have reached the opposite conclusion$ They have worked to harmoniEe the classical theistic tenet that 1od is eternal and atemporal with the bibli! cal understanding of 1od as personal and active$ They use DinsteinNs theory of relativity Hamong other ideasI to argue that an eternal entity can both be atemporal and act in time$ Their concept of @DT! simultaneityA Heternal!temporal simultaneityI is meant to indicate two e"ually real and simultaneous modes of e*istence$ >8
Dven with the help of these philosophical approaches to the prob! lem of 1od acting in human history, it remains striking that the logic of many biblical scholars is internally inconsistent$ Perhaps one will agree with )olterstorff and another with 'tump and (retEmann; but in ei! ther case, the problem of 1od appearing in human history should be viewed in light of the broader problem of 1od acting in human history at all$ 1iven this, it should be "uestioned why many scholars tend to in! terpret the fire in the bush as a fire in the bush, and the cloud atop 'inai as a cloud atop 'inai, but the )|<s] theophany as virtually anything else$ It seems that a type of allegorical interpretation which would be re! #ected in most modern scholarship is still embraced for a very few te*ts which it may be uncomfortable to interpret in a more straightforward manner$ Those in the past who interpreted a ma#ority of te*ts allegori! cally were more consistent, such as Philo, who interpreted even the burning bush allegorically as oppressed Israel$ >C .onetheless, many modern scholars seem disinclined to interpret these 1enesis te*ts liter! ally as portraying anthropomorphic theophany, and argue in various ways either that the figure only seems to be 1od, or only seems to be human$ In effect, many return to a medieval model of interpretation for reasons formed through ancient and medieval doctrine$ This type of allegorical interpretation, which we would find suspect in another con! te*t, should e"ually be avoided here$
>B .icholas )olterstorff, @1od Dverlasting,A in Readings in the +hilosophy of Religion= An Analytic Approach H:d ed$; ed$ 4aruch A$ 4rody; Dnglewood Cliffs, .$-$7 Prentice %all, 6CC:I, 2;B; repr$ from &od and the &ood Heds$ Clifton -$ <rlebeke and ,ewis 4$ 'medes; 1rand ?apids, &ich$; Derdmans, 6CB9I, 686!:=2$ <n the ways in which this is not philosophically as obvious as it might initially seem, see )olterstorff, 2BB!8:$ >8 Dleonore 'tump and .orman (retEmann, @Dternity,A in 4rody, Readings in the +hi$ losophy of Religion, 289!>=C; repr$ from The /ournal of +hilosophy B8 H6C86I7 >:C!92$ The essays of )olterstorff and of 'tump and (retEmann are reprinted in 4rodyNs collec! tion as the classic argument and response on this sub#ect, but it should be noted that 'tump and (retEmann did not write their article in response to )olterstorff$ >C Philo, De 7ita 1osis 6$;B$ Alternative Approaches 92 Indeed, divine action and reaction in the %ebrew 4ible is "uite dif! ficult to harmoniEe with some of the tenets of classical theism that have influenced biblical interpretation Heven given the provocative work of 'tump and (retEmannI$ <ne of the consistent characteristics of 1od in Israelite te*ts is that he is relational, and this trait is of course pro! foundly anthropomorphic$ %e interacts with his people; his views rise and fall based on their actions$ According to the classical theistic view, these cannot be understood as new divine opinions and responses$ As Demea H%umeNs nadve orthodo* theistI argues, new opinions, affec! tions, and feelings @which continually diversify the mental sceneA are not compatible @with that perfect immutability and simplicity, which all true theists ascribe to the deity$A 9=
As seen earlier, Cleanthes responds with the claim that every or! thodo* theist who supports the doctrine of divine simplicity is there! fore logically an atheist$ 96 At the very least, this orthodo* theistic view is incompatible with the %ebrew 4ible and Israelite religion; at most, it is, as Cleanthes argues, atheistic$ Charles %artshorne has added that the idea of the deity as philosophical absolute Hwho cannot be recep! tiveI is as @idolatrousA as what he deems @inappropriately anthropo! morphic ideas of 1od$A 9: ?ather, 1od in the %ebrew 4ible is dynamic and active in the world, and not immutable in the classic sense$ 1od reacts, forgives, chastens, and so on$ Phrased otherwise, as 'winburne notes, if 1od did not change at all, @his thoughts would be one thought which lasted forever$A 92
2$: Alternative Approaches Alternative Approaches The assumption that anthropomorphism constitutes a primitive or theologically unsophisticated perspective has often led to metaphorical interpretation of anthropomorphic te*ts$ It is not necessary to accept the either!or framework handed down to us regarding concrete an! thropomorphism, as if the Israelite te*ts either did portray 1od in con! cretely anthropomorphic terms and did so naively, or did not portray 1od in such a manner, and the misunderstanding lies in the interpreta! tion$ It is possible that the Israelite te*ts do portray 1od in concretely anthropomorphic terms, and do so with some theological sophistica!
9= %ume, Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion, >$:$ 96 PhiloNs response to CleanthesN claim is that @you will, at last be, yourself, found, according to your reckoning, the only sound theist in the world$A %ume, Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion, >$2!>$>$ 9: Charles %artshorne, @Two orms of Idolatry,A )/+R 6 H6CB=I7 2!69$ 92 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism, :6>$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 9> tion$ It should be noted that this is much the same starting point that we might choose regarding other aspects of Israelite religion we find misinterpreted in the modern era$ An alternative approach which may be fruitful will begin with a consideration of theophany as communication$ It is, in the Israelite view, a method which 1od sometimes chooses in order to communi! cate, and in this way may Hfor the sake of simplicityI be called lan! guage$ The "uestion then becomes what the te*ts can mean by attribut! ing this form of communication to 1od, or, from a theological perspective, what 1od can mean by this theophanic language$ HIt should be evident that the literary and theological "uestions are only separate for the modern interpreter; the Israelite would not have drawn this contrived distinction$I The "uestion can be viewed in various ways$ The first involves the model of A"uinas on the nature of analogi! cal predication$ Theophany as Analogical ,anguage The prevailing paradigm in interpretation of speech about 1od, that is, the @third wayA or theology of analogy, is also applicable to 1odNs speech to humans$ Theophany is a language, and it may be understood analogically$ There is a crucial difference between the image being metaphorical and the meaning being analogical$ To take the image it! self Hhere human formI as metaphorical is the kind of allegorical read! ing we would consider outdated in another conte*t, but seem to accept here when the alternative is theologically uncomfortable$ To take the meaning as analogical only re"uires understanding that the Israelite tradition must not have meant to e"uate 1od with humankind, which seems historically more than reasonable$ According to this model, the Israelite te*ts portray 1od as literally embodied, but without fully identifying himself as a human being$ This should not be surprising7 other theophany te*ts are generally under! stood to portray 1od as literally in fire or cloud, but without full identi! fication in essence as fire or cloud$ 1odNs use of theophanic language is not univocal$ Theophanic language, rather, is an e*pression of analogi! cal relationship$ This can also be e*pressed fruitfully in the terms familiar from phi! losophical approaches to metaphor$ The long history of dismissing metaphor as merely ornament, deceptive He$g$, %obbes and ,ockeI, or meaningless He$g$, the logical positivistsI has turned a corner$ It is now more commonly argued that all language is metaphor He$g$, .ietEsche and DerridaI$ Ian ?ichards proposes that metaphor is not rhetorical Alternative Approaches 99 ornament or replacement, but irreducible e*pression$ ?ichards and &a* 4lack emphasiEe the fundamental nature of both terms or @re! gionsA in a metaphor Hthe tenor and vehicle for ?ichards, the frame and focus for 4lackI, and the interaction between them$ 9> 4lack illustrates this using the metaphor @man is a wolfA7 as he argues, this metaphor brings certain characteristics to the foreground and leaves others in the background, thereby organiEing our view of man$ 99 As 'tiver summa! riEes, the two ideas in a metaphor remain distinct, and thus metaphors must be both affirmed and denied, or as 'allie &cague writes, meta! phors @always contain the whisper, Vit is and it is not$NA 9;
Ian Crombie applies related ideas to 1od!talk$ %e suggests that the mysterious nature of 1od re"uires language that is @logically anoma! lousA and argues further that this can be communicated through para! do*ical and intentional @category mistakes$A 9B In his work on the anomalies of theological statements, Crombie argues that @the in"uirer may learn from the parado*ical features of theological statements,A and that @these parado*ical features need not be regarded as demonstrating the impossibility of meaningful theological statements, but rather as contributing to a grasp of their meaning by giving a partial characteri! Eation of their sub#ect$A 98 'imilarly, Ian ?amsey addresses the @logically oddA in linguistic e*pression, where the metaphor includes a "ualifier from an @oddA realm, rendering the reality odd, such as in the term @heavenly father$A 9C In a comparable way, theophany is logically odd language$ It is a @logically anomalousA @category mistakeA and we see something new in the parado*$ As in metaphor, the parado*ical elements in theophany re"uire that it be both affirmed and denied$ 4oth aspects must be seen at once7 it is and is not$ The metaphorical nature of theophanic language functions to organiEe our view of 1od in a way that highlights certain character! istics and pushes others to the background$ The danger of this biblical metaphor is that it pushes non!anthropomorphic characteristics to the background, but this does not mean that they should be denied$ @&an is a wolf,A in 4lackNs e*ample, does not mean that man no longer thinks, speaks, drives an automobile$ 1od in theophany has not lost
9> Dan ?$ 'tiver, The +hilosophy of Religious 'anguage= ign, ym"ol, and tory HCam! bridge, &ass$7 4lackwell, 6CC;I, 66>!6:6$ 99 &a* 4lack, @&etaphor,A in +hilosophical +erspecti%es on 1etaphor Hed$ &ark -ohnson; &inneapolis, &inn$7 +niversity of &innesota Press, 6C86I, B9$ 9; 'tiver, The +hilosophy of Religious 'anguage, 66B, 6:;; 'allie &cague, 1etaphorical Theology= 1odels of &od in Religious 'anguage HPhiladelphia7 ortress, 6C8:I, 62$ 9B 'tiver, The +hilosophy of Religious 'anguage, B8$ 98 Crombie, @The Possibility of Theological 'tatements,A :9$ 9C 'tiver, The +hilosophy of Religious 'anguage, B>!B9$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 9; 1odNs non!human nature and become less than divine, but human characteristics are pressed to the foreground, organiEing our view of the divine character in that interaction$ The lens of metaphor does not replace reality; it demonstrates a particular aspect of reality$ -ust as 'tiver points out that metaphor can @direct us to what we have never seen before,A ;= the theophanic e*pression does not reduce or replace other aspects of the divine nature, but rather e*hibits something addi! tional$ The analogical language of theophany cannot be reduced to univo! cal e*pression$ -ust as there have been pervasive efforts to reduce anal! ogy and metaphor to univocal language, but by definition without suc! cess Hsince metaphor is irreducibleI, it is also not possible to substitute univocal language for this particular kind of analogical e*pression$ These representations of 1od as literally embodied are not primitive, as so many have suggested0"uite the contrary$ The analogical language of theophany is rich, full, mysterious, logically odd, and re"uires a depth of e*ploration beyond univocal language$ Though counterintui! tive, the very richness of this mystical anomaly is lost without the rec! ognition of the form as literal embodiment Hrather than vision, angel, metaphor, etc$I$ It is only the literally embodied divine form that offers the richness of theophanic analogical language$ Perhaps it demon! strates the knowability of 1od, perhaps the unknowability, or0 oddly0perhaps both$ H'ome would say that even A"uinas is agnostic in regard to our ability to know and understand 1od$I ;6 The difficulty in interpretation is naturally that communication through theophanic language, like that through any analogical language, cannot be reduced to univocal e*pression$ Again, this is different than leaving the "uestion of the divine form vague$ ?eading the image itself as metaphor is less fruitful than reading it as literal physical embodiment, with its meaning understood analogi! cally$ ?ather than resorting to the type of allegorical reading of these passages which a modern biblical scholar would be less likely to do in other cases, as if we have fallen into a neo!Docetic slumber, maintain! ing a literal reading of concretely embodied theophany allows for an analogical understanding of theophanic language$
;= 'tiver, The +hilosophy of Religious 'anguage, 66B$ ;6 'ee e$g$ Davies, @A"uinas on )hat 1od is .ot,A 6>:$ Alternative Approaches 9B Theophany as ,anguage!1ame Another way to view the nature of communication in theophany is through )ittgensteinNs concept of language!games$ As he argued, the meaning of a word is not fi*ed, but is related to its function in a par! ticular conte*t or @form of life,A i$e$, the meaning of a word is in its use$ %e e*pressed this through the concept of @language!games,A with the idea that the terms of a given game are specific to that game, and would be meaningless in another Has a @basketA in soccer or a @goalA in gin rummyI$ %e e*plains that the term language!game should @bring into prominence the fact that the spea,ing of language is part of an ac! tivity, or of a form of life$A %is e*amples here illustrate the breadth of his use of the term @language,A and include @giving orders, and obey! ing them,A @describing the appearance of an ob#ect, or giving its meas! urements,A @constructing an ob#ect from a description Ha drawingI,A @speculating about an event,A @making up a story; and reading it,A @play!acting,A @guessing riddles,A @making a #oke; telling it,A and lastly, @asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying$A ;: )ords in any one of these conte*ts will be used in a manner determined by a uni"ue set of circumstances and actions, and their meaning will thus be specific to that conte*t$ 1iven this, he viewed religious language as having meaning only in its own conte*t, and thus as used analogically in any other conte*t$ ;2
urther, he argued that all actions toward 1od are also analogical, that they @seem to be parts of a great and elaborate allegory which repre! sents him as a human being of great power whose grace we try to win,A as through actions like kneeling, praying, and so on$ ;>
;: ,udwig )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations H2d ed$; trans$ 1$ D$ &$ Anscombe; <*ford7 4asil 4lackwell, 6C98I, e:2, 66!6:$ ;2 or a criti"ue of this idea that each conte*t has its own logic, and thus verification and falsification are impossible, see (ai .ielsen, @)ittgensteinian ideism,A +hil >: H6C;BI7 6C6!:=C$ The "uestion of verification or falsification regarding theophany is provocative$ According to the verification principle, a proposition which cannot be verified completely does not have clear representation or signification, and therefore has no meaning$ Antony lewNs well known falsification challenge H@Theology and alsification,A in Ne# Essays in +hilosophical Theology Peds$ Antony lew and Alasdair &acintyre; ,ondon7 'C& Press, 6C99Q, C;!CCI addressed the "uestion of what cir! cumstances Hif anyI could constitute falsification of a theistic claim$ %is idea Hlater e*panded by .ielsenI was essentially that even if verification is seen as possible by a deist, if nothing could occur which would constitute falsification Hi$e$, if the theistic statement is compatible with every state of affairsI, then the statement is meaning! less$ 'ee Colwell, @The lew!.ielsen Challenge,A 2:8$ ;> As in ,udwig )ittgenstein, @)ittgensteinNs ,ecture on Dthics7 I7 A ,ecture on Dth! ics,A +hil Re%ie# B> H6C;9I7 C$ )hile certain similarities to the concept of analogical language are evident, the comparison should not be made too closely, because )itt! gensteinNs view of all language as @roughA with meaning dependent on conte*t is Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism 98 It may help to contrast this with other possible identifications of the nature of theophanic communication$ 4ecause the widespread hesita! tion to interpret anthropomorphic theophany is related to what this might be seen to imply, it is most central to consider the nature of pro! positional statements$ As )ittgenstein writes on the form of proposi! tions Hwhich he then criti"uesI, a statement that @this is how things areA is the same as giving the definition7 a proposition is whatever can be true or false$ or instead of @this is how things areA I could have said @This is trueA$ H<r again @This is falseA$I 4ut we have NpN is true Y p NpN is false Y not!p$ And to say that a proposition is whatever can be true or false amounts to saying7 we call something a proposition when in our language we apply the calculus of truth functions to it$ ;9
It should be apparent that we cannot apply the calculus of truth func! tions to the language of theophany$ Taking this non!propositional lan! guage as proposition is similar to taking analogical language as univo! cal, and this is where problems arise$ )ittgenstein emphasiEed the use of language, its function in each specific conte*t, rather than simple representation or a one!to!one correspondence between word and fi*ed meaning$ %ow much more so the use of theophany0certainly theo! phany as symbol has dynamic function, not a one!to!one correspon! dence or fi*ed meaning$ 1od in embodied human form does not have the same fi*ed meaning as a human in human form$ This phenomenon will have its own meaning, specific to its use$ ;;
-ust as analogical language cannot be reduced to univocal, if the meaning of 1od in human theophany is specific to 1od in human theophany, it cannot simply be e*pressed in another way$ ,anguage is inade"uate in the best of cases$ 'ee )ittgenstein on the inability to de! scribe the aroma of coffee7 @)hy canNt it be doneZXDo we lack the wordsZ And for what are words lackingZA %e goes on to discuss the inade"uacy of all e*isting vocabulary, yet the inability to simply intro! duce a new one$ ;B The language of theophany is inade"uate, not trans!
more comparable to the idea of all language as analogous, i$e$, with no univocal meaning whatsoever$ ;9 )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations, e62;, 9:$ ;; I apply )ittgensteinNs thought to theophany with all due respect and with a nod to his comment that @1od does not reveal himself in the world$A ,udwig )ittgenstein, Tractatus 'ogico$+hilosophicus Htrans$ C$ ($ <gden; &ineola, .$/$7 Dover, 6CCCI, e;$>2:$ ;B )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations, e;6=, 69C$ Alternative Approaches 9C latable, and by definition there is no new vocabulary which can ade! "uately e*press what this vocabulary cannot$ &oreover, human language about 1od is necessarily inade"uate$ Consider (antNs idea of the human incapacity to cogniEe the noumenal realm at all, or )ittgensteinNs famous statement, @If 1od had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of$A ;8 In the case of communication through theophany, we can suggest that divine language to humans is also not easily recog! niEable$ -ust as philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday, ;C theological problems arise when theophanic language seems to go on holiday$ (ierkegaard wrote, @This, then, is the ultimate parado* of thought7 to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think$A B= )hile )ittgenstein emphasiEed the inade"uacy of all language and con! cluded that 1od!talk was in some way nonsense, he followed (ierke! gaard in this aspiration to think the unthinkable and e*press the ine*! pressible$ In spite of )ittgensteinNs famous statement that @)here!of one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,A B6 he still considered it important to attempt discussion of the mystical$ Though language be inade"uate and meaning mysterious, it is still worth saying something$ rom DEekiel to A"uinas to )ittgenstein, those who interpret ana! logically or emphasiEe use of analogical language do, by definition, still consider it worth saying something$ -ust as these choose analogy or inade"uate language over silence, in various biblical te*ts we see 1od choose the analogical language of theophany over silence$ Theophanic language is mysterious, but it is still worth appearing, or @sayingA something$ As )ittgenstein remarked, @&an has the urge to thrust against the limits of language$A B: Perhaps in these theophanies, 1od too thrusts against the limits of language$ As )ittgenstein e*pressed at one point, @,anguage is a labyrinth of paths$ /ou approach from one side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and no longer know your way about$A B2 )ith the influence of classical theistic doctrines thor! oughly ingrained in us, we do not easily know our way about the use of theophanic language$ Assuming that the meaning of this theophanic
;8 )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations, Part :, II*i$ ;C )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations, e28, 6C$ B= 'fren (ierkegaard, +hilosophical Fragments Hed$ and trans$ %oward 5$ %ong and Ddna %$ %ong; Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C89I, 2B$ B6 )ittgenstein, Tractatus 'ogico$+hilosophicus, eB$ B: riedrich )aismann, @)ittgensteinNs ,ecture on Dthics7 II7 .otes on Talks with )ittgenstein,A +hil Re%ie# B> H6C;9I7 6:$ B2 )ittgenstein, +hilosophical )n%estigations, e:=2, 8:$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism ;= language H1od in human formI must be the same as non!theophanic Hhuman in human formI is not an ade"uate response$ There is a vast chasm between the @life formsA of a human being embodied, as hu! mans generally are, and 1od being embodied$ It is only reasonable to assume that the meanings are not e"uivalent$ 2$2 Interpretation Interpretation )hether one chooses to read theophany as analogical language or as language!game, or to understand this form of communication in an! other way, the point is that it is not necessary to accept the premise that the concrete anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od in these te*ts must be either metaphorical, or literal and thus unsophisticated$ The embodied form is literal in the te*t, but we should by no means assume that the Israelite authors intended to suggest that 1od in human form has the same meaning as human in human form$ The meaning may be seen as analogous, or specific to its use$ )ithout reducing this analogical lan! guage to univocal, or attempting to translate the meaning from one conte*t into another as if meaning were fi*ed, we may still e*plore something of the possible implications of the te*t$ 'ome will have lingering discomfort relating to certain classical the! istic doctrines Heven if not framed as suchI, in particular the problems of materiality and embodiment, and limitation and likeness$ 4eyond these problems, many of the issues relating to physical anthropomor! phism are largely the same as those relating to any divine action$ As discussed earlier, anthropomorphic portrayal of deity is a spectrum; the difference between portrayal of 1od as a person and description of 1od having thoughts at all is one of degree, not kind$ Those concerned with a variety of issues relating to divine action can refer to any number of theological discussions of how 1od can be outside of time but act in history, and so on$ The problem of immutability and divine respon! siveness, for instance, is discussed in various forms, such as through the concepts of stronger and weaker immutability Hweaker indicating only that 1od does not change in character, stronger indicating that 1od cannot change whatsoeverI$ B> The following issues, however, re! "uire some comment specific to concrete anthropomorphism$
B> 'ee e$g$ 'winburneNs discussion of the unsatisfactory nature of the Cambridge crite! rion H@a thing * changes if some predicate VpN applies to it at one time, but not an! otherAI, and intrinsic and e*trinsic change$ 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism, :6:! 6>$ Interpretation ;6 &ateriality and Dmbodiment -onathan %arrison discusses five aspects of embodiment, or in %arri! sonNs terms, five things it means to say one has a body$ irstly, material e*periences cause physical sensation to oneNs body as they do not to an inanimate ob#ect$ 'econdly, one e*periences internal physical sensation such as hunger Hor even simply the physical sensation of having body partsI$ Thirdly, one can move directly Hwhat Arthur C$ Danto calls @ba! sic actionAI, that is, can move a body part in one action without having to cause it to happen secondarily, as with moving an inanimate ob#ect or somebody elseNs body part$ ourthly, one sees from the specific loca! tion of oneNs body, and what is further from the localiEed point is less easily visible$ ifthly, one has emotional and mental responses to oneNs physical circumstances$ B9
In his application of these ideas to issues of divine embodiment, 'winburne observes that classical theism rules out the possibility of some of these characteristics of embodiment for 1od, but not all$ or instance, in regard to the third characteristic, in the classical theistic view 1od does not have limbs which he can move directly, but he can move any part of the universe directly, as raising oneNs own arm Hi$e$, without having to lift a hand and secondarily move the ob#ect, or move one part of the universe to make another part moveI, and is thus in fact capable of direct action$ 'winburne notes that classical theistic views still allow for 1odNs @limited embodimentA in this way Hsurely a sur! prising notion within classical theismbI$ B; 4y this approach, even the embodiment of deity is a spectrum, and the differences are not of kind, but of degree$ ,ikeness and ,imitation The first impediment to literal interpretation of anthropomorphism is the issue of likeness$ rom 3enophanes to reud, this has been at the core of criti"ues of theism in general, and of anthropomorphism in particular$ An interpreter may sense a certain danger in reading human theophany literally, lest we should then imagine 1od to be #ust like us$ %owever, we can see that the Israelite notion that 1od could appear in the fire theophany does not indicate that the Israelites imagined 1od to
B9 -onathan %arrison, @The Dmbodiment of &ind, or )hat +se is %aving a 4odyZA, +roceedings of the Aristotelian ociety B> H6CB2!B>I7 22!99$ B; 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism, CC!6=9$ %e also discusses 1odNs @limited em! bodimentA in regard to the fourth characteristic, though this argument seems less convincing$ Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism ;: be #ust like fire$ <ur concern regarding the risk of over!assessing the meaning of human theophany should not affect our willingness to make the <ckhamNs raEor assumption that Israelite descriptions of hu! man theophany should be taken as much at face value as those describ! ing fire or storm theophany$ In regard to broader theological interpreta! tion, our hesitation to over!interpret 1odNs likeness to us if 1od appears in human form should not be hyper!corrected to result in a brushing away of the plain meaning of the te*ts$ &oreover, if we are concerned that a literal interpretation of human theophany carries the risk of showing us a 1od too much like our! selves, we must remember that our sub#ection to our own perception is not restricted to visual images alone$ ?emembering that, as (ant ar! gued, nothing can be known in itself Hdang an sichI, but only as we per! ceive it, we recogniEe that our view of 1od in theophany is not more restricted by our own perception than our knowledge of 1od @in him! self,A as if we could cogniEe 1od accurately outside of theophany$ The second ma#or hindrance to interpretation of anthropomorphic theophany relates to the notion of limitation$ Again, we must acknowl! edge the logical inconsistency of this hesitation$ The storm theophany does not limit 1odNs knowledge and power to the storm; the human theophany does not limit 1od to the human embodiment$ Attempts to de!anthropomorphiEe 1od still create limitation7 consider for instance DmpedoclesN suggestion that 1od is a sphere$ .inian 'mart identifies one of the ma#or roots of the aversion to an! thropomorphic representations of 1od in his discussion of a different type of anthropomorphism, the pantheistic concept of the cosmos as 1odNs @bodyA Hi$e$, the idea that the soul is to the body as 1od is to the worldI$ In his discussion of the cosmos as a form of divine!human communication0essentially as 1odNs body language, if this is not too anthropomorphic a presentation of his idea0'mart offers an e*plana! tion of what many theologians find so ob#ectionable about the @horror of pantheism,A as he calls it$ %e suggests that in the eyes of many theo! logians, this idea @ties 1od too strongly to the cosmos, as though the relationship e*hausts the divine nature$A BB 'martNs suggestion is appli! cable to biblical concrete anthropomorphism as well$ The @horror of anthropomorphism,A as it might be called, is not merely that 1od should show up in human form, but that this must in essence limit 1odNs nature$ 'choenNs concept of the @detachability of cluesA is helpful here$ %e demonstrates that there is no definitive set of clues to characteriEe the
BB .inian 'mart, @1odNs 4ody,A *-R 2B H6C86I7 98$ 'ee also (laus (lostermaier, @The 4ody of 1od,A in The (harles trong 'ectures Hed$ ?obert 4$ Crotty; ,eiden7 4rill, 6C8BI, 6=2!6C$ Interpretation ;2 inner workings or configuration of a thing, and that among a set of clues there will be some which are more and some which are less reli! able$ %e applies this to the attribution of anthropomorphic traits to 1od, noting that such characteriEation bears no direct link to inner workings$ In other words, anthropomorphic clues do not define the inner workings of a thing, in this case 1od$ The detachability of clues from inner workings, in his terms, @implies that the uni"ueness of 1odNs nature, in and of itself, does not prohibit anthropomorphic char! acteriEations,A and thus there is no need to go beyond the @minimal implications of various clues$A B8 The vast differences between the hu! man and the divine do not prevent anthropomorphic characteriEations, and these anthropomorphic traits need not imply sameness or e"uality$ )ittgenstein asked @whether when we talk of the eye of 1od we should talk of his eyebrows$A BC ?eference to the eye of 1od does not indicate that 1od has eyebrows; physical embodiment in human theophany does not indicate the limitation of 1odNs knowledge and power to that body$ ,ike the metaphor which serves to organiEe our view but not identify a one!to!one correspondence, the appearance of 1od in human theophany shows us the part of 1od that is like us, but does not mean that this is e"ual to the whole of 1odNs nature or iden! tity$ ,et us return to 'winburneNs summary of the traditionally accepted divine properties7 @being a person without a body Hi$e$ a spiritI, present everywhere, the creator and sustainer of the universe, a free agent, able to do everything Hi$e$ omnipotentI, knowing all thingsWA 8= (eeping in mind the earlier issues of limited embodiment, weaker mutability, and so on, it should be noted that if the 1od of classical theism is @a free agent, able to do everything,A then 1od is as free to communicate through human theophany as through a cloud$ Ddward Cherbonnier discusses the concept of visible anthropomorphism, arguing that if 1od is infinite, it logically follows that 1odNs freedom e*tends to all areas, including visibility$ In other words, an infinite deity is free to appear in any manner$ 86 &ichael )yschogrod also writes on the freedom of 1od
B8 'choen, @Anthropomorphic Concepts of 1od,A 62=!22$ BC Christopher &orse, @?aising 1odNs Dyebrows7 'ome urther Thoughts on the Con! cept of the Analogia idei,A *-R 2B H6C86I7 2C!>=$ 'choen points out that the &ani! cheansN "uestion to Augustine regarding whether 1od has hair and nails H(onfes$ sions, 4k 2, Ch BI may have provoked )ittgenstein here; see 'choen, @Anthro! pomorphic Concepts of 1od,A >=$ 8= 'winburne, The (oherence of Theism, :$ Interestingly, he concludes that these claims of classical theism are coherent if understood analogically$ 86 %e claims that @the biblical 1odW is invisible as a matter of tacticsA and not nature$ %is e*amples of e*ceptions are D*odus 227:2, :>76=, and Isaiah ;76, without distinc! Philosophical Approaches to Anthropomorphism ;> to be embodied$ H%e writes on the theoretical possibility of incarnation in -udaism, but this can be applied even more so to theophany$I %e writes, @I do not think that the 4ible is very sympathetic to human pre! conceptions about what 1od will or will not, can or cannot do$A 8: re! derick errL has a similar perspective, remarking that @it is a strange aberrationW to make the anthropocentric assumption that would re! strict the true meaning of all such terms to human beings alone$A %e points to (ierkegaardNs parado*, that if 1od is the )holly <ther and thus )holly +nknowable, @there is no logical impediment to consider! ing 1od )holly li,e the human$A 82 errL follows (ierkegaard in this and suggests that @the spiritual motives behind the prohibition of an! thropomorphism are ill!served when formaliEed into a logical doctrine that cannot be followed, finally without self!destructive conse"uen! ces$A 8>
ollowing this line of thought, the use of concrete anthropomor! phism may be interpreted in an interesting way$ ?ather than e*pressing a limitation to 1odNs nature0the @horror of anthropomorphismA0 these concretely anthropomorphic theophanies e*press 1odNs freedom$ Concrete anthropomorphism does not carry an implied limitation to 1odNs knowledge or power$ <n the contrary, this theophanic language, logically odd and irreducible, e*presses something we have not seen before, and do not see in another way$ )e see, among other things, that 1odNs freedom is not limited even in regard to embodiment$ This is counterintuitive in light of some of the basic doctrines of classical the! ism$ )e see, among other things, that even what we think we know about 1od we do not know$ The anthropomorphic embodiment of 1od in various biblical te*ts should be understood as literally as other forms of theophany; the meaning of this embodiment may be understood analogically, or in its use$ Its very e*istence as a form of theophany is shocking, and were it not written in 'cripture, it would be impossible to say it$ In the tradi! tion of )ittgenstein, even after much deliberation, one must conclude7 @)hereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent$A
tion between types of appearances$ Ddward ,a4$ Cherbonnier, @The ,ogic of 4iblical Anthropomorphism,A HTR 99 H6C;:I7 6CC$ 8: &ichael )yschogrod, @A .ew 'tage in -ewish!Christian Dialogue,A /udaism 26K2 H6C8:I7 2;2$ 82 errL, @In Praise of Anthropomorphism,A :6=, citing 'fren (ierkegaard, +hilosophical Fragments Htrans$ David $ 'wenson; Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C2;I, 26$ 8> errL, @In Praise of Anthropomorphism,A :=;$ >$ Anthropomorphic ?ealism Anthropomorphic ?ealism In the remarkable te*t of 1enesis 6876!69, /ahweh appears to Abraham and the two share a meal and an intimate conversation$ Throughout this encounter, the form which /ahweh assumes is described e*plicitly as that of a man$ %e is initially identified as one of three men H)a6na4s]|<m, v$ :I, and is then portrayed in graphically human terms throughout the passage$ This te*t has been assumed to recall certain features shared with Canaanite religion$ &any scholars have claimed that the roots of the te*t of 1enesis 6876!69 can be located within the conte*t of Canaanite religious thought, and have defined the latter by the literature of +ga! rit$ The specific nature of the )|<s] theophany, however, has no parallel in the +garitic literature and no e"uivalent in any known Canaanite or 'yrian material$ The phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany cannot be cate! goriEed according to any known type of divine!human communication among IsraelNs neighbors$ >$6 The Te*t of 1enesis 6876!69 The Te*t of 1enesis 6876!69 6 /ahweh appeared to him by the terebinths of &amre, while he was sitting at the door of the tent at the heat of the day$ : And he lifted his eyes and saw0three men were standing before him$ %e saw, and he ran to meet them from the door of the tent, and he bowed toward the ground, 2 and said, @&y lord, if I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant$ > ,et a little water be taken0wash your feet, and rest under the tree$ 9 And let me take a bit of bread0sustain yourselves$ Afterwards you may pass on, because for this reason have you passed by your servant$ And they said, @'o do, as you have said$A ; 'o Abraham hurried towards the tent to 'arah, and said, @%urry, three measures of fine flourb (nead and make cakesbA B And Abraham ran to the cattle, and he took a fine ten! der calf and gave it to the servant, and he rushed to make it$ 8 And he took curds and milk and the calf that he had made, and presented it to them, and stood before them under the tree while they ate$ C And they said to him, @)here is your wife 'arahZA %e said, @There in the tent$A 6= And he said, @I will return to you at this time ne*t year, and your wife 'arah will have a son$A And 'arah was listening at the door of the tent Hbut she was "ehind himI$ 66 .ow Abraham and 'arah were old, advanced in years; 'arah had stopped having the @way of women$A 6: 'o 'arah laughed to herself, saying, Anthropomorphic Realism ;; @After INm worn out, INll have pleasureZ And my lord is oldWA 62 And /ahweh said to Abraham, @)hy did 'arah laugh, saying, V?eally, INll give birth when INm oldZN 6> Is anything too e*traordinary for /ahwehZ At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time ne*t year, and 'arah will have a son$A 69 And 'arah lied, saying, @I did not laugh,A because she was afraid; but he said, @.o, you did indeed laugh$A
be6)e4lo4ne= mamre4 ) Hv$ 6I7 @by the terebinths of &amre$A The phrase occurs identically in 62768, where &amre is a location, as in 1enesis :276B, 6C; :97C; 297:B; >C72=; and 9=762$ The phrase be6)e4lo4ne= mamre4 ) ha4 )e6mo4r|< H@by the tere! binths of &amre the AmoriteAI occurs in 6>762, where &amre is a person, as in 6>7:>$ The ,33 has the singular @oak of &amreA Hgh ijkl gh mnopjhI in 6876, as in 62768 and 6>762$
petah[ ha4)o4hel Hv$ 6I7 @at the door of the tent$A The use of the phrase as an adverbial accusative is common, as in 1enesis 6876=; .umbers 6:79!8, 6;7:B; D*odus 2278, C, 6=; and -udges >7:=$ Cf$ 1enesis 6C766, adv$ acc$ petah[ habbayit$ 'arahNs direct e*perience of /ahweh is at the door of the tent in verse 6=, as AbrahamNs is in verse 6$ <n the entrance to the tent as an early site of occasional theophany, see Cooper and 1oldstein$ 6 nis[s[ a4b{|<m Hv$ :I7 @standing$A <n the use of the root ys[ b concerning theophany, see Cooper and 1oldstein; see also %amilton on the use of both ns[b and ys[b in connection with theophany$ : nis[s[ a4b{|<m (a4 la4yw Hv$ :I7 @standing before him$A 'ome have understood the use of the preposition (al Husually @over, aboveAI in verse : to offer some indication as to the respective levels of authority of the three men and Abraham$ This is problematic in part due to its opposite use in verse 8 Hwe6hu=)$(o4me4d (a6 le=hem, @he stood before themAI$ The preposition should in! stead be understood as @before, beside,A as in 1enesis >676, where the Pharaoh dreams that he is (o4me4d (al$hay)o4r, @standing before Hor besideI the .ile$A 'ee 1(C e66Ccc on the use of (al with verbs of standing and going, with the meaning @by, with, before, near$A 1esenius suggests that (a4ma4d (al indicates @to stand serving before,A as in `echariah >76>, and hityas[s[e4b{ (al indicates @to present oneself before,A as in -ob 67;$ This e*plains well the difference between the men standing Hns[ bI before Abraham in verse :, and Abraham standing before them in verse 8$
)a6do4na4y Hv$ 2I7 @&y lord$A As has often been noted, the pointing reflects the &asoretic understanding of the figure as /ahweh, but Abraham, having not yet recogniEed his visitors, cannot have intended this$ 5on ?ad and )enham, for e*ample, emend to )a6do4n|< H@sir, my lordAI; )estermann pre!
6 Alan &$ Cooper and 4ernard ?$ 1oldstein, @At the Dntrance to the Tent7 &ore Cultic ?esonances in 4iblical .arrative,A /!' 66; H6CCBI7 :=6!:69$ : Cooper and 1oldstein, @D*odus and Mas[s[o=t ,A 2:$ 5ictor P$ %amilton, The !oo, of &enesis= (hapters 9B$>? H.IC<T; 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC9I, 2$ The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 ;B fers to read )a6do4nay H@sirs, lordsAI, comparing 6C7:$ 2 %owever, ,otNs address in 6C7: is in the plural throughout$ 4ecause the rest of the address in 6872 is singular, the pointing is better)a6 do4n|< than)a6do4nay$ 'peiser e*plains the ad! dress as @the authorNs aside to the reader,A implying that the pointing re! flects the authorNs intent$ > )hether this indication to the reader comes from the author, as 'peiser proposes, or from the &asoretes only, as according to von ?ad, )enham, )estermann, and others, it should not be understood as AbrahamNs intent in the address$ 9 'ee )evers on the ,33 use of the vocative qkjlr H@lord, sirAI in this verse$ ; )hen the singular is used again in 6C768, the &T once again vocaliEes)a6do4na4y, but in this case a te*tual note rightly proposes)a6do4n|< $ ka4 (e4t h[ayya= Hv$ 6=I7 @at this time ne*t year$A The phrase is used only here and in : (ings >76;!6B; a similar version of the phrase appears in 1enesis 6B7:6$ 4D4 26:a suggests @at the time Hwhen it isI reviving,A i$e$, spring$ %owever, the use of the corresponding phrase in Akkadian, ana bala4t@, con! firms the meaning @ne*t year$A The noun bala4 t@ Halways without case end! ingI occurs with the prepositions ana, ina, and ad|3 , in te*ts from the late sec! ond and early first millennia, including from Alalah~ and H}attus] a$ 'ee the discussion of bala4t@u with the meaning @coming year,A (AD 4 96b!9:a$ B we6hu=) )ah[a6ra4yw Hv$ 6=I7 @but PsheQ was behind him$A There are several pos! sible readings of this phrase$ If we6hu=) is to be read as it appears in the &T, the meaning is either that 'arah was listening at the door Hpetah[ , fem$I of the tent H)o4hel, masc$I, option aI @and it Pthe tentQ was behind him Pthe speaker in verse 6=, i$e$, /ahwehQ,A or bI the reverse, @and he P/ahwehQ was behind it Pthe tentQ$A The 'amaritan Pentateuch has we6 h|<), with the possible meanings that aI @and she P'arahQ was behind him P/ahwehQ,A or less likely, bI @and it Pthe doorQ was behind him P/ahwehQ$A HThe other grammatically possible options are not logically possible, i$e$, that @she was behind it Pthe tentQ,A or that @it Pthe doorQ was behind it Pthe tentQ$AI The ,33 has sktn sultvrw nkgsk, @being behind him$A The feminine partici! ple sktn is nominative, and thus can only refer to 'arah, and not the door or the tent$ To #udge between these alternatives, we can rule out the inter! pretation that the phrase would describe /ahweh as behind the tent H&T option bI, since the rest of the passage appears to portray the action as oc! curring in front of the tent$ It also seems unlikely that it would describe the door in particular as being behind /ahweh H'am$ Pent$ option bI, although this is possible$ &ore likely, the meaning is either that the tent was behind /ahweh H&T option aI, or that 'arah was behind /ahweh H'am$ Pent$ op!
2 5on ?ad, &enesis, :=;; )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, 2;; )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :B2$ <thers also read @sirs,A e$g$ ?obert Davidson, &enesis 9:$>? HC4C; Cambridge7 Cam! bridge +niversity Press, 6CBCI, ;:$ > 'peiser, &enesis, 6:C$ 9 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :B8; 'arna, &enesis, 6:C$ 'ee 'arna for discussion of rabbinic interpretation$ ; -ohn )illiam )evers, Notes on the &ree, Text of &enesis HAtlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC2I, >9!>;$ B 'ee )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, :8=, for discussion and bibliography$ Anthropomorphic Realism ;8 tion a, ,33I$ The last of these options is the strongest possibility logically, since the point is that /ahwehNs knowledge of 'arahNs laughter is e*traor! dinary$ The readings &T option a, 'am$ Pent$ option a, and ,33 all pro! vide this meaning, but the last two emphasiEe 'arahNs position in regard to /ahweh, and have the advantage of possible double attestation$ Therefore, the reading chosen here is that 'arah was listening to /ahwehNs words from the door of the tent, @but she was "ehind him$A According to this read! ing, 'arahNs placement is emphasiEed; however, every one of the above al! ternatives describes the relative positions of 'arah and /ahweh, whether directly or through the location of the tent, and thus any reading of the phrase functions as a clue to the reader that /ahweh has special knowledge of 'arahNs laughter$
)o4rah[ kanna4s]|< m Hv$ 66I7 @the way of women$A !H te*tual note proposes ke6)o4rah[ na4s]|<m$ This euphemism for menstruation is similar to that of 1ene! sis 26729, derek{ na4s]|<m$ ha)ap4 )umna4 m )e4le4 d wa)a6n|< za4qant|< Hv$ 62I7 @really, I will give birth when I am oldZA /ahweh asks why 'arah has asked this$ In fact, she "uestioned whether she would have @pleasureA H(edna= I again now that she was worn out, noting additionally that her husband was old$ In his words to Abra! ham, /ahweh emends 'arahNs somewhat graphic comment, relating it to fertility rather than se*ual pleasure, and skips the mild offense to Abra! ham$
The literary relationship between 1enesis 6876!69 Hor to some, 6876!6;I and the surrounding material has long been debated$ The story of the visitors to Abraham has been regarded by some as a separate source from the surrounding narrative, 8 by some as originally connected to all of chapters 68 and 6C, C and by others as originally related to chapter 6C but not to the dialogue between Abraham and /ahweh, 6= which is in fact a later addition$ In this coherent narrative, the promise of a son and the destruction of 'odom have been united through the framework of three visitors, and no discernible sources can be isolated within either episode$ It is likely that the bridge between the two episodes originally
8 'ee for e*ample 1unkel, who regards the story as @completely independent of all othersA H&enesis, :==I; and )estermann, who argues that it was @originally a self! contained narrativeA H&enesis 9:$;<, :B>I$ C or e*ample, -ohn 5an 'eters, A"raham in History and Tradition H.ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6CB9I, :=:!6;; von ?ad, &enesis, :=>; 'peiser, &enesis, 62=; )enham, &enesis 9<$>?, >=; ,etellier, Day in 1amre, BC!8=; /itEhak Avishur, @The 'tory of the 5isit of the Angels to Abraham H1enesis 6876!6;I and Its Parallel in +garitic ,itera! ture H: A"hat 57>!26I Pin %ebrewQ,A !1 2: H6C8;!8BI7 6;8!BB; Dhud ben `vi, @The Dialogue 4etween Abraham and /%)% in 1en$ 687:2!2:7 A %istorical!Critical Analysis,A /OT 92 H6CC:I7 2=!26$ 6= or e*ample, Carr, Reading the Fractures, 6B=!6B6; Thomas C$ ?^mer, @?echerches actuelles sur le cycle dNAbraham,A in tudies in the !oo, of &enesis Hed$ AndrL )Lnin; ,euven7 ,euven +niversity Press, :==6I, 6C;$ The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 ;C included some shorter version of Abrahamxs challenge, to parallel ,otxs negotiation in 6C76C!:6$ )hile the description of /ahwehNs appearance as an )|<s] occurs e*! plicitly in 6876!69, the )|<s] terminology introduced in this theophany te*t continues through the rest of the story of 1enesis 68!6C$ After the shared meal, two of the men leave; /ahweh remains behind and nego! tiates the fate of 'odom with Abraham$ Then the two men, now inter! changeably called men and angels, come to 'odom, warn ,ot of the impending destruction, and save him in spite of himself as /ahweh demolishes 'odom from heaven$ 'trong thematic and linguistic continuities link 1enesis 68 Hespe! cially vv$ 6!69I and 6C$ )hile arguments have been made that various portions of the chapters stem from different sources, the structure and language of the ma#ority of 1enesis 68 and 6C indicate that they form a single unit$ As 5an 'eters summariEes, @The verbal similarity between the two chapters is so striking that the two episodes cannot be regarded as separate storiesW The notion that these stories could gradually come together and develop such similar vocabulary and thematic detailing through a comple* process of oral tradition is complete fantasy$ All of these features are indicators of deliberate literary composition$A 66
The structure of the story is governed by the logical flow of the comings and goings of each character$ The number of visitors in each scene Hwhich, one might note, becomes arbitrary if and only if the pas! sages are divided into theoretically separate unitsI demonstrates a con! tinuous narrative line$ At the beginning of the story H6876!:I, three men come to visit Abraham, and in the following verses one of them is set apart as the primary speaker, through repeated use of singular forms, but his identity is not yet known$ 5erses 62!6> reveal that this man is none other than /ahweh H@And /ahweh said to AbrahamW is anything too e*traordinary for /ahwehZAI$ In 6876;, the bridge to the 'odom episode, the visitors, again called men, rise and look down toward 'odom$ This line could be understood to lead directly to the appear! ance of two angels in 6C76, although elements of the ensuing conversa! tion work well in the same story line, bound by the three visitors$ After the men all look toward 'odom, /ahweh lingers to reveal his plans to Abraham H6876B!:6I, while two of the men head toward 'odom H687::I$ The other two divine visitors, alternately called men H6C79, 8, 6=, 6:, 6;I and angels H6C76, 69I, arrive in the city and pay a visit to ,ot$ The story ends with /ahweh destroying 'odom and 1omorrah from heaven; this is logical enough, as 68722 has specified that /ahweh departed from Abraham as soon as he had finished speaking$ The consistent narrative
66 5an 'eters, A"raham, :6;$ Anthropomorphic Realism B= line regarding the number of characters in each scene should not be treated as an accident or later ad#ustment, but as an inherent element of the story of the two chapters$ In addition to the overall structure which demonstrates the conti! nuity of 1enesis 68!6C, with some part of 6876B!22 probably e*panded, the subplots of each chapter are structured similarly$ &oreover, the parallel events are in many places described in parallel language$ At the start of each chapter, the hero is sitting at an entranceway7 Abra! ham, who lives in the desert, under a tree outside his tent, and ,ot, who lives in the city, at the gate of 'odom$ In 687:, AbrahamNs initial reaction to his visitors is described7 @and he lifted his eyes and sawW and he ran to meet themW and he bowed toward the groundA Hwayyis8s8a4) (e=na4yw wayyar)Mwayya4ros[ liqra4)ta4mMwayyis]tah[u=) )a4rs[a= I$ 'imilarly, 6C76 describes the initial response of ,ot7 @and ,ot saw, and rose to meet them and bowed his face toward the groundA Hwayyar)$lo=t@ wayya4qom liqra4)ta4m wayyis] tah[u= )appayim )a4rs[a= I$ 6872!> "uotes AbrahamNs invitation to the men7 @and he said, V&y lordW wash your feetNA Hwayyo4)mar )a6do4na4yM we6rah[a6s[u= ragle=k{ emI$ ,ikewise, 6C7: says con! cerning ,ot7 @and he said, PpleaseQ my lordsW wash your feetA Hwayyo4)mer hinneh na4)$)a6do4nayMwe6rah[a6s[u= ragle=k{emI$ The parallel structure of the two chapters continues$ ollowing this invitation, #ust as Abraham rushes about to take care of his guests in chapter 68, ,ot insistently urges them to come to his home in chapter 6C$ Dach host then arranges a hearty meal for his visitors, after which there are two conflicts7 the first minor, and the second ma#or$ In Abra! hamNs case, the first conflict after the shared meal transpires between the men and 'arah, who has been listening to their pronouncement at the tent door$ 'he laughs, and a minor confrontation ensues$ ollowing this, the central conflict in the divine visit to Abraham consists in his argument with /ahweh over the fate of 'odom and 1omorrah$ In ,otNs case, after the feast there is an initial minor conflict between the two men, defended by ,ot, and the men of the town, who have observed the visitors$ The central conflict follows this; #ust as in chapter 68 it re! lates to AbrahamNs reaction to the plans for 'odom, in chapter 6C it relates to the reactions of ,ot and his family to the e*ecution of those plans$ <ne effect of this element of the narrative parallel is to raise the possibility that some version of the argument in 6876B!22 may have accompanied the ,ot episode in an earlier form of the story$ In addition to the structural parallels between chapters 68 and 6C and the specific linguistic parallels therein, certain other linguistic links are notable$ or e*ample, 6C762, @for we are about to destroy this placeA Hk|<$mas]h[|<t|<m )a6nah[nu= )et$hamma4qo=m hazzehI, picks up on 687:;!:8, @I will spare the whole placeW I will not destroy PitQA Hwe6na4s8a4)t|< le6k{ol$ The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 B6 hamma4qo= m Mlo4) )as]h[ |<tI; and 6C762, @their outcry has become greatA Hga4de6la= s[ a(a6qa4ta4mI, follows from 687:=, @the outcry of 'odom and 1o! morrah is indeed greatA Hza(a6qat P'am$ Pent$ s[a(a6qatQ se6do4m wa(a6mo4 ra= k|<$ ra4bba= I$ The phrase @they looked downA Hwayyas]q|3p4u= I in 6876; is taken up again in 6C7:8, @he looked downA Hwayyas]qe4p4 I, both times @over 'odomA H(al$pe6ne= se6do4 mI; and 687:2, @will you indeed sweep awayA Hha)ap4 tispehI is picked up in 6C76B, @lest you be swept awayA Hpen$ tissa4p4ehI$ The two chapters also share vocabulary not specific to the plot of the destruction of 'odom and 1omorrah$ or e*ample, the uncom! mon phrase k|<$(al$ke4n H@for thereforeAI occurs in both 6879 and 6C78$ 6:
)here these parallels involve 6876B!22, they may once again suggest that some earlier version of the discussion was incorporated into the larger story$ The two chapters share thematic features as well$ A key element of the tension in both parts of the story is the disbelief of the main charac! ters in the face of the visitorsN announcement$ In chapter 68, 'arah laughs at the mere notion that she should have a child in her old age$ In chapter 6C, first ,otNs family refuses to take him seriously when he re! peats the angelsN warning that the city will be destroyed, and then ,ot himself hesitates to leave$ ,ikewise, the pivotal aspect of the resolution in each part of the story is the surprising act of haggling$ AbrahamNs response to 1odNs plan to destroy 'odom is to haggle over the fate of the righteous; ,otNs response to the same plan is to haggle with the angels over the destination of his escape$ It may be observed that the ma#ority of these structural parallels concern 6876!69 and chapter 6C, and that the specific linguistic corre! spondences between 6876B!22 and the rest of chapters 68 and 6C are rather different$ The second half of chapter 68 shares sub#ect matter and specific vocabulary with chapter 6C, and contains a noteworthy element of the larger parallel structure of the two chapters, namely the haggling over the divine plans for 'odom and 1omorrah Hin ,otNs case, related to his own escapeI$ %owever, the second half of chapter 68 also reflects concerns that are not evident in 6876!69 or chapter 6C, in particular the concern with the opposing fates of the righteous and the wicked, which is a theme generally associated with e*ilic and post!e*ilic literature$ It is therefore not surprising that the te*t of Abraham haggling with /ah! weh has often been assumed to stem from a separate, later source$ The difficulty lies in the fact that, while parts of 6876B!22 have a theological tone distinct from the surrounding stories, other elements of the te*t
6: <ther shared phrases are less uncommon, such as AbrahamNs re"uest to his divine guests, @if I have found favor in your eyesA H)im$na4) ma4s[ a4t|< h[e4n be6(e=ne=k{ a4 I, in 6872, and ,otNs re"uest to his, @your servant has found favor in your eyesA Hhinne4h$ na4) ma4s[a4) (ab{ de6k{a4 h[ e4n be6(e=ne=k{a4 I, in 6C76C$ Anthropomorphic Realism B: are deeply integrated with the rest of chapters 68 and 6C and would be hard to e*plain without their original connection to the larger story$ There is cause to suspect that at least some element of 6876B!22 was an original part of the story of chapters 68!6C$ 'tructural and linguistic parallels already demonstrate the unity of 6876!69 and chapter 6C, and in most ways the story as such reads smoothly$ /et there is one ma#or element missing$ In the first half of chapter 68, three men appear to Abraham, and one of them is set apart from the other two from the outset$ %e is addressed individually by Abraham Hv$ 2I, and then speaks to both Abraham Hvv$ 6=, 62!6>I and 'arah Hv$ 69I$ In verse 62, this individual among the three men is revealed to be /ahweh$ ollow! ing this story and already intrinsically connected to it through specific structural and linguistic correspondences, chapter 6C describes the ne*t visit of the two men$ 'o what has happened to the third, already set apart from the other twoZ )hat has happened to /ahweh and Abra! ham, already left alone by the structure of 6876!69 and 6CZ To be clear, this is not to suggest that 6876!69 and chapter 6C are linked by 6876B!22, which would assume some circular logic$ ?ather, the unity of 6876!69 and chapter 6C is already evident in numerous structural and linguistic parallels, but includes a narrative space after /ahweh is set apart from AbrahamNs other two visitors, and before the two visitorsN arrival in 'odom$ It seems plausible that some form of a further encounter between Abraham and /ahweh filled this space$ &oreover, while some features of 6876B!22 may have been written or ad#usted to match chapter 6C, the very theme most often cited in con! sidering these verses a later addition, that of the issues surrounding righteousness and #udgment, is also an integral element of chapter 6C$ In 6C76C!:6, ,ot haggles with his two visitors, not over the fate of 'odom, but over his own fate$ Dven while his very familyNs safety is threatened, ,ot repeatedly asks only for his own escape$ %e first e*! presses gratitude for the saving of his life, and then continues7 @but ) cannot flee to the mountain, lest the disaster overtake me and ) die$ ,ook, this town is close enough to flee to, and itNs small$ ,et me flee there0isnNt it smallZ0that ) might live$A It is noteworthy that ,otNs only plea beyond the plea for his own life in this passage is for the town of `oar, and this is only because he will be there$ ,ot pleads that the town will be spared for the sake of one7 himself$ It can hardly be coincidental that ,otNs preoccupation with his own fate is revealed shortly after the men of 'odom accuse ,ot of playing the #udge when he does not have this right7 @This one came to so#ourn, and acts as a #udgeA Hha4)eh[a4d ba4)$la4gu=r wayyis]po4t@ s]a4p4o=t@ I H6C7CI$ In consid! eration of this te*tNs paired interests in ,otNs "uestionable character and the "uestioning of his right to act as #udge, the theme in 6876B!22 of the The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 B2 contrast between righteousness and the lack thereof is not reason enough to suggest that the entire passage was added after composition of the main story$ The use of the specific terms and categories of s[add|<q and ra4s]a4( H@righteousA and @wickedAI is stronger evidence, along with the pairing in 6876C of s[e6da4qa= and mis]pa4t@ H@righteousnessA and @#us! ticeAI, which as 4en `vi has observed, does not appear elsewhere in 1enesis$ 62 .onetheless, the theme of #ustice is central to chapter 6C, as emphasiEed in the accusation that ,ot is playing the #udge Hwayyis] po4t@ s] a4p4o=t@ I in 6C7C$ It remains evident that although ,otNs right to act as #udge is "ues! tioned Hwayyis] po4t@ s] a4p4 o=t@ I, AbrahamNs "uestion in 687:9, @The #udge of all the earth wonNt do what is #ustZA Hha6s]o4p4e4t@ kol$ha4)a4res[ lo4) ya(a6s8eh mis]pa4t@ I, specifically addresses the righteousness of 1od himself$ %owever, while this theme certainly became more prominent in later literature, one would e*pect divine #ustice to have been "uestioned in Israel even before the e*ile, especially given the presence of this theme in the litera! ture of IsraelNs neighbors at an early date, independent of a pivotal national catastrophe He$g$, Ludlul be4l ne4meqi I$ 6> To #udge from the precedent of the literature of IsraelNs neighbors, one should by no means conclude that "uestions of divine #ustice were absent from reli! gious thought in IsraelNs early history, but only that they received far greater attention in later times$ In addition, the dialogue between Abraham and /ahweh is cen! tered on the "uestion of whether a place might be spared for the sake of only a few inhabitants$ This theme too is evident in chapter 6C, as ,ot pleads for `oar to be saved for his sake$ In regard to the possibility that one te*t was written to match the other, it should be noted that the theme is "uite central to both passages$ In sum, many themes of 6876B!22 are also integral to chapter 6C, and are not in themselves reason enough to separate the te*t of 6876B!22 from the larger story of chapters 68!6C$ Themes such as good and right #udgment, the right to #udge, contrast of character, and the sparing of a city for the sake of a few inhabitants are threaded throughout the te*ts, and the double use of the root s]p4t@ occurs in both AbrahamNs "uestion regarding /ahweh and the townspeopleNs words regarding ,ot$ 69 The only element of the passage that has no inherent connection to either
62 4en `vi, @Dialogue,A 26$ 6> 'ee @Ludlul be4l ne4meqi,A or @I )ill Praise the ,ord of )isdom,A translated by ?obert D$ 4iggs HANET, 9C;!;==I$ 69 The words of the townspeople regarding ,ot in 6C7C can also be read as a "uestion H@This one came to so#ourn, and he plays the #udgeZbAI, with much the same tone as 'arahNs "uestion in 6876:, @After INm worn out, INll have pleasureZA and AbrahamNs "uestion in 687:9, @The #udge of all the earth wonNt do what is #ustZA Anthropomorphic Realism B> 6876!69 or chapter 6C is the concern with the categories of s[add|<q and ra4s]a4(, and possibly the pairing of s[e6da4qa= and mis]pa4t@ $ The absence of con! cern with these categories in the rest of the te*t indicates that their use may reflect a revision of the dialogue episode with a later theological focus$ %owever, there is not sufficient evidence that the te*t of 6876B!22 in its entirety should be separated from the larger story$ The narrative space left between the first half of chapter 68, in which /ahweh has already been set apart from the other two men, and chapter 6C, in which only the two men proceed to 'odom, specifically suggests the possibility of /ahweh remaining with Abraham rather than going on to 'odom with the other two$ 1iven this narrative space, it is plausible that there was an originally connected story regarding AbrahamNs further encounter with /ahweh, and that this story specifi! cally related to the themes of #ustice, #udgment, character, and haggling over the fate of cities as found in chapter 6C$ In other words, while the specific distinction between the named categories of s[add|<q and ra4s]a4( in 687:2!2: likely represents an addition, it is "uite possible that the core of an older story remains$ This could include the basic framework of verses 6;, ::, and 22, which address the continued movements of the various characters, in addition to some core of the dialogue in between these verses$ An original negotiation between Abraham and /ahweh over the destruction of the cities would be consonant with the movements of the characters in 6876!69 and chapter 6C, and with various themes evident in chapter 6C$ It is possible that a later redactor might have read such a passage through the lens of the categories of s[add|<q and ra4s]a4($ The con! cept of a dialogue between Abraham and /ahweh is not new; this al! ready has its foundation in 6876!69, which will be shown to be archaic$ The concern with #ustice similarly is already evident in chapter 6C$ It is possible that the combination of these features in an archaic core of 6876B!22 triggered the application of wisdom language to the dialogue by a later redactor$ 'uch a redactor may have retained the framework of a negotiation over the fate of 'odom, but offered a radical e*pansion or revision of the dialogue around the categories of s[ add|<q and ra4s]a4($ The progression of AbrahamNs argument in verses :2!2: in particular is inseparable from this theme, and is probably later$ %owever, this is not reason enough to eliminate the possibility that the progression of the argument was a re!envisioning of an e*isting negotiation between Abraham and /ahweh over the destruction of 'odom$ In addition, it should be observed that the use of the terms s[add|<q and ra4s]a4( in 6876B! 22 cannot be used to support a later date for the whole of chapters 68 and 6C$ This is most immediately demonstrable in the absence of this terminology in the discussions in chapter 6C of the ini"uity of the men The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 B9 of 'odom, the negotiation over the fate of ,ot, and the destruction of the cities$ If the te*t of 6876B!22 has an archaic core, the role of /ahweh in 6876!69 is put into a larger conte*t$ %owever, even if the story of verses 6B!22 in its entirety is a later creation, this addition of the dialogue be! tween /ahweh and Abraham to the te*t of 6876!69 would demonstrate that the author of verses 6B!22 already understood the story of the visi! tors to Abraham as an appearance of /ahweh$ )hile the unity of chapters 68!6C Hespecially as including 6876B!22I is not necessary for the present argument regarding the )|<s] theophany, the structural, linguistic, and thematic links between chapters 68 and 6C show that the description of /ahweh as a man in 6876!69 is not a mis! placed fragment, but a part of a larger story$ urthermore, the te*t of /ahwehNs dialogue with Abraham in 6876B!22, if original, continues the story of the )|<s] theophany, and if a secondary addition, indicates that 6876!69 was indeed understood by the later writer as an appearance of /ahweh$ )hile it has very often been concluded that 6876B!22 is an e*ilic or post!e*ilic te*t, the rest of chapters 68 and 6C have generally been dated earlier$ 6; /ahwehNs appearance as an )|<s] in chapter 68 belongs to the foundational narrative of Abraham and ,ot that includes 1enesis 62$ 6B
The date of this narrative cannot be established with confidence, but it belongs to the time before the last dissolution of Israel and -udah as states$ ?egarding the )|<s] theophany, the central point is that the identi! fication of the three men with /ahweh and his representatives is intrin! sic to the primary story$ This theophany does not seem to derive from later ad#ustments to the te*t, and given the anthropomorphic realism of the divine appearance, this may not be surprising$ Instead, /ahwehxs appearance as an )|<s] belongs to the received tradition about Abraham and ,ot, whatever its particular origins$ 68
6; 'ee, for e*ample, ?^mer, @?echerches actuelles,A 6C;, and references$ 6B <n the original connection between chapters 62 and 68!6C, see Carr, Reading the Fractures, :=:; 5an 'eters, A"raham, ::6!:::; and 5an 'eters, +rologue to History= The Hah#ist as Historian in &enesis H,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CC:I, :9B$ <n cy! cles surrounding particular heroes, see ?onald '$ %endel, The Epic of the +atriarch= The /aco" (ycle and the Narrati%e Traditions of (anaan and )srael H%'& >:; Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8BI$ 68 or the argument that chapters 62, 68!6C are originally connected and form the oldest core of the Abraham cycle, see Drhard 4lum, Die 0omposition der 7Iter$ geschichte H)&A.T 9B; .eukirchen!5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6C8>I, :B2!CB$ or further discussion and bibliography, see ?^mer, who concludes that 62, 6876!6;, and 6C be! long to a pree*ilic core of the cycle$ ?^mer, @?echerches actuelles,A 68;!8B, 6C;$ In addition to these discussions, note that the destruction of 'odom and 1omorrah in chapter 6C is anticipated in 6276=, and the town of `oar to which ,ot flees in 6C7:: is also known from 6276=$ The audience is warned of the wickedness of the men of Anthropomorphic Realism B; 5arious features of 1enesis 6876!69 suggest continuity with an ar! chaic tradition$ As argued by Cooper and 1oldstein, the position of the clan chieftain at the entrance to the tent represents a longstanding popular motif$ They compare AbrahamNs position in 1enesis 6876 with DeborahNs in -udges >79, DanilNs in the +garitic myth of A"hat H0T* 6$6B 5 ;!8; 6$6C I :6!:9I, and others$ 6C 'everal phrases in 6876!69 also occur in te*ts that are similarly free of later, theologically colored writ! ing of the kind that characteriEes the priestly and deuteronomistic con! tributions to the 4ible$ The phrase ke6h[o4m hayyo= m H@at the heat of the dayAI in 6876 occurs only two other times$ The first is in 6 'amuel 66766, #ust after 'aul has been seiEed by the spirit of 1od and become angry H667;I, and #ust be! fore he is made king$ The second is in : 'amuel >79, when 'aulNs son is killed, and #ust before David is installed as king$ This unusual phrase is used only in these non!Deuteronomistic monarchic te*ts and in 1enesis 6876$ The phrase k|<$(al$ke4n in 6879 is also unusual$ It occurs again, nota! bly, in 6C78$ <utside of 1enesis 68!6C, it occurs only in 1enesis 2276=, 287:;; .umbers 6=726, 6>7>2; -udges ;7::; : 'amuel 687:=; -eremiah :C7:8, and 287>$ The literal, and thus original, meaning of the phrase is @for therefore,A but it later came to be used idiomatically, to mean @for$A In its later function as a simple particle of causation, it was used without a prior statement to which @thereforeA could refer$ := In -eremiah :C7:8, for e*ample, the meaning is simply @for$A In 1enesis 6879, however, the phrase is employed with its original meaning, and not yet as an idiom7 @for thereforeKfor this reason have you come,A rather than @forKbecause you have come$A H1enesis 6C78, on the other hand, appears to employ the phrase idiomatically$I 4y the si*th cen! tury, then, the usage of k|<$(al$ke4n has evolved from what occurs in 1enesis 6879, whatever the e*act date of its composition$ The pairing of the words h[em)a= and h[a4la4b{ Hcurds and milkI in 6878 occurs in only two other passages$ These are Deuteronomy 2:76>, in the song of &oses, and -udges 97:9, in the song of Deborah, both poetry in
'odom in 62762 H@now the men of 'odom were very wicked sinners against /ah! weh,A we6)ans]e= se6 do4m ra4(|< m we6 hat@t@a4)|<m layhwh me6)o4d ), echoed in /ahwehNs words in 687:= H@the outcry of 'odom and 1omorrah is indeed great, and their sin is indeed very grave,A za(a6 qat se6do4m wa(a6mo4ra= k|< -ra4bba= we6h[at@ t@a4)ta4m k|< k{a4b{e6da= me6)o4d ), and again in ,otNs plea to the men not to be wicked in 6C7B H@my brothers, do not be wicked,A )al-na4) )ah[ay ta4 re4(u= ), as well as in their response to him in 6C7C H@now we will be wicked to you,A (atta= na4ra( le6 k{a4 )$ 6C Cooper and 1oldstein, @At the Dntrance to the Tent,A :=2!>; :=B$ := 'ee 4D4 >B9b$ The Text of Genesis 18:1-15 BB archaic style$ :6 In both cases, the words occur in parallel, while in 1ene! sis 6878 they are #oined by a con#unction Hh[em)a= we6h[ a4la4b{I$ The peculiar phrase ka4(e4t h[ ayya= Hidiomatically, @at this time ne*t year,A i$e$, when the season revivesI in 6876= and 6876> occurs in only one te*t outside of this chapter$ In : (ings >76;!6B, Dlisha uses the phrase once in regard to the promise that the 'hunammite woman would have a son @at the appointed time, at this time ne*t yearA Hlammo=(e4d hazzeh ka4(e4t h[ ayya= I, and then again in the confirmation that it has happened$ The second use of the phrase in the story of 'arah and Abraham, in 1enesis 6876>, also includes the term lammo= (e4d in parallel7 @at the appointed time I will return to you, at this time ne*t yearA Hlammo=(e4d )a4s]u= b{ )e4le4k{a4 ka4(e4t h[ ayya= I$ The Dlisha te*t belongs to a narra! tive comple* with roots in the northern kingdom of Israel$ ::
The phrase )o4 rah[ kanna4s] |<m H@the way of womenAI in 68766, referring euphemistically to menstruation, does not occur in any other te*t, but the similar euphemism derek{ nas] |<m H@the way of womenAI occurs with regard to ?achel in 1enesis 26729, part of the core -acob story$ :2
Almost none of these unusual phrases in 1enesis 6876!69 occur in any demonstrably e*ilic or post!e*ilic te*t, or in an obviously later re! dactional level$ This collection of phrases untouched by later usage indicates that this e*pression of the )|<s] theophany belongs to the cul! tural milieu of Israel and -udah, not to that of -ewish communities after the fall of the state$ The si*th century, and especially the overwhelming crisis of the e*ile, transformed the religious and theological world of the people of -udah$ .o aspect of the manifestation of /ahweh as a man in 1enesis 68 suggests an origin in this later -ewish world$ The event belongs to the primary story of Abraham and ,ot, and the idiom of 1enesis 6876!69 has repeated affinities with writing from Israel and -udah, without deuteronomistic or priestly language$ It seems more likely, then, that the cultural setting for the )|<s] theophany in the Abra! ham story is this world of Israel and -udah, however far back in time, and whatever the particular location$
:6 <n the date and setting for the 'ong of &oses, see Paul 'anders, The +ro%enance of Deuteronomy ;: H,eiden7 4rill, 6CC;I$ :: Thomas ?^mer and Albert de Pury, @Deuteronomistic %istoriography HD%I7 %istory of ?esearch and Debated Issues,A in )srael (onstructs )ts History= Deuteronomistic His$ toriography in Recent Research Heds$ Albert de Pury, Thomas ?^mer, and -ean Daniel &acchi; 'heffield7 'heffield Academic Press, :===I, :>!6>6$ :2 Carr, Reading the Fractures, :9;!;>$ Anthropomorphic Realism B8 >$: Israelite Anthropomorphic ?ealism and Its ?elation to @CanaanA Israelite Anthropomorphic ?ealism In response to the anthropomorphism of /ahwehNs appearance in this te*t, some scholars have situated the story of AbrahamNs divine guests within a Canaanite conte*t in one manner or another$ A caveat regard! ing Canaanite religion is in order7 it has become common practice to use the term @CanaaniteA to refer essentially to the religious world known from the te*ts of the northern urban center of +garit, without acknowledgement of the areas closer to and more directly familiar to Israel$ Canaanite religion encompasses local traditions throughout a large region, and due to the variety in religious traditions among individual cities characteristic of the .ear Dast, the broad term @CanaaniteA should not be used as an e"uivalent to @+garitic$A :> 'ome prefer to use the term @)est 'emitic,A :9 although it may be problematic to use this term, which traditionally refers to a language category, in order to de! fine a social group$ )ith this said, much of what has become known through the +garitic literature matches well the biblical portrayals of religion that are attributed to the influence of @Canaan,A the people who share IsraelNs region$ :; In addition, while the +garitic 4aal myth is overtly connected to +garit, :B the myths of both A"hat and (eret are not, and indeed are associated with other regions$ (eret highlights the region of +dum, for e*ample; A"hat is a tribal chief, and PagatNs activ! ity is out in the wilderness$ In a detailed discussion of the large variety of place names in +garitic te*ts, van 'oldt has concluded that, while the
:> 'ee the discussions of .iels Peter ,emche, The (anaanites and Their 'and= The Tradi$ tion of the (anaanites H'heffield7 -'<T Press, 6CC6I; ,ester ,$ 1rabbe, @VCanaaniteN7 'ome ðodological <bservations in ?elation to 4iblical 'tudy,A in *garit and the !i"le= +roceedings of the )nternational ymposium on *garit and the !i"le, 1anchester, eptem"er 9CC: Heds$ 1eorge -$ 4rooke et al$; &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC>I, 662!::; Anson ?ainey, @A Canaanite in +garit,A )E/ 62 H6C;2I7 >2!>9; Anson ?ainey, @+garit and the Canaanites Again,A )E/ 6> H6C;>I7 6=6; 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism, 6>!68; Delbert ?$ %illers, @AnalyEing the Abominable7 <ur +nderstanding of Ca! naanite ?eligion,A /-R B9 H6C89I7 :92!;C$ :9 1rabbe, @VCanaaniteN,A 6:6; ,emche, The (anaanites; 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1ono$ theism, 69$ :; or discussion of the e*ceptions of child sacrifice and sacred prostitution, see -ohn Day, @+garit and the 4ible7 Do They Presuppose the 'ame Canaanite &ythology and ?eligionZA in 4rooke et al$, *garit and the !i"le, 29!9:$ or discussion of the e*ception of ba(al|<m, see 1rabbe, @VCanaaniteN,A 66;$ :B <n the 4aal cycle, see &ark '$ 'mith, The *garitic !aal (ycle, 7ol. ) H5T'up 99; ,ei! den7 4rill, 6CC>I$ 'ee especially the full introduction covering the history of interpre! tation and e*haustive bibliography$ 5olume II, treating 0T* 6$2 and 6$>, is antici! pated$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism BC locations mentioned in A"hat and (eret are unclear, @the literary te*ts show a surprisingly strong supranational orientation$ Dven in the 4aNlu cycle the natural boundaries of +garit are constantly surpassed and the epics of (eret and A"hat show no sign of nationalistic or territorial aspirations$A :8 The term @CanaaniteA will be used here Hwith cautionI in reference to religious ideas evident in te*ts that are known from +garit, but which reflect interest in, and perhaps the interests of, a larger re! gion, especially including the lands and peoples to the south$ As used here, @CanaaniteA therefore refers to the culture of the &editerranean ,evant, a region that includes modern ,ebanon, Israel, and 1aEa, and reaches inland at least to the main ridge of mountains or hills to the west of the rift valley that holds the Dead 'ea$ .orthern 'yria is not usually considered part of Canaan, in spite of the great value of the te*ts from +garit in identifying cultural features that would have e*tended further south$ In this use, @CanaaniteA is neither a polity nor an ethnicity$ @CanaanitesA are not an individual people; rather, they constitute all the inhabitants in a Canaanite region$ 'o far as some of these inhabitants, such as the Philistines, may have arrived from elsewhere, this simply indicates one more of the potential limita! tions for the category$ As a way of talking about a loose collection of peoples and cultures that share certain commonalities, the Canaanite category could in principle include Israel or peoples that contributed to its population$ The problem with defining the whole region as Canaan! ite, however, is that it risks homogeniEing all of its inhabitants into a single cultural mass, where this is not clearly so$ The 4ibleNs )|<s] theophany is then a case in point$ 5iews of 1enesis 68 that attribute the story of /ahwehNs visit to Abraham to Canaanite roots, directly or indirectly, are not at all un! common$ %errmann, for instance, identifies the te*t as a story of Ca! naanite derivation that originally told of three gods partaking of a meal, while the later Israelite version referred to /ahweh and two ac! companying angelic beings$ :C 3ella similarly concludes that the storyNs origin can be found in Canaanite mythological tradition$ 2=
:8 )$ %$ van 'oldt, @The Topography and the 1eographical %oriEon of the City!'tate of +garit,A in 4rooke et al$, *garit and the !i"le, 2B:!B>$ :C )$ %errmann, @1^tterspeise und 1^ttertrank in +garit und Israel,A 6A8 B: H6C;=I7 :=8!C$ Dven %errmann never addresses the use of the )|< s] terminology rather than the e*pected mal)a4 k{ for angels, in spite of his assumption that the change in terminology from an original Canaanite version would have been a conscious theological choice$ %e then refers to the figures in 1enesis 68!6C repeatedly as @the gods$A %errmann in fact does not distinguish between the )a6na4s]|<m in chapter 68 and the mal)a4k{|<m who visit ,ot, whom he also identifies as originally gods$ 2= Paolo 3ella, @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar H0T* 6$6B PY(TA 6BQ v 6!26I et 1en$ 6876! 6;,A 7T :8 H6CB8I7 >8>$ 3ella also argues that AbrahamNs guests were likely originally Anthropomorphic Realism 8= (orpel sees a close connection to the religious world of Canaan as well$ 'he interprets the story as a rare visit from an anthropomorphic /ahweh, 26 arguing specifically that due to the anti"uity of the te*t, it reflects a similarity to +garitic literature$ 'he claims that some @archaic traditions preserved in the <ld TestamentA show the 1od of Israel in human form, and notes 1enesis 68 and 2: in particular$ 'he maintains not only that these te*ts reflect views of the larger Canaanite religious world, but that each te*t in fact has an +garitic parallel$ 2:
(orpelNs analysis is indicative of a larger trend$ 22 The prevailing view is that these @archaicA te*ts are closer to Canaanite religion than later @normativeA biblical te*ts$ 2> (orpel e*presses this view in the most
three divinities; >88 n$ :6$ 'ee also 1unkel, who does not use the term @CanaaniteA in his discussion of 1enesis 68, but does suggest @a progressive /ahwiEationA of a narrative originally including three gods H&enesis, 6CCI$ 1unkel also compares Has many haveI the story of the visit of `eus, Apollos, and Poseidon to the man %yrieus, who will have a son, <rion H<vid, Fast. 9$>>B!82I$ 26 (orpel, A Rift in the (louds, >=C$ %owever, she claims in a discussion of the mouth of 1od, @not a single time does the mouth of 1od eat or drinkA HRift, 6=;I$ %ere (orpel has evidently created a rather artificial distinction between the use of the word @mouthA in connection with a description of eating, and a description of a bodily whole which includes eating as well as, very likely, a mouth$ )hile her immediate concern is %ebrew and +garitic vocabulary for the divine, her aim in this is to dis! cover more about the religious ideas behind the te*ts, in which case certainly the clear implications matter as much as the words employed$ 'he notes that in 1enesis 6C as well @the two angelic companions of /%)% eat with ,ot,A but that all other references to /ahweh eating in the 4ible are metaphorical HRift, >6=!66I$ 2: (orpel, Rift, C6$ or these parallels (orpel cites -ohannes C$ de &oor, @The Crisis of Polytheism in ,ate 4ronEe +garit,A in -$ C$ de &oor, .$ Poulssen and 1$ I$ Davies, (rises and +erspecti%es HOtt :>; ,eiden7 4rill, 6C8;I, 6:; and de &oor, The Rise of Hah$ #ism, C=f, :99f$ The parallel (orpel suggests for 1enesis 68, (otharNs scene in A"hat H0T* 6$6B 5I, will be discussed shortly$ In regard to her second suggested parallel H0T* 6$6> III, (orpel refers to the gods who @come to visit the king who appears to be able to detain them until he has wrested a blessing from them, a clear parallel to 1en$ 2:7:>ff$A This is more far!fetched and need not be discussed here HRift, 266I$ 22 <ther attempts have been made to draw +garitic parallels to the %ebrew te*t as well$ &any of these efforts, however, have lacked substantial cause or consideration of the implications$ rank Cross suggests a parallel in the @functions and modes of manifestation of VDlA to both A"hat and (eret, regardless of the clear differences in which deity appears and how H(anaanite 1yth and He"re# Epic PCambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB2Q, 68:I$ .icolas )yatt compares two +garitic te*ts to 1enesis 6C, as @mythological survivals in the %ebrew 4ibleA H1yths of +o#er= a tudy of Royal 1yth and )deology in *garitic and !i"lical Tradition P&Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC;Q, ::2I$ 2> 'ee Cross for an earlier version of this idea$ Cross writes that @IsraelNs religion in its beginning stood in a clear line of continuity with the mythopoeic patterns of )est 'emitic, especially Canaanite myth$ /et its religion did emerge from the old matri*, and its institutions were transformed by the impact of formative historical events and their interpretation by elements of what we may call VProto!IsraelN which came together in the days of &oses and in the era of the Con"uestA H(anaanite 1yth, 6>2! >>I$ 'ee also .icolas )yatt, who views @Iron Age religion in PalestineA as essentially Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism 86 straightforward fashion in her statement that @the religions of Canaan and Israel were similar, and then diverged$A 29 'he argues, naturally enough, that early on in Israel, before developing theological views led to more metaphorical portrayals, anthropomorphic descriptions of 1od were acceptable$ 'he mentions 1enesis 68 and 2:, but also various ref! erences to 1od smelling sacrifices, and other metaphorical portrayals$ 2;
'he overlooks the distinction between figurative anthropomorphism and concrete anthropomorphism, in spite of her focus in this book on anthropomorphism and metaphor$ As discussed in Chapter Two, these are not at all e"uivalent$ A more pronounced e*pression of this idea comes from 'mith, who argues that @Israelite religion in its earliest form did not contrast mark! edly with the religions of its ,evantine neighbors in number or con! figuration of deities$A 2B %e suggests a linear process of @convergenceA H@coalescence of various deities andKor some of their features into the figure of /ahwehAI and @differentiationA H@numerous features re#ected as Canaanite and non!/ahwisticAI$ The period of convergence, in 'mithNs view, gave way in the second half of the monarchy to the pe! riod of differentiation$ 28
'mithNs process of differentiation is undoubtedly supportable, in that Canaanite influences were resisted and re#ected during the monar! chy, 2C but the conceptualiEation of the period of convergence should be "ualified$ ?egarding the )|<s] theophany in 1enesis 68, it is not helpful to speak of early Israelite religion as essentially undifferentiated from Canaanite religion, or in (orpelNs terms, to say that @archaicA biblical te*ts are essentially similar to the +garitic$ The story of /ahwehNs visit to Abraham displays a religious perspective entirely unattested for Canaanite religion as known from sources outside the 4ible and ancient Israel$ )e have no basis for considering this appearance of /ahweh as a man to belong to late Israelite or early -ewish religious developments$
uniform, with one region not @recogniEably differentA from others H@The ?eligion of +garit7 An <verview,A in Hand"oo, of *garitic tudies Peds$ )ilfred 1$ D$ )atson and .icolas )yatt; ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCCQ, 9>=I$ 29 (orpel, Rift, ;:>$ 2; (orpel, Rift, 6:8$ 2B &ark '$ 'mith, The Early History of &od= Hah#eh and the Other Deities in Ancient )srael H:d ed$; 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, :==:I, ;>$ 28 'mith, The Early History of &od, B!8$ 2C The idea that Israel re#ected Canaanite religious elements during the monarchy with which it was more comfortable both before and after is familiar; see for e*ample Cross, who argues that the syncretism of early Israelite religion Hagainst which 'mith argues, preferring the idea of convergenceI gave way to an avoidance of mythical elements in the dawn of a more severe 4aal threat during the monarchy H(anaanite 1yth, 6C=!C6I$ Anthropomorphic Realism 8: As theophany, it is simply different from anything known from the region, with no reason to treat it either as evolved from any previous Canaan!like phenomenon or as evolved toward some proto!-ewish perspective$ If we include the )|<s] theophany in what some may call Canaanite based on date and continuity with early religion, then the category must be acknowledged to include a range of diverse peoples and cultures, and identification as a @CanaaniteA trait has relatively little e*planatory power$ A scene from the +garitic tale of A"hat has often been cited as a parallel to the story of AbrahamNs divine visitors, and has repeatedly been claimed as evidence that archaic biblical te*ts reflect ideas charac! teristic of Canaanite religion$ >= %owever, while a comparison of these te*ts does demonstrate some shared features of religious thought, at! tention to several important details will also reveal the presence of cer! tain ideas in 1enesis 6876!69 that are absent from the +garitic te*t$ HThe absence of these ideas from other +garitic te*ts will be addressed in Chapter 'i*$I The following te*t portrays the visit of the god (othar! wa!%asis to Danil$ >= 'ee for e*ample (orpel, Rift, C6; 3ella, @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar,A >82!88; and Avishur, @5isit of the Angels to Abraham$A Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism 82 A"hat, 0T* 6$6B 5 :!22 >6
: N Oabl.qs]t P QA I will bring a bow, t`mnAas]rb(.qs[(t I will carry many arrows there$A whn.s]bN(OAbymm. Then on the seventh day, apnk.dnil.mtArpi. Then Danil, man of ?apiu, 9!; aPpQhn.g8zr.mtAhrnmNyO Then the hero, man of the %arnemite, yts]u.yt`b.bap.t`g8 r. 1ets up and sits at the entrance of the gate, th[tAadrm.dbgrn. Among the nobles on the threshing floor; ydnAdn.almnt. %e #udges the case of the widow, yt`pt@ .t`pt@.yNtmOA Arbitrates the affair of the orphan$ bns]i.(nh.wyphn. +pon raising his eyes, he sees balNpOAs]d.rbt.kmn. At one thousand fields, ten thousand acres, 6=!66 hlk.kt`rAky(n. %e perceives the approach of (othar, wy(n.tdrq.h~ssA Perceives the march of %asis$ hlk.qs]t.ybln. ,ook, he brings the bow, hl.ys]Arb(.qs[(t. ,ook, he carries many arrowsb apnk.dnilAmt.rpi. Then Danil, man of ?apiu, aphn.g8zr.mtAhrnmNyO. Then the hero, man of the %arnemite, 69 gm.lat`th.kys[h[A 'houts in a loud voice to his wife7 s]m(.mt`t.dnty. @,isten, ,ady Danatiyab (dNbOAimr.bph~d. Prepare a lamb from the flock lnps].kt`rAwh~ss or the appetite of (othar!wa!%asis, lbrlt.hyn dAh[rs] yd. or the hunger of %ayyan, the %andy Craftsmanb s]lh[m.s]s] qyAilm 1ive food and drink to the god,
>6 All +garitic translations are original unless otherwise noted$ <n A"hat, see David )right, Ritual in Narrati%e= The Dynamics of Feasting, 1ourning, and Retaliation Rites in the *garitic Tale of A5hat H)inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, :===I, and 4aruch &ar! galit, The *garitic +oem of A-HT H4erlin7 de 1ruyter, 6C8CI$ <ther useful studies in! clude .eal %$ )alls, The &oddess Anat in *garitic 1yth HAtlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC:I, chapter >; and 'imon 4$ Parker, The +re$!i"lical Narrati%e Tradition HAtlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8CI$ Anthropomorphic Realism 8> := sad.kbd.hmt. 'ustain and honor him, b(lAh[kpt.il.klh. The lord of &emphis, the god of everythingbA ts]m(Amt`t.dnty. ,ady Danatiya takes note, t(db.imrAbph~d. 'he prepares a lamb from the flock lnps].kt`r.wh~ssA or the appetite of (othar!wa!%asis, lbrlt.hyn.dh[rs] Aydm. or the hunger of %ayyan, the %andy Craftsman$ :9!:; ah~r.ymg8 y.kt`rAwh~ss. After (othar!wa!%asis arrives, bd.dnil.ytnn.qs]t. Into the hands of Danil he puts the bow, lbrkh.y(dbAqs[(t. <n his knees he places the arrows$ apnk.mt`t.dntyA Then ,ady Danatiya ts]lh[m.ts]s] qy ilmA 1ives food and drink to the god, 2= tsad.tkbd.hmt. 'ustains and honors him, b(lAh[kpt il.klh. The lord of %kpt, the god of everything$ tb(.kt`rAlahlh. (othar left for his tent, hyn.tb(.lms] Aknth. %ayyan left for his home$
t`mn as]rb( Hlines :!2I7 @I will carry many ParrowsQ there$A 1ordon and oth! ers translate the verb rb( @to fetch, bring$A >: Del <lmo ,ete translates @to "uadruplicate,A and renders this phrase, @I shall "uadruplicate Hthe "uota ofI arrows,A as had 5irolleaud H@#e "uadruple HZIAI$ >2 Ca"uot translates more generally, @#e fournirai une "uantitL des dardsA; similarly Parker, @I will convey there many arrows$A >> The #u*taposition of the word t`mn, @thereA Ha form of t`mI, with the verb rb(, rings of the numbers eight and four$ The numbers themselves are presumably not symbolic, but the play is a nice literary touch$
>: Cyrus %$ 1ordon, *garitic Text"oo, HAn<r 28; ?ome7 Pontificium institutum bibli! cum, 6C;9I$ >2 1regorio del <lmo ,ete and -oa"Gn 'anmartGn, A Dictionary of the *garitic 'anguage in the Alpha"etic Tradition Htrans$ )ilfred 1$ D$ )atson; %d< ;B; ,eiden7 4rill, :==2I, B:C; Charles 5irolleaud, 'a '4gende +h4nicienne de Danel: texte cun4iforme alpha"4ti5ue a%ec transcription et commentaire, pr4c4d4 d.une introduction R l.4tude de la ci%ilisation d.*garit HParis7 ,ibrairie <rientaliste Paul 1euthner, 6C2;I, :=2$ >> AndrL Ca"uot, &aurice 'Enycer, and AndrLe %erdner, 1ythes et '4gendes Hvol$ 6 of Textes ougariti5ues: introduction, traduction, commentaire; ,AP< B; Paris7 Cerf, 6CB>I, >:B; 'imon 4$ Parker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry H'4,)A) C; Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CCBI, 98$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism 89 th[t adrm Hlines ;!BI7 @among the nobles$A &any understand adrm as @chiefsA or similar, such as Parker, @among the chiefs,A and Ca"uot, @parmi les no! tables$A >9 ronEaroli, however, translates @sous un arbre ma#esteu*,A and Avishur follows, @tah[ at ha4 )add|<r P(e4 s[Q$A >;
balp s]d rbt kmn Hlines C!6=I7 @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres$A The word s]d has the primary meaning @open fieldA or @stretch of land,A and can refer specifically to a length of land as a measure, i$e$, a @yoke of landA or @acre$A >B The same phrase appears in 0T* 6$2 I5 28!2C7 balp.s]d.rbt.kmnAhlk.ah~ th.b(l.y(n, @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres, 4aal perceives the approach of his sister$A The terms s]d and kmn, @acre,A are often used in parallel, as in the similar phrase which occurs in the de! scription of 4aalNs palace in 0T* 6$> 5 9;!9B7 alp.s]d.ah~d.btArbt.kmn.hkl, @a thousand fields the house shall cover, ten thousand acres, the palace$A Del <lmo ,ete understands the terms to be synonymous, translating 0T* 6$2 I5 28 @across a thousand yokes of land, ten thousand hectaresA under @s]d,A and translating the same idiom @over a thousand hectares, ten thousand acresA under @kmn$A >8 Aitken also understands the terms to be synony! mous, @used conventionally to e*press Vafar off$NA %owever, he translates @metresA for both, which seems an unlikely measure, given the primary sense of the word s]d, @field$A >C It seems best to provide a sense of the pri! mary meaning of s]d in translation H@fieldAI, and a generally similar meas! urement for kmn H@acreAI$ ybln Hline 6:I7 @he brings$A The use of the dual in reference to (othar!wa! %asis continues throughout this passage Has elsewhereI$ )hile some, such as Parker, choose to reflect this through use of the Dnglish plural, the sin! gular will be used here in order to reflect the identity of the single god$ bph~d Hline 6BI7 @among the flock$A 5irolleaud simply transcribed the word in his translation H@lNagneau, avec le phd A 9= I, and opinions have differed since$ &any understand the term ph~d to mean @flock,A according to Ak! kadian puh~a4du, such as 'asson, Dahood, and 1ordon, who also notes Ara! bic pah~id, @clan$A 96 Ca"uot interprets the word according to Akkadian pah~ |3du, referring to a kind of flour$ 9: Del <lmo ,ete prefers @a yearling lamb,A and translates the phrase in this te*t, @a lamb from among the year!
>9 Parker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 98; Ca"uot et al$, Textes Ougariti5ues, >:B$ >; P$ ronEaroli, 'eggenda di A5hat Hlorence7 Casa Dditrice 'andoni, 6C99I; Avishur, @5isit of the Angels to Abraham,A 6B=$ >B Del <lmo ,ete, Dictionary, 8=C!6=$ >8 Del <lmo ,ete, Dictionary, >>9!>;$ >C (enneth T$ Aitken, @<ral ormulaic Composition and Theme in the A"hat .arra! tive,A *F :6 H6C8CI7 ;$ 9= 5irolleaud, 'a '4gende +h4nicienne de Danel, :=2$ 96 -ack &$ 'asson, @lora, auna and &inerals,A in R+ 6 HAn<r >C; ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6CB:I, >28!2C; &itchell Dahood, *garitic$He"re# +hilology= 1ar$ ginal Notes on Recent +u"lications H4ib<r 6B; ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6C;9I, ;C; 1ordon, Text"oo,, 9C$ 9: Ca"uot et al$, Textes Ougariti5ues, >:8, n$ >$ 3ella provides further support for this reading; 3ella, @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar,A >8>$ Anthropomorphic Realism 8; lings$A 92 1iven the use of the preposition b with the singular, the reading @among the yearlingsA is somewhat difficult$ Ca"uotNs reading and the more common @among the flockA appear stronger$ hyn dh[rs] yd Hlines 68!6CI7 @%ayyan, the %andy Craftsman$A The same epi! thet appears in line :9 with the plural ydm$ Del <lmo ,ete translates, @the ambide*trous craftsmanA; Coogan, @the Clever CraftsmanA; and Parker, simply @clever %ayyan$A 9>
b(l h[kpt Hlines :=!:6I7 @the lord of %kpt$A Del <lmo ,ete only identifies h[kpt as the residence or territory of (othar, but cites several possible readings relating the term to Dgypt$ Coogan translates @Dgypt,A and Parker, @&em! phisA; Ca"uot keeps @%kpt$A 99
il klh Hline :6I7 @the god of everything$A Coogan understands klh as @allA with suffi*, and translates @the god of it all$A Parker translates, @allotted by Dl HZI$A 9;
This te*t and the story of /ahwehNs visit to Abraham bear some clear similarities$ Dach main character is a righteous man who laments his lack of an heir; each then receives a divine visitation and has a son$ 9B An additional significant correspondence between the two te*ts is the iden! tification of a shared meal at a manNs home as the location for the most direct, immediate divine!human contact$ This unusual feature common to both te*ts reflects the intimacy of the encounters, the significance of which will be discussed presently$ In his comparison of the two te*ts, Paolo 3ella offers a brief outline of many similarities between the stories, including Danil and Abra! hamNs similar positions sitting on the threshold of the town and of the tent, respectively; the une*pected appearance of the divine visitors; the offer of hospitality, which is then accepted; the order to the wives to prepare the meal; the e*ecution of the order; the meal eaten by the di! vine guests; the hospitality recompensed; and the departure of the guests$ 98 /itEhak AvishurNs thorough literary comparison of the two te*ts includes further discussion of some of these similarities, as well as the formula of transition H1enesis 687:, wayyis8s8a4) (e=na4yw wayyar) ; +ga!
92 Del <lmo ,ete, Dictionary, ;;C$ 9> Del <lmo ,ete, Dictionary, C92; &ichael D$ Coogan, tories from Ancient (anaan H,ou! isville7 )estminster Press, 6CB8I, 2;; Parker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 98$ 99 Del <lmo ,ete, Dictionary, 298; Coogan, tories from Ancient (anaan, 2;; Parker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 98; Ca"uot et al$, Textes Ougariti5ues, >:8$ 9; Coogan, tories from Ancient (anaan, 2;; Parker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 98$ 9B Avishur notes this similarity and discusses other potentially parallel te*ts as well H@5isit of the Angels to Abraham,A 6;8!BBI$ Avishur comments that he will deal spe! cifically with stylistic and literary parallels between the two languages$ %is view re! garding the implications of the past and present comparisons, i$e$, the "uestion of ac! tual te*tual relationships, is unclear$ 98 3ella, @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar,A >89$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism 8B ritic bns] i (nh wyphnI, demonstrating that the phrase @he lifted his eyes and sawA is common in both biblical and +garitic literature$ 9C
Avishur concludes that the parallel between the two stories offers mutual clarification$ %e argues that the similarities reveal the @shared literary techni"ue that is at the foundationA of the te*ts, while the dif! ferences show the particularity of each; nevertheless, he continues, the %ebrew does preserve echoes of the +garitic, through use of identical literary formulas$ %e claims in addition that there is @indication of a literary connection between the two descriptions,A ;= although he does not specify what he believes this might be$ Avishur also makes a safer conclusion from his comparison of the two te*ts7 he observes that since for almost every key element of the %ebrew story there is a parallel to the +garitic, and the +garitic story comes in one continuous narrative, so must the 1enesis te*t$ %e maintains that this comparison offers evi! dence that the biblical @interweaving of the different motifs is original$A %owever, his view of the connection between the two te*ts remains unclear$ ;6 3ella, however, argues that the two stories do indeed stem from a common tradition, and that their differences are due to various elaborations resulting from and reflecting different religious and cul! tural demands$ ;:
There are indeed several similarities between the story of Abra! hamNs visitors in 1enesis 68 and the story of Danil in A"hat$ These similarities do not demonstrate knowledge of the +garitic te*t on the part of the Israelite author, however$ )hile several similarities do e*ist between the stories, it should be noted that each parallel, if taken indi! vidually, is not terribly surprising or unusual$ The shared issue of the chiefNs lack of an heir is not an unusual theme, ;2 and as Avishur ob!
9C Avishur, @5isit of the Angels to Abraham,A 6B2!B>$ Avishur cites CassutoNs e*plana! tion of the function of this phrase as a transition from telling of the hero to telling of the heroNs e*perience of a new person or thing$ As Avishur notes, Cassuto points out that this is a fi*ed or @petrified formula,A appearing in this form even when the scene does not call for a @lifting of the eyes$A It is thus clear that one should not read too much into the detail of the phrase, that is, the @looking up,A in contrast to some who have argued that this demonstrates something about the nature of the visitors themselves$ +mberto Cassuto, !i"lical and (anaanite 'iterature H: vols$; -erusalem7 /$ ,$ &agnes Press, 6CB:!6CBCI, 67:>!:9$ ;= Avishur, @5isit of the Angels to Abraham,A 6BB$ ;6 Avishur, @5isit of the Angels to Abraham,A 6BB$ %e ends by stating that his primary conclusion regarding the original unity of the %ebrew te*t is not meant to deny @the e*istence of arrangements that derive from different theological attitudes$A %e e*! plains the implications of this statement no further$ ;: 3ella, @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar,A >8>!8;$ ;2 rom Dtana to Pinocchio, the theme of a king or an old man lamenting his lack of a son and gaining one through magical or mystical means is not at all uncommon$ urthermore, the reason for the chiefNs lack of an heir in these two stories may be for different reasons$ In 1enesis, 'arah is said to be barren, while in A"hat, it appears Anthropomorphic Realism 88 serves, the main charactersN places of repose and the transitional phrase of lifting the eyes are both formulaic$ In addition, while the two te*ts do have important similarities Hespecially when viewed in combina! tionI, they have e"ually strong, and e*tremely significant, differences$ 4efore discussing the specific features of the two te*ts which reveal differences in religious thought, some of these larger literary differ! ences should be addressed, for the sake of viewing the details in con! te*t$ or e*ample, as to the connection between the divine visit and the birth of the son, Avishur himself notes that in the +garitic te*t the visit takes place after the birth, and in the biblical story it precedes it$ %ow! ever, he does not discuss what a significant difference this is, as the implication is that the purposes of the two visits are wholly different$ In fact, even in these two most basic points of similarity between the te*ts, the divine visit and the birth of a son, there are important differences$ The Conte*t of the 'cenes irstly, the divine visit is "uite different in the two stories$ (othar is immediately recogniEed by Danil$ There is no mystery or process of recognition involved whatsoever$ Abraham, however, does not initially know the identity of his guests, or even that they are bound for his home$ %e in fact believes that they will pass by unless he stops them H687:I$ %e does not recogniEe his visitors until /ahwehNs self! identification in verses 62!6>$ This difference e*ists not only from the heroNs perspective, but from the readerNs as well$ )e witness (otharNs first line before his approach, asserting that he will bring a bow to Danil and provide the arrows Hlines :!2I, and we then see his long ap! proach as well$ ;> In 1enesis 68, on the other hand, the approach is as sudden to the reader as it is to Abraham, and the men who visit Abra! ham do not announce their purpose until well into the encounter$ 'imi! larly, in regard to the visit itself, the clima* of the story of (otharNs visit is the placing of the valued bow, so central to the plot of the story, on the knees of the #oyous new father Danil$ The clima* of the 1enesis story, as we shall see, is very different$
that Danil may be impotent$ The word nps] is used in regard to (othar during his visit to Danil with the meaning @appetite;A it may have this meaning as well in re! gard to Danil$ Coogan translates @,et the passion of Danel, the %ealerNs man, revive, the desire of the %ero, the man of the god of %arnamA Htories from Ancient (anaan, 22I$ ParkerNs translation leaves the "uestion open7 @4y my life, let Daniel, Pman ofQ ?apiu, thrive, 4y my soul, the hero, man of the %arnemiteb PWQ flourishA H*garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 92I$ ;> Contra 3ella, who writes that (othar appears suddenly before Danil H@,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar,A >82I$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism 8C The birth of the son is very different as well$ The two themes are connected in A"hat in that (othar!wa!%asis comes to bring a present for the baby, who has already been born$ 'pecifically, he was born nine months after DanilNs sacrifice to the gods; note DanilNs agency and ini! tiation of the events$ In the 1enesis story, the guests come to tell Abra! ham of the future birth of his son$ This is not initiated by Abraham at all, but by 1od7 indeed, each episode of the promise of an heir to Abra! ham is initiated by /ahweh, not by the childless chief H6:76, B; 6276>; 6976, in which Abraham responds to 1od; 6B76; 6876I$ There are significant differences in how the scene of the visit fits into the larger story as well$ In A"hat, the divine visit is not unusual$ ,ater in the story, there is still no clear distinction between the human and divine realms, as when Anat pours her cup on the earth, threatens A"hat, and then sets off to see her father, Dl, at his camp H0T* 6$6B 5I 69!>CI$ 'imilarly, DanilNs daughter approaches AnatNs camp in order to take revenge for her brotherNs death at the end of the e*tant te*t H0T* 6$6C I5 :8!;6I$ The same phenomenon occurs in the 4aal myth, when Anat engages in bloody warfare with young men H0T* 6$2 II 2!2=I$ The very fact of a deity interacting physically with people on earth is not unusual in the +garitic conte*t$ The situation reflected in 1enesis is "uite different$ )hile the patri! archs spoke with their 1od regularly H/ahweh or DlKDlohimI and inter! acted with angels from time to time on earth and fairly fre"uently in dreams, portrayals of 1od interacting with people on earth are e*! tremely rare He$g$, 1enesis 2I, and the e*plicit physical interaction of 1od on the ground with people, portrayed and identified as a man H)|<s] I, occurs only in two te*ts7 1enesis 68 and 2:$ The story of the di! vine visit to Abraham is indeed remarkable, as compared both to the rest of the 4ible and to what we find at +garit$ urthermore, the directions of the two stories are entirely opposite$ In the end of the story of A"hat, DanilNs line is endedb It is an epic story of human tragedy and revenge, with overwhelming emotional empha! sis on the brutal murder of DanilNs long!awaited son, the grief, the search for the boyNs remains, his burial, the curse of sterility surround! ing the terrible scene of the crime, the mourning0and then the scene of revenge, which is tragically cut short in the e*tant te*t$ To be sure, the larger plot of 1enesis also contains an heir!in!danger story, that of the potential early death of Isaac in chapter ::, but in this story the disaster is averted, and not only does the son live, but the chiefNs line is contin! ued through the ultimate fulfillment of the promise that his offspring would become a great nation$ This larger story is not about one human tragedy, but about the patriarchal line through the birth of the nation of Anthropomorphic Realism C= Israel, about the provision and protection of the line of Abraham against overwhelming odds$ It is apparent through the story of Abraham and throughout the pa! triarchal narratives that these early stories are about establishing the correct line of succession in the creation of Israel$ irst there is no heir for Abraham; then perhaps it may be DlieEer, but he is re#ected; then Ishmael, but he too is not to become a father of Israel$ )hile some Abraham stories Hincluding 6876!69I concern AbrahamNs desire for a son, much like DanilNs, the larger Abraham story is about the bond forged between /ahweh and Abraham, and the early genealogy of Israel$ +nlike in A"hat, where the whole of the story concerns a manNs life, and the crisis is the tragic death of his son, the central tension in the larger Abraham story has to do with /ahweh choosing the line of suc! cession in the creation of a nation$ This is especially clear, for instance, in the note that 1od will indeed multiply Ishmael as well$ In other words, the goal is not simply to provide Abraham with children and with childrenNs children; rather, /ahwehNs bond with Abraham neces! sarily involves a particular line, i$e$, that of Isaac$ The emphasis on the doubt that a more correct heir can be born continues throughout the story$ 'arah, who is somewhat skeptical about the likelihood of e*periencing se*ual pleasure again considering her age and the age of her husband, laughs at the visitorNs pronounce! ment in 6876:; /ahweh now has to repeat himself$ This is where we approach the clima* of the story7 the ages of 'arah and Abraham are emphasiEed and there is laughter at the notion that there should be another child, and /ahweh responds7 @Is anything too e*traordinary for /ahwehZA H6876>I$ This is not the triumphant clima* of (othar, di! vine guest in DanilNs home, setting the bow on the fatherNs knees; on the contrary, this is a rather uncomfortable moment, as the "uestion has to remain unanswered for a time$ As much as /ahweh may intend for this to be a rhetorical "uestion, and one would assume the obvious answer is meant to be no, all indications in the story so far, including the em! phasiEed ages of the still childless couple after the re#ections of both DlieEer and Ishmael, would have to point to yes$ The story of Abraham and his son is a story of IsraelNs lineage$ )hile A"hat is an epic of human tragedy and revenge, the Abraham story is a saga about the lineage of a chief of a people, and the securing of that line by the peopleNs 1od$ The triumphant clima* of the story of (otharNs visit to Danil is the giving of the gift to the infant; this is the crucial turning point in the story, and it leads directly to the eventual death of the boy$ 1enesis 68, in contrast, involves the visit of /ahweh and two angels, who appear in realistic human form, initially remain unrecogniEed as divine beings, and make a seemingly dubious promise Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism C6 of another son$ The uncomfortable clima* of the story is /ahwehNs "uestion, @Is anything too e*traordinary for /ahwehZA This can only be answered later, when the second son is finally born$ To some degree, there is irony in the clima*es of both stories$ (otharNs visit to Danil and his bestowal of the gift upon the baby even! tually result in the boyNs death$ The divine visit to Abraham has its clima* in /ahwehNs unsettling rhetorical "uestion, when in fact it is seen shortly thereafter that Abraham and 'arah do have a son, nothing was too e*traordinary for /ahweh, and after only one more generation the nation of Israel is born$ The larger literary differences between the two stories abound$ The nature and purpose of the visits differ greatly, the scenes do not fit into their larger stories in a similar manner, the two larger stories move in "uite opposite directions, and finally, the clima*es of the stories reveal a considerable difference$ The most significant disparities, however, betray a difference between the views of the deity in the Israelite and +garitic te*ts$ The 'cenes of the Divine 5isits These significant differences fall into the category of what might be called @anthropomorphic realism$A The issue of realism has not been discussed in regard to anthropomorphic portrayals of Israelite and Canaanite deities, however these cultural categories are defined$ Atten! tion to this issue, however, reveals certain differences between some archaic biblical traditions and the norm in +garitic te*ts$ Contrary to what might be assumed, given the prevailing view that biblical te*ts understood to be archaic portray something very much like Canaanite religion, the story of the divine visit to Abraham presents a far more anthropomorphically realistic picture of deity than the story of (otharNs visit to Danil$ This is most evident in the siEe of the visiting deity$ It is to be e*! pected in a Canaanite conte*t Hand throughout the .ear DastI that dei! ties are of enormous proportions$ True to form, (othar is observed by Danil @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres$A Danil is seated at the gate, and looks up7 balp s] d rbt kmn hlk kt` r ky(n, @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres, he perceives the approach of (othar$A The same is said of Anat in the 4aal myth7 balp s]d rbt kmn hlk ah~th b(l y(n, @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres, 4aal perceives the approach of his sisterA H0T* 6$2 I5 28!2CI$ It is logical enough that she should be visible from so far away$ 'hortly before this is the description of Anat engaged in a battle against two towns full of people at once, yet unsat! Anthropomorphic Realism C: isfied until the very end$ In this scene, Anat is apparently large enough to be able to don a necklace of human heads H0T* 6$2 II 2!2=I$ In 0T* 6$6B 5 as well, the portrayal of (othar is of a god so large that he can be seen approaching @at one thousand fields, ten thousand acres$A This is entirely the norm in a Canaanite Hand .ear DasternI conte*t$ 'mith observes that the siEe and strength of deities were @superhuman in scale,A pointing to Dl and 4aal as well as &arduk, ;9 and notes in par! ticular that @+garitic deities are said, whenever they travel, to be su! perhuman in siEe$A ;; (orpel likewise notes that +garitic deities were seen as superhuman beings, taller and stronger than humans$ ;B
The level of realism in the anthropomorphic tradition of 1enesis 68 is distinct not only from the Canaanite religious conte*t to which it is compared, but also from the anthropomorphism of &esopotamian religion$ The graphic description of the vast siEe of &arduk in the Dnuma Dlish is familiar7 %is limbs were ingeniously made beyond comprehension, Impossible to understand, too difficult to perceive$ our were his eyes, four were his ears; )hen his lips moved, fire blaEed forth$ The four ears were enormous And likewise the eyes; they perceived everything$ %ighest among the gods, his form was outstanding$ %is limbs were very long, his height HZI outstanding$ ;8
In 1ilgamesh as well, it is the great siEe and strength of 1ilgamesh and Dnkidu that identify them as godly and godlike, respectively7 Tablet I H'45I, regarding 1ilgamesh7 %e was superior to other kings, a warrior lord of great stature, A hero born of +ruk, a goring wild bullW 'on of ,ugalbanda, 1ilgamesh, perfect in strength, 'on of the lofty cow, the wild cow .insun$ %e is 1ilgamesh, perfect in splendourW Tablet II H'45I, regarding Dnkidu7
;9 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism, 82$ ;; &ark '$ 'mith, @Divine orm and 'iEe in +garitic and Pre!e*ilic Israelite ?eligion,A 6A8 6== H6C88I7 >:9$ ;B (orpel, Rift, C=!C6$ (orpel writes elsewhere that @the +garitic vocabulary for parts of the divine body is much richer than that of Israel$ /%)% does not have flesh and blood; he has neither skin nor pudendaA HRift, 6:CI$ )hile she has certainly estab! lished that the richness of the +garitic vocabulary for divine body parts far out! weighs the biblical, she overlooks the implications of the two te*ts Hin spite of her own mention of both of themI, which demonstrate that /ahweh may indeed have a fleshly body$ ;8 @The Dpic of CreationA H'tephanie Dalley, 1yths from 1esopotamia P<*ford7 <*ford +niversity PressQ, :2;I$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism C2 The young man0how like 1ilgamesh in buildW %e is #ust as powerful in strength of arms as a sky!bolt of Anub ;C
Consider also the great strength of Ishtar, who threatens to smash the door to the underworld, shatter the bolt, and overturn the doors; B= or the description of .inurta, @the powerful oneW broad of chest$A B6 (arel van der Toorn asserts in regard to the &esopotamian gods Hboth dingir and iluI that @their divinity lies in the fact that they are in a sense su! perhuman; they surpass humans in siEe, beauty, knowledge, etc$A B:
In 1reece as well, while gods regularly appeared in human form, it was usually not so anthropomorphically realistic that they might go unrecogniEed$ 1erald &ussies discusses, for instance, the story in which Poseidon is disguised as a priest, and one of the A#a*es who recogniEes him declares, @I easily recogniEed his steps and gait when he went,A because gods are @well distinguishableA H)l$ 62$>9!B:; cf$ Od$ ;$6=8I$ B2 &ussies demonstrates that even in the rare instances of @gods incogniti,A the gods often believe that they should be recogniEable$ Athena, for instance, rebukes <dysseus when he fails to realiEe she is standing before him, her disguise notwithstanding$ B> This reflects the 1reek understanding that there were a number of e*ternal characteris! tics that set gods apart from humans, even when the former were in anthropomorphic form$ &ussies lists features such as e*cessive beauty He$g$, )l$ 2$2CB; )l$ 6$:==I; a shining appearance, B9 including clothing He$g$, Aphrodite shining even while disguised, Hymn$ Aphr$ 6$8;I; aroma He$g$, 5enus, even while disguised; Aen$ 6$>=:!CI; a thunderous or musi!
;C Dalley, 1yths, 96, ;=$ 'ee also the new standard edition by Andrew 1eorge, The !a"ylonian &ilgamesh Epic= )ntroduction, (ritical Edition and (uneiform Texts H<*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==2I$ B= @The Descent of IshtarA HDalley, 1yths, 699I$ The fact that she is not only passionate in her anger but in fact dangerous is clear, for e*ample, from 1ilgameshNs words of re#ection to her, which include a list of those whom she has powerfully struck7 @/ou loved the colourful allallu!bird, but you hit him and broke his wingW you loved the shepherdW but you hit him and turned him into a wolfW you loved IshullanuW and you hit him, turned him into a frog HZI,A and so forth H1yths, B8!BCI$ B6 @AnEu H<45IA HDalley, 1yths, ::2I$ B: (arel van der Toorn, @1od HII,A Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le Heds$ (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst; :d ed$; ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCCI, 29;$ B2 1erald &ussies, @Identification and 'elf!identification of 1ods in Classical and %ellenistic Times,A in 0no#ledge of &od in the &raeco$Roman 8orld Heds$ ?$ van den 4roek, T$ 4aarda and -$ &ansfield; ,eiden7 4rill, 6C88I, 6$ &ussies notes that the pas! sage is also "uoted for a similar purpose in a novel by %eliodorus, ca$ :29 C$D$ B> &ussies, @Identification,A :$ B9 A similar idea is present in &esopotamian myth as well; consider for e*ample .in! urta, whose @mantle of radiance surrounded the mountainA; @AnEu H<4IA HDalley, 1yths, ::9I$ Anthropomorphic Realism C> cal voice; and most notably, the superhuman siEe of all of the gods He$g$, Aphrodite, even after sleeping with human Anchises, Hymn$ Aphr$ 6$6B2!>I$ B;
'mith also points to biblical sources in which he finds what he calls @4iblical survivals of the 1od of human form and superhuman siEe,A such as the description of the immense throne$ %e argues that @anthro! pomorphic descriptions of /ahweh belong to IsraelNs Canaanite heri! tageW These depictions include the superhuman siEe and human fea! tures of the deity$A BB Dlsewhere he refers to the anthropomorphic portrayals of 1od in -eremiah 6:7B!62, Isaiah ;, and DEekiel 6;78!6>, but not to either 1enesis te*t in which /ahweh actually has a human body$ B8 Interestingly, the te*ts he utiliEes are rather late in comparison to these te*ts in which 1odNs body is notably less like those of deities in the material from +garit, which represents Canaanite perspective$ This is a surprising pattern to note7 these later te*ts portray a somewhat anthropomorphic deity, great in siEe but certainly not corporeal, while the two likely earlier te*ts of 1enesis 68 and 2: portray an entirely cor! poreal /ahweh of realistic human siEe$ In regard to the types of an! thropomorphism present in these portrayals of 1od, the two earlier Israelite te*ts in fact have less in common with the conceptualiEation of deity found at +garit and regarded as typically Canaanite$ It is in this area that the radical differences of 1enesis 68 begin to become apparent$ The Canaanite ideas of superhuman divine siEe are shared with 1reece and the ancient .ear Dast, and have @survivalsA in some later biblical te*ts, but in fact there are Israelite religious tradi! tions that stand in marked contrast to these ideas of the surrounding regions and peoples$ The 1od of Israel may be immense when pictured in the temple or in the heavens, but he is realistically human!siEed in this te*t when making contact on earth$ (othar may march across vast territories, visible to Danil from ten thousand acres away, but not /ah! weh, who in the Israelite te*t is so anthropomorphically realistic that he is not even recogniEable as divine when he is sharing a meal with
B; &ussies, @Identification,A >!B; see also C!6=, on the dream book of Artemidorus from Daldis in ,ydia Hca$ 6B9 C$D$I, which includes @nine lengthy chapters about dream! ing about gods,A but @the recogniEability of gods seems to be no point at all, not even when it depends on personal features only$A 'imilar ideas are prevalent in the .ew Testament7 consider shining angels in white, &atthew :872; the voice like thunder, -ohn 6:7:B!:C; a voice like a trumpet, ?evelation 676=; an aroma from life to life, : Corinthians :76;; etc$ BB 'mith, @Divine orm and 'iEe,A >:9!:B$ 'ee &ark '$ 'mith, @V'eeing 1odN in the Psalms7 The 4ackground to the 4eatific 5ision in the %ebrew 4ible,A (!- 9= H6C88I7 68:, for the related idea that the psalmists may also have viewed 1od as a @super! human!siEed deity, human in form and daEEling in light$A B8 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism, 82!8;$ Israelite Anthropomorphic Realism C9 Abraham$ )hile +garitic te*ts fre"uently depict deities on earth with anthropomorphic form, but superhuman siEe, very few biblical te*ts portray 1od with a physical anthropomorphic form on earth$ %owever, the story of AbrahamNs visit from /ahweh demonstrates that there was an archaic Israelite tradition in which, when such a degree of anthro! pomorphism did come, it came in the most concrete and realistic form$ This is "uite the opposite of what has been assumed$ &any have supposed, as stated earlier, that the portrayal of /ahweh in 1enesis 68 shows that biblical te*ts with supposed archaic traits reflect a Canaan! ite conceptualiEation of deity$ In fact, the anthropomorphic realism in the depiction of /ahweh in this te*t reflects an early tradition according to which the conceptualiEation of deity was unlike what is known from e*isting Canaanite sources$ <ne central similarity between the stories of the divine visits to Abraham and Danil remains$ In both stories, the conte*t of the most immediate and intimate divine!human contact is a shared meal$ This is logical enough in a .ear Dastern setting, where the custom among hu! mans has been e*panded to include a high value placed upon the shar! ing of meals by humans and gods$ The common feature of the two te*ts demonstrates that this conte*t is not haphaEard$ The setting of the shared meal emphasiEes that this is an intimate encounter$ .otably, it is here that /ahweh appears in his most anthropomorphically realistic form$ In her work on +garitic and %ebrew descriptions of the divine, (orpel concludes that while Israelite and +garitic depictions were simi! lar in regard to divine strength and glory, the differences Hi$e$, +garitic presentations of weakness, disease, and various signs of human flaws and frailtiesI had to do with @an almost too human realism which was deliberately avoided in Israel$A BC )hile this seems a reasonable conclu! sion for most biblical te*ts, the tradition reflected in 1enesis 68 demon! strates a level of human realism in the divine appearance that stands in stark contrast to other biblical te*ts Hsave 1enesis 2:7:2!22I, and more! over, to the presentations of deities in the literature of +garit$ In 1ene! sis 6876!69, /ahweh is presented in entirely realistic human form, but remains free from human flaws$ 'mith, who argues that Dl was the original 1od of Israel, has sug! gested that due to the assimilation of /ahweh to Dl, the @original /ah! weh profile may be lost$A 8= The te*t of 1enesis 6876!69, however, re! flects an early Israelite depiction of /ahweh in a manner that is not attested in +garitic literature$ The implication may be that the biblical
BC (orpel, Rift, ;:9!:;$ 8= 'mith, Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism, 6>6!>:$ Anthropomorphic Realism C; te*t preserves one aspect of an early conception of /ahweh that did not derive from the larger religious lore particular to Dl$ Indeed, this reli! gious conception is shared by 1enesis 2:, with reference to Dlohim and Dl by name, still without evident origin in the character of Dl as known from +garit$ In both 1enesis 68 and 2:, the 1od of Israel communicates with humans by taking on fully human form, beyond identification until he chooses to reveal himself verbally$ The anthropomorphic realism of the divine appearance to Abraham does not reflect what is known of wider Canaanite religious thought, as found at +garit$ The phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany is early and authentically Israelite, used here in 1odNs creation of the particular line of Israel through Isaac$ The ne*t time it appears, in 1enesis 2:7:2!22, it is to confirm the role of -acob$ In this te*t, -acob is attacked by a man H)|<s] I who is then revealed to be none other than 1od himself, under the names Dlohim Hvv$ :C, 26I and Dl Hv$ 26I$ The struggle between the two men is e*plicitly physical, and the events of the story hinge upon the concrete physical form of the men$ >$2 The Te*t of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 The Te*t of 1enesis 2:7:2!22 :2 %e arose that night, and took his two wives, and his two maidservants, and his eleven children, and sent them across the ford of the -abbok$ :> %e took them and sent them across the river, and sent across whatever he had$ :9 Then -acob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until the rising of the dawn$ :; And he saw that he would not prevail against him, so he struck the socket of his thigh; so the socket of -acobNs thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him$ :B Then he said, @,et me go, for the dawn is rising,A but he said, @I will not let you go unless you bless me$A :8 'o he said to him, @)hat is your nameZA And he said, @-acob$A :C And he said, @/our name shall no longer be -acob, but Israel; for you have striven with 1od and with men, and have prevailed$A 2= Then -acob asked and said, @Tell me your name,A but he said, @)hy do you ask my nameZA And he blessed him there$ 26 'o -acob called the name of the place Peniel, for @I have seen 1od face to face, and my life has been delivered$A 2: And the sun rose over him as he crossed Penuel, and he was limping on his thigh$ 22 Therefore, to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip that is on the socket of the thigh, because he struck -acob on the socket of the thigh, on the sinew of the hip$
ma(a6b{ar yabbo4q Hv$ :2I7 @the ford of the -abbok$A Cooper and 1oldstein re! fer to @the association of divine presence with such liminal spaces as door! posts, city gates, and entryways of all sorts,A in the conte*t of discussing The Text of Genesis 32:23-33 CB theophany at the entrance to the tent$ 86 %ere we see an e*ample of theophany at a different kind of liminal space$
wayye4)a4b{e4q )|< s] (immo= Hv$ :9I7 @and a man wrestled with him$A The verb oc! curs only in this passage Hv$ :9, and be6he4)a4b{ e6qo= , v$ :;I$ It has commonly been e*plained as a denominative verb from the noun )a4b{a4q H@dustAI, i$e$, @to get dustyA H4D4 Ba,bI$ &ark 'mith suggests that it may in fact be a bi! form of )pq, which occurs in the hithpael or Dt meaning @to constrain, con! trol oneselfA H1enesis >2726, >976I$ 'mith points to the use of the root )pq in the conte*t of Dl and /ammNs plans to attack 4aal in 0T* 6$6 5 C!66, and proposes that the niphal of )bq in 1enesis 2:7:9 may similarly mean @to be caught, restrained$A 8: )hile several further aspects of 'mithNs argument are persuasive, it is difficult to reconcile this meaning with the use of the preposition (im, which follows the verb in both verses :9 Hwayye4)a4b{e4q )|< s] (immoI and :; Hbe6he4)a4 b{e6qo= (immo= I$
wayyigga( Hv$ :;I7 @struck$A This has often been translated @touched$A )estermann, for e*ample, claims that it cannot mean @strike,A and refers to it as @some sort of magical touch$A 82 The verb ng( does often mean simply @to touch,A but also often has the implication @to harm,A as in 1enesis :;766, -oshua C76C, and Psalm 6=9769 H)al tigge6 (u= KK)al ta4re4(u= I, all followed by bHe6 I, as here$ The meaning must be @struckA in a metaphorical sense in -udges :=72>, >6, where the sub#ect of ng( is ra4(a=, @evil$A <ther uses of the word in a non!physical sense are also attested, as in Isaiah 927>, @stricken by 1odA Hsee also Psalm B276>I$ The meaning is @struckA in a literal sense in -ob 676C, where it is reported that a great wind struck Hwayyigga( I the four corners of -obNs house Hcertainly not @touchedAI; given this, -ob 6766 should also be read @strike all that he has,A not merely @touchA with a connotation of harm$ %amilton notes that the sense of ng( bHe6 I is sometimes violent Hciting a few of the above, in addition to -ob :79 and 6 'amuel ;7CI, and sometimes non!violent, and concludes that it may be impossible to know which meaning is intended in 1enesis 2:$ 8> 4ecause the word may have ei! ther sense, the "uestion should be answered by the conte*t$ In 6 (ings 6C79! C, for e*ample, in the conte*t of an angel speaking to the sleeping Dli#ah, the meaning assumed should be @touchedA; in the conte*t of a physical fight, the meaning assumed should be @struck$A This is the reading implied by both the conte*t of the physical struggle in 1enesis 2:7:2!22 and the re! sulting in#ury to -acob; the reading Hmagical or spiritualI @touchA rather than @strikeA reflects a prior interpretive choice to de!concretiEe the fight$
86 Cooper and 1oldstein, @At the Dntrance to the Tent,A :=>$ 8: 'mith, @?emembering 1od,A ;>=!>6$ 'mith cites ,ester ,$ 1rabbe, @%ebrew PaNalK+garitic 4N, and the 'upposed 4KP Interchange in 'emitic,A *F 66 H6CBCI7 2=B! 6>$ 'ee also '$ D$ ,uEEatto, The !oo, of &enesis= A (ommentary "y haDa' Htrans$ Da! niel A$ (lein; -erusalem7 -ason Aronson Inc$, 6CC8I, 26:$ 82 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 96B$ 8> %amilton, &enesis, 22=$ Anthropomorphic Realism C8 yis8ra4)e4l Hv$ :CI7 @Israel$A or discussion and bibliography see 'arna, who translates @1od strives,A as well as )estermann, who translates @may 1od contest,A as .oth and others$ 89 %amilton and others prefer @Dl will ruleA or @let Dl rule$A 8;
s8a4r|<ta4 Hv$ :CI7 @you have striven$A The verb s8rh, meaning @persistA or @per! severe,A occurs only here and in the retelling of the story in %osea 6:7> HDng$ 6:72I$ The ,33 has the 6 aor$ ptc$ of the verb rwltykz, meaning @hav! ing grown strongA or @regained oneNs strengthA; the same verb is used for wayyith[azze4q in 1enesis >87: Halso of -acobI$ or the %ebrew k|< $s8a4r|<ta4 (im$ )e6lo4h|<m we6(im$)a6na4s]|<m wattu=k{a4l, @for you have striven with 1od and with men and have prevailed,A the ,33 has sgl rwltyktn{ orgn vrsk |nl orgn nwvjzuzw ikwngs{, @for you have grown strong with 1od, and are strong among men$A The variety of meanings of orgn with the genitive H@with, in the company of,A @through the help ofAI leaves open the possibility of ei! ther a close rendering of the %ebrew for the first phrase H@you have strengthened yourselfKpersevered with 1odAI, or a distancing from the concrete anthropomorphism of the passage H@you have grown strong through the help of 1odAI$
pa4n|<m )el$pa4n|<m Hv$ 26I7 @face to face$A 'arna observes that the phrase is only used of divine!human encounters; for further discussion, see also )altke$ 8B The phrase occurs, for e*ample, of &oses and /ahweh in D*odus 22766, and of 1ideon and the angel of /ahweh in -udges ;7::$ <n the rela! tionships between the @face of 1odA and death, and the @face of 1odA and the theme of separating the community of Israel from others who have a claim through kinship, see 'acks$ 88
pe6nu=)e4l Hv$ 2:I7 @Penuel$A The name of the place in v$ 2: reflects an archaic nominative ending, as in very old proper names Hsee e$g$ 1(C eC=k, and )<C 8$:a, bI$ )altke and <NConnor suggest that the version of the name in v$ 26, @Peniel,A is a biform with the archaic gen$!acc$ pl$ ending$ &ore likely, however, this particular form is used in -acobNs naming of the place because it conforms more closely to the implied pa4n|<m$El H@face of 1odAI, as well as to his statement that he has seen 1od face to face, pa4n|<m )el$ pa4n|<m$ In the case of 1enesis 2:7:2!22, there is e*ternal evidence pointing to an early date of origin$ %endel has shown that the -acob story and the story of D*odus :!> are built on very similar patterns and share numer! ous specific elements, such as the special birth, the subversive deed in
89 )estermann, &enesis 9:$;<, 962; 'arna, &enesis, >=9$ 8; %amilton, &enesis, 22>$ 8B 'arna, &enesis, ::8; 4ruce ($ )altke, &enesis= A (ommentary H1rand ?apids7 `onder! van, :==6I, >>B$ 88 ?obert D$ 'acks, A (ommentary on the !oo, of &enesis HA.DT' ;; ,ewiston, .$/$7 Ddwin &ellenI, :;C$ The Text of Genesis 32:23-33 CC youth, the flight as a result of the subversive deed, and more$ 8C %e points out that this pattern reaches through the whole of the -acob cy! cle, but is limited to the beginning of the &oses story, before the ac! count of &osesN role in the e*odus, which may suggest that @the pattern is more closely knit to the -acob cycle than to &oses$A C= De Pury ob! serves that several of the specific elements in the shared pattern have no purpose in the story of &oses, but are central to the -acob story, such as the marriage to the daughter of the sheikh$ <ne such element is the nocturnal combat, which is, as de Pury points out, a @blind motifA in D*odus$ %e argues therefore that the e*istence and influence of the -acob cycle, including the nocturnal combat in particular, can be seen by the time of the &oses story in the eighth century$ C6 De Pury also delineates the dependence of P in 1enesis 297C!6= on the story of 2:7:2! 22$ C:
There is one te*t which more directly suggests an early date for the story of 1enesis 2:7:2!22$ %osea 6:7>!9 HDng$ 2!>I demonstrates knowl! edge of the -acob tradition in the eighth century, as has often been ob! served$ As discussed by de Pury at length, the author of the poem re! fers to the wrestling story in some form, and includes some aspects of its formulation and specific vocabulary$ At the same time, the elliptical nature of the allusion implies that the author of the poem assumed his audience would be familiar with the story$ C2 <ne noteworthy difference between the two versions of the story supports this view as well$ The phrase wayya4s8ar )el$mal)a4k{ wayyu4k{a4l in verse 9 is often trans! lated along the lines of @he strove with an angel and prevailedA H-P'I, or @he wrestled with the angel and prevailedA H.A'4I, by analogy with the previous phrase in verse >, s8a4ra= )et$)e6lo4h|<m, @he strove with 1od$A %owever, the verb wayya4s8ar simply does not mean @he stroveKwres! tled$A HThe phrase )el$mal)a4k{ in 6:79 will be discussed in Chapter ive$I +nless the form comes from an otherwise unattested synonymous middle weak root HOs8wrI, this is a classic wordplay using a different verb entirely$ A logical alternative is the geminate root Hs8rrI meaning
8C %endel, Epic, 62B!;9$ or further discussion see Albert de Pury, @'ituer le cycle de -acob7 Muel"ues rLfle*ions, vingt!cin" ans plus tard,A in )Lnin, tudies in the !oo, of &enesis, :29!2B$ C= %endel, Epic, 62C$ C6 De Pury, @'ituer le cycle de -acob,A :2;!2B$ De Pury argues that there is no -acob cycle without the various key elements, and specifically that the combat story is at the core of the -acob cycle H@'ituer le cycle de -acob,A :>6I$ <n the ancient concept of a @heroA and cycles of stories surrounding heroes, see %endel, Epic, CC$ <n dating the cycle to before the fall of the north in particular, see Carr, Reading the Fractures, :;;!;B$ C: De Pury, @'ituer le cycle de -acob,A :::!:9$ C2 De Pury, @'ituer le cycle de -acob,A ::B!2>$ Anthropomorphic Realism 6== @to be or act as prince,A or @to rule$A C> Dven among those who argue for this meaning, scholars still differ as to the sub#ect of the verb$ The most straightforward reading is that )el$mal)a4k{ was the victor, or as the te*t says, )el$mal)a4k{ ruled and prevailed Hwayyu4k{a4l in parallelI$ <nly accord! ing to this scenario does it make sense that -acob would then weep and plead for favor before him Hba4k{a= wayyith[annen$lo= I$ C9 Interestingly, the change of sub#ect using only the 2ms pronoun H1od reigned; he P-acobQ weptI is reminiscent of 1enesis 2:7:2!22$ C;
Thus, in %oseaNs telling of the story, -acob did not win the wrestling match$ Dslinger argues that this significant difference from the 1enesis te*t makes sense in the conte*t of %oseaNs argument to Israel$ This is the prophetNs challenge to Israel, in which he turns the familiar etymol! ogy of IsraelNs very name on its head7 it is not a remembrance of how -acob prevailed, but a negative story of -acobNs fight with 1od, stating simply that he wrestled with 1od, @but 1od ruled$A CB As Dslinger points out, %oseaNs @brilliant e*egesisA is only effective if he could e*! pect his audience to be familiar with the traditional -acob story$ C8
In support of DslingerNs argument, it is worthy of note that while in 1enesis, 1od begins the fight Hwayye4)a4b{e4q )|<s] (immo= , @a man wrestled with P-acobQAI and -acob prevails, in the %osea te*t -acob is the instiga! tor Hs8a4ra= )et$)e6lo4h|<m, @he strove with 1odAI, and 1od prevails$ In other words, %oseaNs rendering of the story involves more aggression on the part of -acobKIsrael, but gives the victory to 1od$ It is easier to imagine that the traditional version of the story held that 1od attacked -acob but -acob won the fight, and a later version reversed this to have -acob attack and 1od win, than vice versa$ )hile most agree that the 1enesis story is the first of the two, a few scholars have argued for the priority of the %osea te*t$ CC %owever, as &c(enEie points out, these few verses in %osea depend upon word
C> 'ee for e*ample A$ A$ &acintosh, A (ritical and Exegetical (ommentary on Hosea HICC; Ddinburgh7 T_T Clark, 6CCBI, >82; ,yle Dslinger, @%osea 6:79a and 1enesis 2:7:C7 a 'tudy in Inner 4iblical D*egesis,A /OT 68 H6C8=I7 C6!CC; )illiam )hitt, @The -acob Traditions in %osea and Their ?elation to 1enesis,A 6A8 6=2 H6CC6I7 26; and ?obert 4$ Coote, @%osea 6:,A 7T :6 H6CB6I7 2C:$ C9 'teven ,$ &c(enEie also points out that this verse makes no sense if -acob is the victor, although his translation does not clearly reflect this H@The -acob Tradition in %osea 6:7>!9,A 7T 2; P6C8;Q7 26>I$ C; &acintosh acknowledges that %osea might @consciously reflect this phenomenon,A but doubts it HHosea, >8>I$ CB Dslinger, @%osea 6:79a and 1enesis 2:7:C,A C6!CC$ <r as )hitt translates, @but Dl played the princeA H@The -acob Traditions in %osea,A 26I$ C8 Dslinger, @%osea 6:79a and 1enesis 2:7:C,A C6!CC$ CC )hitt, @The -acob Traditions in %osea,A 68!>2; $ oresti, @%osea 6:7 A Prophetical Polemic against the Proto!Dlohistic Patriarchal Tradition,A Eph( 2= H6CBCI7 6BC!:==$ Anthropomorphic Realism in Genesis 32 6=6 plays in the 1enesis story$ 6== Coote likewise refers to the @wealth of reverberationsA in these few lines of the %osea passage$ 6=6 <thers also point out how many references there are in these few verses of %osea to many points of the storyline in 1enesis$ 6=: 1iven this, it is far more difficult to imagine a scenario in which the entire 1enesis account was based on these few words in %osea, than a scenario in which %osea referenced and to some degree reinterpreted the familiar 1enesis tradi! tion$ It does not matter for our purposes here whether the %osea te*t was based directly on the 1enesis material, or whether the two te*ts shared a common source, as suggested by )hitt$ 6=2
>$> Anthropomorphic ?ealism in 1enesis 2: Anthropomorphic ?ealism in 1enesis 2: ?eturning to 1enesis 2:7:2!22 itself, we see that, like 1enesis 6876!69, this te*t reflects the phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany0that it is in! deed an appearance of 1od, and neither an angel nor a demon, and that this appearance of 1od is characteriEed by the same anthropomor! phic realism observed in 1enesis 68$ There, we see the )|<s] theophany in the story of 1odNs creation of the line of Israel through Isaac$ The use of the )|<s] theophany in 1enesis 2:7:2!22 is related$ The conte*t of this episode is the story of -acobNs conflict and recon! ciliation with Dsau$ Immediately before the wrestling scene, -acob is on his way back to Canaan through DsauNs land, an*iously anticipating a fight$ Immediately afterwards, -acob and Dsau are reconciled$ Their conflict is over the blessing that -acob stole, but the scene of their recon! ciliation does not refer to the source of the conflict$ The fight, how! ever0the fight that both the narrator and -acob anticipate, and that immediately precedes the reconciliation0directly addresses this issue$ It is in the conte*t of this fight scene between -acob and 1od that 1od gives directly to -acob the blessing once traded for a bowl of lentils, and once inadvertently given by Isaac$ <nly now does -acob finally receive 1odNs confirmation of the blessing and the inheritance$ Two elements of this use of the )|<s] theophany in 1odNs confirma! tion of the promise to -acob are particularly significant$ irstly, 1odNs act in this te*t is to confirm the patriarchal promise$ Through portrayal of the )|<s] theophany when -acobNs e*pected opponent is Dsau, from
6== &c(enEie, @The -acob Tradition in %osea 6:7>!9,A 2:=$ Also &$ 1ertner, @Attempt at an Interpretation of %osea 6:,A 7T 6= H6C;=I7 :8B$ 6=6 Coote, @%osea 6:,A 2C2$ 6=: or e*ample, Dslinger, @%osea 6:79a and 1enesis 2:7:C,A C>; de Pury, @'ituer le cycle de -acob,A :26!2>$ 6=2 )hitt, @The -acob Traditions in %osea,A >6$ Anthropomorphic Realism 6=: whom he had usurped the blessing, the author emphasiEes the impor! tance of 1odNs confirmation of the promise to -acob$ It should be noted that the same purpose was evident in the )|<s] theophany of 1enesis 68, in which 1od came to confirm his promise to Abraham$ In that e*pres! sion of the )|<s] theophany, 1od promised a son to Abraham, the first father of Israel, and secured the lineage of the nation through the par! ticular line of Isaac$ In this e*pression of the )|<s] theophany, 1od names and blesses -acob, the direct father of the nation, and confirms the promise of the inheritance of Israel$ In the )|<s] theophany te*t of chapter 68, 1od promises a nation of descendants to Abraham; in the )|<s] theophany of 1enesis 2:, he fulfills his promise$ )hile the two te*ts surely do not come from the same original author, the functions of the divine appearances are related$ 'econdly, the very fact that it is 1od in the te*t of 1enesis 2: and not a man is revealing$ The confrontation e*pected with the man Dsau is instead with 1od, who confirms the blessing$ This appearance of 1od when a man is e*pected emphasiEes the level of 1odNs anthropo! morphic realism in the te*t$ %e does not appear like the +garitic gods, who resemble humans but are drawn on a mythically larger scale$ The Israelite 1od in the )|<s] theophany appears completely realistically as a man, in the place of a man$ &oreover, in this te*t, 1od in the )|<s] theophany appears with such a degree of anthropomorphic realism that he loses the fight$ )hile .ear Dastern stories of struggles between gods may depict evenly matched battles, such as that between 4aal and &ot, one is hard pressed to find e*amples of evenly matched battles between gods and humans$ The humans never stand a chance against Anat, for instance, even though she fights against two towns full of people H0T* 6$2 II C!2=I$ 'he is in fact initially left unsatisfied Hlines 6C! :=I$ In the )|<s] theophany te*t of 1enesis 2:, not only is 1od anthropo! morphically realistic enough to be evenly matched with -acob, but in the end he actually loses the fight$ The )|<s] theophany occurs in only two biblical te*ts, 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22$ In both cases, 1od Honce as /ahwehI appears as a man indistinguishable from other men in encounters that end up affirming promises of blessing to the primary fathers of Israel$ In the second te*t, the author further emphasiEes the anthropomorphic intimacy of the encounter by having -acob meet 1od in fully human form when -acob is terrified of an e*pected attack by a different man, his brother Dsau$ )hen we compare the anthropomorphic immediacy that attends 1odNs communications with &oses, it seems that the intense anthropomor! phic realism of the 1enesis stories may also serve to establish the un! usually close bonds that Abraham and -acob had with 1od$ In present! ing the remarkable directness of face!to!face contact in the )|<s] Anthropomorphic Realism in Genesis 32 6=2 theophany, the authors of both 1enesis te*ts may therefore use this mode of communication to demonstrate a degree of intimacy and favor that speaks more than the words themselves$ In this chapter, we have seen that +garitic literature has neither the full anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophany in 1enesis nor the notion of human appearance to intensify the bond created by such in! timate communication$ It remains to consider how this potentially un! settling approach to portraying special relationship with 1od corre! sponds to other biblical literature$ 9$ The )|<s] Theophany and Divine 'ociety The Theophany and Divine Society The nature of the )|<s] theophany is further illuminated when viewed in relation to the rest of divine society, as depicted in a range of biblical te*ts$ This society is portrayed as a whole in some te*ts; these are the images of the be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m by their many names Hqe6do4s]|<m, qa4ha4l, etc$I$ &any other te*ts offer a window into one of the individual categories which comprise the host; these are the ke6ru4b{|<m, s8e6ra4p4|<m, mal)a4k{|<m, etc$ )hile a review of divine society will be helpful in the effort to in! crease understanding of the )|<s] theophanies of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22, the most immediate concern at this #uncture is the relationship between the )|<s] phenomenon and the portrayals of angels in particular$ Due in part to a rather widespread assumption that angels generally made physical appearances in human form, the )|<s] theophanies have very often been interpreted as visitations of angels$ 6 An e*amination of all of the biblical mal)a4k{ te*ts, however, will demonstrate that the vari! ous depictions of angels are in fact "uite different from the portrayals of the )|<s] theophany$ : 9$6 Mal)a4k{|<m Mal-.m Angelic orms irstly, there are several te*ts in which the mal)a4k{ is portrayed in a spe! cifically non!human form$ 'ome of these certainly reflect the kind of immanent anthropomorphism discussed earlier in regard to /ahweh, such as D*odus 27:, in which the angel appears to &oses as or in fire in
6 In the new Dictionary of Deities and Demons, for e*ample, 'amuel &eier states that angels are @usually depicted as indistinguishable from human beingsA Hciting 1ene! sis 6C76!::, 2:7:9!26; Daniel 8769; and -udges 6272!:2I, @while in later books of the <T they are depicted in overwhelmingly supernatural terms HDan 6=7;IA H@Angel HII,A DDD >9, >8I$ 'imilarly, )estermann describes an angel as @a person like anyone elseA H&enesis 9:$;<, :>2I$ : The two angels of 1enesis 6C represent a special case, in that their human form is linked to the human appearance of /ahweh in chapter 68$ The reference to them as mal)a4k{|<m in chapter 6C, and not before, may reflect the fact that they display non! human power that was not part of the encounter with Abraham$ Mal-.m 6=9 the bush Hwayye4ra4) mal)ak{ yhwh )e4la4yw be6labbat$)e4s] mitto=k{ hasse6nehI, and in D*odus 6>76C!:=, in which the angel appears as the pillar of cloud who goes before the Israelites Hwayyissa( mal)ak{ ha4)e6lo4h|<mM wayyissa( (ammu=d he(a4na4nI$ D*odus :27:=!:2, 2:72>, and 227:, which refer again to the angel who will go or be sent before the Israelites, should be taken in a similar light, although in :27:6!:: the angel also has a voice that should be obeyed; this may be taken as similar to 27:, in which the an! gel appears but /ahweh speaks$ .umbers :=76; similarly refers to /ahweh sending a mal)a4k{ to bring the Israelites out of Dgypt, 2 and should be read in the same manner$ > &any other te*ts include transcendent anthropomorphism, illus! trating the heavenly life of angels with no description of a form or physical presence in the earthly realm$ 'ome te*ts of this type portray angels as part of the host praising 1od in heaven$ In Psalm 6=27:=!:6 the angels are instructed to hear /ahweh and bless him$ This te*t de! scribes the mal)a4k{|<m not by form, 9 but by action, by the doing of /ah! wehNs word and of his will, and indeed by the hearing of the word and not the repeating of it$ Psalm 6>87: likewise depicts the angels with the host praising 1od in heaven$ <ther te*ts portraying the heavenly e*istence of angels include those that describe them as advocates in heaven$ In -ob 227:2!:;, Dlihu claims that if a man has a mal)a4k{ to tell of his uprightness, then 1od will have mercy on him$ ; Mohelet 979 HDng$ 97;I gives instruction regarding what not to say before the mal)a4k{, in order to avoid angering 1od; this seems also to reflect the role of the angelic advocate before whom one pleads, the mediator who might defend oneNs case before 1od$ B The envisioned anthropomorphism in `echariah 2 Hespecially 276!9I is re! lated7 the prophet sees a vision within a vision, as his angelic guide Hwho seems to be a vision himselfI shows -oshua standing between the angel of /ahweh and the Accuser$
2 This should be understood as a reference to an angel, and not to &oses as a messen! ger; &osesN prophetic role was described by the term )|<s] )e6lo4h|< m, not mal)a4k{$ > Compare -udges 6676:!:8, in which -ephthah retells the story, but omits the role of the mal)a4k{$ 9 The te*t describes the angels as @mighty ones of strengthA Hgibbo4re= k{ o4ah9I, but this is clearly not to be rendered as a physical description$ ; Interestingly, the angelic Advocate who has the opposite role to the Accuser may have the side effect of tying the poetry to the prose$ or an interesting proposition regarding the relationship between the poetry and prose of the book of -ob, see Daniel D$ leming, @-ob7 The Tale of Patient aith and the 4ook of 1odNs Dilemma,A 7T >> H6CC>I7 >;8!8:$ B The 'yriac has )e6lo4h|<min place of mal)a4 k{ , demonstrating an ancient tradition for reading this as a divine figure rather than some other sort of messenger$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6=; 'ome narratives concerning patriarchal interactions with angels also use strictly transcendent anthropomorphism, portraying the angels essentially as disembodied voices$ 1enesis :6769!:= tells of an angel calling to %agar from heaven, and in 1enesis ::7C!6C it is emphasiEed twice that the angel calls to Abraham from heaven$ &any narratives concerning angels describe appearances in dreams, or later, in visions$ The angelic form in these te*ts ranges in degree of specificity, but is always restricted to envisioned anthropo! morphism$ 1enesis :876=!:: tells of -acobNs dream in which angels as! cend and descend at the mouth of heaven; 1enesis 2676!62 has -acob narrate another dream in which the angel of 1od speaks to him, but is not described further; and `echariah 67B!;78 tells of the prophetNs vision "uest, involving one primary angelic guide in his tour, and including other angels in his visions within visions in 676:!62, :7B and chapter 2$ 8 In a very small number of cases, specifically in DEekiel and Daniel, angels in visions are called @men$A The @man clothed in linenA Hha4)|<s] halla4b{u4s] habbadd|<mI appears repeatedly to DEekiel He$g$, C7:, 2, 66; 6=7:, ;I$ ,ater in the book we learn of a man whose appearance is like bronEe, with a linen or fla* cord in his hand Hwe6hinne4h$)|<s] mar)e4hu= ke6mar)e4h ne6h[o4 s]et u= p4e6t|<l$pis]t|<m be6ya4do= I, presumably the same man He$g$, >=72!9, >B72I$ These two images also appear in Daniel, here with both descriptions together$ In 6=79, Daniel sees a man clothed in linen, with an appearance like beryl, and arms and feet like bronEe$ This figure is referred to as @the man clothed in linenA again in 6:7;!B, in the same words as in DEekiel$ It is not clear whether or not this is the angel 1abriel, who is referred to as @the man 1abrielA in C7:6 Hit is specified in 8769 that 1abriel merely had the appearance of a man in the vision, ke6mar)e4h$ga4b{erI$ )hile the post!e*ilic resurgence of )|<s] language to describe divine beings is "uite interesting and should be investigated further, these later te*ts do not refer to the same phenomenon as the 1enesis te*ts, and cannot be used in order to interpret the earlier te*ts in retrospect$ 'everal te*ts contain only the briefest reference to an angel with no physical portrayal whatsoever$ 1enesis :>7B and >= refer to an angel sent before AbrahamNs servant in the search for a wife for Isaac; -acob mentions angelic protection in his blessing of Dphraim and &anasseh in 1enesis >8769!6;; the angel of /ahweh curses &eroE in -udges 97:2; the old prophet in 6 (ings 62768!6C lies to the man of 1od, saying that an angel spoke to him; Isaiah 687: contains the terse command, @go,
8 All sorts of te*tual problems are noted regarding confusions between the angel in 6766 standing among the myrtles in the vision, and, for e*ample, the reference in >76 that makes clear that `echariahNs angelic guide was not there, but awakens `echa! riah and asks what he saw$ Mal-.m 6=B swift angelsA; C and Psalm 2>78 proclaims that the angel of /ahweh @camps around those who fear him$A In some cases, these brief allu! sions to angels likely refer to the angel of the e*odus$ Isaiah ;27C refers to IsraelNs deliverance by @the angel of P1odNsQ presence$A Psalm 2979!; contains the psalmistNs prayer that the angel of the ,ord would drive away his foes and pursue them$ 6= Psalm B87>C contains a reference to a troop of deadly angels Hmis]lah[at mal)a6k{ e= ra4(|<mI in the conte*t of recalling the plagues, after a long remembrance of the e*odus and wilderness$ Psalm C676: may also refer to the protection of angels in the conte*t of remembering the plagues Hconsider the references to plague in verses 2 and ;I$ The only brief description here is that the angels do have wings HkappayimI upon which @they will lift you up$A 'ome fuller narratives telling of angelic encounters are as ambigu! ous regarding angelic form as the brief references$ 1enesis 6; does not specify how %agar interacts with the angel, saying only that he @findsA her$ It is unclear whether this is meant to indicate concrete anthropo! morphism, or whether it is similar to the other story of %agar and the angel, which describes the angel in transcendent anthropomorphic terms speaking to %agar from heaven$ 1enesis 2:76!2 mentions only that the angels meet -acob on his way Hwe6ya(a6qo4b{ ha4lak{ le6darko= wayyip4ge6(u=$b{o= mal)a6k{ e= )e6lo4 h|<mI$ -udges :76!9 is a peculiar te*t as well$ It begins with the remark that an angel came up from 1ilgal to 4ochim Hwayya(al mal)ak$yhwh min$haggilga4l )el$habbo4k{ |<mI, indicating at least that this is not a scenario in which an angel calls from heaven$ After this, however, there is no physical description of any kind in the story$ 6 (ings 6C79!C tells of an angel @touchingA Dli#ah Hthe root ng( is used twiceI, which certainly seems physical, but the touch awakens him, i$e$, comes when he is asleep$ The angel tells Dli#ah to get up and eat, and he does; Dli#ah then lies down again and the angel urges him to eat again, because the #ourney will be too much for him$ The angelNs touch might seem to imply that he is material, #arring Dli#ah out of his sleep; on the other hand, the coincidence of both moments of communication com! ing while Dli#ah is sleeping could very easily indicate that the angel appears to the prophet in a dream$ In : (ings 672, 69 the angel of /ah!
C )hile this is often translated @messengersA rather than @angels,A the phrase mal)a4k{|<m qall|<m in 687: is parallel to the opening verse of the ne*t oracle H6C76I, in which /ahweh rides on a swift cloud H(a4b{ qal I to Dgypt$ It seems more likely, there! fore, that 687: should be read as referring to the @swift angelsA who go to Dthiopia, in parallel to the reference to the swift divine in the oracle against a nation immediately following$ 6= In addition, in 2976= the psalmist asks, @,ord, who is like youZA Hm|< k{a4mo=k{ a4 I as in D*odus 69766 Hm|< $k{a4mo4k{ a= I$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6=8 weh instructs Dli#ah, but again the te*t offers no physical references from which to glean information regarding angelic form$ 'everal te*ts describing destruction by angels are also ambiguous about angelic form$ : (ings 6C729, Isaiah 2B72;, and : Chronicles 2:7:6 refer to the angel who strikes down many thousands of Assyrians, but none of the three versions offers any physical description whatsoever$ The parallel stories of : 'amuel :>769!6B and 6 Chronicles :676:!2=, on the other hand, show an interesting development$ In the : 'amuel te*t, after /ahweh has incited David to number Israel, he sends a pestilence which kills seventy thousand people$ The te*t relates that @the angel stretched out his hand toward -erusalem to destroy it,A but /ahweh relents and tells the angel to rela* his hand$ Then, by the threshing floor of Araunah, David himself sees @the angel who was striking down the people$A The immanent anthropomorphism of this portrayal is vivid$ 6 Chronicles :676:!2=, however, pictures the angel with drawn sword in hand standing between heaven and earth$ 66
'ome references to mal)a4k{|<m are comparative or metaphorical$ HThis is not the e"uivalent of figurative anthropomorphic language describ! ing /ahweh; in these te*ts, the humans are primary and the references to angels are figurative$I There are passages in which people are com! pared to angels, but in each case the conte*t very clearly demonstrates that none of these are based on physicality$ 6 'amuel :C7C, : 'amuel 6>76B!:= and 6C7:8 contain comparisons of David to an angel, based on his behavior$ In 6 'amuel :C78!C, when David asks, @)hat have I doneZA Achish answers, @/ou are good in my eyes, like an angel of 1odA Ht@o= b{ )atta= be6(e=nay ke6mal)ak{ )e6lo4h|<mI$ In both : 'amuel passages the comparisons include references to discerning between good and bad$ In : 'amuel 6>76B the woman of Tekoa says to David, @,ike an angel of 1od, so is my lord the king to discern good and badA Hke6mal)ak{ ha4)e6lo4h|<m ke4n )a6do4n|< hammelek{ lis]mo4 a( hat@t@o=b{ we6ha4ra4( I$ : 'amuel 6C7:8 is similar$ Dach of these comparisons is based on behavior or #udgment, not on physical appearance$ `echariah 6:78 contains a more comple*
66 It is noteworthy that this version is scarier7 the angel does not put his sword back into the sheath until after the offering is complete, when apparently /ahweh finally tells him to, and the last verse reemphasiEes DavidNs fear of the sword$ These added elements of the frightening nature of the angel and of the encounter line up well with the detail of the angelNs appearance in this version Hnow standing between heaven and earthI, indicating that this detail too should be taken as an added feature in the Chronicles version$ In other words, even though older angel te*ts refer to both angels on earth and disembodied voices calling from heaven, the specific combina! tion of the angel between heaven and earth should not be read back into : 'amuel$ )hile many might have assumed this, it has become clear that many assumptions regarding angelic form have been incorrect, and thus specific te*tual indications that support a previous assumption remain valuable$ Mal-.m 6=C comparison, stating that the weakest of -erusalem will be like David, and that @the house of David Pwill beQ like an )e6lo4h|<m, like the mal)a4k{ of /ahweh$A In this case also the conte*t clearly refers to strength for the gaining of victory, and not to any physical "uality$ The metaphor in Proverbs 6;76>, that the wrath of the king is an angel of death Hmal)a6k{e=$ ma4wetI, also pertains to action or effect and not physicality, but this time the sense is strongly negative$ 6:
The above te*ts include e*amples of immanent, transcendent, and envisioned anthropomorphism, but not concrete anthropomorphism$ There remain only a handful of te*ts in which angels do clearly have a physical human form, where they e*ist on the human plane and not only in heaven or in a dream, and are described in some human man! ner, such as @sitting$A These include 1enesis 68!6C, .umbers ::, -udges ;, -udges 62, -oshua 9, and %osea 6:$ The two angels who appear to Abraham with /ahweh in 1enesis 68!6C are at times called )a6na4s] |<m and at times mal)a4k{|<m$ They share a meal with Abraham, and then the two depart for 'odom, leaving /ah! weh to speak with Abraham$ In chapter 6C they sit down and eat with ,ot and later they seiEe him by the hand, and they in fact have a human enough appearance that the men of 'odom want to have se* with them$ Their physical nature is emphasiEed at many points during their strug! gles with ,ot, his family and the townspeople$ They are in fact drawn with nearly the same type of anthropomorphic realism as is 1od Hor /ahwehI in the two )|<s] theophany te*ts$ This is logical enough, since the sons of 1od should be able to appear in the same forms in which 1od himself appears$ This happens in various biblical traditions$ or e*ample, both 1od and his angel are said to guide the Israelites in the wilderness in the pillar of cloud He$g$, D*odus 627:6, 6>76C!:=I$ Pre! sumably the reason for this is that 1od and the sons of 1od may take the same form when performing the same function$ The fact that the concrete physical form of the angels in 1enesis 68! 6C is the same as that of /ahweh in chapter 68 should not be surprising, as they come with /ahweh to perform the same function initially, which is communication of a promised son to Abraham and 'arah$ %owever, the e*treme degree of anthropomorphic realism in the ap! pearance of /ahweh in chapter 68 is in the end not matched in the visit
6: <ne other te*t might be taken as metaphorical in a different way$ In Psalm 6=>7>, /ahweh @makes the ru=h[o=t his mal)a4k{|< m$A The placement of mal)a4k{ and ru=ah[ together might signal a reference to the host of heaven$ <n the one hand, ru=ah[ is placed here in parallel to fire and thus might seem to refer only to a natural phenomenon Hi$e$ @wind,A and not @spiritAI; on the other hand, mal)a4k{ is in parallel to ministers$ The most likely interpretation is that the reference is to natural phenomena as used by 1od$ The Theophany and Divine Society 66= of the angels in chapter 6C$ )hile they certainly take physical human form, the anthropomorphic realism of their appearance throughout most of the story gives way as they perform a superhuman feat, strik! ing the townsmen with blindness$ It is perhaps no accident that the men are only identified e*plicitly as @angelsA Hmal)a4k{|<mI in chapter 6C, where they shed their realistic human character$ .umbers ::7::!29 also includes an e*ample of concrete anthropo! morphism without anthropomorphic realism$ An angel appears to 4a! laam the son of 4eor as he is going on his way to &oab, riding on a donkey$ The te*t describes an angel physical enough for 4alaamNs don! key to swerve away from it in the road, but in this case too, the angel is certainly not altogether human in form$ In this te*t, in fact, the angel is invisible to 4alaam until the manNs eyes are uncovered by /ahweh$ In -udges ;766!:> an angel appears to 1ideon in <phrah$ The angel initially seems so human that 1ideon does not know to whom he is speaking$ %owever, he figures out that this is the angel of /ahweh when it disappears Hha4lak{ me4(e=na4yw, v$ :6I$ urthermore, the angel re! fuses to eat 1ideonNs offering, and instead touches his staff to the meat, which is instantly consumed by fire from the rock$ <nce again, the an! gel initially seems "uite human, but reveals itself to have superhuman abilities$ In other words, the angel has a concrete human physical ap! pearance, but is not anthropomorphically realistic$ %osea 6:7>!9 HDng$ 2!>I contains some peculiarities$ It is warranted to deal with the difficult passage in some detail, since it directly refer! ences the story of 1enesis 2:7:2!22$ 5erse >b says that -acob wrestled with 1od Hs8a4ra= )et$)e6lo4h|=mI, and then 9a reads7 wayya4s8ar )el$mal)a4k{ wayyu4k{ a4l$ This is very often translated reading )el as )et, as in the previ! ous verse$ This emendation is common enough to warrant reference to it in the !H te*tual apparatus$ According to many translations, the te*t then reads, @he wrestled with the angel, and prevailed$A ?ather than reading )el as )et, many scholars retain )el and delete mal)a4k{ as a gloss$ 62
HAs was discussed in Chapter our, the other problem with this transla! tion is that the verb wayya4s8ar does not mean @he wrestled,A but rather, @he ruled$AI If mal)a4k{ should be deleted as a gloss, the figure who wrestles with -acob in the %osea te*t is simply )e4l$ This is entirely plausible in light of the 1enesis te*t, and is perhaps the most likely scenario$ )hitt argues that this is the only case in which mal)a4k{ and )e4l A)e6lo4h|<m are used in
62 'ee e$g$ &acintosh, Hosea, >8>; &c(enEie, @-acob Tradition in %osea 6:7>!9,A 262; )hitt, @The -acob Traditions in %osea,A 2:; 1ertner, @Interpretation of %osea 6:,A :BB; ,othar ?uppert, @%erkunft und 4edeutung der -akob!Tradition bei %osea,A !i" 9: H6CB6I7 >88!9=>; )illiam ,$ %olladay, @Chiasmus, the (ey to %osea 6:72!;,A 7T 6; H6C;;I7 92!;>$ Mal-.m 666 parallel in poetry, and further that the term mal)a4k{ shows up in %osea only here$ 6> 1iven the combination of the phraseNs uni"ueness and in! herent difficulties, it is best to treat it as a gloss$ )hat we find, then, is that the use of the term mal)a4k{ in %osea 6: cannot easily be incorporated into a survey of references to angels$ The word is likely a gloss$ If the word is original, then either the te*t is somehow otherwise mangled He$g$, )el should read )et I, or it addition! ally includes the term )e4l, resulting in the entirely uni"ue phrase )e4l! mal)a4k{$ In any case, this passage does not demonstrate the human physicality of angels$ At most, the te*t shows a reinterpretation of the -acob story in which the )|<s] is understood as an angel$ This interpreta! tion reflects the same phenomenon as 1enesis 68!6C in that the angel takes the same form that 1od does when performing the same function Hthere as separate characters in one story; here as a substitution, but according to the same principleI$ Two of the other te*ts in which angels clearly have a physically human form share an intriguing added element7 -udges 62 and -oshua 9 both contain use of the word )|<s] in reference to the angel$ It is clear in both cases, however, that this is a very different scenario from the )|<s] theophanies as presented in 1enesis 68 and 2:7:2!22, in which the term )|<s] refers to 1od$ The te*t of -udges 62 relates the story of an angelic appearance to &anoah and his wife$ The figure in this te*t is called @the angel of /ahwehA by the narrator, but is described as a man by the characters, who, as the narrator e*plains, do not know that he is an angel H6276;I$ The one reference to the figure as a man by the narrator Hv$ 66I comes in the conte*t of describing &anoah approaching the figure he viewed as a man$ The narrator, however, clearly distinguishes between the cate! gories, noting in fact that &anoah was incorrect in his categoriEation of the figure as an )|<s] Hv$ 6;I$ In verse 6; the narrator e*plains that &anoah made the offer of a meal because he did not realiEe that he was speaking to an angel; the angel then declines the food, unlike the )a6na4s] |<m in 1enesis 68$ &oreover, the angel goes on to ascend in the flames of the altar, on which was prepared the food he refused to eat$ Thus, while the term )|<s] is used in this te*t, and the phenomenon seems related to that of the )|<s] theophany, there is a significant differ! ence in the level of anthropomorphic realism$ The )a6na4s] |<m in 1enesis 68 gladly sit down to eat with Abraham, and the )|<s] in 1enesis 2: physi! cally grapples with -acob$ All are referred to by the narrators them! selves as )a6na4s]|<m$ The depiction of the )|<s] sitting down for a bite to eat, as a man with men, participating fully in human form with all of its
6> )hitt, @The -acob Traditions in %osea,A 2:$ The Theophany and Divine Society 66: limitations, is fundamentally different from painting a divine being in familiar human terms, until the final miraculous feat$ 69
The term )e6lo4h|<m also appears in this te*t$ After the angel has as! cended in flame, &anoah says to his wife, @)e shall surely die, for we have seen a divine beingA Hk|< )e6lo4h|<m ra4)|<nu= I H627::I$ In this conte*t, however, the term cannot be understood to mean @1od$A In the previ! ous verse, the narrator e*plains that &anoah has #ust realiEed that the figure was the angel of /ahweh; &anoah then refers to the angel as )e6lo4h|<m, @a divine being$A Cooper and 1oldstein offer another e*planation of the use of the term here, understanding the remark to reflect &anoahNs confusion concerning the specific type of )e6lo4h|<m he has encountered$ They sug! gest that he supposes it to have been an ancestral spirit, when in fact it is the angel of /ahweh$ They observe that @&anoah, in particular, seems to be the butt of a #oke for his failure to grasp this point$ 4ut the #oke only makes sense in a world that is filled with all sorts of )e6lo4h|<m0 in which &anoahNs confusion is perfectly understandable$A 6; It is not clear how the reading of &anoahNs lingering confusion in verse :: is to be reconciled with his recognition of the angel in verse :6, but the im! portant point regarding the potential for confusion remains$ &anoah has in fact already recogniEed the angel of /ahweh at this point, but this recognition came slowly; this too @only makes sense in a world that is filled with all sorts of )e6lo4h|<m$A Thus, while the te*t of -udges 62 uses both the terms )|<s] and )e6lo4h|<m in regard to an appearance of a divine being, and certainly re! flects the initial lack of recognition that is evident also in 1enesis 6876! 69 and 2:7:2!22, the te*t does not portray )e6lo4h|<m, @1od,A as )|<s], @man$A The term )|<s] refers to &anoahNs misperception, which lingers even after the angel refuses to eat, and until it ascends in the flames of the
69 &arc `vi 4rettler offers an interpretation of the encounter in light of the tradition of 1enesis ;, e*plaining that the angel is 'amsonNs father, which, if accurate, would emphasiEe all the more the unusual nature of the very human!seeming angels in 1enesis 68 and 2:, who are not in the least interested in divine!human unions HThe !oo, of /udges P.ew /ork7 ?outledge, :==:Q, >9!>BI$ 4rettler refers to the angel as @physiologically very human,A but also notes that &anoah makes the @stupid mis! take of trying to feed a divine being,A which should not in fact be an error if the an! gel were indeed physiologically human$ It would be surprising if the angel could re! produce with a human, but could not consume human food$ 6; Cooper and 1oldstein, @D*odus and Mas[s[o=t,A 2:, 2>$ 'mith notes in addition that, while the te*t of -udges 62 reflects confusion over the identity of the )e6lo4 h|<m, @the later tradition may not have understood the range of possibilities,A i$e$, ancestral spirits, lower!level members of the divine assembly, destroying angels Hmas]h9|< t|<mI, etc$ %e observes in another conte*t that @the slippage of divine identity may have been facilitated by the ambiguity of the term )e6lo4h|< m Kha4)e6lo4 h|<mA H@?emembering 1od,A ;28, ;>9I$ Mal-.m 662 altar; the term )e6lo4h|<m Hv$ ::I refers to a @divine being,A the angel of /ahweh, having finally been recogniEed as such by &anoah Hv$ :6I$ The angel who appears to -oshua in -oshua 9762!69 is also described as an )|<s], this time by the narrator$ This passage provides the closest angelic parallel to the )|<s] theophany, both in the language employed and in the portrayal of the divine being$ irstly, the appearance of the angel is described using language strikingly similar to that found in 1enesis 687:$ The passage begins, @)hen -oshua was by -ericho, he lif! ted his eyes and saw0a man was standing before himA Hwaye6h|< bihyo=t ye6ho=s]u4a( b|+r|<h[o= wayyis8 s8a4) (e=na4yw wayyar) we6hinne4h$|<s] (o4me4d le6negdo= I$ After the reference to AbrahamNs location by the oaks of &amre in 1e! nesis 6876, verse : begins, @%e lifted his eyes and saw0three men were standing before himA Hwayyis8 s8a4) (e=na4yw wayyar) we6hinne4h s]e6lo4s]a= )a6na4s]|<m nis[s[ a4b{|<m (a4la4ywI$ 'econdly, unlike the other anthropomorphic angels previously discussed, this angel does not engage in any specifically non!human or superhuman act$ %owever, the angel identifies itself as @the commander of the army of /ahwehA Hs8ar$s[e6b{a4)$yhwhI, and appears with sword in hand$ This armed angel does not fight for -oshua or for his opponents; like the cherubim, the angel with the sword stands over an entryway, and an! nounces by this act that the place is holy$ The te*t has another close parallel, in D*odus 279, where &oses is told7 @?emove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy groundA Hs]al$ ne6(a4le=k{ a4 me4(al ragle=k{a4 k|< hamma4qo= m )a6s]er )atta= (o= me4d (a4la4yw )admat$qo4des] hu=) I$ )ith the e*ception of the word @ground,A the statement to -oshua in 9769 is identical$ +nlike the )a6na4s] |<m of both 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2! 22, this angel immediately identifies itself as divine, firstly by title and secondly by this command to -oshua$ In fact, with the e*ception of the initial note that -oshua saw a man standing before him, every reference to and statement by the angel in these verses points to its divine nature$ In verse 69, for e*ample, the angel is identified again as @the com! mander of the army of /ahweh,A and not as @the man$A In this way, the term )|<s] seems closer to its use in -udges 62 than its use in 1enesis 6876! 69 or 2:7:2!22$ In addition, while the angel does not engage in any spe! cifically non!human activity, unlike 1od in 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2! 22, it also does not engage in any specifically, graphically human activ! ity, such as eating or wrestling$ The te*t may simply be too brief to establish e*actly why the term )|<s] is used, but it may be that, like &anoah, the surprised -oshua sees the figure suddenly before him and initially believes him to be a man$ )hile the reading of the )|<s] terminology as only a reflection of charac! tersN perspectives is unsubstantiated for 1enesis 68 and 2:, it is cer! The Theophany and Divine Society 66> tainly the case in -udges 62; it may e"ually be the case here$ 6B %owever, the te*t is too terse to draw a firm conclusion$ Thus, it is evident that in the ma#ority of mal)a4k{ te*ts, the angels are depicted in specific non!human forms, or not on the earth Happearing in dreams or calling from heavenI, or on the earth in an unspecified form$ In almost all of the te*ts which depict angels in concretely anthropo! morphic terms, they are in the end revealed as having a non!human or superhuman physical nature through some fantastic e*it or miraculous feat$ In 1enesis 6C, the angels strike the men of 'odom with blindness before the city is demolished$ In .umbers ::, the angel is invisible until /ahweh allows 4alaam to see$ In -udges ;, the angel refuses to eat, and instead miraculously brings fire from a rock to consume the meat, and then disappears$ In -udges 62, the angel ascends in the flame of the fire$ The e*ception is the brief passage in -oshua 9, in which the angel identi! fies itself as divine, but does not engage in either graphically human or non!human activity$ Among these te*ts, 1enesis 6C, -udges 62, and -oshua 9762!69 are the most closely related to the )|<s] theophany te*ts$ They tell of physi! cal, earthly appearances of divine beings who are referred to as men$ The parallel once again demonstrates the potential for divine beings to appear on earth in concretely embodied human form$ %owever, only 1od Hor /ahwehI in 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22 is drawn in entirely anthropomorphically realistic terms$ In both te*ts, 1od is identified as an )|<s], and is shown engaging e*clusively in human physical activities$ The angels of 1enesis 6C, -udges 62, and -oshua 9762!69 reflect a closely related concept of divine!human contact and communication, but even these most e*plicitly concrete angelic appearances lack the graphic anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophanies of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22$ 68
6B Ca"uot, however, sees this te*t as the norm$ %e describes angels as @an army ready for combat,A citing 1enesis 2:7:!2 and -oshua 9762!69$ %e comments further that @the abrupt appearance of this anthropomorphic being, the order that he gives to -oshua, characteriEe an angelic creatureA H@Anges et dLmons en Isra[l,A 6:>!:9I$ 68 A very few te*ts have not been included in this discussion because, although it is conceivable that the intended referent is angelic, it is more likely human$ The mal)a4k{ of Isaiah >: refers to a messiah; the mal)a4k{ of DEek$ 2=7C is probably human; that of : Chronicles 2;76; seems to be also human, using mal)a4k{|<m in parallel with prophets Hbut note that 2 Dsdras says angelsI; the phrase k|< mal)ak{ yhwh$s[e6b{a4)o=t hu=) in &alachi :7B, though the language is highly reminiscent of the divine council, refers to a priest H,evi, symbolicallyI; and &alachi 276 is ambiguous, but in conte*t the figure seems human$ Mal-.m 669 Angelic unctions -ust as a delineation of angelic forms demonstrates the difference of the phenomenon reflected in 1enesis 68 and 2:, so should an overview of angelic functions$ The roles of angels vary greatly$ 'ome categories of angelic function arose in the demarcation of categories by form, such as the angels who serve as advocates in heaven$ <ther angelic functions span the various forms$ Angels are primarily understood as messengers, although in sev! eral te*ts they appear with no verbal message$ In -acobNs dream of an! gels ascending and descending a ladder in 1enesis :876=!::, for in! stance, the angelsN message is in their action, revealing the meeting place of heaven and earth$ 'imilarly, the silent angels he encounters in 1enesis 2:76!2 reveal to -acob the place of 1odNs camp$ It is perhaps then not surprising that -acobNs most direct contact with 1od comes so close to the place revealed to be a point of divine!human contact and communication$ In Psalm 6=2, as discussed above, the angels are de! fined by the acts of hearing and doing 1odNs word, and not by the act of repeating it to humans$ The roles of angels can also overlap with those of prophets$ In other words, at times the particular messages brought by angels reflect the form or content of prophetic messages$ This is evident in 1enesis 6;, in which the angel reassures %agar by telling her of the conception of Ishmael and of his life, and makes the same promise to her that 1od made to Abraham regarding his descendants$ %e then instructs %agar in what she should do, and she calls him )e4l ro6 )|< , referring to his pro! phetic words Hv$ 62I$ The angel who calls to Abraham from heaven uses the phrase ne6)u4m$yhwh to introduce his speech H1enesis ::76;I, and the angel in 1enesis 26766!62, like a prophet, speaks 1odNs words to -acob in the first person$ 6C In .umbers ::729, the angel tells 4alaam to go with 4alakNs men, and to prophesy only what he tells him$ This two!layered messenger system is apparent again in the previously discussed pas! sage of : (ings 676!6;, when the angel directs the prophet Dli#ah in what to do and say; moreover, the words he instructs Dli#ah to say in! clude the phrase ko4h$)a4mar yhwh Hv$ >I$ The angel in `echariah 67B!;78 repeatedly uses the phrases ne6)u4m$yhwh He$g$ :76=I and ko4h$)a4mar yhwh He$g$ 676;I to introduce his words to the prophet$ Perhaps the most e*! plicit case is that of 6 Chronicles :6768!6C, in which the angel com! mands the prophet 1ad to tell David that he should go build an altar,
6C The angel says, @I am the 1od of 4ethel$A This may be interpreted as similar to the prophetic form in which messengers speak for 1od in the first person, or it may be more like the angel of D*odus 2 who appears to &oses, after which /ahweh speaks$ The Theophany and Divine Society 66; and so @David went up at the word of 1ad, which he spoke in the name of /ahweh$A Angels often function as guides, as in 1enesis :>7B, >=, in which the angel goes before AbrahamNs servant in his search for a wife for Isaac$ The angel who goes before the Israelites in D*odus instructs and guides; and twice the angel soothes and guides the hotheaded Dli#ah Hespecially in : (ings 67:!6;; in 6 (ings 6C79!C, the angel also urges Dli#ah to make sure he eats enoughI$ ?elated are the angel of 1enesis >876; whom -acob says has delivered him from all harm Hhammal)a4k{ haggo4)e4l )o4t|< mikkol$ra4( I, and the angel of Isaiah ;27C who saves and delivers Israel Hho=s]|<(a4mMhu=) ge6)a4la4mI$ <ther angels have a more adversarial function$ 'ome angels re! buke, such as the angel in -udges :76!9 who e*plains that due to Israel! ite disobedience, 1od will not drive the Canaanites out of the land Hwhich functions as preparation for the book of -udges as a whole, e*! plaining IsraelNs future of idolatry in the landI$ The angel in -udges 97:2 curses &eroE and its inhabitants$ The adversarial function of the angel who appears to 4alaam in .umbers :: is more overt7 he identifies him! self as having come as a s8a4ta4n$ The adversarial function of angels is more e*treme in the cases of angels who destroy on commando missions, as in the divine military action of the death s"uad in 1enesis 6C$ 'imilar are : 'amuel :> and 6 Chronicles :676:!2=, in which the angel stands with his drawn sword e*tended over -erusalem, ready to destroy it; and : (ings 6C729, Isaiah 2B72;, and : Chronicles 2:7:6, in which the angel slaughters 689,=== Assyrians Hor, in the Chronicles version, annihilates all of their warri! orsI$ The case of the mal)a4k /ahweh is somewhat different$ This may be a particular manner of reference to theophany, or may be the result of the angelic role in some te*ts having been blurred with that of /ahweh himself$ As )estermann has observed, in @the oldest narratives Pthe mal)a4k /ahweh and /ahwehQ are interchangeable$A := After %agarNs interaction with the angel in 1enesis 6;, she refers to @/ahweh who spoke to her,A and the angels in 1enesis 6C warn that they will destroy the city, which /ahweh then does$ This type of blurring is also evident in 1enesis ::, where the one who calls to Abraham from heaven is re! ferred to alternately as 1od and an angel, and 1enesis 26766!62, in which the angel of 1od identifies himself as the 1od of 4ethel$ The same is true of D*odus 2, in which both 1od and his angel are said to speak to &oses from the burning bush, and perhaps -udges ;, in which both 1od and an angel speak to 1ideon$
:= )estermann, &enesis, :>2$ Mal-.m 66B The ambiguous relationship between /ahweh and the mal)a4k /ah! weh has led to a debate regarding whether the angel was a theological development toward avoiding the representation of /ahweh$ 'arna, for e*ample, suggests that angels are a @conceptual device to avoid an! thropomorphism$A :6 (orpel also supports this common idea, stating that @in a number of cases ml)k /%)% may replace an earlier tradition in which it was /%)% himself who visited man in anthropomorphic form$A :: 4arr, however, argues that the mal)a4k is not a late, more @so! phisticatedA theology intended to @assert the remotenessKtranscendence of /ahweh,A but rather is @deeply imbedded in stories of great anti"! uity$A :2 ?ofL also re#ects the idea that the mal)a4k /ahweh represents a uni"ue theological development, arguing that it must have the same origin as that of all of the angels, namely the surrounding polytheistic traditions$ :> Perhaps the strongest evidence against the notion that the mal)a4k /ahweh was an instrument to avoid anthropomorphism is that if this was the goal, it failed utterly$ Consider the te*ts in which the mal)a4k appears interchangeably with /ahweh$ In sum, it appears that the category mal)a4k|<m incorporates a wide variety of forms and functions, sometimes seemingly linked only by their shared title$ .evertheless, as diverse as the many functions of angels are, it is striking that no mal)a4k te*t reflects the same function as the two )|<s] theophanies$ 'everal of the mal)a4k te*ts do include bless! ings$ All of these are among the patriarchal narratives7 1enesis 6; and :6 to %agar, :: to Abraham, and :8 and 26 to -acob$ %owever, the an! gels in four of the five mal)a4k te*ts which include blessings are non! physical, communicating their messages through dreams or disembod! ied voices$ In fact, these four constitute a disproportionately high per! centage of all of the te*ts in which angels are clearly restricted to dreams or heaven$ :9 our of the angels in these five te*ts are non! physical, and the fifth is ambiguous in form$ .o angel ever clearly blesses in person$ This stands in marked contrast to the blessings in the two )|<s] te*ts, which both take place, by definition, very much in per! son$
:6 'arna, &enesis, 282$ :: (orpel, Rift, :C;$ :2 4arr, @Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the <ld Testament,A 22!2>$ :> Ale*ander ?ofL, The !elief in Angels in the !i"le and in Early )srael H-erusalem7 &akor, 6CBC Pin %ebrewQI, i*$ :9 The other clear e*amples of angels restricted to dreams or heaven are the angelic advocates in -ob and Mohelet, the angels praising 1od in heaven in the Psalms, and the angel of `echariahNs vision "uest$ A last possible e*ample is the angel in 6 (ings 6C who awakens Dli#ah from sleep possibly through a dream, as noted above$ The Theophany and Divine Society 668 9$: The Divine )orld The Divine )orld &any biblical te*ts depict a populated heaven$ There are several well! known portrayals of the divine assembly, including Psalms :C76, 8:76, and 8C79!B, 6 (ings ::76C and -ob 67; and :76$ :; )hile terms for specific heavenly entities carry particular meanings, such as mal)a4k as opposed to s8e6ra4p4 |<m, or ru=ah[ as opposed to )|<s] Hto be discussed belowI, various terms referring to the overall population of the heavens may at times reflect differing perspectives, or may have been used at various times for different purposes$ The phrase be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m, for instance, portrays the divine assembly as related to 1od by kinship; the terms qa4ha4l and so=d, alternatively, define the divine beings in terms of their grouping as a council$ The term )e6lo4h|<m alone can also refer to the divine assembly, as in Psalm 8:76, which states that 1od stands among the )e6lo4h|<m$ The term )e4l|<m is used similarly in Daniel 6672;$ :B
The phrases that refer to the full assembly in terms of kinship show some similarities$ The be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m of -ob 67; and :76 gather to present themselves before /ahweh$ The other use of the term be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m to describe creatures in heaven comes in -ob 287B Hthere used in parallel with ko=k{ e6b{e= b{o4qerI, in which they shout for #oy at 1odNs creation$ The be6ne= )e4l|<m of Psalm :C76 are portrayed as bowing to /ahweh and ascrib! ing to him glory and strength$ The be6ne= )e4l|<m in Psalm 8C7B are de! scribed in detail as surrounding /ahweh and fearing him, very much in line with the picture in Psalm :C76$ They are also said not to compare to /ahweh$ This view is taken further in the monotheiEing bent of Psalm 8:, in which the be6ne= (elyo=n are first described as being among the con! gregation of 1od Hba(a6dat!)e4l I and are then addressed as gods H)e6lo4h|<m )attemI who will die like men$ The Aramaic e"uivalent of the singular of be6ne= )e6lo4 h|<m is used in Daniel 27:9 to refer to an angel, who is said to resemble a divine being Hbar$)e6la4h|<nI$ <nly in one te*t does the portrayal of the be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m differ significantly from this picture of the heavenly congregation$ In the te*t of 1enesis ;76!>, they are such physi! cal beings that they can reproduce with humans$ %ere too the term
:; <n the divine assembly and the @sons of 1odA in particular, see Alan Cooper, @Di! vine .ames and Dpithets in the +garitic Te*ts,A in R+ 2 HAn<r 96; ?ome7 Pontifi! cium institutum biblicum, 6C86I, >26!>6; 1$ Cooke, @'ons of the 1odHsI,A 6A8 B; H6C;>I7 ::!>B; )$ %errmann, @Die 1^tters^hne,A 6R&& 6: H6C;=I7 :>:!96; D$ Theodore &ullen, -r$, The Di%ine (ouncil in (anaanite and Early He"re# 'iterature H%'& :>; Chico, Calif7 'cholars Press, 6C8=I; cf$ 'imon 4$ Parker, @The 'ons of HtheI 1odHsI,A DDD BC>!8==$ :B The term may refer to the divine assembly in D*odus 69766 as well, or may refer to the gods of the nations$ <n the probability that the phrase be6ne= yis8ra4)e4l in Deuteron! omy 2:78 should read be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m or similar, as in the ,33 Hn}}r~zw vrskI, see Cooper, @Divine .ames and Dpithets,A >2>!29$ The Divine World 66C defines a large species, and one contrasted with humans Hthe term is used in opposition to be6no=t ha4)a4da4mI$ :8
The term be6ne= )e4l|<m is used in Psalm 8C7B in parallel with the terms qa4ha4l qe6do4 s]|<m and so=d$qe6do4s]|<m, :C indicating that these terms do indeed refer to the same group of beings$ 2= This demonstrates that the terms qa4ha4l qe6do4s] |<m and so=d qe6do4s]|<m can likewise describe the assembly praising 1od$ ?elated is the vision of the day of /ahweh in `echariah 6>79 in which /ahweh is pictured coming with all of the qe6do4s]|<m$ Dlse! where, however, these terms may have a slightly different emphasis$ The qe6do4 s]|<m are mentioned again in -ob 976, which contains DliphaENs argument to -ob that he cannot turn to the qe6do4s]|<m$ 26 The singular qa4do4s] Hmost often a name for /ahwehI is also used of the individual members of the host who speak to one another in Daniel 87C!6>$ The term so=d is used elsewhere as well, without qe6do4 s]|<m$ Interestingly, prophets may be described as being able to listen in on the so=d$ -eremiah :2768, :: implies that a prophetNs ear is privy to the heavenly council; -ob 6978, in contrast, contains DliphaENs challenge to -ob that he has not listened in on the so=d )e6lo=ah Hreminiscent of his remark in 976 regarding the qe6do4 s]|<mI$ The use of this term in this conte*t is presumably not coinci! dental, as the 'yriac and Arabic cognate verbs mean to talk or converse, and the verb in 'irach B76> means to chatter$ 2: In summary, while all of these terms clearly refer to the general population of heaven, it is inter! esting to note that with the e*ception of 1enesis ;76!>, the terms which define the heavenly beings by kinship Hbe6ne= )e6lo4h|<m, be6ne= )e4l|<m, and be6ne= (elyo=nI are only described in relation to 1od; the terms which de! scribe the council as a group Hqa4ha4l, so=d, and qe6do4s]|<mI can additionally
:8 A similar phrase is used in reference to humans in %osea :76, where the be6ne= yis8ra4)e4l will become be6ne= )e4l!h[a4y$ Interestingly, this is reminiscent of the metaphorical change in species in Psalm 8: Hin the opposite directionI, where the be6ne= (elyo=n become as men$ :C The term so=d is used to refer to the divine council only in Israel H'imon 4$ Parker, @Council,A DDD :=>!9I$ 2= <n the so= d, see Abraham &alamat, @The 'ecret Council and Prophetic Involvement in &ari and Israel,A in +rophetie und geschichtliche 8ir,lich,eit im alten )srael7 Festschrift f2r iegfried Herrmann Dum <>. &e"urtstag Heds$ ?$ ,iwak and '$ )agner; 'tuttgart7 )$ (ohlhammer, 6CC6I, :26!:;; rank &$ Cross, @The Council of /ahweh in 'econd Isaiah,A /NE 6: H6C92I7 :B>!BB; %$ )$ ?obinson, @The Council of /ahweh,A /T >9 H6C>>I7 696!9B; 1uy Couturier, @,a vision du conseil divin7 Ltude dNune forme com! mune au prophLtisme et lNapocalypti"ue,A cEs 2; H6C8>I7 9!>2; cf$ Parker, @Coun! cil,A :=>!8$ 26 <n the possibility of understanding the qe6do4s]|<m of Psalm 6;72 as divine beings, see Cooper, @Divine .ames and Dpithets,A >>=$ Cooper also cites the possible reading of qo4des] in Psalms BB76> and C279 as a collective noun referring to divine beings$ 2: Parker, @Council,A :=>$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:= include descriptions of them speaking to one other, and can refer to issues regarding human eavesdropping on their interaction$ The be6ne= )e6lo4 h|<m are also conceived as the host of heaven, usually s[e6b{a4) has]s] a4mayim$ 22 As noted above, in -ob 287B the morning stars in particular Hko=k{e6b{ e= b{ o4qerI are named in parallel to the be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m$ 2> The particular nuance of the phrase s[e6b{a4) has]s] a4mayim is more overt, due to its primary meaning as the stars of the sky and the physical heavenly bodies$ The s[e6b{a4) has]s] a4mayim are also ob#ects of worship, and in very many te*ts these two meanings overlap, for obvious reasons$ The term s[e6b{a4) has]s] a4mayim assumes a military background, i$e$, the stars as the army of the warrior /ahweh$ 29 In some te*ts the bodies are more per! sonified than in others, such as when they bow down to 1od in .ehe! miah C7;$ &oreover, they can be pictured as entirely sentient beings$ They can convene and have discussions amongst themselves and with 1od, as in the throne vision of 6 (ings ::76C and : Chronicles 68768$ In this story there is no implication that these completely animate divine beings have any relation to the stars of the sky$ In Daniel 8 they have a chief Hs8ar has[s[a4b{a4), v$ 66I$ In this strange vision, the beings are portrayed as actual stars which can fall from the sky, but they also speak to one another and have a commander$ The divine assembly consists of several specific types of divine be! ings, which differ in some basic characteristics, form, and function$ 2;
The ke6ru=b{|<m are, in their only physical appearance on earth, the guards of Dden H1enesis 27:>I$ 2B <utside of this appearance they are repre! sented in hammered work in the first temple, and are engraved in DEe! kielNs vision of the second temple$ Their role is by no means uni"ue in ancient .ear Dastern religious architecture$ Their primary function as
22 <n the s[e6b{a4) has] s]a4 mayim, see ,owell ($ %andy, Among the Host of Hea%en H)inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, 6CC2I; %andy, @The Appearance of the Pantheon in -udah,A in The Triumph of Elohim= From Hah#isms to /udaisms Hed$ Diane 5$ Ddelman; 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC;I, :B!>2; Cornelius %outman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament= )sraels 8elt"ild und 8eltanschauung H<T' 2=; ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC2I, ;B!B:, 6C>!:=B; cf$ %erbert .iehr, @%ost of %eaven,A DDD >:8!2=$ 2> These terms are also found in parallel in +garitic literature$ In 0T* 6$6= I 2!>, bn il is used in parallel with ph~r kkbm, @assembly of the stars$A 'ee discussion in 'mith, Ori$ gins of !i"lical 1onotheism, ;6!;:$ 'ee also Parker, @The 'ons of HtheI 1odHsI,A BC9$ 29 .iehr, @%ost of %eaven,A >:8!2=$ 2; Contra Theodore &ullen, who argues that the members of the divine assembly were not distinguishable, and that @the identities of the members of the council remain obscure$A %e concludes that @in post!e*ilic and post!biblical literatureW the for! merly colorless members of the council are given specific functionsA HThe Di%ine (ouncil, 6B8, :82I$ 2B <n the cherubim, see )illiam $ Albright, @)hat )ere the CherubimZA !A 6K6 H6C28I7 6!2; ?oland de 5au*, @,es chLrubins et lNarche dNalliance, les sphin* gardiens et les trnes divins dans lNancient <rient,A in ?oland de 5au*, !i"le et Orient HParis7 Cerf, 6C;BI, :26!9C; cf$ Tryggve &ettinger, @Cherubim,A DDD 68C!C:$ The Divine World 6:6 the guardians and carriers of the throne is much like that of sphin*es$ 28
This role is also reflected in : 'amuel ::766 HPsalm 68766I, which re! counts that 1od rode upon a cherub and flew, and appeared Hwayye4ra4) I on the wings of the wind$ Psalm 68766 says that he sped Hwayye4de) I upon the wings of the wind$ This view of the ke6ru=b{ |<m as 1odNs heavenly vehicle resurfaces in DEekiel, whose vision includes an intriguing portrayal of the creatures as the transportation for 1odNs glory$ The creatures which had primar! ily been described in artistic renditions until this point seem gradually brought to life in DEekiel 6=7:!:= Hagain in 667::I$ irst they stand; then we hear the sound of their wings, as far as the outer court, like the voice of Dl!'haddai when he speaks; then they stretch out a hand, which we see #ust before the full picture of the fantastic weirdness be! gins to dawn, the picture of surrounding elements of lions and eagles and wheels, and man H)a4da4m, not )|<s] I$ inally, they rise up, lift their wings, and carry out the glory of the 1od of Israel, because they are, after all, the bearers of the ka4b{o=d$ HThis differs somewhat from DEekielNs vision in >6768!:9 of the carved cherubim in the temple, which have two faces, those of a man Pagain, )a4da4mQ and a young lion$I DEekiel emphasiEes that these are the same living beings that he saw in his vision by the river HDEekiel 6=769 and 67>!:8, respectivelyI$ These four living beings each had the faces of a man Honce again, )a4da4mI, a lion, a bull, and an eagle; each had four wings, feet like calvesN hooves gleam! ing like bronEe, and wheels, and they ran to and fro like bolts of light! ning$ The s8e6ra4p4 |<m, who appear only in the te*t of Isaiah ;7:!;, are similar to ke6ru=b{ |<m in several ways$ )hile the term seems to indicate that they are serpentine, and this has been to a great degree the scholarly consen! sus, 2C their description does not make this at all clear$ They stand before /ahweh, fly, and are associated with coal and fire$ -ust as the ke6ru=b{|<m have burning coals in their midst in DEekiel 6762 and 6=7:, one of the s8e6ra4p4|<m takes a burning coal from the altar in Isaiah ;7;$ +nlike the four! winged cherubim, the seraphim have si* wings$ Also unlike the cheru! bim, and rather more significantly, the seraphim speak$ They praise 1od, calling to one another and then to Isaiah, and cry @holy, holy,
28 &ettinger, @Cherubim,A 68C!C:$ 2C 'ee (aren ?$ -oines, @)inged 'erpents in IsaiahNs Inaugural 5ision,A /!' 8; H6C;BI7 >6=!69; <thmar (eel, /ah#e$7isionen und iegel,unst: eine neue Deutung der 1aJestIts$ schilderungen in /es <, ED 9 und 9? und ach S H'44 8>!89; 'tuttgart7 (atholisches 4i! belwerk, 6CBBI, B=!6:>; and -$ de 'avignac, @,es 'eraphim,A 7T :: H6CB:I7 2:=!:9$ or a different view, see -ohn Day, @Dchoes of 4aalNs 'even Thunders and ,ightnings in Psalm :C and %abakkuk 27C and the Identity of the 'eraphim in Isaiah ;,A 7T :C H6CBCI7 6>2!96; cf$ Tryggve &ettinger, @'eraphim,A DDD B>:!>>$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:: holyA; they are, like the cherubim, associated with the ka4b{o=d7 @the whole earth is full of his glory$A They appear only this once, in a vision$ The term s8a4ta4n, originally used to describe the function of a human character in a particular circumstance, such as David as an adversary, also describes a specific divine function, as of the angel to 4alaam, who is in clear need of some corrective discipline$ >= The term s8a4ta4n appears then as a title in `echariahNs vision of a heavenly court scene, in which -oshua stands between the angel of the ,ord and the s8a4ta4n, who is ready to accuse him Hle6s8itno= I$ %is role as the divine prosecutor who stands up within the meeting of the sons of 1od to accuse has long been recog! niEed$ The human precedent for this scenario is evident in Psalm 6=C7;, where the picture is similar, and the term s8a4ta4n refers to a human oppo! nent$ In -ob, the s8a4ta4n character is clearly defined as one of the be6ne= ha4)e6lo4h|<m$ As in `echariahNs vision, the scene takes place in heaven, but here we learn that the s8a4ta4n also wanders about the earth Hhitha4lak{, -ob :7:; cf$ 1enesis 278 in reference to 1od, mitha4lle4k{I, although unfortunately we are not told how he occupies himself there$ %e is clearly a divine delegate, under 1odNs authority7 he proposes his idea to 1od, and utiliEes 1odNs resources Hthe fire of 1od which falls from heaven, 676;I$ The term s8a4ta4n is ambiguous in 6 Chronicles :676, refer! ring either to a human adversary of Israel or to a celestial opponent, and is usually interpreted as the latter$ +nlike the other terms dis! cussed here, it is well known that the term s8a4ta4n went through a long process of radical theological development, from its reference to an adversarial role seemingly open to any angel, through its reference to a particular character in heaven$ It seems that the angel acting as an ad! versary essentially received tenure in his position, and became the sin! gle character associated with the function$ The ru= ah[ is fre"uently left out of discussions of the divine council, presumably because of the overlap of the meanings of @spirit,A @inclina! tion,A and so on$ %owever, many te*ts refer to a spirit or spirits among the divine population, and these spirits at times interact with humans$ 'everal te*ts reflect the tradition of a ru=ah[ s]eqer, @spirit of falsehoodA Hby this name only in 6 (ings ::76C!:2I, such as 6 'amuel 6;76>!:2, 6876=!6: and 6C7C!6=, -udges C7:2!:>, : (ings 6C7B, and Isaiah 6C762!6>$ In these te*ts, 1od sends the ru=ah[ to a person or group of people, caus! ing them to be deceived$ >6
>= <n the term s8a4ta4n, see Peggy ,$ Day, An Ad%ersary in Hea%en= s8a4ta4n in the He"re# !i"le H%'& >2; Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C88I; ?ivkah 'chFrf (luger, atan in the Old Tes$ tament HDvanston, Ill7 .orthwestern +niversity Press, 6C;BI$ The term is used of a human sub#ect in 6 'amuel :C7>; : 'amuel 6C7:2; and 6 (ings 9768 and 6676>!:9, all with political and military implications$ >6 or a full discussion of the recurring biblical tradition of a ru=ah[ as divine agent, specifically associated with bringing destructive #ustice by means of falsehood, see Dsther -$ %amori, @The 'pirit of alsehood,A (!-, forthcoming$ The Divine World 6:2 The ne6p4 |3l|<m are the half!divine heroes of old, born from the illegal union of the sons of 1od and the daughters of men, mentioned only in the brief te*t of 1enesis ;76!>$ >: The 'eptuagint and 5ulgate refer to them as giants, and they are attested in the Dnochic 4ook of the 1iants as well$ >2 The reference to the Anakites as .ephilim in .umbers 62722 should be taken as an e*pression of their height; this is comparable to the 1reek tendency to identify very tall people as gods, as well as to the general .ear Dastern portrayal of divine and semi!divine beings as larger than life Hcf$ 1ilgameshI$ The term )e6lo4h|<m can refer to the divine assembly as a whole, as in Psalm 8:76, discussed above, but it has other uses as well$ 'pecifically, 4urnett argues that the term is used in Psalm 87; to refer to a class of divinities lower than /ahweh$ >> 5an der Toorn also notes its meta! phorical use for &oses in D*odus >76; and B76 and for the king in Psalm >97B; these would presumably reflect the @superhumanA use of the term as well$ >9 This may also be the sense in `echariah 6:78, where the house of David is compared to an )e6lo4h|<m, constructed in parallel with the angel of /ahweh$ Dlsewhere )e6lo4h|<m can refer to the dead, most famously in 6 'amuel :872!:9, where the ghost of 'amuel appears to 'aul$ >; This is probably also the case in Isaiah 876C, where the people consult the dead on behalf of the living$ 5an der Toorn has suggested that &icah 27B and : 'amuel 6>76; may also refer to the dead$ >B
In many biblical te*ts, the term re6p4a4)|<m also refers to the dead$ >8 In Isaiah 6>7C the term is used in parallel with the kings of the nations$ The association with kings seems natural in light of the +garitic term rpum, >: <n the nephilim, see +mberto Cassuto, !i"lical and Oriental tudies H: vols$; trans$ Israel Abrahams; -erusalem7 /$ ,$ &agnes Press, 6CB2!6CB9I, 6B!28; cf$ P$ )$ Co*on, @.ephilim,A DDD ;6C$ >2 Co*on, @.ephilim,A ;6C$ >> 4urnett, !i"lical Elohim, 9B$ >9 5an der Toorn, @1od HII,A 29:$ >; <n )e6lo4 h|<m and other terms referring to the dead and to ancestor spirits, see )ohl! stein, @Toten! und Ahnengeistern,A 2>8!99$ Cooper and 1oldstein argue specifically that the te*t of 6 'amuel :8 reflects the preparation of a ritual meal associated with encountering ancestral spirits H@D*odus and Mas9s9o=t,A 2=I$ They also suggest that the ritual meal of the ancestor cult provides the background of 1enesis 68!6C H@D*odus and Mas9s9o=t,A 2:!2>I$ >B 5an der Toorn, @1od HII,A 2;>$ >8 <n the rephaim, see Theodore -$ ,ewis, (ults of the Dead in Ancient )srael and *garit H%'& 2C; Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8CI; Conrad D$ ,N%eureu*, @The +garitic and the 4iblical ?ephaim,A HTR ;B H6CB>I7 :;9!B>; cf$ %$ ?ouillard, @?ephaim,A DDD ;C:! B==$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:> which refers to deified royal ancestors$ >C In particular, in Isaiah 6>7C it is said that the re6p4a4)|<m will be roused from their graves$ <n the other hand, Isaiah :;76>!6C emphasiEes that the re6p4a4)|<m do not live and can never rise Hre6p4a4)|<m bal$ya4qu4mu= I, and Psalm 88766 asks ironically whether the re6p4a4)|<m can rise to praise 1od in the land of oblivion$ In contrast to these, Isaiah 6>7C begins to look like .ight of the ,iving Dead$ In -ob :;79, oddly, the re6p4a4)|<m seem to live underwater, and tremble beneath the water$ Proverbs :768 warns of the woman whose house sinks down to death and her course to the re6p4a4)|<m; Proverbs C768 and :676; warn that men who stray will dwell with the re6p4a4)|<m$ They are the company of the dead trembling in their graves, who cannot rise from the land of oblivion, or the ghosts who will indeed rise$ The re6p4 a4)|<m in Deuteronomy :766, := and 2766!62, in contrast, are immense people as tall as the Anakites, as evidenced by the enormous iron bed of the king, and in several te*ts the term is used as a place name as well$ 9= It is surely no coincidence that the term refers to both a physically large people and the dead7 once again, the picture is remi! niscent of giant .ear Dastern deities$ Mas]h[|<t is often used as a simple term relating to destruction, and can refer to national destruction, as in 6 'amuel 6276B, 6>769, -eremiah :72=, >7B, and -udges :=7>:; to self!destructive behavior, as in Proverbs ;72:; or to religious abomination, as in : (ings :2762 and Isaiah 67>$ &ost often, however, the term is used to refer to destruction by /ah! weh, either directly or through angels or other means, as in 1enesis 6C762!6>, D*odus 6:762, : 'amuel :>76; and 6 Chronicles :676:!69, DEe! kiel 976;, C7;!8, and -eremiah ::7B$ 1enesis 6C762!6> demonstrates the parallel use of the verb for destruction by /ahweh and by his angels7 in verse 62, the angels say, @or we are about to destroy this placeA Hk|<$ mas]h[|4t|<m )a6nah9nu= )et$hamma4qo=m hazzehI, and in verse 6>, ,ot gives his family the same warning, @or /ahweh is about to destroy the cityA Hk|<$ mas]h[|<t yhwh )et$ha4(|<rI$ The term mas]h[ |<t is also used as a title for a type of divine being, however, as for the character who passes over Israel in Dgypt in D*odus 6:7:2, and the angel in the census in 6 Chronicles :6$ 96
>C ?ouillard, @?ephaim,A ;C:$ 'ee also AndrL Ca"uot, @,es ?ephadm ougariti"ues,A yria 2B H6C;=I7 BC!C=$ 9= <ne reference to the rephaim which is generally understood as a place name surely involves a play on words$ Isaiah 6B7>!9 says that @the weight of -acob will dwindle, and the fat of his body will become thinW it will be like one gleaning ears in the 5al! ley of ?ephaim$A )hile this is clearly used as a place name, it is also a pun based on the connotation of death$ 96 <n the mas]h[|<t , see -$ 1oldin, @.ot by &eans of an Angel and .ot by &eans of a &essenger,A in Religions in Anti5uity= Essays in 1emory of Er#in Ramsdell &oodenough Hed$ -acob .eusner; ,eiden7 4rill, 6C;8I, >6:!:>; Patrick D$ &iller, The Di%ine 8arrior The Theophany and Divine Society 6:9 'mith suggests that the use of this term for destroying angels stems from a technical military use of the term, as in 6 'amuel 6276B and 6>769$ 9: &eier emphasiEes the distinct role of the Destroyer as that of annihilating large groups of people$ %e compares the .ear Dastern plague deities, and specifically Drra in the Drra Dpic and .amtar in Atrahasis$ 92 'ome scholars refer to the angel of : (ings 6C729 as similar to the mas]h[|<t of D*odus 6:7:2 as well, 9> but it should be noted that in this case not only is the title not used, the verb does not appear at all$ 9$2 The )|<s] Theophany and Divine 'ociety The Theophany and Divine 'ociety Dach type of divine being in the preceding survey is a part of the divine council, among the children of Dl$ This should not be taken for granted$ Deified plague, for e*ample, is never described as part of the divine assembly, nor is the personification Hor deificationI of Death$ )hile various biblical te*ts reflect the adoption andKor transfiguration of cer! tain divine beings known from the wider region, such as Death, these are never portrayed as among the divine assembly$ This distinction must be made in order to understand accurately the biblical picture of the divine realm$ )hile it may well be argued that certain te*ts reflect the deification of various elements, this phenomenon should not be blurred with the portrayal of the divine council$ 99 The divine beings in the preceding survey, in contrast, are depicted in various ways as parts of /ahwehNs assembly$ 'ome te*ts specifically present divine beings as part of the council, as in -ob 6!:, where the s8a4ta4n presents himself among the be6ne= ha4)e6lo4h|<m, and 6 (ings ::, where the ru=ah[ steps forward from among the s[e6b{ a4) has]s]a4mayim$ <ther te*ts describe various divine beings in parallel with one another, such as -ob 287B, where the ko=k{e6b{e= b{o4qer are pictured together with the be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m, and Psalms
in Early )srael H%'& 9; Cambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB2I; cf$ 'amuel A$ &eier, @Destroyer,A DDD :>=!>2$ 9: 'mith, The Early History of &od, 28$ 92 &eier, @Destroyer,A :>=!>2$ 9> 'ee 1eller, @The 'truggle at the -abbok,A 9C; &eier, @Destroyer,A :>6, :>2$ &eier notes that the activity of the Destroyer in this case and a few others is @detected but not e*plicitly identified,A but he sees it as clearly related$ 99 4urnett, for e*ample, mentions %ail and Pestilence in D*odus C, and refers to /ah! wehNs ?ight %and and 4urning Anger in D*odus 697;!B, 6= as @hypostatiEed and re! garded as semi!independent agentsA H!i"lical Elohim, 8;!8CI$ (orpel argues that @?e! sheph, %ebyon, Meteb and other dreaded gods of the Canaanite pantheon became warriors of /ahweh at a very early dateA HRift, 962I$ There is no shortage of material, biblical and otherwise, to attest to the inclusion of Asherah in Israelite religion$ %owever, not one of these deities is included among portrayals of the divine assem! bly in any biblical te*t$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:; 6=27:=!:6 and 6>87:, where the mal)a4k{ |<m praise 1od with the s[a4b{a4) Hwith possessive suffi*es, mal)a4k{a4yw and s[e6b{a4)a4ywI$ 'ome te*ts portray one particular divine being who is sent by 1od, such as the mas]h[|<t of D*o! dus 6:7:2, and many mal)a4k{ te*ts$ 9;
The above survey of divine beings further demonstrates the uni"ueness and significance of the )|<s] theophany$ .o other appearance of a divine being shares the anthropomorphic realism of the two )|<s] theophanies$ It has been demonstrated that in the overwhelming ma#or! ity of mal)a4k{ te*ts, angels are portrayed in non!human form Hsuch as fire or cloudI, they deliver their messages without appearing on earth Hcalling from heaven or appearing in dreamsI, or they appear on earth in an unspecified form$ In the very few cases in which angels clearly appear on earth in concretely embodied human form, a miraculous feat of some kind reveals their superhuman identity$ )hile these few te*ts do describe angels in concretely anthropomorphic terms, the depictions lack the anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophanies of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22$ The be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m are yet more distant from the anthropomorphic re! alism of the )|<s] theophanies$ The ke6ru4b{ |<m do not resemble humans in Dden or in their various artistic representations$ Their somewhat more anthropomorphic appearances to DEekiel in his visions do include hu! man body parts, but also parts of lions, eagles, bulls, glowing calvesN hooves, and wheels$ The s8e6ra4p4 |<m appear only in a vision, have si* wings, and fly$ The s8a4ta4n never appears on earth; although in -ob 6!: he claims to have come from roaming about the earth, no te*t offers us the benefit of a description$ The ru=ah[, by its very definition, is not embod! ied$ It is like wind, perceptible only in its effect$ Dven the ne6p4|3l|<m, who are in fact partly human, are giants$ The mas]h[|<t can fly in D*odus 6:7:2, and stands between heaven and earth in 6 Chronicles :676;$ This review of divine society also demonstrates that while in heaven, the various members of the divine assembly are often not alto! gether distinct, but rather overlap in both form and function$ %owever, when they appear on earth they have clearly distinguished roles, and there is an overt relationship between their form and function$ irstly, the forms of the various divine beings are generally not dis! tinct in heaven$ Consider for instance 6 (ings ::76C!:6, in which the
9; )hile the nephilim are not presented as part of the divine assembly, they are de! scribed in 1enesis ;76!> in relation to the be6ne= )e6lo4 h|<m$ The rephaim are cautiously included in the above survey particularly on account of their appearance in -ob :;79, where they tremble beneath the waters with their inhabitants Hs]o4k{ e6ne=hemI$ If these are the primordial waters, their inhabitants should be divine beings$ In addition, given the prevalence of the deified dead throughout the .ear Dast, it seems plausi! ble that they should be included in this survey$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:B ru=ah[ is not described as being distinct in form among all the host of heaven Hkol$s[e6b{a4) has]s]a4mayimI$ The same is true of the s8a4ta4n who comes before 1od among the be6ne= )e6lo4h|<m in -ob 6!:$ -ob 287B pairs the morn! ing stars Hko=k{ e6b{e= b{o4qerI and all the be6ne= )e6lo4 h|<m with no apparent dis! tinction$ The mal)a4k{ and the s8a4ta4n seem to have the same form in `echa! riah 2$ In Daniel 27:9, an angel is specifically described as resembling one of the bar$)e6la4h|<n$ 4eyond these pairings of the spirit and the host, the angels and the host, the angel and the s8a4ta4n , and both the angel and s8a4ta4n and the sons of 1od, all without reference to any distinctions in form, the vast ma#ority of the other te*ts surveyed do not offer physical descriptions of divine beings in heaven$ 'econdly, there are significant overlaps among the functions of di! vine beings in heaven$ The angels and the morning stars alike praise 1od in heaven in -ob 287B, as mentioned above, and the angels and the host praise 1od in Psalm 6>87:$ The angels and the ru=ah[ overlap in their message!bearing role, and only function differently in interactions with humans$ There are e*ceptions to this general overlapping of forms and functions in heaven, such as the description of the winged seraphim$ The overwhelming lack of distinction among the forms and functions of divine beings in heaven is noteworthy, however, in light of the de! scriptions of divine beings on earth$ It is when the various divine beings have contact with humans on earth that their different forms are described$ In these cases, their form is related to function$ This is nowhere clearer than in the case of the ru=ah[ s]eqer$ 4ecause the function of the ru=ah[ is to communicate some! thing surreptitiously, it interacts with humans imperceptibly$ It is form! less, like the wind, because its function depends upon its actions going unnoticed$ In contrast to the more commonly deployed prophets and angels, the ru=ah[ is all message and no messenger$ The relationship be! tween form and function is also apparent in the frightening appearance of the ke6ru4b{ |<m, who guard sacred space, and protect the throne with their wings$ The s8e6ra4p4 |<m, although they appear only in a vision, also protect the throne with their many wings$ +nlike the covert action of the ru=ah[ s]eqer, communication to humans by mal)a4k{|<m is overt in nature$ Therefore, angels make their presence known, often in a specific form that suits their current function$ To guide Israel through the wilderness, the angel appears as a pillar of cloud; to signify to &oses that he stands on holy ground, the angel appears as fire$ In several cases, angels deliv! ering messages appear to humans in anthropomorphic form, although their miraculous feats reveal their divine identities, as discussed previ! ously$ Their physically human appearances, while not anthropomor! phically realistic, are related to their function of communicating specific messages to individual people$ The Theophany and Divine Society 6:8 'o it is evident that there is most often a clear relationship between form and function among divine beings when they appear on earth, and that no appearance of a divine being in any biblical te*t other than 1enesis 68 and 2: contains the anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophanies$ It must be concluded, therefore, that the form of 1od in these te*ts is related to function$ It was suggested in Chapter our that the anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophany in the stories of the promises to Abraham and -acob might serve a similar function to the anthropomorphic immedi! acy in some depictions of 1odNs communication with &oses$ )e now see that there is indeed a general correspondence between form and function in the appearances of divine beings on earth$ &oreover, it is apparent that the degree of anthropomorphic realism in the portrayals of 1od in 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22 is not matched in other biblical te*ts$ It is to be concluded, therefore, that the e*traordinary nature of 1odNs form in these two te*ts is indeed related to the function of 1odNs visit$ It is in his visit to Abraham in chapter 68 that he gives his final confirmation of the blessing and the promise to the first patriarch, who until this point has seemingly remained unconvinced$ In fact, it is only at the end of this direct encounter that Abraham finally ceases to show doubt$ ,ikewise, it is through 1odNs visit to -acob in chapter 2: that he finally confirms that the blessing and the inheritance which were origi! nally and rightfully DsauNs, or DdomNs, would in fact belong to -acob, or Israel$ These are the two te*ts that tell of the ultimate confirmations of the promise to the two primary fathers of Israel$ It is here, in these intimate and ultimate communications to Abraham and -acob, that 1od Hor /ahwehI appears in the most immediate and realistic human form$ The anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophanies is not a fluke$ The divine form in these two te*ts is uni"ue among appearances of divine beings, and is related to the divine function in these meetings$ It is the anthropomorphic realism of 1od in these te*ts that e*presses the inti! macy of each encounter and the special nature of each relationship$ or these most personal messages, 1od appears, very literally, in person$ ;$ Anthropomorphic ?ealism and the Ancient .ear Dast Anthropomorphic ?ealism and the Ancient .ear Dast It is well known that various types of biblical theophany are grounded in the larger world of ancient .ear Dastern religious thought, and have counterparts in .ear Dastern mythological te*ts$ This is commonly discussed, for instance, in reference to the storm theophany$ )e will see that this is not the case, however, in regard to the )|<s] theophany$ In Chapter our, it was demonstrated that the anthropomorphic re! alism of the )|<s] theophany is unlike the depiction of deity in +garitic literature in particular$ The following survey should demonstrate the place of anthropomorphically realistic portrayal of deity within the broader scope of ancient .ear Dastern mythology$ A systematic e*ami! nation of divine anthropomorphism in ancient .ear Dastern mythology has not been done, and even discussions of biblical anthropomorphism generally do not include a comparative study of .ear Dastern anthro! pomorphism$ The e*amination of the latter warrants a full!length work of its own, and the following review of evidence relating to anthropo! morphic realism represents an initial survey$ ;$6 Anthropomorphism in &esopotamian &ythology Anthropomorphism in &esopotamian &ythology The phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany is different from any type of divine!human interaction found in this survey of &esopotamian my! thology$ 6 )hile gods certainly do appear in anthropomorphic form in the earthly realm, it is not in order to communicate with their human counterparts$ The appearance of deities in human form is well attested in the re! ligious literature of all parts of the ancient .ear Dast Hincluding myths, prayers, ritual te*ts, etc$I$ This is most strikingly the case in 'umerian
6 This survey largely utiliEes anthologies of te*ts in translation, for the purposes of establishing a general pattern in the literature$ The titles given to te*ts in each collec! tion will be adopted here$ 'ome edition information will be provided for each te*t, as cited in the relevant anthology; for further edition information and bibliography, see each anthology$ Additional bibliography, with te*ts organiEed by genre, is pro! vided in (enton ,$ 'parks, Ancient Texts for the tudy of the He"re# !i"le= A &uide to the !ac,ground 'iterature HPeabody, &ass$7 %endrickson, :==9I$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 62= mythology, where it is "uite the norm for gods to appear in thoroughly human form$ %owever, these gods almost never interact with human! kind$ The DumuEi literature offers a clear e*ample of this$ : The concept of DumuEi as a shepherd itself carries an implication of activity in the earthly realm$ 1raphic human descriptions abound$ As the gods reach physical maturity, their @parts grow hair$A 2 After his ominous dream, DumuEi implores 1eshtinanna, @&ay you not go up there like a human beingA; later she claws at each part of her body in angst$ > The dream itself is noteworthy7 these deities are so human that they engage in divination$ Dlsewhere in the DumuEi myths, they also worship their tutelary gods$ 9 The larger theme of a dying god is of course anthropo! morphic; the details of this are more so, as DumuEiNs spirit is appar! ently separable from his body after death$ There are references, for e*ample, to the dead godNs spirit @tossed about like a reed in the wind$A ; The DumuEi myths do reflect a concern with the crossing of realms$ This concern does not involve crossing between heaven and earth, however, but only between the realm of living humans and the realm of the dead$ DumuEi speaks to his mother after his own death, but she does not recogniEe his voice and responds, @.either of heaven are you, nor are you of earthbA %e tries to dissuade her from following him into the realm of the dead, and she then attempts to revive him$ This scene
: Thorkild -acobsen, The Harps That Once= umerian +oetry in Translation H.ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6C8BI, 6!8=$ or further discussion of the DumuEi material, see -acobsen, To#ard the )mage of TammuD and Other Essays on 1esopotamian History and (ulture HCambridge, &ass$7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB=I; Treasures of Dar,ness H.ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6CB;I, >B!B2; 4endt Alster, @The &ythology of &ourning,A Acta umerologica 9 H6C82I7 6!6;; @'umerian ,ove 'ongs,A RA BC H6C89I7 6:B!9C; -errold '$ Cooper, @'acred &arriage and Popular Cult in Darly &esopota! mia,A in Official (ult and +opular Religion in the Ancient Near East Hed$ D$ &atsushima; %eidelberg7 Carl )inter, 6CC2I, 86!C2; &$ &$ ritE, @Mund #einten um TammuDL= Die &Ftter DumuDi$AmaTushumgalTanna und Damu HA<AT 2=B; &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, :==>I; 'amuel .$ (ramer, The acred 1arriage Rite= Aspects of Faith, 1yth, and Ritual in Ancient umer H4loomington, Ind$7 Indiana +niversity Press, 6C;CI; Pir#o ,apinkivi, The umerian acred 1arriage in the 'ight of (omparati%e E%idence H'AA' 69; %elsinki7 %elsinki +niversity Press, :==>I$ These references in turn provide e*haustive bibli! ography$ 2 @,et %im ComeA H-acobsen, Harps, 68I$ Ddward Chiera, umerian Religious Texts H+pland, Pa$, 6C:>I, no$ 9, and PAP' 6=B7 9:6 . >2=9 rev$ i$ > @DumuEiNs DreamA H-acobsen, Harps, 22; >>I$ 4endt Alster, DumuDi.s Dream= Aspects of Oral +oetry in a umerian 1yth H&esopotamia 6; Copenhagen7 Akademisk orlag, 6CB:I$ 9 @5ain AppealA H-acobsen, Harps, 99I$ CT 35, pl$ :=!:6$ @In the Desert by the Darly 1rassA H-acobsen, Harps, B2I$ %einrich `immern, umerische 0ultlieder aus alt"a"yloni$ scher 6eit H5A' : and 6=; ,eipEig7 -$ C$ %inrichs, 6C6:!6C62I, nos$ :;, :B, and >9$ ; @5ain AppealA H-acobsen, Harps, 92!9>I; @In the DesertA H-acobsen, Harps, B6I$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 626 provides perhaps the most striking demonstration of the anthropomor! phism of DumuEi$ DumuEiNs mother approaches him, and the narrator says, @PIn her steppingQ toward the bank of the river may you still be a ghost$ PIn her steppingQ from the bank may you, eyes healthy, cheeks healthy, be a manbA B The ghost of the god is to be transformed into a living @man$A At the same time, the characters do retain evidence of their divine nature7 Inanna @shakes the heavensA in her anger, and DumuEiNs mother threatens to @make the Darth tremble$A 8 This thoroughly human portrayal of deities runs throughout 'umerian mythology$ There is a vivid e*ample of this in the myth of Dnlil and .inlil$ C The gods are described in entirely human terms, even to the e*tent that, when the possibility of a se*ual encounter with Dnlil arises, .inlil is afraid that her @parts are too small$A 6= urthermore, these gods are said to live in .ippur$ In this myth too, there is a con! cern with the crossing of the boundary between the human realm and the world of the dead, but not with any hypothetical boundary between heaven and earth$ ,ikewise in the myth of Dnki and .insikilaK.inhursaga, the deities live in Dilmun and are clearly described as interacting on the earth$ 66
)hile some of the most graphic human descriptions from other 'umer! ian myths involve an entirely anthropomorphic cast, this myth displays more of a variety of forms$ Dnki has partially non!anthropomorphic se* with the earth H@plunging his phallus into the canebrakeAI, 6: and later gives birth to eight plant deities$ This is all the more unusual in light of the pattern evident in the above 'umerian myths that the most detailed anthropomorphic descriptions largely relate to se*ual organs and ac! tivities$
B @In the DesertA H-acobsen, Harps, ;;, B=!B6, B9I$ 8 @+nfaithfulnessA H-acobsen, Harps, :;I$ Paul %aupt, A,,adische und sumerische 0eil$ schrifttexte H,eipEig7 -$ C$ %inrichs, 6886!8:I, no$ 6B$ @In the DesertA H-acobsen, Harps, B=I$ C @Dnlil and .inlilA H-acobsen, Harps, 6;B!8=I$ %ermann 4ehrens, Enlil und Ninlil= Ein sumerischer 1ythos aus Nippur H'tudia Pohl 'eries &a#or 8; ?ome7 4iblical Institute Press, 6CB8I$ 6= @Dnlil and .inlilA H-acobsen, Harps, 6B:I$ 66 @Dnki and .insikilaK.inhursagaA H-acobsen, Harps, 686!:=>I$ 'amuel .$ (ramer, En,i and Ninhursag= A umerian K+aradiseL 1yth H4A'<? '' 6; .ew %aven, 6C>9I; Pascal Attinger, @Dnki et .inhursaga,A 6A B> H6C8>I7 6!9:; 4endt Alster, @Dilmun, 4ahrain, and the Alleged Paradise in 'umerian &yth and ,iterature,A in Dilmun= Ne# tudies in the Archaeology and Early History of !ahrain Hed$ Daniel T$ Potts; 4erlin7 Dietrich ?eimer, 6C82I, 2C!B>; Thorkild -acobsen, @The Dridu 1enesis,A /!' 6== H6C86I7 962!:C$ 6: @Dnki and .insikilaK.inhursagaA H-acobsen, Harps, 6C6I$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 62: The myth of InannaNs Descent contains a similar variety of forms, and also a variety of realms$ 62 or e*ample, Inanna @forsook heaven, forsook earth, went down into %adesA; the goddess leaves her cities H+ruk, .ippur, etc$I and rams through the doors of the underworld, where she finds herself unfortunately transformed into a slab of meat$ 6>
The use of the terms @heavenA and @earthA here does not seem to indi! cate a particular interest in the distinction between the realms$ The two are mentioned in parallel, and the concern of the myth is the crossing of the boundary into the underworld, apparently from all of what lies above$ D"ually graphic human descriptions of deity are found in the .in! urta myth ,ugal!e, in which .inurta the warrior!king raids the high! lands, destroying cities and crushing skulls$ 69 The portrayal of divine! human contact, which as stated above is rare in 'umerian mythology, is here not personal and not communicative$ The dreamy mythic picture includes enemy plants and animals as well, such as AEag Hseemingly a plantI who pulls down the sky to use as a weapon$ .inmah then comes to the highland to see her son .inurta, who promptly sends her back to .ippur; he too then rides over the highland to his @beloved barge,A i$e$, his hometown of .ippur$ 6; The e*tremely human portrayal of the gods is again combined with a wild variety of forms; this spectrum, very heavy on the anthropomorphic side, is characteristic of 'umerian my! thology$ )hat is somewhat uncharacteristic is the interaction with hu! mans seen in this particular myth$ Dven the myth of Dnki and .imnah Hor the 4irth of &anI only con! tains humans insofar as they are created by the gods$ 6B The goddess!
62 @InannaNs DescentA H-acobsen, Harps, :=9!2:I$ 'amuel .$ (ramer, @VInannaNs Descent to the .ether )orldN Continued and ?evised,A /( 9 H6C96I7 6!6B, and PAP' 6=B7 96=! 6;; 4endt Alster, @Inanna ?epenting7 The Conclusion of InannaNs Descent,A Acta umerologica 68 H6CC;I7 6!68; Dina (atE, @%ow DumuEi 4ecame InannaNs 5ictim7 <n the ormation of InannaNs Descent,A Acta umerologica 68 H6CC;I7 C2!6=:$ 6> @InannaNs DescentA H-acobsen, Harps, :=;, :69I$ 69 @The .inurta &yth ,ugal!eA H-acobsen, Harps, :22!B:I$ -ohannes van Di#k, ,+1A, +D &D!,&!4I .I?!1, I!II7 le rccii cpiquc ci !i!aciiquc !cs Trataux !c Ninuria, !c Oc|ugc ci !c |a Ncutc||c Crcaiicn H,eiden7 4rill, 6C82I; -eremy A$ 4lack, @'ome 'truc! tural eatures of 'umerian .arrative Poetry,A in Mcscpcianian |pic Iiicraiurc. Ora| cr Aura|? Heds$ &$ D$ 5ogelEang and %$ ,$ -$ 5anstiphout; ,ewiston, .$/$7 Ddwin &el! len, 6CC:I, B6!6=6$ 6; @The .inurta &yth ,ugal!eA H-acobsen, Harps, :9=, :9>!99, :;8I$ 6B @The 4irth of &anA H-acobsen, Harps, 696!;;I$ Carlos A$ 4enito, @VDnki and .inmahN and VDnki and the )orld <rderNA HPh$D$ diss, +niversity of Pennsylvania, 6C;C; &i! crofilm!*erography edition; Ann Arbor, 6C8=I, i!*vi and 6!B;; Anne Draffkorn (il! mer, @'peculations on +mul, the irst 4aby,A in Krancr Annitcrsarq Vc|unc. Cunci- jcrn Siu!ics in Hcncr cj Sanuc| Ncan Krancr Hed$ 4arry ,$ Dichler; A<AT :9; (evelaer7 4utEon _ 4ercker, 6CB;I, :;9!B=; %erbert T$ 'auren, @.ammu and Dnki,A in Tnc Ta|- Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 622 mothers are assigned to @heaven or earth,A have intercourse and be! come pregnant; as in several myths discussed above, the godsN graphi! cally anthropomorphic forms are described in particular in relation to their reproductive organs$ 68 %umans are born from divine wombs; there is apparently no issue regarding whether this takes place in heaven or on earth$ In general, the realms of heaven and earth in 'umerian mythology are simply not separated$ An e*ception to this widespread pattern appears in one of the 'umerian stories of 1ilgamesh$ 6C In 1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eaven, there is clear evidence of a specific physical crossing of the boundary between heaven and earth$ := irstly, the
very premise of the story is that the @bull of heavenA is sent to earth$ This alone would fall more into the category of divinely sent punishment than divine appearance, but it is in fact Inanna who brings the bull to earth7 @The young woman, the goddess Inanna, took the tether in hand like an o*!driver, the goddess Inanna brought down the 4ull of %eaven from the sky$A :6 Thus, the story contains both rare 'umerian evidence of a concern with the boundaries between heaven and earth, as well as rare evidence of a deity specifically crossing these boundaries in order to have contact with a human$ ,ater in the story, however, 1ilgamesh announces that if he slays the bull he will present its horns @before the goddess Inanna in the Danna temple,A and soon afterwards it is said that @the goddess Inanna watched from the wallA as 1ilgamesh slew the bull, at which point @Inanna flew off like a pigeon whose wall he had destroyed$A :: It seems, then, that the anthropomorphic presentation of Inanna on earth is commingled with references to her divine presence in her temple$ In other 'umerian 1ilgamesh stories, the gods are not portrayed anthropomorphically on earth$ In the Death of 1ilgamesh, 1ilgamesh
let and the croll= Near Eastern tudies in Honor of 8illiam 8. Hallo Heds$ &ark D$ Cohen et al$; 4ethesda, &d$7 CD,, 6CC2I, 6C8!:=8$ 68 @The 4irth of &anA H-acobsen, Harps, 69>!9BI$ 6C oster, &ilgamesh, CC!69>$ 'amuel .$ (ramer, @The Dpic of 1ilgame and Its 'umer! ian 'ources7 A 'tudy in ,iterary Dvolution,A /AO ;> H6C>>I7 B!:2, 82$ 'ee 1eorge, The !a"ylonian &ilgamesh Epic, for introduction to the 'umerian te*ts and bibliogra! phy$ := @1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eavenA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6:=!:BI$ P$ &aurus )itEel, @.och einmal die sumerische %immelsstier!Dpisode,A in 0eilschriftliche 1iscellanea HAn<r ;; ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6C22I, >9!;8; Antoine Cavigneau* and arouk .$ %$ Al!?awi, @1ilgamesh et Taureau de Ciel Hul!m]!kamI$ Te*tes de Tell %addad I5, @ RA 8B H6CC2I7 CB!6:C$ :6 @1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eavenA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6:>I$ Tigay notes that schol! ars now doubt that the 'umerian tale included InannaNs proposal to 1ilgamesh, known from the later versions H&ilgamesh, :>I$ :: @1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eavenA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6:;!:BI$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 62> makes offerings to the gods, but they do not appear to him in person$ :2
1ilgamesh faces the gods and learns what his destiny must be, but @Then the young lord, lord 1ilgamesh, woke up, it had been a dreambA :> This story, like several other 'umerian myths, reflects a con! cern with the realms of the living and the dead, but not the boundaries between heaven and earth$ Dvidence of such indirect divine!human contact may be seen in 1ilgamesh and %uwawa A Hor 1ilgamesh and the ,and of the ,ivingI as well$ :9 1ilgamesh makes offerings to +tu and speaks to @+tu in heaven,A and @the god +tu answered from heaven$A In 1ilgamesh, Dnkidu, and the .etherworld also, Inanna at one point is depicted on earth, and at one point speaks to 1ilgamesh, though it is not clear if these elements coincide$ :;
Another 'umerian myth that is not primarily about anthropomor! phic gods on earth is the Dridu 1enesis$ :B `iusudra fashions a god and makes re"uests of it; every day @something that was not a dream was appearing,A :8 and while he is listening to this god, Dnki speaks to him through the wall$ This picture combines the apparent embodiment of one god and the disembodied voice of another, described from the per! spective of the human diviner$ A comparable picture is found in 1udea Cylinder A, in which the man incubates dreams in which .ingirsu speaks to him$ :C %e tells the goddess .anshe about his dreams, and she interprets$ In one dream he sees .ingirsu, whom he describes as a man enormous as heaven with a head like a god, lower parts like a flood! storm and wings like a thunderbird; in another he has a conversation
:2 @The Death of 1ilgameshA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6>2!9>I$ 'amuel .$ (ramer, @The Death of 1ilgamesh,A !AOR C> H6C>>I7 :!6:; A$ Cavigneau* and $ .$ %$ Al!?awi, &ilgamesh et la mort= Textes de Tell Haddad 7), a%ec un appendice sur les textes fun4raires sum4riens H1roningen7 'ty*, :===I$ :> @The Death of 1ilgameshA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6>BI$ :9 @1ilgamesh and %uwawa AA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6=>!69I$ 'ameul .$ (ramer, @1il! gamesh and the ,and of the ,iving,A /( 6 H6C>BI7 2!>;; DietE <tto DdEard, @1il! game und %uwawa A$ I$ Teil,A 6A 8= H6CC=I7 6;9!:=2; 86 H6CC6I7 6;9!:22$ :; @1ilgamesh, Dnkidu, and the .etherworldA Hoster, &ilgamesh, 6:C!>2I$ Aaron 'haffer, @'umerian 'ources of Tablet 3II of the Dpic of 1ilgameA HPh$D$ diss$, +ni! versity of Pennsylvania, 6C;2I$ :B @The Dridu 1enesisA H-acobsen, Harps, 6>9!9=I$ Arno Poebel, Historical and &rammati$ cal Texts HP4' 9; Philadelphia7 +niversity &useum, 6C6>I; &iguel Civil, @The 'umer! ian lood 'tory,A in )ilfred 1$ ,ambert and Alan ?$ &illard, Atrahasis= The !a"ylo$ nian tory of the Flood H<*ford7 Clarendon, 6C;CI, 628!>9$ :8 @The Dridu 1enesisA H-acobsen, Harps, 6>8I$ :C @1udea Cylinder AA H-acobsen, Harps, 28;!>>>I$ $ Thureau!Dangin, Die sumerischen und a,,adischen 0Fnigsinschriften H5A4 6; ,eipEig7 -$ C$ %inrichs, 6C=BI, 88!6>6; 'es (ylindres de &ud4a d4cou%erts par Ernest de arDec R Tello HTC, 8; Paris7 P$ 1euthner, 6C:9I; DietE <$ DdEard, &udea and His Dynasty HToronto7 +niversity of Toronto Press, 6CCBI; Adam alkenstein, Die )nschriften &udeas %on 'agaV H?ome7 Pontificium Institu! tum 4iblicum, 6C;;I$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 629 with .ingirsu$ 2= ollowing this is a description of a housewarming party for the new temple, to which all the gods are invited, as is 1udea$ inally, .anshe praises 1udea, mentioning his @divine mother .in! sunaW you were born by a good cow in its human form$A 26
It appears that 'umerian myths, on the whole, can be separated into two categories$ In one, the myths are largely about e*tremely human! like gods interacting with each other in the human realm, and not about divine!human contact and communication$ The concern with realms in these myths involves the boundaries between the living and the dead, but not between heaven and earth$ In the second category, comprised of a very few te*ts, there are stories about humans who con! tact gods through divination; these are simply not stories about the gods$ The story of 1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eaven, which includes a reference to Inanna coming down to earth and speaking with 1il! gamesh, is an interesting e*ception to this pattern, although even there, the depiction of the goddess is not consistently anthropomorphic$ )hat is unusual in 'umerian mythology is not that the gods can appear in human form; on the contrary, this is their default form Heven the cow goddess has a human formI$ )hat seems to be unusual here, rather, is divine!human contact in which the human role e*tends be! yond the ob#ect of creation HDridu 1enesisI and the ob#ect of destruction H,ugal!eI$ In other words, most 'umerian myths portray gods with total anthropomorphic realism, but not interacting with humans$ A very few others portray humans engaging in divination in order to contact gods who are anthropomorphic in form, but lack the realism of those in the first category Hi$e$, they appear only in dreams, or are somehow embodied but fashioned by a seerI$ 'o far, it is clear that the )|<s] theophany does not correspond with the evident 'umerian pattern, according to which anthropomorphic realism is the norm but does not serve divine!human interaction$ The early biblical te*ts are replete with episodes of divine!human commu! nication, and in the )|<s] theophany te*ts, what is strikingly abnormal is the level of anthropomorphic realism that is otherwise unattested in biblical literature$ In many ways, Akkadian religious literature e*hibits the continuity from 'umerian te*ts that should naturally be e*pected, because they come from overlapping regions and overlap considerably in date$ %owever, the two are distinct in one significant area7 the portrayal of deities in the Akkadian material is notably less anthropomorphically realistic$
2= @1udea Cylinder AA H-acobsen, Harps, 2C:, 2C8I$ 26 @1udea Cylinder AA H-acobsen, Harps, >>6, >>>I$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 62; The following Akkadian te*ts will be discussed in three sections, corresponding to three time periods, in order to establish a general pattern of development$ The myths will be categoriEed according to the periods of the first half of the second millennium, the second half of the second millennium, and the first millennium$ In several cases, it is im! possible to determine the date of origin of a te*t with any precision, and in some cases there has been a degree of controversy, as in the case of the poem of Drra$ %owever, even in the midst of some uncertainty regarding the dating of a few te*ts, a general pattern regarding the relationship between anthropomorphic depictions of gods and portray! als of divine!human contact emerges$ Akkadian te*ts from the first half of the second millennium often have much in common with 'umerian literature, for obvious reasons$ The earliest copies of much 'umerian literature belong to this period, even if some may have been composed earlier$ or e*ample, continuity from 'umerian mythology is evident in the ,ove ,yrics of .anay and &uati, in which the two deities are described in human se*ual terms$ 2:
A few te*ts also contain images reminiscent of the unfortunate role ascribed to humans in 'umerian mythology, such as in the Agushaya Poem Hof IshtarI$ 22 The remark that @young men are hacked off as if for spear polesA is "uite in line with the 'umerian material$ 2>
A good number of the myths from this period, however, contain features not evident in most 'umerian mythology$ It would seem that during this period, a concern with crossing the boundaries between heaven and earth begins to appear$ In the 'elf!Praise of Ishtar, the god! dess proclaims, @I constantly traverse heaven, then HZI I trample the earth, I destroy what remains of the inhabited world,A although this may simply be poetic parallelism$ 29 The <ld 4abylonian 1ilgamesh Dpic reveals a concern with the boundaries between heaven and earth as well$ 2; The hero asks rhetorically, @)ho can go up to heavenZ <nly the gods dwell with 'hamash foreverW manNs achievements are
2: @,ove ,yrics of .anay and &uatiA H4en#amin ?$ oster, !efore the 1uses= An Anthol$ ogy of A,,adian 'iterature P4ethesda7 CD, Press, 6CC2Q, C;!CBI$ )ilfred 1$ ,ambert, @Divine ,ove ,yrics from the ?eign of Abieuh,A 1)OF 6: H6C;;I7 >6!96$ 22 @Agushaya PoemA Hoster, 1uses, B8!88I$ 4rigitte 1roneberg, @Philologische 4earbei! tung des Aguaya %ymnus RA B9 H6C86I7 6=B!2>$ 2> @Agushaya PoemA Hoster, 1uses, 8=I$ 29 @'elf!Praise of IshtarA Hoster, &uses, B>I$ %einrich `immern, !erichte 2"er die 7er$ handlungen der ,Fniglichen Ichsischen &esellschaft der 8issenschaften Du 'eipDig, Philo! sophisch!historische (lasse ;8 H,eipEig7 4$ 1$ Teubner, 6C6;I, >2$ 2; @1ilgamesh H<45IA HDalley, 1yths, 62;!92I$ All of the <ld 4abylonian evidence for the 1ilgamesh Dpic has now been edited afresh in 1eorge, The !a"ylonian &ilgamesh Epic$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 62B wind$A 2B 1ilgamesh, who is himself part divine, does converse with deities on earth Hhis mother and 'hamashI, 28 a phenomenon not found in 'umerian myths, with the e*ception of 1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eaven$ In the 'tandard 4abylonian verson, the story of the bull of heaven also includes an e*tensive and rather combative interaction between 1ilgamesh and Ishtar, after which she @went up to heavenA infuriated$ 2C 4ecause this tale has a 'umerian precedent without such direct contact between 1ilgamesh and Inanna, and <4 1ilgamesh lacks the story altogether, it is unfortunately not possible to determine the development of this particular episode of divine!human contact more precisely$ In the myth of Dtana, Dtana travels from earth to heaven, and this constitutes the central plot of the story$ >= The story progresses toward DtanaNs flight to heaven, as he goes to great lengths to reach the abode of the gods$ )hen he finally arrives in the heavens, he still must cross through @the gate of Anu, Dllil, and Da$A >6 This certainly reflects a con! cern with crossing the boundaries between heaven and earth, though the story does not portray physical divine!human contact on earth$ Dtana and his wife both have dreams, and Dtana is also spoken to by 'hamash, but there is no specific indication that this is direct, physi! cally immediate contact$ %owever, the beginning of this myth does tell of the gods building (ish, and seeking a king for the city$ At least in a later version of the myth, this is pictured literally, as @the Igigi would patrol the cityA in their search$ >: )hile the pattern of progression being suggested for these myths is by no means absolute, this anthropomor! phic portrayal of gods on earth may be an indication that Dtana has an earlier origin$ It has been suggested, in fact, that the origins of the myth are in the +r III period$ >2
)hile a concern with crossing between the realms of heaven and earth seems to appear during this period, there is not yet a consistent distinction between the realms$ In <4 AnEu, the @gods of the landA do
2B @1ilgamesh H<45IA HDalley, 1yths, 6>>I$ 28 @1ilgamesh H<45IA HDalley, 1yths, 62;, 6>CI$ 2C @1ilgamesh H<45IA HDalley, 1yths, 8=I$ >= @DtanaA Hoster, 1uses, >2B!;=I$ -$ 5$ (innier )ilson, The 'egend of Etana= A Ne# Edition HChicago7 4olchaEy!Carducci Publishers, 6C89I$ >6 @DtanaA HDalley, 1yths, :==I$ >: @DtanaA HDalley, 1yths, 6C=I$ >2 @DtanaA HDalley, 1yths, 68CI; (innier )ilson, The 'egend of Etana, :B$ <n the dating of Dtana, (innier )ilson cites )ilfred 1$ ,ambert, @Ancestors, Authors, and Canon! icity,A /( 66 H6C9BI7 6!6>, and Isidor ,evin, @Dtana$ Die keilschriftlichen 4elege einer DrEFhlung,A Fa"ula 8 H6C;;I7 6!;2; on the possible early roots of Akkadian literary te*ts, ?obert D$ 4iggs, )nscriptions from Tell Abu4 S9ala4b|3kh H<IP CC; Chicago7 +niversity of Chicago Press, 6CB>I$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 628 indeed live in the land, and .ingirsu battles AnEu on earth$ There are repeated references, for e*ample, to mountains and reed!thickets$ %owever, there are no references to @going downA to do battle on the earth, or the like$ >>
<ne te*t from this period reflects an intriguing view of the relation! ship between divinity and humanity$ The Akkadian myth of Atrahasis opens with the words, @)hen gods were men Hinu4ma ilu4 aw|3lumI$A >9
This phrase has been analyEed and translated in numerous ways, but the essential meaning is clear from the conte*t$ The te*t goes on to de! scribe how the lower gods Hthe IgigiI were initially re"uired to do the labor necessary on earth, and then rebelled against the higher gods Hthe AnunnakiI, eventually instigating the creation of humankind as a work force$ In other words, the term @manA in the opening phrase defines a role, a function in the universe, rather than a separate species; when gods served that function, they too @were men$A or this reason, the term aw|3lum, literally @manA Hsg$I, is perhaps best rendered in Dnglish as @menA Hpl$I$ ,ambert and &illard translate @when the gods like menA or @when the gods like man,A understanding aw|3lum as ending with the locative $um, with the same meaning as the comparative $is] $ They note that this would be the first e*ample of the comparative !um$ >; This grammatical analysis of the phrase renders the same mean! ing as discussed above, only through a simile, rather than a metaphor$ As oster observes, @The line is a metaphorW meaning Vwhen gods were HlikeI menN Hin that they had to workI$A >B ,ater in the myth, the terms are used in their more common sense, as when Da prepares to create humankind, and says, @,et man bear the load of the gods$A >8
A conscious distinction between realms appears at some points in Atrahasis, but not at others$ At the beginning of the myth, it is e*! plained that after the lots were cast and the Igigi were made to bear the workload @below,A @Anu went up to the sky$A ,ater, Dllil says, @Anu and Adad were to guard above, I was to guard the earth below$A >C
>> @AnEuA Hoster, 1uses, >;6!89I$ &arianne D$ 5ogelEang, Bin s]ar dadme47 Edition and Analysis of the A,,adian AnDu +oem H1roningen7 'ty*, 6C88I, C;!668$ >9 @AtrahasisA HDalley, 1yths, 6!28I$ >; ,ambert and &illard, Atra$hasis, 2:, >2, 6>;$ ,ambert has used a later recension of the te*t to support his argument$ )ilfred 1$ ,ambert, @.ew Dvidence for the irst ,ine of Atrahasis,A Or 28 H6C;CI7 922!28$ >B oster, 1uses, 69C$ or discussion and bibliography, see also 4endt Alster, @ilu4 aw|3lum = we$e i$la, V1ods 7 &enN versus V&an 7 1odN7 Punning and the ?eversal of Patterns in the Atrahasis Dpic,A in Riches Hidden in ecret +laces= Ancient Near Eastern tudies in 1emory of Thor,ild /aco"sen Hed$ TEvi Abusch; )inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disen! brauns, :==:I, 29!>=$ >8 @AtrahasisA HDalley, 1yths, 6>!69I$ >C @AtrahasisA HDalley, 1yths, C, :BI$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 62C %owever, the differentiation between realms is less apparent at other points$ It is unclear where certain elements of the story take place, such as the creation of humankind through the mi*ing of clay Hi$e$, earthI with the flesh and blood of a god, or when it is said that the gods @had eaten the offeringA after the flood$ 9= The former circumstance may take place on earth, or it may be undifferentiated; the latter may be on earth, or may be metaphorical$ It was observed above that the ma#ority of 'umerian myths concern gods only, and in these cases, the gods are very often portrayed with a great degree of anthropomorphic realism$ )hen the te*ts depict divine! human communication, however, the gods lack the same realism, ap! pearing only in a dream, or in a form fashioned by a seer$ The same tendency may be seen in Atrahasis$ The gods do menial labor on earth, and have @flesh and bloodA from which humans may be created, but the ongoing divine!human communication in the story is not direct$ Atrahasis and Dnki speak to one another, but there is no indication that this occurs in person$ DnkiNs first words to Atrahasis include references to people praying, making offerings, and building temples; in other words, engaging in many of the typical features of worship$ 96 1iven this conte*t, it is unlikely that this refers to direct, physically immediate contact$ ,ater, when it seems Dnki has taken an oath not to help the humans whom Dllil wants to destroy, the te*t says, @Atrahasis made his voice heard and spoke to his master, VIndicate to me the meaning of the dreamWNA and Dnki responds, addressing his message directly to the wall of AtrahasisN house and to the reed hut itself Has to `iusudra through the wall in the Dridu 1enesisI$ In this case, it is clear that the contact is not direct; an added possible implication is that the prior communication also involved dreams$ 9:
antastically wild descriptions of members of divine society are also found, as in 'umerian mythology$ In the incantations against ,a! mashtu, the demon is @tiny of hands, long of finger, longHer stillI of nailA; she slithers over doorpost casings and gives babies seiEures; she is the daughter of Anu, with hair askew, feet of AnEu, and the face of a lion$ 92
9= @AtrahasisA HDalley, 1yths, 69, 22I$ 96 Throughout the rest of the te*t, people continue to engage in these typical acts of worship$ 9: @AtrahasisA HDalley, 1yths, :CI$ 92 @Anu 4egot %erA; @'he is ierceA; @'he is +ncannyA; @4ring &e /our 'onsA; @'he Tortures 4abiesA; and @I am the Daughter of AnuA H4en#amin ?$ oster, From Distant Days= 1yths, Tales, and +oetry of Ancient 1esopotamia P4ethesda7 CD, Press, 6CC9Q, >==!>=>I$ )olfram von 'oden, OrN :2 H6C9>I7 22B!>>$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 6>= Among Akkadian te*ts from the second half of the second millen! nium, a few te*ts may demonstrate indirectly that the gods were still conceived in "uite anthropomorphic terms$ In the Poem of the ?ight! eous 'ufferer, for e*ample, a young woman in a dream is said to be @of shining countenance, clothed like a person HZI, being liPkeQ a god$A 9>
%owever, there is also a noteworthy change among the great myths from this period7 they all show an increased interest in the theme of crossing the boundaries between heaven and earth$ In .ergal and Dreshkigal HAmarna versionI, the central conflict of the story follows from the premise that the gods cannot travel between heaven and the netherworld; only the messengers can$ 99 Dreshkigal cannot go up to the feast in heaven, and Anu cannot come down; a messenger is hired to bring Dreshkigal food from heaven$ The '45 adds interesting details7 a long stairway connects the two realms, even though no god should be able to travel it$ .ergal is pictured cutting down trees at one point; i$e$, he does appear on earth$ %owever, even on earth, he does not interact with humans; as in most 'umerian my! thology, there are no human characters$ ,astly, as was the case with much of the 'umerian mythology, some of the most conspicuously anthropomorphic description comes in the conte*t of divine se*7 here, .ergal and Dreshkigal are said to have @the desire to do what men and women do$A 9;
The myth of Adapa also contains the theme of crossing the bound! ary between heaven and earth$ 9B Adapa is sent @to live in the fishesN home,A and then he goes up to heaven, and must follow specific in!
9> @Poem of the ?ighteous 'uffererA Hoster, Days, :C8!262; 2=8I$ )ilfred 1$ ,ambert, !a"ylonian 8isdom 'iterature H<*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C;=I, :6!;:, 2>2!>9; Donald -$ )iseman, @A .ew Te*t of the 4abylonian Poem of the ?ighteous 'ufferer,A Ant 2= H6C8=I 6=6!B; -ean 4ottLro, 'e +ro"lGme du 1al en 14sopotamie ancienne= +rologue R une etude du W/uste souffrantW H,NArbresle7 Centre Thomas &ore, 6CBBI; )illiam ,$ &oran, @The 4abylonian -ob,A in The 1ost 1agic 8ord= Essays on !a"ylonian and !i"li$ cal 'iterature Heds$ )illiam ,$ &oran and ?onald '$ %endel; )ashington7 Catholic 4iblical Association, :==:I, 68:!:==$ 99 @.ergal and DreshkigalA Hoster, 1uses, >6=!:8I$ -$ A$ (nudtEon, Die El$Amarna Tafeln, H5A4 :; ,eipEig7 -$ C$ %inrichs, 6C69I, 29B; <liver ?$ 1urney, @The 'ultantepe Tablets, 5II7 The &yth of .ergal and Drekigal,A Ant 6= H6C;=I7 6=9!26; 'hlomo IEreNel, The Amarna cholarly Ta"lets H1roningen7 'ty*, 6CCBI, 96!;6, 62:!2C; &anfred %utter, Altorientalische 7orstellungen %on der *nter#elt= 'iterar$ und religionsgeschicht$ liche X"erlegungen Du WNergal und EreV,igalW Hreiburg7 +niversitFtsverlag, 6C89I; Dri! ca ?einer, Hour Th#arts in +ieces, Hour 1ooring Rope (ut= +oetry from !a"ylonia and Assyria HAnn Arbor, &ich$7 +niversity of &ichigan Press, 6C89I, 9=!;=$ 9; @.ergal and DreshkigalA HDalley, 1yths, 6;8!B6; 6;;I$ 9B @AdapaA HDalley, 1yths, 68:!88I$ '$ A$ Picchioni, )l +oemetto di Adapa H4udapest, 6C86I$ 'ee also 'hlomo IEreNel, Adapa and the outh 8ind= 'anguage has the +o#er of 'ife and Death H)inona ,ake7 Disenbrauns, :==6I$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 6>6 structions in order to pass through the 1ate of Anu$ 98 The central ten! sion of the story concerns the "uestion of whether or not Adapa can stay in heaven$ In the end, Anu says to @send him back to his earth$A 9C
,astly, in the Dnuma Dlish, while the first gods are apparently born on the Hyet uncreatedI earth, the distinction between the realms of heaven and earth is clear at several points, such as in the opening lines, @when skies above were not yet named nor earth below pronounced by name$A ;= Consider also &ardukNs speech in which he decrees that he will build a new cult center to be the home of the gods, and e*plains that the gods will travel to and from 4abylon7 @)henever you come up from the Apsu for an assembly, /our nightNs resting place shall be in it, receiving you all$ )henever you come down from the sky for an as! sembly, /our nightNs resting place shall be in it, receiving you all$A ;6
Indeed, the Dnuma Dlish seems to offer the first formal division be! tween the two realms with its description of the separation of heaven and earth with the carcass of Tiamat7 P&ardukQ divided the monstrous shape and created marvels Hfrom itI$ %e sliced her in half like a fish for drying7 %alf of her he put up to roof the sky, Drew a bolt across and made a guard hold it$ %er waters he arranged so that they could not escape$$$ %e opened the Duphrates and the Tigris from her eyes, Closed her nostrils, P Q$ %e piled up clear!cut mountains from her udder, 4ored waterholes to drain off the catchwater$ %e laid her tail across, tied it fast as the cosmic bond HZI, And P Q the Apsu beneath his feet$ %e set her thigh to make fast the sky, )ith half of her he made a roof; he fi*ed the earth$ %e P Q the work, made the insides of Tiamat surge, 'pread his net, made it e*tend completely$ %eW P Q heaven and earth P Q their knots, to coilW ;:
The distinction between realms is clear following this also, as @all the gods divided the stations of heaven and earth$A ;2
98 @AdapaA HDalley, 1yths, 68>!89I$ 9C @AdapaA HDalley, 1yths, 68BI$ ;= @The Dpic of CreationA HDalley, 1yths, :22!BB; :22I$ 'ee also @Dpic of CreationA Hoster, 1uses, 296!>=:I$ ?enL ,abat, 'e +oGme "a"ylonien de la cr4ation HParis7 Adrien! &aissonneuve, 6C29I; Ale*ander %eidel, The !a"ylonian &enesis HChicago7 +niversity of Chicago Press, 6C96I; )ilfred 1$ ,ambert and 'imon 4$ Parker, Enuma Elish= The !a"ylonian Epic of (reation H<*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6C;;I$ ;6 @The Dpic of CreationA HDalley, 1yths, :9CI$ ;: @The Dpic of CreationA HDalley, 1yths, :99!9BI$ ;2 @The Dpic of CreationA HDalley, 1yths, :;2I$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 6>: antastic descriptions of monstrous deities are found in this period as well, such as the wild, tailed Tiamat and her offspring, the @giant snakes, sharp of tooth and unsparing of fang$A ;>
urther developments in this area may be observed in te*ts from the first millennium$ In these te*ts, the division between heaven and earth is sharper yet, so that divine!human contact is indirect, and travel between realms is absent$ In Assurbanipal and .abu, the king prays to .abu and @a dream!god answered him from the presence of .abu his lord,A promising him long life in the voice of .abu$ ;9 The .etherworld 5ision of an Assyrian Crown Prince shows the same distance between humans and gods, and also the presence of monstrous features on some deities, as has been seen to be the case in all periods$ ;; (umaya incu! bates a dream in the temple, and Dreshkigal appears to him in a dream$ After this, he sees a dream of .amtar and .amtara with the head of a protective spirit and the hands and feet of a human$ %e also sees Death with a dragonNs head and human hands and feet, an VDvil 'piritN with human head and hands and eagleNs feet, V+pholder!of!evilN with a birdNs head and human hands and feet, and more$ These are clearly all divine beings; (umaya refers to the horrible composite creatures as @fifteen gods in all$A After this, he sees .ergal in his vision, who seiEes him by the hair to kill him, but Ishum intercedes to spare (umayaNs life$ ;B The physicality of evil spirits is also reduced7 in one te*t, it is e*! plained that @they are drifting phantoms, they take no wife, beget no sonA; similarly, in another te*t, @they do not know how to stand up, they do not know how to sit down$ They eat no food, they drink no water$A ;8
There is no e*tant copy of the myth of Drra and Ishum from before the eighth century 4$C$D$, but the te*t is thought to have earlier roots$ ;C
;> @The Dpic of CreationA HDalley, 1yths, :2BI$ ;9 @Assurbanipal and .abuA Hoster, 1uses, B:B!:8I$ Alasdair ,ivingstone, (ourt +oetry and 'iterary 1iscellanea H%elsinki7 %elsinki +niversity Press, 6C8CI, 22!29$ ;; @The .etherworld 5ision of an Assyrian Crown PrinceA Hoster, 1uses, B2=!2BI$ )olfram von 'oden, @Die +nterweltsvision eines assyrischen (ronprinEen,A 6A >2 H6C2;I7 6!26$ ;B @.etherworld 5ision of an Assyrian Crown PrinceA Hoster, 1uses, B2:!29I$ ;8 @The 'evenA Hoster, 1uses, 8>CI; @&ysterious DemonsA Hoster, 1uses, 896I$ ?$ Campbell Thompson, The De%ils and E%il pirits of !a"ylonia H: vols$; ,ondon7 ,uEac, 6C=>I, 67B;!BC and :762>!29$ ;C @Drra and IshumA HDalley, 1yths, :8:!269I$ ,uigi Cagni, The +oem of Erra H'A.D 6K2; &alibu7 +ndena Publications, 6CBBI$ The dating of the te*t is "uite controversial$ 'ee the discussion of Cagni, who concurs with <ppenheimNs range of the twelfth to sev! enth century, but appears nearly convinced of von 'odenNs eighth century dating$ Cagni, Erra, :=!:6; von 'oden, @Dtemenanki vor Asarhaddon nach der DrEahlung vom Turmbau Eu 4abel und dem Drra!&ythos,A *F 2 H6CB6I7 :99!9;$ Dalley also claims that the te*t @almost certainly incorporates older elementsA H1yths, :8:I$ Anthropomorphism in Mesopotamian Mythology 6>2 According to the pattern evident here regarding the movement toward greater division between heaven and earth, one would e*pect this to be the case$ The gods do interact on earth7 there are references to cattle, reed!thickets, sheepfolds, 4abylon, and the differences between city food and camp food$ %owever, there are clear indications of a con! scious distinction between the spheres, as when Drra proclaims, @In heaven I am a wild bull, on earth I am a lion,A and when he announces, @+ntil then I shall rule and keep firm control of heaven and earth$ I shall go up into heaven, and give orders to the Igigi; I shall go down to the Apsu and direct the Anunnaki$A B= DrraNs first statement might re! flect poetic parallelism and not a specific distinction between realms, but the second statement is clear$ ,astly, IshumNs words to Drra, @/ou have changed your divine nature and become like a humanA seem not to refer to his physical form, but to his brandishing of weapons against 4abylon, which is described immediately thereafter$ B6 Cagni notes on this line that Ishum @reproves Drra for having behaved like an insen! sate mortal$A B: As in the first line of Atrahasis, the categories @divineA and @humanA are used metaphorically, to define not form, but only function$ Dven given the preliminary nature of this survey, a pattern emerges throughout the &esopotamian material of a general movement in the direction of greater division between heaven and earth as separate realms$ In the 'umerian material, deities are usually drawn with a striking degree of anthropomorphic realism, and live thoroughly in the human realm$ In the early Akkadian material the gods are also "uite anthropomorphic, though perhaps without the remarkable realism of the 'umerian myths, and while a few early Akkadian te*ts HAtrahasis and 1ilgamesh in particularI contain episodes of divine!human contact, most of the myths are simply not concerned with the sub#ect$ )hile the pattern should not be considered absolute, it appears that the descrip! tions of gods continue to become less graphically human, the differen! tiation between the realms becomes sharper, and issues of traveling between the distinct realms come to the foreground$ %umans begin to play more important roles in these somewhat later myths that address the issue of traveling between heaven and earth Hthat is, more impor! tant than being @hacked off as spear poles,A as in the early Akkadian, like 'umerianI$ inally, in the latest Akkadian te*ts, the spheres are so distinct that such travel is no longer possible, and divine!human com!
B= @Drra and IshumA HDalley, 1yths, :8C; :C2I$ DrraNs first statement might reflect poetic parallelism and not a specific distinction between realms, but the second statement is clear$ B6 @Drra and IshumA HDalley, 1yths, 2=:I$ B: Cagni, Erra, >C$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 6>> munication comes strictly through divination$ )hile deities can be described in fantastic and monstrous ways in all periods, it should be noted that even the potentially most monstrous0the long!fingered, longer!nailed, wild!haired lamashtu demon with the face of a lion, who slithers through doorways and causes babies to have seiEures0gives way to @drifting phantomsA in the first millennium$ The phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany has no counterpart in Ak! kadian mythology any more than in 'umerian$ There appears to be no stage of &esopotamian thought as reflected in te*ts from the 'umerian mythology through the late Akkadian material in which divine beings break into the earthly realm in fully anthropomorphically realistic form in order to engage with humans$ The 'umerian te*ts contain such real! ism and take place on earth, but without divine!human interaction$ A very few early Akkadian te*ts contain divine!human interaction in which the role of the humans e*tends beyond the ob#ect of creation or destruction, in particular Atrahasis and 1ilgamesh$ In the former, how! ever, the interaction is already indirect, as through a wall$ 1ilgamesh seems to contain the only e*ception to the general pattern, in both the <45 and already in the 'umerian story of 1ilgamesh and the 4ull of %eaven; but even there, the depiction of Inanna is not consistently an! thropomorphically realistic$ In somewhat later Akkadian te*ts there is a new emphasis on travel between the spheres, but this is not accompa! nied by anthropomorphic realism$ In the late te*ts, there is only indirect communication$ There is then no period or body of material in which anthropomorphic realism and direct corporeal divine!human contact coe*ist in &esopotamia$ 'o far, this mode of divine!human communi! cation is only attested in biblical literature$ ;$: Anthropomorphism in +garitic &ythology Anthropomorphism in +garitic &ythology The gods of +garit generally appear as very human indeed$ In the 4aal myth, for e*ample, the divine assembly sits down to eat together$ 4aalNs butler arises, prepares the feast, and serves his master H0T* 6$2 I :!66I$ After this, Anat battles the youths of two towns H0T* 6$2 II 2!2=I$ B2
Anthropomorphic descriptions of the gods are found in (eret as well, as when Dl takes a cup in his hand and blesses (eret H0T* 6$69 II 6;!:=I$ %owever, DlNs appearance to (eret is in a dream H0T* 6$6> I 29! 2B; 5I 26!2:I$ B> In A"hat as well, the gods are described in e*tremely
B2 @4aalA H'mith, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 86!6B;I$ B> @(irtaA HDdward ,$ 1reenstein, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, C!>8I$ %$ ,$ 1insburg, The 'egend of 0ing 0eret= A (anaanite Epic of the !ronDe Age H.ew %aven7 A'<?, 6C>;I; Anthropomorphism in Ugaritic Mythology 6>9 anthropomorphic terms, and here they also interact directly with hu! mans in the earthly realm$ B9 The contact in the first scene is not direct; this, rather, is an upstairs!downstairs picture of Danil serving and feed! ing the gods, and Dl as a result taking a cup in his hand and blessing his servant H0T* 6$6B I 6!2;I$ ,ater, (othar!wa!%asis #oins Danil for a meal and gives the gift of the bow for A"hat H0T* 6$6B 5 :!22I$ Then Anat sees the bow from her place at the heavenly feast, drops her cup, de! mands the bow from A"hat, and eventually has the boy killed$ &uch of the action in +garitic mythology seems to take place on earth, or in an undifferentiated combination of heaven and earth, as when A"hatNs sister approaches AnatNs camp in order to kill her H0T* 6$6C I5 :8!;6I$ <ther divine!human contact on earth includes AnatNs rampage in the valley, which is reminiscent of the early Akkadian trend according to which the gods largely do not interact with humans e*cept to kill them$ 'pecifically, AnatNs contact with humans here is not per! sonal, and involves no communication$ The use of human form for the purpose of communication with humans as seen in the story of (othar visiting Danil is closer to the phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany than anything found in the survey of anthropomorphism in &esopotamian mythology$ %owever, as dis! cussed in detail in Chapter our, while the gods and humans do inter! act directly, the portrayals of the gods lack the anthropomorphic real! ism of the )|<s] theophanies$ The +garitic gods are often painted in very human tones, for instance when Dl gets drunk and passes out in DlNs east H0T* 6$66>I, B; but when they interact with humans they can be spotted from a thousand fields away, and at no point can be mistaken for human guests$ )hile A"hat in particular shows a type of divine! human contact that is more like the two 1enesis te*ts than the &esopo! tamian material is, the combination of anthropomorphic realism and direct divine!human contact found in the )|<s] theophanies is not at! tested in +garitic literature$
1ary .$ (noppers, @Dissonance and Disaster in the ,egend of (irta,A /AO 66> H6CC>I7 9B:!8:$ B9 @A"hatA HParker, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, >C!8=I$ B; @DlNs Divine eastA HTheodore -$ ,ewis, *garitic Narrati%e +oetry, 6C2!C;I$ (evin -$ Cathcart and )$ 1$ D$ )atson, @)eathering a )ake7 A Cure for Carousal$ A ?evised Translation of *garitica 9$ Te*t 6,A +roceedings of the )rish !i"lical Association > H6C8=I7 29!98; &anfried Dietrich and <swald ,oretE, @(T+ 6$66>, ein Palimpsest,A *F :9 H6CC2I7 622!2;; 'amuel D$ ,oewenstamm, @A Didactic +garitic DrinkersN 4urles"ue,A in (omparati%e tudies in !i"lical and Ancient Oriental 'iteratures HA<AT :=>; .eukirchen!5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6C8=I, 2;C!86; &arvin Pope, @A Divine 4an"uet at +garit,A in The *se of the Old Testament in the Ne# and Other Essays= tudies in Honor of 8illiam Fran,lin tinespring Hed$ -$ &$ Dfird; Durham7 Duke +niversity Press, 6CB:I, 6B=!:=2$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 6>; ;$2 Anthropomorphism in Dgyptian &ythology Anthropomorphism in Dgyptian &ythology The lack of narrative Dgyptian mythology BB renders the direct compari! son of Dgyptian portrayals of divine!human contact to &esopotamian and +garitic portrayals somewhat imbalanced, but the abundance of other types of literary evidence regarding Dgyptian religious thought allows for some secure evaluation$ 4y far the ma#or type of divine!human interaction in Dgyptian te*ts involves the dead, or more specifically, the spirits of the dead who travel to the realm of the gods$ This is the case in all periods$ <ne inter! esting e*ample comes in the 'tory of 'inuhe Hca$ 6C==K68==, 6: th Dy! nasty in the &iddle (ingdomI, in which the king @flew to heaven and united with the sun!disk, the divine body merging with its maker$A B8
<ther than the move of the dead to the realm of the gods, refer! ences to divine!human interaction in Dgyptian material generally come from tales$ In a few tales, the gods appear in human or human!like form, even though the stories include fantastic dreamlike features$ Three Tales of )onder HPapyrus )estcar, 6;9=K699=I is set in the > th
Dynasty of the <ld (ingdom, under (ing (hufu$ In the te*t, the magi! cian D#edi entertains the king with a story telling of the future birth of the triplet kings of the 9 th Dynasty$ In his story, Isis, .ephthys, &esk! henet, %eket and (hnum go to deliver the triplets of ?uddedet, @hav! ing changed their appearance to dancing girls$A BC The story of The Two 4rothers, about the gods Anubis and 4ata, is told as though the charac! ters are human, much like in 'umerian mythology, with e"ually fantas! tical elements7 they can have homes, wives, cows Hgranted, talking cowsI; they flee for their lives, kill and die and live again, become trees Hsplinters of which can impregnateI, and become king$ 8= In %orus and 'eth, Isis changes herself into an old woman in order to trick a ferry! man into letting her cross the river to the Island!in!the!&idst, where the Dnnead are attempting to meet without her; once there, she changes herself into a beautiful young girl in order to deceive 'eth$ 86 In the 4en! tresh 'tela, a godNs visit to 4akhtan is described in "uite realistic human terms, initially$ The god comes physically to 4akhtan, arrives at the end
BB <n this issue, see -ohn 4aines, @Dgyptian &yth and Discourse7 &yth, 1ods, and the Darly )ritten and Iconographic ?ecord,A /NE 9= H6CC6I7 86!6=9$ B8 @The 'tory of 'inuheA H&iriam ,ichtheim, Ancient Egyptian 'iterature= A !oo, of Readings P2 vols$; 4erkeley7 +niversity of California Press, 6CB2!B8Q, 67:::!29; ::2I$ &yths and tales in this section are referred to by ,ichtheimNs titles$ 'ee ,ichtheim for further edition information and bibliography$ BC @Three Tales of )onderA HAE' 67:69!::; ::=I$ 8= @The Two 4rothersA HAE' :7:=2!66; :=2I$ 86 @%orus and 'ethA HAE' :7:6>!:2; :6;I$ Anthropomorphism in Egyptian Mythology 6>B of one year and five months, and spends three years and nine months there before flying away as a golden falcon$ 8:
1ods also sometimes appear to humans in dreams, as in The am! ine 'tela, a Ptolomaic te*t, in which the story is told of the dream of D#oser Hhistorically the 2 rd Dynasty of the <ld (ingdomI in which the god (hnum promises his protection$ 82
In some tales, the nature of the divine!human interaction is charac! teriEed by conflict$ In the Destruction of &ankind, ?e is king of gods and men, and @mankind plotted against him, while his ma#esty had grown old, his bones being silver, his flesh gold, his hair true lapis luEuliW The goddess returned after slaying mankind in the desertW and saidW VI have overpowered mankind, and it was balm to my heartN Pher who would wade in their bloodQ$A 8> This is of course rather remi! niscent of Anat, for whom the e*perience of bathing in blood is some! thing like going to a spa$ The dead and the gods of Dgypt regularly change form, through all periods7 in the .ew (ingdom, for e*ample, into a phoeni* HThe Prayers of PaheriI, 89 a bull HThe Two 4rothersI, 8; a kite, hippopotamus, and statue of flint without a head H%orus and 'ethI; 8B in the ,ate period, for instance, into a flying falcon of gold HThe 4entresh 'telaI, 88 or a goose H'etne (hamwas and 'i!osireI$ 8C
In sum, the variety of physical forms of Dgyptian gods is astound! ing$ 4eyond the interaction between the human dead and gods, gods generally appear to living humans only in dreams$ The e*ceptions come in the tales discussed above, all of which also include fantastic elements of various kinds$ In these tales, the gods certainly do interact with humans in concretely anthropomorphic form, though not usually in a manner that can be considered anthropomorphically realistic$ 'ome tales reflect a greater degree of anthropomorphic realism than others$ The Hpresumably humanI ferryman in %orus and 'eth, for e*! ample, certainly takes Isis to be a human woman$ %owever, this divine! human contact in each case seems rather incidental to the story$ The gods do not take human form for the purpose of divine!human com! munication$ In other words, while a few Dgyptian tales do provide some interesting e*amples of anthropomorphically realistic gods who
8: @The 4entresh 'telaA HAE' 27C=!C>; C6I$ 82 @The amine 'telaA HAE' 27C>!6=2; C9I$ 8> @The Destruction of &ankindA HAE' :76CB!CCI$ 89 @The Prayers of PaheriA HAE' :769!:6; 6BI$ 8; @The Two 4rothersA HAE' :7:=BI$ 8B @%orus and 'ethA HAE' :7:6;I$ 88 @The 4entresh 'telaA HAE' 27C:I$ 8C @'etne (hamwas and 'i!osire H'etne IIIA HAE' 27628!9;; 6>CI$ Anthropomorphic Realism and the Ancient Near East 6>8 have contact with humans, the te*ts do not offer any evidence of an! thropomorphic realism as a mode of divine!human communication$ ;$> Anthropomorphism in %ittite &ythology Anthropomorphism in %ittite &ythology The fantastical shifting of divine forms and strange types of divine interactions in %ittite literature are similar to those in the Dgyptian material$ or e*ample, in the 'acrifice and Prayer to the 'torm 1od of .erik, the storm god has a conversation with the &arassanta ?iver$ C= In the H%urrianI 'ong of (umarbi, the god has his son +llikummi by re! producing with a rock$ C6
A few myths include stories of divine!human contact$ In the story of Appu and %is Two 'ons, the sun god changes himself into a young man and "uestions Appu, although the flavor may be more like that of the fantastical Dgyptian tales than like the realism of the )|<s] theopha! nies$ C: In the Illuyanka Tales H<ld Anatolian, written by the fifteenth centuryI, the storm godNs daughter Inara @found a mortal named %u! pasiya$ Inara spoke as follows to %upasiya7 VI am about to do such!and! such a thing$ /ou #oin with me$NA C2 %e agrees on the condition that he can sleep with her, and she consents$ In another version, the storm god marries the daughter of a poor man and they have a son, who in turn marries the daughter of a serpent$ C> These brief descriptions of divine! human interaction include not only direct speech but also direct physi! cal contact and in fact reproduction$ The form of the deities is never mentioned, although perhaps in the case of Inara one should assume that she has a human form$ The fact that the second version of the same story involves the offspring of a god and a woman, who in turn marries the child of a serpent, once again with no specification of the divine forms, implies that the stories do not reflect a deep concern with the precise forms of the characters$ These stories seem more reminiscent of 1enesis ;76!> than the theophanies of 1enesis 68 and 2:, in that the focus of both versions of the brief story is se* between gods and hu! mans, and not verbal communication$
C= @'acrifice and Prayer to the 'torm 1od of .erikA H%arry A$ %offner, -r$, Hittite 1yths Hed$ 1ary &$ 4eckman; :d ed$; '4,)A) :; Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC8I, ::!:>$ &yths in this section are referred to by %offnerNs titles$ 'ee %offner for further edi! tion information and bibliography$ C6 @'ong of (umarbiA H%offner, Hittite 1yths, >:!>9I$ C: @Appu and %is Two 'onsA H%offner, Hittite 1yths, 8:!89; 82I$ The same occurs in @The 'un 1od, the Cow, and the ishermanA H%offner, Hittite 1yths, 89!8B; 89I$ C2 @The Illuyanka Tales,A version 6, eB HA I :6!:2I H%offner, Hittite 1yths, 6=!6>; 6:I$ C> @The Illuyanka Tales,A version : H%offner, Hittite 1yths, 62I$ Anthropomorphism in Hittite Mythology 6>C %owever, even while divine anthropomorphism in %ittite stories comes in the midst of stories about marriage to serpents, conversations with rivers, and reproduction with rocks, the nature of this anthropo! morphism is noteworthy$ ,ike A"hat, the Illuyanka Tales and the story of Appu and %is Two 'ons include concrete anthropomorphic depic! tions of gods in the conte*t of divine!human interactions$ These %ittite stories, like the +garitic A"hat, are in this way closer to the two 1enesis stories than the &esopotamian and Dgyptian material are$ %owever, they too are not characteriEed by the anthropomorphic realism of the )|<s] theophanies$ There is no indication, for e*ample, that the gods in these stories are indistinguishable from humans$ In sum, the literature of IsraelNs neighbors at times reflects various aspects of the type of interaction seen in 1enesis 68 and 2:$ 'ome te*ts show anthropomorphically realistic deities, as in most 'umerian myths$ 'ome show a concern with divine!human communication, as in some Akkadian stories of divination$ 'ome, as in the Illuyanka Tales, show direct physical divine!human contact$ %owever, none of these te*ts portrays gods interacting with humans in anthropomorphically realis! tic form, indistinguishable from humans, for the purpose of divine! human communication$ The phenomenon of the )|<s] theophany appears to have a place in a broader family which includes the +garitic and %ittite material$ It should be noted that divine anthropomorphism in the conte*t of di! vine!human contact is common in 1reek mythology as well, as dis! cussed in Chapter our$ This pattern suggests a larger strain of ,evan! tine depiction of divine anthropomorphism in divine!human relations$ %owever, even within this broader family, the )|<s] theophany remains distinct$ The phenomenon of anthropomorphically realistic theophany as a mode of divine!human communication is not reflected in the litera! ture of IsraelNs neighbors$
B$ Conclusions7 The Dmbodied 1od Conclusions7 The Dmbodied 1od Conclusions7 The Dmbodied 1od Classical theists understand 1od to have a mind and a will$ 'ome con! sider this in itself anthropomorphism; some might say instead that it is anthropocentric to call this anthropomorphic, and rather that we are theomorphic in having minds and wills ourselves$ %owever, having distinguished between various types of anthropomorphic portrayal of deity, it is apparent that concrete anthropomorphism cannot be lumped together with generic, unavoidable anthropomorphiEing in religious thought$ 'ome kind of anthropomorphism is unavoidable in any posi! tive predication for 1od Hhence the strict via negativa of &aimonidesI, but concrete anthropomorphism is certainly avoidable$ /et in the te*ts of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22, 1od is depicted in concretely anthro! pomorphic form$ &oreover, even within the category of concrete anthropomor! phism, anthropomorphic realism is most assuredly avoidable$ /et 1od is portrayed in these two te*ts with a degree of anthropomorphic real! ism not attested elsewhere in the %ebrew 4ible, nor in other ancient .ear Dastern stories of divine!human contact$ Dven the closest parallel to the te*t of 1enesis 68, the story of (otharNs visit to Danil in A"hat H0T* 676B 5 :!22I, does not display this type of anthropomorphic real! ism in the depiction of the visiting god$ As in some %ittite and 1reek mythology, the story of A"hat includes the appearance of a deity in human form, but the god is still recogniEably divine$ In the two 1enesis theophanies, 1od appears in human form and is in fact indistinguish! able from humans$ In addition, the embodied form of the visiting deity in A"hat, as in many 1reek and %ittite te*ts, simply represents the same form taken by the gods in many of their interactions with one another$ The effect is "uite different in 1enesis 68 and 2:, where the concrete human form is e*ceptional among any biblical depictions of the divine$ 'ignificant work has been done showing the e*tent to which early Israelite religion was at home in its Canaanite conte*t$ This work has been a necessary corrective to previous assumptions of a blanket dis! tinction between @IsraeliteA and @CanaaniteA religious thought$ %ow! ever, this valuable work grew to foster a new assumption, that portray! als of divinity in early Israelite te*ts reflect the general setting of the Canaanite religious world$ The )|<s] theophany, attested in the archaic Conclusions: The Embodied God 696 te*ts of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22, is characteriEed by a degree of anthropomorphic realism which has no e"uivalent in the +garitic lit! erature$ -ust as the earlier assumption regarding the hard distinction between everything Israelite and everything Canaanite faced the need for ad#ustment, this newer conclusion must now be nuanced$ 1iven the unusual nature of these portrayals even within the con! te*t of biblical literature, they must be considered to have a particular function$ The theophany in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night serves to physically guide the Israelites through the desert; the divine appearance in the burning bush has the function of grabbing &osesN attention$ A survey of form and function among biblical divine beings has demonstrated that while members of the divine council may overlap in both areas when pictured in the heavens, their form is re! lated to their function when they make contact with humans on earth$ ,ikewise, the special form which 1od takes only in the two te*ts of 1enesis 6876!69 and 2:7:2!22 is related to function$ The degree of an! thropomorphic realism in the depiction of 1od in the two 1enesis te*ts is not shared by any other biblical divine beings$ )hile the phenome! non seems to fall within a larger category of divine beings appearing in human!es"ue form Hmost similarly, the te*ts of -udges 62 and -oshua 9762!69I, the anthropomorphic realism characteristic of the )|<s] theo! phany occurs only in two stories$ These two te*ts tell the stories of the decisive promises to the two primary patriarchs$ In the previous chap! ters, it was established that the use of anthropomorphic realism as a special mode of communication between 1od and both Abraham and -acob e*presses the special nature of these communications to the two patriarchs, even as they e*press 1odNs own freedom of form$ The sto! ries tell much about each patriarch, but more still about the 1od who appears to him$ +nder the influence of classical theistic ob#ections to anthropomor! phism, scholars have historically been disinclined to interpret concrete anthropomorphism at face value$ %owever, as we have seen, anthro! pomorphism is a spectrum, and other varieties have been much more readily accepted as intended literally by the biblical authors$ )e do not automatically regard every type of anthropomorphism He$g$, immanent or envisionedI as metaphorical$ )e can see how anthropomorphism is to be viewed along a spec! trum through the history of philosophical approaches$ 3enophanesN criti"ue of the too!human images of the gods was focused on physical and behavioral similarities; &aimonidesN re#ection of all positive predi! cation was based on the idea that we cannot describe any divine attrib! utes at all$ A"uinas based his theology of analogy on the idea that we should indeed attempt to discuss 1od, while understanding that predi! Conclusions: The Embodied God 69: cates for humans and 1od cannot have univocal meaning; and (ant argued that 1od is a necessary postulate for the summum "onum, but that we still cannot claim any knowledge of the noumenal by defini! tion$ Philosophers have ob#ected to a range of issues, with a range of responses, but have not systematically considered physical anthropo! morphism to include entirely different problems than other types Hand rightly soI$ )e also see how all anthropomorphism is a spectrum through the ta*onomy of varieties of anthropomorphism$ ?ecognition of the differ! ences between these varieties should serve as the starting point in in! terpreting te*ts which include any kind of anthropomorphic portrayal of 1od$ This will be helpful in both historical analysis and theological interpretation of any such te*t, as is certainly the case regarding te*ts depicting concrete anthropomorphism$ )hile understanding important differences between these varieties, we should learn from the full, rich history of the philosophy of religion that the issues at play in one type of anthropomorphism Hsuch as concreteI are also relevant to the others$ Dven after this process, it may remain counterintuitive to discuss such a notion as the @embodied 1odA without accepting the assump! tions of the great anti!anthropomorphic either!or7 that either there is no concrete anthropomorphism in biblical te*ts, or that there is and it is theologically primitive$ %owever, as all anthropomorphism is a spec! trum, and we are generally willing to consider the presence of mean! ingful theology behind e*amples of other varieties of anthropomor! phism, we might e"ually allow that an ancient Israelite tradition could have conceived of concrete anthropomorphism with some theological sophistication$ )e must then consider what meaning an ancient Israelite audience realistically could have drawn from these te*ts, even if framed in later theological terms$ The image of 1od in the )|<s] theophany must be un! derstood to reveal something about ancient Israelite conceptions of 1od and of divine!human communication, as would be the case with any other type of theophany as well$ urthermore, the )|<s] theophany must e*press something about 1od that would have made sense to the Israelites even in other conte*ts0in other words, we should assume that 1od in theophany is not different in essence than 1od outside of theophany$ In later theological terms, a working definition of divine simplicity is that 1odNs essence and e*istence are one$ &aimonides e*plains that @1od alone is that being PwhoseQ e*istence and essence are perfectly Conclusions: The Embodied God 692 identicalA HI 9BI$ 6 According to this idea, 1od is pure essence with no accidents, or pure actuality with no potentiality$ 'o, #ust as 1od being wise must be part of 1odNs essence, and not a passing or potential at! tribute, we see in anthropomorphic theophany that being communica! tive must also be part of 1odNs essence$ 'ince 1odNs essence and e*is! tence are one, #ust as 1od does not simply have wisdom, but rather is wise, 1od is interactive$ It may help to contrast this with other under! standings of the divine7 take for instance the @'olitudeA of Dmpedocles, which is defined by its non!interactivity and non!relational nature, or the 1od of (ant, who by definition can never be known by humankind who are not able to cogniEe what belongs to the noumenal realm$ The 1od of the %ebrew 4ible is radically different from this$ )e see in the )|<s] theophany that it is in fact within 1odNs essence to transcend the noumenal and enter the human realm$ This is logically consistent with the larger biblical picture, and is more consistent with some fundamental tenets of classical theism than the concept of a 1od who does not enter the human realm$ rom faith to doctrine, the notion that 1od loves0loves 1odNs own people, loves all people, or is love0is certainly at the heart of biblical religion$ ,ove without interpersonal knowledge, without interaction, is not anything we would still call love; #ust as part of 1odNs essence is to be wise and part is to be love or loving, part is to be with or relational$ Muestions regarding 1odNs knowledge of particulars, including individuals, have been addressed in a variety of ways, and to be sure, it re"uires a theol! ogy of analogy to suggest that 1od, too, can only know humans in rela! tion, through interaction$ %owever, other views, such as that of Avicenna, who argued that 1od knows individuals @in their universal! ity,A seem theologically unsatisfactory, and are certainly not consistent with the biblical picture$ ,ove is not possible without knowledge of the individual, and if @knowledgeA from afar is less knowing than rela! tional knowledge, we can hardly speak of 1od knowing and loving without being relational$ Certainly, the sense in which 1od engages in relational knowledge of individuals must be analogical$ David 4urrell notes that since the relationship between 1od and the world @may never find ade"uate e*pression, we must discover which models and analogies will be the
6 <n the concept of esse, @to be,A in general, and of essence vs$ e*istence for Ibn!'ina, &aimonides, and A"uinas in particular, see David 4urrell, 0no#ing the *n,no#a"le &od= )"n$ina, 1aimonides, and A5uinas H.otre Dame, In$7 +niversity of .otre Dame Press, 6C8;I, 6C!2>, >:!9=$ Though &aimonides would surely cringe at the applica! tion of his thought to anthropomorphic theophany, it remains a fruitful avenue of in! terpretation$ Conclusions: The Embodied God 69> least misleading ones$A : This approach is helpful in considering the )|<s] theophany$ +nderstanding theophany as 1odNs analogical language, 1od does not settle for one model or analogy, for one type of theophany$ The implication seems to be that 1od finds the analogy of the )|<s] theophany less misleading than no theophany, and more to the point, less misleading than communicating e*clusively through non! human theophany$ Indeed, would it not be more misleading for 1odNs theophanic communications to include only fire, cloud, storm, and so onZ urther, among these various types of theophany, why should we be more appalled at the idea of 1od using the analogical language of human embodiment than the analogical language of fireZ 'ince each image is incomplete and analogical, surely the greater the range, the less misleading the combined picture$ 1ranted, there is still the danger of our misunderstanding this too!alike!ness, the danger that we will attempt to reduce 1odNs analogical language in theophany to univocal$ %owever, 1od demonstrates in these theophanies that divine actions and communications are not limited by our potential inability to un! derstand analogically$ As with every other variety of anthropomorphism, the logically odd nature of these concrete appearances is irreducible$ igurative anthropomorphism is irreducible7 this is the case with all types of metaphorical language$ Dnvisioned anthropomorphism is irreducible7 1od is and is not in the presence of the person having the dream or vision$ Immanent anthropomorphism is irreducible, as for e*ample in the burning bush7 1od is near and mysterious, yes and no, understand! able and not understandable$ Transcendent anthropomorphism is irre! ducible7 1od is heavenly and altogether far, but imaginable in human terms, far and familiar$ And like these, concrete anthropomorphism is irreducible7 1od is near yet mysterious, far yet familiar, known and unknowable$ It is these very parado*es, or logical anomalies, which bear fruit$ .ew attention must be paid both to the distinctions between varieties of anthropomorphism, and to the potential for positive functions of anthropomorphism$ The anthropomorphism reflected in 1enesis 6876! 69 and 2:7:2!22 is concrete, and not metaphorical$ It is a clear departure from the portrayals of divine!human contact and communication known to us from the surrounding regions, and is e*ceptional even within the Israelite framework$ As such, it must be seen as an inten! tional choice of theophanic portrayal, motivated by specific and con! sidered ideas$ It cannot be dismissed as the result of philosophical
: 4urrell, 0no#ing the *n,no#a"le &od, 6=8$ Conclusions: The Embodied God 699 weakness or lack of theological sophistication$ .either should it be seen as limiting the divine nature, but rather as a physical e*pression of 1odNs very limitlessness$ According to these te*ts, 1od is not limited to certain forms of e*pression or manifestation$ <n the contrary, 1odNs freedom is not compromised even in regard to theophany$ This limit! lessness, uni"uely e*pressed in these most intimate communications to the two primary fathers of Israel, reveals the scope of 1odNs identity as the )holly +nknowable, even as it reveals 1odNs radical inclination and capacity to be known, in person$ 4ibliography 4ibliography 4ibliography Aberbach, &oses, and 4ernard 1rossfeld$ Targum On,elos to &enesis= A (ritical Analysis Together #ith an English Translation of the Text$ .ew /ork7 (tav, 6C8:$ Aitken, (enneth T$ @<ral ormulaic Composition and Theme in the A"hat .arrative$A *F :6 H6C8CI7 6!6;$ Albright, )illiam $ @)hat )ere the CherubimZA !A 6K6 H6C28I7 6!2$ Al!1haEali, The )ncoherence of the +hilosophers, Taha4fut al$fala4sifa= A +arallel Eng$ lish$Ara"ic Text$ Translated by &ichael D$ &armura$ Provo, +tah7 4righam /oung +niversity, 6CCB$ Alster, 4endt$ @Dilmun, 4ahrain, and the Alleged Paradise in 'umerian &yth and ,iterature$A Pages 2C!B> in Dilmun= Ne# tudies in the Archaeology and Early History of !ahrain$ Ddited by Daniel T$ Potts$ 4erlin7 Dietrich ?eimer, 6C82$ Alster, 4endt$ @Inanna ?epenting7 The Conclusion of InannaNs Descent$A Acta umerologica 68 H6CC;I7 6!68$ Alster, 4endt$ @'umerian ,ove 'ongs$A RA BC H6C89I7 6:B!9C$ Alster, 4endt$ @The &ythology of &ourning$A Acta umerologica 9 H6C82I7 6!6;$ Alster, 4endt$ @ilu4 aw|3lum = we$e i$la, V1ods 7 &enN versus V&an 7 1odN7 Punning and the ?eversal of Patterns in the Atrahasis Dpic$A Pages 29!>= in Riches Hidden in ecret +laces= Ancient Near Eastern tudies in 1emory of Thor,ild /aco"sen$ Ddited by TEvi Abusch$ )inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, :==:$ A"uinas, Thomas$ umma Theologiae$ Ddited by 4rian Davies and 4rian ,eftow$ CT%P$ Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity, :==;$ A"uinas, Thomas$ The Kumma TheologicaL of t. Thomas A5uinas, 'iterally Trans$ lated "y Fathers of the English Dominican +ro%ince$ ,ondon7 Thomas 4aker, 6C66$ Attinger, Pascal$ @Dnki et .inhursaga$A 6A B> H6C8>I7 6!9:$ Avishur, /itEhak$ @The 'tory of the 5isit of the Angels to Abraham H1enesis 6876!6;I and Its Parallel in +garitic ,iterature H: A"hat 57>!26I Pin %e! brewQ$A !1 2: H6C8;!8BI7 6;8!BB$
4aines, -ohn$ @Dgyptian &yth and Discourse7 &yth, 1ods, and the Darly )rit! ten and Iconographic ?ecord$A /NE 9= H6CC6I7 86!6=9$ 4aker, -ohn$ @Anthropomorphism and the Idea of 1od$A '-HR 68= H6C99I7 6:9! :8$ Bibliography 69B 4arnes, &ichael %$ @?ationality in ?eligion$A Religion :B H6CCBI7 2B9!C=$ 4arr, -ames$ @Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the <ld Testament$A Pa! ges 26!28 in (ongress 7olume= Oxford 9C>C$ 5T'up B$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6C;=$ 4arthes, ?oland$ @,a lutte avec lNange$A Pages :B!2C in Analyse structurale et ex4gGse "i"li5ue= Essais d.interpr4tation$ ?oland 4arthes et al$ .euchctel7 Dela! chau* et .iestlL, 6CB:$ 4aumgFrtel, riedrich$ @Das <ffenbarungsEeugnis des Alten Testaments im ,ichte der religionsgeschichtlich!vergleichenden orschung$A 6T0 ;> H6C;BI7 2C2!>::$ 4ehrens, %ermann$ Enlil und Ninlil= Ein sumerischer 1ythos aus Nippur$ 'tudia Pohl 'eries &a#or 8$ ?ome7 4iblical Institute Press, 6CB8$ 4en `vi, Dhud$ @The Dialogue 4etween Abraham and /%)% in 1en$ 687:2!2:7 A %istorical!Critical Analysis$A /OT 92 H6CC:I7 :B!>;$ 4enavides, 1ustavo$ @Cognitive and Ideological Aspects of Divine Anthropo! morphism$A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 C!::$ 4enito, Carlos A$ @VDnki and .inmahN and VDnki and the )orld <rder$NA PhD$ diss$, +niversity of Pennsylvania, 6C;C$ &icrofilm!*erography edition$ Ann Arbor, 6C8=$ 4ergh, 'imon van den$ A%erroes. Tahafut Al$Tahafut= The )ncoherence of the )nco$ herence$ D$ -$ )$ 1ibb &emorial 'eries 6C$ ,ondon7 ,uEac, 6C98$ 4iggs, ?obert D$ )nscriptions from Tell Abu4 S9ala4b|3kh$ <IP CC$ Chicago7 +niversity of Chicago Press, 6CB>$ 4irch, 4ruce C$ Hosea, /oel, and Amos$ )C$ ,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CCB$ 4lack, -eremy A$ @'ome 'tructural eatures of 'umerian .arrative Poetry$A Pages B6!6=6 in 1esopotamian Epic 'iterature= Oral or AuralU Ddited by &$ D$ 5ogelEang and %$,$-$ 5anstiphout$ ,ewiston, .$/$7 Ddwin &ellen, 6CC:$ 4lack, &a*$ @&etaphor$A Pages ;2!8: in +hilosophical +erspecti%es on 1etaphor$ Ddited by &ark -ohnson$ &inneapolis, &inn$7 +niversity of &innesota Press, 6C86$ 4lenkinsopp, -oseph$ )saiah 9$;C= A Ne# Translation #ith )ntroduction and (om$ mentary$ A4 6C$ .ew /ork7 Doubleday, :===$ 4lenkinsopp, -oseph$ The +entateuch= An )ntroduction to the First Fi%e !oo,s of the !i"le$ .ew /ork7 Doubleday, 6CC:$ 4lum, Drhard$ Die (omposition der 7Itergeschichte$ )&A.T 9B$ .eukirchen! 5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6C8>$ 4odLJs, ?ichard$ @Parall]le pour interprLtation du Vcombat de -acob$NA O'+ > H6CB2I7 629!>=$ 4oling, ?obert 1$ /udges$ A4 ;$ 1arden City, ./7 Doubleday, 6CB9$ 4ottLro, -ean$ 'e +ro"lGme du 1al en 14sopotamie ancienne= +rologue R une etude du W/uste souffrantW$ ,NArbresle7 Centre Thomas &ore, 6CBB$ 4rettler, &arc `vi$ The !oo, of /udges$ .ew /ork7 ?outledge, :==:$ Bibliography 698 4rodie, Thomas ,$ &enesis as Dialogue= A 'iterary, Historical and Theological (om$ mentary$ .ew /ork7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==6$ 4rueggemann, )alter$ &enesis$ I4C$ Atlanta7 -ohn (no*, 6C8:$ 4uber, &artin$ Eclipse of &od= tudies in the Relation "et#een Religion and +hiloso$ phy$ .ew /ork7 %arper, 6C9:$ 4urnett, -oel '$ A Reassessment of !i"lical Elohim$ Atlanta7 '4,, :==6$ 4urrell, David$ 0no#ing the *n,no#a"le &od= )"n$ina, 1aimonides, and A5uinas$ .otre Dame, In$7 +niversity of .otre Dame, 6C8;$
Cagni, ,uigi$ The +oem of Erra$ 'A.D 6K2$ &alibu7 +ndena Publications, 6CBB$ Ca"uot, AndrL, &aurice 'Enycer, and AndrLe %erdner$ 1ythes et '4gendes$ 5ol$ 6 of Textes ougariti5ues= introduction, traduction, commentaire$ ,AP< B$ Paris7 Cerf, 6CB>$ Ca"uot, AndrL$ @Anges et dLmons en Isra[l$A Pages 662!9: in &4nies, anges et demons$ '<r 8$ Paris7 \ditions du 'euil, 6CB6$ Ca"uot, AndrL$ @,es ?ephadm ougariti"ues$A yria 2B H6C;=I7 BC!C=$ Carr, David &$ Reading the Fractures of &enesis= Historical and 'iterary Approaches$ ,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CC;$ Cassuto, +mberto$ !i"lical and (anaanite 'iterature$ : vols$ -erusalem7 /$ ,$ &ag! nes Press, 6CB:!BC$ Cassuto, +mberto$ !i"lical and Oriental tudies$ : vols$ Translated by Israel Abrahams$ -erusalem7 /$ ,$ &agnes Press, 6CB2!6CB9$ Castellino, 1$ ?$ T#o Yulgi Hymns$ 't'em >:$ ?ome7 Istituto di 'tudi del 5icino <riente, 6CB:$ Cathcart, (evin -$ and )$ 1$ D$ )atson$ @)eathering a )ake7 A Cure for Ca! rousal$ A ?evised Translation of *garitica 9$ Te*t 6$A +roceedings of the )rish !i"lical Association > H6C8=I7 29!98$ Cavigneau*, Antoine, and arouk .$ %$ Al!?awi$ @1ilgamesh et Taureau de Ciel Hul!m]!kamI$ Te*tes de Tell %addad I5$A RA 8B H6CC2I7 CB!6:C$ Cavigneau*, Antoine, and arouk .$ %$ Al!?awi$ &ilgamesh et la mort= Textes de Tell Haddad 7), a%ec un appendice sur les textes fun4raires sum4riens$ 1ronin! gen7 'ty*, :===$ Cherbonnier, Ddward ,a4$ @The ,ogic of 4iblical Anthropomorphism$A HTR 99 H6C;:I7 68B!:=;$ Childs, 4revard$ The !oo, of Exodus= A (ritical, Theological (ommentary$ <T,$ Philadelphia7 )estminster Press, 6CB>$ Civil, &iguel$ @The 'umerian lood 'tory$A Pages 628!>9 in Atrahasis= The !a"y$ lonian tory of the Flood$ Ddited by )ilfred 1$ ,ambert and Alan ?$ &illard$ <*ford7 Clarendon, 6C;C$ Cogan, &ordechai$ 9 0ings= A Ne# Translation #ith )ntroduction and (ommentary$ A4 6=$ .ew /ork7 Doubleday, :==6$ Cogan, &ordechai and %ayim Tadmor$ : 0ings= A Ne# Translation$ A4 66$ 1ar! den City, ./7 Doubleday, 6C88$ Bibliography 69C Cohn, ?obert ,$ : 0ings$ Ddited by David )$ Cotter$ 4er<l$ Collegeville7 ,itur! gical Press, :===$ Colwell, 1ary$ @The lew!.ielsen Challenge7 A Critical D*position of Its ð! odology$A )/+R 6B H6C86I7 2:2!>:$ Coogan, &ichael D$ tories from Ancient (anaan$ ,ouisville7 )estminster Press, 6CB8$ Cooke, 1$ @'ons of the 1odHsI$A 6A8 B; H6C;>I7 ::!>B$ Cooper, Alan$ @Divine .ames and Dpithets in the +garitic Te*ts$A Pages 2B6! 9== in Ras hamra +arallels 2$ An<r 96$ ?ome7 Pontificium institutum bibli! cum, 6C86$ Cooper, Alan &$ and 1oldstein, 4ernard ?$ @At the Dntrance to the Tent7 &ore Cultic ?esonances in 4iblical .arrative$A /!' 66; H6CCBI7 :=6!:69$ Cooper, Alan &$ and 1oldstein, 4ernard ?$ @D*odus and Mas[s[o=t in %istory and Tradition$A 1aara% 8 H6CC:I7 69!2B$ Cooper, -errold '$ @'acred &arriage and Popular Cult in Darly &esopotamia$A Pages 86!C2 in Official (ult and +opular Religion in the Ancient Near East$ Dd! ited by D$ &atsushima$ %eidelberg7 Carl )inter, 6CC2$ Coote, ?obert 4$ @%osea 6:$A 7T :6 H6CB6I7 28C!>=:$ Couturier, 1uy$ @,a vision du conseil divin7 Ltude dNune forme commune au prophLtisme et lNapocalypti"ue$A cEs 2; H6C8>I7 9!>2$ Co*on, P$ )$ @.ephilim$A Pages ;68!:= in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ :d ed$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Crombie, I$ &$ @The Possibility of Theological 'tatements$A Pages :2!9: in The +hilosophy of Religion$ Ddited by 4asil &itchell$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6CB6$ Cross, rank &$ @The Council of /ahweh in 'econd Isaiah$A /NE 6: H6C92I7 :B>!BB$ Cross, rank &$ (anaanite 1yth and He"re# Epic$ Cambridge7 %arvard +niver! sity Press, 6CB2$
Dahood, &itchell$ *garitic$He"re# +hilology= 1arginal Notes on Recent +u"lica$ tions$ 4ib<r 6B$ ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6C;9$ Dalley, 'tephanie$ 1yths from 1esopotamia$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press$ Davidson, ?obert$ &enesis 9:$>?$ C4C$ Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, 6CBC$ Davies, 4rian$ @A"uinas on )hat 1od is .ot$A Re%ue )nternationale de +hilosophie 9: H6CC8I :=B!:9$ Day, -ohn$ @Dchoes of 4aalNs 'even Thunders and ,ightnings in Psalm :C and %abakkuk 27C and the Identity of the 'eraphim in Isaiah ;$A 7T :C H6CBCI7 6>2!96$ Day, -ohn$ @+garit and the 4ible7 Do They Presuppose the 'ame Canaanite &ythology and ?eligionZA Pages 29!9: in *garit and the !i"le= +roceedings of Bibliography 6;= the )nternational ymposium on *garit and the !i"le, 1anchester, eptem"er 9CC:$ Ddited by 1eorge -$ 4rooke, Adrian %$ )$ Curtis and -ohn $ %ealey$ &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC>$ Day, Peggy ,$ An Ad%ersary in Hea%en= s8a4ta4 n in the He"re# !i"le$ %'& >2$ At! lanta7 'cholars Press, 6C88$ Dietrich, &anfried, and <swald ,oretE$ @(T+ 6$66>, ein VPalimpsestN$A *F :9 H6CC2I7 622!2;$ Dietrich, &anfried, <swald ,oretE, and !!!quin Sanmarlin, eds. The (uneiform Alpha"etic Texts from *garit, Ras )"n Hani and Other +laces. 2d enIarged ed. |of Die ,eilalpha"etischen Texte aus *garit, 1976j. ALASI. Mnsler: Ugaril- VerIag, 1995. Di|k, }ohannes van. LUGAL UD MI-LM-I NIR-GL I-II: le !ccii cpiquc ci !i!aciiquc !cs Trataux !c Ninuria, !c Oc|ugc ci !c |a Ncutc||c Crcaiicn. Leiden: riII, 1983. Durand, }.-M. Occuncnis cpisic|aircs !u pa|ais !c Mari, Tcnc 3. LAIO 18. Iaris: Cerf, 2000.
Idvin, Harlman. Su|siancc, Bc!q an! Scu|. Arisicic|ian |ntcsiigaiicns. Irincelon: Irincelon Universily Iress, 1977. Idzard, Dielz Ollo. GiIgame und Huvava A. I. TeiI. ZA 80 (1990): 165-203, 81 (1991): 165-233. Idzard, Dielz Ollo. Gu!ca an! His Oqnasiq. Toronlo: Universily of Toronlo Iress, 1997. IIhorsl, H. }. Gen. 32:23-33. ZAW 32 (1912): 299-301. IsIinger, LyIe. Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29: A Sludy in Inner ibIicaI Ixege- sis. jSOT 18 (1980): 91-99.
IaIkenslein, Adam. Oic |nscnrijicn Gu!cas tcn Iagas. Rome: Ionlificium Inslilu- lum ibIicum, 1966. Ierre, Irederick. In Iraise of Anlhroomorhism. |jP| 16 (1984): 203-12. Iine, GaiI. The Ob|ecl of Thoughl Argumenl: Iorms and Thoughls. Iages 120-41 in On |!cas. Arisici|cs Criiicisn cj P|aics Tnccrq cj |crns. Oxford: CIarendon Iress, 1993. Iishbane, MichaeI. Tnc Vcicc jrcn inc Wnir|uin!. Idiled by Leo G. Ierdue and W. CIark GiIin. NashviIIe: Abingdon Iress, 1992. IIeming, DanieI I. }ob: The TaIe of Ialienl Iailh and lhe ook of God's Di- Iemma. VT 44 (1994): 468-82. IIev, Anlony. TheoIogy and IaIsificalion. Iages 96-99 in Ncu |ssaqs in Pni- |cscpnica| Tncc|cgq. Idiled by Anlony IIev and AIasdair Macinlyre. Lon- don: SCM Iress, 1955. Ionlenrose, }oseh. Tnc |iiua| Tnccrq cj Mqin. erkeIey: Universily of CaIifornia Iress, 1971. Bibliography 6;6 oresti, $ @%osea 6:7 A Prophetical Polemic against the Proto!Dlohistic Patriar! chal Tradition$A Eph( 2= H6CBCI7 6BC!:==$ oster, 4en#amin ?$ !efore the 1uses= An Anthology of A,,adian 'iterature$ : vols$ 4ethesda7 CD, Press, 6CC2$ oster, 4en#amin ?$ From Distant Days= 1yths, Tales, and +oetry of Ancient 1eso$ potamia$ 4ethesda7 CD, Press, 6CC9$ oster, 4en#amin ?$ The Epic of &ilgamesh$ .ew /ork7 )$ )$ .orton _ Com! pany, :==6$ owler, -eaneane$ D$ Theophoric +ersonal Names in Ancient He"re#$ 'heffield7 -'<T, 6C88$ raEer, 'ir -ames 1eorge$ @olk!lore in the <ld Testament,A in Anthropological Essays +resented to Ed#ard !urnett Tylor in Honour of His E> th !irthday, Oct. :, 9C?E$ Ddited by )$ %$ ?$ ?ivers et al$ <*ford7 Clarendon, 6C=B$ raEer, 'ir -ames 1eorge$ Fol,$lore in the Old Testament$ 2 vols$ ,ondon7 &ac&il! lan _ Co$, 6C6C$ reeman, (athleen$ Ancilla to the +re$ocratic +hilosophers$ Cambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6C;:$ ritE, &$ &$ WM und #einten um TammuDW= Die &Ftter DumuDi$ AmaTushumgalTanna und Damu$ A<AT 2=B$ &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, :==>$ ronEaroli, P$ 'eggenda di A5hat$ lorence7 Casa Dditrice 'andoni, 6C99$
1eller, 'tephen$ @The 'truggle at the -abbok7 The +ses of Dnigma in a 4iblical .arrative$A /ANE 6> H6C8:I7 2B!;=$ 1eorge, Andrew ?$ The !a"ylonian &ilgamesh Epic= )ntroduction, (ritical Edition and (uneiform Texts$ : vols$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==2$ 1eorge, Andrew$ The Epic of &ilgamesh$ ,ondon7 Penguin, 6CCC$ 1ertner, &$ @Attempt at an Interpretation of %osea 6:$A 7T 6= H6C;=I7 :B:!8>$ 1insburg, %$ ,$ The 'egend of 0ing 0eret= A (anaanite Epic of the !ronDe Age$ .ew %aven7 A'<?, 6C>;$ 1oldin, -$ @.ot by &eans of an Angel and .ot by &eans of a &essenger$A Pages >6:!:> in Religions in Anti5uity= Essays in 1emory of Er#in Ramsdell &oodenough$ Ddited by -acob .eusner$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6C;8$ 1oldingay, -ohn$ )saiah$ .I4C<T 62$ Peabody, &ass7 %endrickson, :==6$ 1ordon, Cyrus %$ *garitic Text"oo,$ An<r 28$ ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6C;9$ 1rabbe, ,ester ,$ @VCanaaniteN7 'ome ðodological <bservations in ?elation to 4iblical 'tudy$A Pages 662!:: in *garit and the !i"le= +roceedings of the )n$ ternational ymposium on *garit and the !i"le, 1anchester, eptem"er 9CC:$ Ddited by 1eorge -$ 4rooke, Adrian %$ )$ Curtis and -ohn $ %ealey$ &Jn! ster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC>$ 1rabbe, ,ester ,$ @%ebrew PaNalK+garitic 4N, and the 'upposed 4KP Inter! change in 'emitic$A *F 66 H6CBCI7 2=B!6>$ 1ray, -ohn$ /oshua, /udges, Ruth$ .C4C$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC;$ Bibliography 6;: 1unkel, %ermann$ &enesis$ Translated by &ark D$ 4iddle$ &acon, 1a7 &ercer +niversity Press, 6CCB$ 1urney, <liver ?$ @The 'ultantepe Tablets, 5II7 The &yth of .ergal and Drekigal$A Ant 6= H6C;=I7 6=9!26$ 1uthrie, 'tewart$ @%ow ?eligion is Causal0and )hat is it, D*actlyZA HRef :9 H6CCCI7 >=9!6:$ 1uthrie, 'tewart$ @?esponse$A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 29!>=$ 1uthrie, 'tewart$ Faces in the (louds$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6CC2$
%alevi, -udah$ /udah Halle%i.s 0ita" Al 0haDari$ Translated by %artwig %irsch! feld$ ,ondon7 1eorge ?outledge _ 'ons, 6C=9$ %allam, A$ Dudley$ @<ld Testament Anthropomorphism$A 1illa #a$milla 62 H6CB2I7 6>!6C$ %amilton, 5ictor P$ The !oo, of &enesis= (hapters 9B$>?$ .IC<T$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC9$ %amori, Dsther -$, @The 'pirit of alsehood,A (!-, forthcoming$ %andy, ,owell ($ @The Appearance of the Pantheon in -udah$A Pages :B!>2 in The Triumph of Elohim= From Hah#isms to /udaisms$ Ddited by Diane 5$ Ddelman$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC;$ %andy, ,owell ($ Among the Host of Hea%en$ )inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, 6CC2$ %arris, %arold A$ &ree, Athletics and the /e#s$ Ddited by I$ &$ 4arton and A$ -$ 4rothers$ Cardiff7 +niversity of )ales Press for 't$ DavidNs +niversity Col! lege, 6CB;$ %arrison, -onathan$ @The Dmbodiment of &ind, or )hat +se is %aving a 4odyZA +roceedings of the Aristotelian ociety B> H6CB2!B>I7 22!99$ %artshorne, Charles$ @Two orms of Idolatry$A )/+R 6 H6CB=I7 2!69$ %eidel, Ale*ander$ The !a"ylonian &enesis$ Chicago7 +niversity of Chicago Press, 6C96$ %empel, -ohannes$ @Die 1renEen des Anthropomorphismus -ahwes im Alten Testament$A 6A8 9B H6C2CI7 B9!89$ %endel, ?onald '$ @Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel$A Pages :=9!:8 in The )mage and the !oo,= )conic (ults, Aniconism, and the Rise of !oo, Religion in )srael and the Ancient Near East$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn$ Contributions to 4iblical D*egesis and Theology :6$ ,euven7 +it! geveri# Peeters, 6CCB$ %endel, ?onald '$ The Epic of the +atriarch= The /aco" (ycle and the Narrati%e Tra$ ditions of (anaan and )srael$ %'& >:$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8B$ %errmann, )$ @Die 1^tters^hne$A 6R&& 6: H6C;=I7 :>:!96$ %errmann, )$ @1^tterspeise und 1^ttertrank in +garit und Israel$A 6A8 B: H6C;=I7 :=9!6;$ %illers, Delbert ?$ @AnalyEing the Abominable7 <ur +nderstanding of Canaan! ite ?eligion$A /-R B9 H6C89I7 :92!;C$ Bibliography 6;2 %offner, %arry A$, -r$ Hittite 1yths$ Ddited by 1ary &$ 4eckman$ :d ed$ '4,)A) :$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC8$ %olladay, )illiam ,$ @Chiasmus, the (ey to %osea 6:72!;$A 7T 6; H6C;;I7 92!;>$ %olley, David &$ @The ?ole of Anthropomorphism in %umeNs Criti"ue of The! ism$A )/+R 96 H:==:I7 82!CC$ %outman, Cornelius$ Der Himmel im Alten Testament= )sraels 8elt"ild und 8eltan$ schauung$ <T' 2=$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC2$ %uehnergard, -ohn$ A &rammar of A,,adian$ %'& >9$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CCB$ %ume, David$ Dialogues (oncerning Natural Religion and Other 8ritings$ Ddited by Dorothy Coleman$ CT%P$ Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, :==B$ %utter, &anfred$ Altorientalische 7orstellungen %on der *nter#elt= 'iterar$ und religionsgeschichtliche X"erlegungen Du WNergal und EreV,igalW$ reiburg7 +ni! versitFtsverlag, 6C89$
IEreNel, 'hlomo$ Adapa and the outh 8ind= 'anguage has the +o#er of 'ife and Death$ )inona ,ake7 Disenbrauns, :==6$ IEreNel, 'hlomo$ The Amarna cholarly Ta"lets$ 1roningen7 'ty*, 6CCB$
-acobsen, Thorkild$ @The Dridu 1enesis$A /!' 6== H6C86I7 962!:C$ -acobsen, Thorkild$ @The 1ilgamesh Dpic7 Tragic and ?omantic 5ision$A Pages :26!>C in 'ingering O%er 8ords= tudies in Ancient Near Eastern 'iterature in Honor of 8illiam '. 1oran. Ddited by TEvi Abusch, -ohn %uehnergard and Piotr 'teinkeller$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC=$ -acobsen, Thorkild$ The Harps That Once= umerian +oetry in Translation$ .ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6C8B$ -acobsen, Thorkild$ The Treasures of Dar,ness$ .ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6CB;$ -acobsen, Thorkild$ To#ard the )mage of TammuD and Other Essays on 1esopota$ mian History and (ulture$ Cambridge, &ass$7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB=$ -evons, $ 4$ @Anthropomorphism$A Pages 9B2!B8 in vol$ 6 of Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics$ Ddited by -ames %astings$ .ew /ork7 Charles 'cribnerNs 'ons, 6C=8$ -obling, David$ 9 amuel$ Ddited by David )$ Cotter$ 4er<l$ Collegeville, &inn7 ,iturgical Press, 6CC8$ -oines, (aren ?$ @)inged 'erpents in IsaiahNs Inaugural 5ision$A /!' 8; H6C;BI7 >6=!69$
(ant, Immanuel$ (riti5ue of +ure Reason$ Ddited by Paul 1uyer and Allen )$ )ood$ Cambridge7 Cambridge +niversity Press, 6CC8$ Bibliography 6;> (ant, Immanuel$ +rolegomena to Any Future 1etaphysics$ Translated by ,ewis )$ 4eck$ .ew /ork7 The ,iberal Arts Press, 6C9=$ (atE, Dina$ @%ow DumuEi 4ecame InannaNs 5ictim7 <n the ormation of InannaNs Descent$A Acta umerologica 68 H6CC;I7 C2!6=:$ (eel, <thmar$ /ah#e$7isionen und iegel,unst7 eine neue Deutung der 1aJestIts$ schilderungen in /es <, ED 9 und 9? und ach S. '44 8>!89$ 'tuttgart7 (atholisches 4ibelwerk, 6CBB$ (ierkegaard, 'fren$ +hilosophical Fragments$ Ddited and translated by %oward 5$ %ong and Ddna %$ %ong$ Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C89$ (ierkegaard, 'fren$ +hilosophical Fragments$ Princeton7 Princeton +niversity Press, 6C2;$ (ilmer, Anne Draffkorn$ @'peculations on +mul, the irst 4aby$A Pages :;9!B= in 0ramer Anni%ersary 7olume= (uneiform tudies in Honor of amuel Noah 0ramer$ Ddited by 4arry ,$ Dichler$ A<AT :9$ (evelaer7 4utEon _ 4ercker, 6CB;$ (innier )ilson, -$ 5$ The 'egend of Etana= A Ne# Edition$ Chicago7 4olchaEy! Carducci Publishers, 6C89$ (lein, ?alph )$ 9 amuel$ )4C 6=$ )aco7 )ord 4ooks, 6C82$ (lostermaier, (laus$ @The 4ody of 1od$A Pages 6=2!6C in The (harles trong 'ectures$ Ddited by ?obert 4$ Crotty$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6C8B$ (luger, ?ivkah 'chFrf$ atan in the Old Testament$ Dvanston, Ill7 .orthwestern +niversity Press, 6C;B$ (noppers, 1ary .$ @Dissonance and Disaster in the ,egend of (irta$A /AO 66> H6CC>I7 9B:!8:$ (orpel, &ar#o Christina Annette$ A Rift in the (louds= *garitic and He"re# De$ scriptions of the Di%ine$ &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC=$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ @VInannaNs Descent to the .ether )orldN Continued and ?evised$A /( 9 H6C96I7 6!6B$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ @1ilgamesh and the ,and of the ,iving$A /( 6 H6C>BI7 2!>;$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ @The Death of 1ilgamesh$A !AOR C> H6C>>I7 :!6:$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ @The Dpic of 1ilgame and Its 'umerian 'ources7 A 'tudy in ,iterary Dvolution$A /AO ;> H6C>>I7 B!:2, 82$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ En,i and Ninhursag= A umerian K+aradiseL 1yth$ 4A'<? '' 6$ .ew %aven, 6C>9$ (ramer, 'amuel .$ The acred 1arriage Rite= Aspects of Faith, 1yth, and Ritual in Ancient umer$ 4loomington, Ind$7 Indiana +niversity Press, 6C;C$ (uehn, &anfred$ @(antNs Conception of V%umeNs ProblemN$A Pages 69;!BB in )mmanuel 0ant.s +rolegomena to Any Future 1etaphysics= )n Focus$ Ddited by 4eryl ,ogan$ ?outledge Philosophers in ocus$ ,ondon7 ?outledge, 6CC;$ (uhrt, Amelie$ The Ancient Near East$ : vols$ ,ondon7 ?outledge, 6CC9$ (Jmpel, ?$ @Die V4egegnungstraditionN von &amre$A Pages 6>B!;8 in !austeine "i"lischer Theologie7 Festga"e f2r &. /ohannes !otter#ec, Dum <?. &e"urtstag darge"r. %on seinen ch2lern$ 444 9=$ (^ln7 %anstein, 6CBB$ Bibliography 6;9 ,N%eureu*, Conrad D$ @The +garitic and the 4iblical ?ephaim$A HTR ;B H6CB>I7 :;9!B>$ ,abat, ?enL$ 'e +oGme "a"ylonien de la cr4ation$ Paris7 Adrien!&aissonneuve, 6C29$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ @Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity$A /( 66 H6C9BI7 6!6>$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ @1ilgamesh in ,iterature and Art7 The 'econd and irst &illenia$A Pages 2B!9: in 1onsters and Demons in the Ancient and 1edie%al 8orlds= +apers +resented in Honor of Edith +orada$ Ddited by Ann D$ arkas, Prudence <$ %arper and Dvelyn 4$ %arrison$ &ainE on ?hine7 P$ von `a! bern, 6C8B$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ @.ew Dvidence for the irst ,ine of Atrahasis$A Or 28 H6C;CI7 922!28$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ !a"ylonian 8isdom 'iterature$ <*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C;=$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ and Alan ?$ &illard$ Atra$hasis= The !a"ylonian tory of the Flood$ <*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C;C$ ,ambert, )ilfred 1$ and 'imon 4$ Parker$ Enuma Elish= The !a"ylonian Epic of (reation$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, 6C;;$ ,angdon, 'tephen$ The Epic of &ilgamish$ P4' 6=K2$ Philadelphia7 +niversity &useum, 6C6B$ ,apinkivi, Pir#o$ The umerian acred 1arriage in the 'ight of (omparati%e E%i$ dence$ %elsinki7 %elsinki +niversity Press, :==>$ ,eaman, <liver$ A%erroes and His +hilosophy$ ?ichmond, 5a$7 CurEon, 6C88$ ,eeuw, 1$ van der$ Religion in Essence and 1anifestation$ Philadelphia7 Pennsyl! vania +niversity Press, 6C22$ ,emche, .iels Peter$ The (anaanites and Their 'and= The Tradition of the (anaan$ ites$ 'heffield7 -'<T Press, 6CC6$ ,etellier, ?obert Ignatius$ Day in 1amre, Night in odom= A"raham and 'ot in &enesis 9B and 9C$ 4ibInt 6=$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC9$ ,evin, Isidor$ @Dtana$ Die keilschriftlichen 4elege einer DrEFhlung$A Fa"ula 8 H6C;;I7 6!;2$ ,ewis, Theodore -$ (ults of the Dead in Ancient )srael and *garit$ %'& 2C$ At! lanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8C$ ,ichtheim, &iriam$ Ancient Egyptian 'iterature= A !oo, of Readings$ 2 vols$ 4erke! ley7 +niversity of California Press, 6CB2!B8$ ,oewenstamm, 'amuel D$ @A Didactic +garitic DrinkersN 4urles"ue$A Pages 2;C!86 in (omparati%e tudies in !i"lical and Ancient Oriental 'iteratures$ A<AT :=>$ .eukirchen!5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6C8=$ ,ong, 4urke <$ : 0ings$ <T, 6=$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC6$ ,uEEatto, '$ D$ The !oo, of &enesis= A (ommentary "y haDa'$ Translated by Daniel A$ (lein$ -erusalem7 -ason Aronson Inc$, 6CC8$
Bibliography 6;; &acDonald, 'cott$ @Augustine$A Pages 69>!B6 in A (ompanion to +hilosophy in the 1iddle Ages$ Ddited by -orge -$ D$ 1racia and Timothy 4$ .oone$ 4lack! well Companions to Philosophy$ <*ford7 4lackwell, :==2$ &acintosh, A$ A$ A (ritical and Exegetical (ommentary on Hosea$ ICC$ Ddinburgh7 T_T Clark, 6CCB$ &ac(enEie, ?oderick A$ $, '-, @The Divine 'olilo"uies in 1enesis$A (!- 6B H6C99I7 :BB!8;$ &ackie, -$ ,$ The 1iracle of Theism$ <*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C8:$ &aimonides, &oses$ &uide of the +erplexed$ Translated by 'hlomo Pines with introduction by ,eo 'trauss$ Chicago7 +niversity of Chicago, 6C;2$ &alamat, Abraham$ @The 'ecret Council and Prophetic Involvement in &ari and Israel$A Pages :26!2; in +rophetie und geschichtliche 8ir,lich,eit im alten )srael7 Festschrift f2r iegfried Herrmann Dum <>. &e"urtstag. Ddited by ?$ ,i! wak and '$ )agner$ 'tuttgart7 )$ (ohlhammer, 6CC6$ &argalit, 4aruch$ The *garitic +oem of A-HT$ 4erlin7 de 1ruyter, 6C8C$ &artin!Achard, ?obert$ @+n e*Lg]te devant 1en]se 2:$:2!22$A Pages >6!;: in Analyse structurale et ex4gGse "i"li5ue= Essais d.interpr4tation. ?$ 4arthes et al$ .euchctel7 Delachau* et .iestlL, 6CB:$ &cCarter, (yle$ @Dvil 'pirit of 1od$A Pages 26C!:= in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ &cCarter, (yle$ 9 amuel= A Ne# Translation$ A4 8$ 1arden City, ./7 Double! day, 6C8=$ &cague, 'allie$ 1etaphorical Theology= 1odels of &od in Religious 'anguage$ Philadelphia7 ortress, 6C8:$ &c(enEie, -ohn ,$ @4iblical Anthropomorphism and the %umaneness of 1od$A Pages 6B9!8C in Religion and the HumaniDing of 1an= +lenary Addresses$ Dd! ited by -ames &$ ?obinson$ :d ed$ )aterloo, <nt7 Council on the 'tudy of ?eligion, 6CB2$ &c(enEie, 'teven ,$ @The -acob Tradition in %osea 6:7>!9$A 7T 2; H6C8;I7 266! ::$ &eier, 'amuel A$ @Destroyer$A Pages :>=!>> in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ &eier, 'amuel$ @Angel HII$A Pages >9!9= in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ &ettinger, Tryggve$ @'eraphim$A Pages B>:!>> in Dictionary of Deities and De$ mons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ &ettinger, Tryggve$ @Cherubim$A Pages 68C!C: in Dictionary of Deities and De$ mons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Bibliography 6;B &iller, Patrick D$ The Di%ine 8arrior in Early )srael$ %'& 9$ Cambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB2$ &iller, )illiam T$ 1ysterious Encounters at 1amre and /a""o,$ 4-' 9=$ Chicago7 'cholars Press, 6C8>$ &oberly, ?$ )$ ,$ &enesis 9:$>?$ <T1$ 'heffield7 -'<T, 6CC:$ &oor, -ohannes C$ de$ @The Crisis of Polytheism in ,ate 4ronEe +garit$A Pages 6!:= in (rises and +erspecti%es$ -$ C$ de &oor, .$ Poulssen and 1$ I$ Davies$ Ott :>$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6C8;$ &oor, -ohannes C$ de$ The Rise of Hah#ism= The Roots of )sraelite 1onotheism$ ,euven7 +niversity Press, 6CC=$ &oore, Clifford %erschel$ Religious Thought of the &ree,s$ Cambridge7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6C6;$ &oran, )illiam ,$ @The 4abylonian -ob$A Pages 68:!:== in The 1ost 1agic 8ord= Essays on !a"ylonian and !i"lical 'iterature$ Ddited by )illiam ,$ &oran and ?onald '$ %endel$ )ashington7 Catholic 4iblical Association, :==:$ &oran, )illiam$ @.ew Dvidence from &ari on the %istory of Prophecy$A !i" 9= H6C;CI7 69!9;$ &orse, Christopher$ @?aising 1odNs Dyebrows7 'ome urther Thoughts on the Concept of the Analogia idei$A *-R 2B H6C86I7 2C!>C$ &ullen, D$ Theodore, -r$ The Di%ine (ouncil in (anaanite and Early He"re# 'itera$ ture$ %'& :>$ Chico, Calif7 'cholars Press, 6C8=$ &Jller, %$!P$ @alsehood$A Pages 2:9!:; in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ &ussies, 1erald$ @Identification and 'elf!identification of 1ods in Classical and %ellenistic Times$A Pages 6!68 in 0no#ledge of &od in the &raeco$Roman 8orld$ Ddited by ?$ van den 4roek, T$ 4aarda and -$ &ansfield$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6C88$
.eusner, -acob$ The )ncarnation of &od= The (haracter of Di%inity in Formati%e /udaism$ Philadelphia7 ortress, 6C88$ .iehr, %erbert$ @%ost of %eaven$A Pages >:8!2= in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ .ielsen, (ai$ @<n &ucking Around About 1od7 'ome ðodological Ani! madversions$A )/+R 6; H6C8>I7 666!::$ .ielsen, (ai$ @)ittgensteinian ideism$A +hil >: H6C;BI7 6C6!:=C$ .ielsen, (ai$ (ontemporary (riti5ues of Religion$ ,ondon7 &ac&illan, 6CB6$
<lmo ,ete, 1regorio del and 'anmartGn, -oa"Gn$ A Dictionary of the *garitic 'anguage in the Alpha"etic Tradition$ Translated by )ilfred 1$ D$ )atson$ %d< ;B$ ,eiden7 4rill, :==2$ Bibliography 6;8 Parker, 'imon 4$ @Council$A Pages :=>!8 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Parker, 'imon 4$ @The 'ons of HtheI 1odHsI$A Pages BC>!8== in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Parker, 'imon 4$ The +re$!i"lical Narrati%e Tradition$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6C8C$ Parker, 'imon 4$ *garitic Narrati%e +oetry$ '4,)A) C$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CCB$ Pasnau, ?obert, and Christopher 'hields$ The +hilosophy of A5uinas$ )estview %istories of Philosophy$ 4oulder, Co$7 )estview Press, :==>$ Peek!%orn, &argret$ @V<ffenbarungsNphFnomenologische und Voffenba! rungsNtheologische 4eobachtungen an der 4et!Dl!1eschichte H1en :8, 6=! ::I und an anderen Theophanieschilderungen$A Pages 2B!98 in Offen"a$ rungsanspruch und Fundamentalistische 7ersuchung$ MD 6:C$ reiburg7 %er! der, 6CC6$ Penner, %ans %$ )mpasse and Resolution= A (riti5ue of the tudy of Religion$ .ew /ork7 Peter ,ang, 6C8C$ Poliakoff, &ichael$ (om"at ports in the Ancient 8orld$ .ew %aven7 /ale +ni! versity Press, 6C8B$ Pope, &arvin$ @A Divine 4an"uet at +garit$A Pages 6B=!:=2 in The *se of the Old Testament in the Ne# and Other Essays= tudies in Honor of 8illiam Fran,lin tinespring$ Ddited by -$ &$ Dfird$ Durham7 Duke +niversity Press, 6CB:$ Pressler, Carolyn$ /oshua, /udges, and Ruth$ )C$ ,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, :==:$ Preus, -$ 'amuel$ @Anthropomorphism and 'pinoEaNs Innovations$A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 6!8$ Provan, Iain )$ 9 and : 0ings$ <T1$ 'heffield7 'heffield Academic Press, 6CCB$ Pury, Albert de$ @-akob am -abbok, 1en 2:,:2!22 im ,icht einer alt!iranischen DrEFhlung$A T6 29 H6CBCI7 6C!::$ Pury, Albert de$ @'ituer le cycle de -acob7 Muel"ues rLfle*ions, vingt!cin" ans plus tard$A Pages :62!>: in tudies in the !oo, of &enesis$ Ddited by AndrL )Lnin$ ,euven7 ,euven +niversity Press, :==6$
?ad, 1erhard von$ &enesis= A (ommentary$ Translated by -ohn %$ &arks$ Phila! delphia7 )estminster, 6C;6$ ?ainey, Anson$ @A Canaanite in +garit$A )E/ 62 H6C;2I7 >2!>9$ ?ainey, Anson$ @+garit and the Canaanites Again$A )E/ 6> H6C;>I7 6=6$ ?einer, Drica$ Hour Th#arts in +ieces, Hour 1ooring Rope (ut= +oetry from !a"ylo$ nia and Assyria$ Ann Arbor, &ich$7 +niversity of &ichigan Press, 6C89$ ?ice, 1ene$ Nations under &od= A (ommentary on the !oo, of 9 0ings$ 1rand ?ap! ids7 Derdmans, 6CC=$ Bibliography 6;C ?obinson, %$ )$ @The Council of /ahweh$A /T >9 H6C>>I7 696!9B$ ?odd, C$ '$ The !oo, of /o"$ DC$ ,ondon7 Dpworth, 6CC=$ ?ofL, Ale*ander$ The !elief in Angels in the !i"le and in Early )srael$ -erusalem7 &akor, 6CBC Pin %ebrewQ$ ?^mer, Thomas C$ @?echerches actuelles sur le cycle dNAbraham$A Pages 6BC! :6: in tudies in the !oo, of &enesis$ Ddited by AndrL )Lnin$ ,euven7 ,eu! ven +niversity Press, :==6$ ?^mer, Thomas, and Albert de Pury, @Deuteronomistic %istoriography HD%I7 %istory of ?esearch and Debated Issues$A Pages :>!6>6 in )srael (onstructs )ts History= Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research$ Ddited by Al! bert de Pury, Thomas ?^mer, and -ean Daniel &acchi$ 'heffield7 'heffield Academic Press, :===$ ?oss, -ames$ @?eligious ,anguage$A Pages 6=;!29 in +hilosophy of Religion= A &uide to the u"Ject$ Ddited by 4rian Davies$ )ashington, D$C$7 1eorge! town, 6CC8$ ?ouillard, %$ @?ephaim$A Pages ;C:!B== in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ ?uiten, -$ van and &$ 5ervenne$ tudies in the !oo, of )saiah$ ,euven7 ,euven +niversity Press, 6CCB$ ?uppert, ,othar$ @%erkunft und 4edeutung der -akob!Tradition bei %osea$A !i" 9: H6CB6I7 >88!9=>$
'acks, ?obert D$ A (ommentary on the !oo, of &enesis$ A.DT' ;$ ,ewiston, .$/$7 Ddwin &ellen, 6CC=$ 'aggs, %$ )$ $ The Encounter #ith the Di%ine in 1esopotamia and )srael$ -,C?' 6:$ ,ondon7 Athlone Press, 6CB8$ 'anders, Paul$ The +ro%enance of Deuteronomy ;:$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC;$ 'arna, .ahum$ &enesis @ !e$reshit= The Traditional He"re# Text #ith Ne# /+ TranslationA(ommentary$ -P'TC$ Philadelphia7 -P', 6C8C$ 'asson, -ack &$ @lora, auna and &inerals$A Pages 282!>9: in Ras hamra +ar$ allels 6$ An<r >C$ ?ome, Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6CB>$ 'asson, -ack &$ @?eflections on an +nusual Practice ?eported in A?& 3 >$A Or >2 H6CB>I7 >=>!6=$ 'auren, %erbert T$ @.ammu and Dnki$A Pages 6C8!:=8 in The Ta"let and the croll= Near Eastern tudies in Honor of 8illiam 8. Hallo$ Ddited by &ark D$ Cohen et al$ 4ethesda, &d$7 CD,, 6CC2$ 'avignac, -$ de$ @,es 'eraphim$A 7T :: H6CB:I7 2:=!:9$ 'choen, Ddward$ @Anthropomorphic Concepts of 1od$A )/+R :; H6CC=I7 6:2!2C$ 'eebass, %orst$ &enesis$ 2 vols$ .eukirchen!5luyn7 .eukirchener, 6CC;!:===$ 'egal, ?obert A$ @TylorNs Anthropomorphic Theory of ?eligion$A Religion :9 H6CC9I7 :2!2=$ Bibliography 6B= 'haffer, Aaron$ @'umerian 'ources of Tablet 3II of the Dpic of 1ilgame$A Ph$D$ diss$, +niversity of Pennsylvania, 6C;2$ 'hapiro, David '$ @Possible Deus %omoZA /udaism 2: H6C82I7 298!;9$ 'hearman, 'usan ,ee and -ohn 4riggs Curtis, @Divine!%uman Conflicts in the <ld Testament$A /NE :8 H6C;CI7 :26!>:$ 'ilman, /ochanan$ +hilosopher and +rophet= /udah Ha'e%i, the 0uDari, and the E%o$ lution of His Thought$ Albany7 'tate +niversity of .ew /ork, 6CC9$ 'mart, .inian$ @1odNs 4ody$A *-R 2B H6C86I7 96!9C$ 'mith, &ark '$ @Divine orm and 'iEe in +garitic and Pre!e*ilic Israelite ?elig! ion$A 6A8 6== H6C88I7 >:>!:B$ 'mith, &ark '$ @?emembering 1od7 Collective &emory in Israelite ?eligion$A (!- ;> H:==:I7 ;26!96$ 'mith, &ark '$ The Early History of &od= Hah#eh and the Other Deities in Ancient )srael$ :d ed$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, :==:$ 'mith, &ark '$ The Origins of !i"lical 1onotheism$ <*ford7 <*ford +niversity Press, :==6$ 'mith, &ark '$ The *garitic !aal (ycle$ 5T'up 99$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC>$ 'oden, )olfram von$ @Die +nterweltsvision eines assyrischen (ronprinEen$A 6A >2 H6C2;I7 6!26$ 'oden, )olfram von$ @Dtemenanki vor Asarhaddon nach der DrEFhlung vom Turmbau Eu 4abel und dem Drra!&ythos$A *F 2 H6CB6I7 :92!;2$ 'oggin, Alberto$ /udges= A (ommentary$ Translated by -ohn 4owden$ <T,$ Philadelphia7 )estminster Press, 6C86$ 'oldt, )$ %$ van$ @The Topography and the 1eographical %oriEon of the City! 'tate of +garit$A Pages 2;2!8: in *garit and the !i"le= +roceedings of the )nter$ national ymposium on *garit and the !i"le, 1anchester, eptem"er 9CC:$ Dd! ited by 1eorge -$ 4rooke, Adrian %$ )$ Curtis and -ohn $ %ealey$ &Jn! ster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC>$ 'parks, (enton ,$ Ancient Texts for the tudy of the He"re# !i"le= A &uide to the !ac,ground 'iterature$ Peabody, &ass$7 %endrickson, :==9$ 'peiser, Dphraim A$ &enesis= )ntroduction, Translation, and Notes$ 2d ed$ A4 6$ 1arden City, ./7 Doubleday, 6CBC$ 'tump, Dleonore, and .orman (retEmann$ @Dternity$A Pages 289!>=C in Read$ ings in the +hilosophy of Religion$ Ddited by 4aruch A$ 4rody$ :d ed$ Dngle! wood Cliffs, .$-$7 Prentice %all, 6CC:$ ?epr$ from The /ournal of +hilosophy B8 H6C86I7 >:C!92$ 'weeney, &arvin A$ )saiah 9$;C= 8ith an )ntroduction to +rophetic 'iterature$ <T, 6;$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC;$ 'weeney, &arvin A$ The T#el%e +rophets$ Ddited by David )$ Cotter$ 4er<l$ Collegeville7 ,iturgical Press, :===$ 'weet, )aldo D$ port and Recreation in Ancient &reece$ <*ford7 <*ford +niver! sity Press, 6C8B$ 'winburne, ?ichard$ The (oherence of Theism$ <*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6CBB$ Bibliography 6B6 Thompson, ?$ Campbell$ The De%ils and E%il pirits of !a"ylonia$ : vols$ ,ondon7 ,uEac, 6C=>$ Thompson, ?$ Campbell$ The Epic of &ilgamesh= Text, Transliteration, and Notes$ <*ford7 Clarendon Press, 6C2=$ Thureau!Dangin, $ Die sumerischen und a,,adischen 0Fnigsinschriften. 5A4 6$ ,eipEig7 -$ C$ %inrichs, 6C=B$ Thureau!Dangin, $ 'es (ylindres de &ud4a d4cou%erts par Ernest de arDec R Tello TC, 8$ Paris7 P$ 1euthner, 6C:9$ Tigay, -effrey %$ @)as There an Integrated 1ilgamesh Dpic in the <ld 4abylo! nian PeriodZA Pages :69!68 in Essays on the Ancient Near East in 1emory of /aco" /oel Fin,elstein$ Ddited by &$ de -ong Dllis$ %amden, Conn7 Archon, 6CBB$ Tigay, -effrey %$ The E%olution of the &ilgamesh Epic$ )auconda, Il7 4olchaEy! Carducci, :==:$ Toorn, (arel van der$ Family Religion in !a"ylonia, *garit, and )srael= (ontinuity and (hange in the Forms of Religious 'ife. ,eiden7 4rill, 6CC;$ Toorn, (arel van der$ @1od HII$A Pages 29:!;9 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ Ddited by (arel van der Toorn, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Toorn, (arel van der, 4ob 4ecking, and Pieter )$ van der %orst, eds$ Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the !i"le$ :d ed$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ Tsevat, &$ @Two <ld Testament 'tories and their %ittite Analogues$A /AO 6=2 H6C82I7 2:6!:;$
+ffenheimer, 4en#amin$ @&yth and ?eality in Ancient Israel$A Pages 629!;8 in The Origins and Di%ersity of Axial Age (i%iliDations$ Ddited by '$ .$ Disen! stadt$ Albany7 'tate +niversity of .ew /ork Press, 6C8;$
5an 'eters, -ohn$ A"raham in History and Tradition$ .ew %aven7 /ale +niversity Press, 6CB9$ 5an 'eters, -ohn$ +rologue to History= The Hah#ist as Historian in &enesis$ ,ouis! ville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CC:$ 5au*, ?oland de$ @,es chLrubins et lNarche dNalliance, les sphin* gardiens et les trnes divins dans lNancient <rient$A Pages :26!9C in !i"le et Orient$ Ddited by ?oland de 5au*$ Paris7 Cerf, 6C;B$ 5irolleaud, Charles$ 'a '4gende +h4nicienne de Danel= texte cun4iforme alpha"4ti5ue a%ec transcription et commentaire, pr4c4d4 d.une introduction R l.4tude de la ci%i$ lisation d.*garit$ Paris7 ,ibrairie <rientaliste Paul 1euthner, 6C2;$ 5ogelEang, &arianne D$ Bin s]ar dadme4 7 Edition and Analysis of the A,,adian AnDu +oem$ 1roningen7 'ty*, 6C88$
)aismann, riedrich$ @)ittgensteinNs ,ecture on Dthics7 II7 .otes on Talks with )ittgenstein$A +hil Re%ie# B> H6C;9I7 6:!6;$ Bibliography 6B: )alls, .eal %$ The &oddess Anat in *garitic 1yth$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC:$ )alsh, -erome$ 9 0ings$ Ddited by David )$ Cotter$ 4er<l$ Collegeville, &inn7 ,iturgical Press, 6CC;$ )altke, 4ruce ($ &enesis= A (ommentary$ 1rand ?apids7 `ondervan, :==6$ )enham, 1ordon -$ &enesis 9<$>?$ )4C :$ Dallas7 )ord 4ooks, 6CC>$ )erblowsky, ?$ -$ `wi$ @Anthropomorphism$A Pages 688!C= in Encyclopedia /udaica$ Ddited by $ 'kolnik$ :d ed$ Detroit7 &acmillan, :==B$ )erblowsky, ?$ -$ `wi$ @Anthropomorphism$A Pages 26;!:= in Encyclopedia of Religion$ Ddited by &ircea Dliade$ .ew /ork7 &acmillan, 6C8B$ )estermann, Claus$ &enesis 9:$;<= A (ommentary$ Translated by -ohn -$ 'cul! lion$ &inneapolis7 Augsburg, 6C89$ )ettstein, %oward$ @Theological Impressionism$A /udaism >C H:===I7 626!9:$ )evers, -ohn )illiam$ Notes on the &ree, Text of &enesis$ Atlanta7 'cholars Press, 6CC2$ )harton, -ames A$ /o"$ )C$ ,ouisville7 )estminster -ohn (no*, 6CCC$ )hitt, )illiam$ @The -acob Traditions in %osea and Their ?elation to 1enesis$A 6A8 6=2 H6CC6I7 68!>2$ )hybray, ?$ .orman$ /o"$ 'heffield7 'heffield Academic Press, 6CC8$ )illiams, Charles Allyn$ Oriental Affinities of the 'egend of the Hairy Anchorite$ +rbana7 +niversity of Illinois Press, 6C:9!:;$ )indsor, 1wyneth$ @Theophany7 Traditions of the <ld Testament$A Theology B9 H6CB:I7 >66!6;$ )iseman, Donald -$ @A .ew Te*t of the 4abylonian Poem of the ?ighteous 'ufferer$A Ant 2= H6C8=I7 6=6!6=B$ )ittgenstein, ,udwig$ @)ittgensteinNs ,ecture on Dthics7 I7 A ,ecture on Dth! ics$A +hil Re%ie# B> H6C;9I7 2!66$ )ittgenstein, ,udwig$ +hilosophical )n%estigations$ 2d edition$ Translated by 1$D$&$ Anscombe$ <*ford7 4asil 4lackwell, 6C98$ )ittgenstein, ,udwig$ Tractatus 'ogico$+hilosophicus$ Translated by C$ ($ <gden$ &ineola, ./7 Dover, 6CCC$ )itEel, P$ &aurus$ @.och einmal die sumerische %immelsstier!Dpisode$A Pages >9!;8 in 0eilschriftliche 1iscellanea$ An<r ;$ ?ome7 Pontificium institutum biblicum, 6C22$ )ohlstein, %ermann$ @`u einigen altisraelitischen 5olksvorstellungen von Toten! und Ahnengeistern in biblischer aberlieferung$A 6R&& 6C H6C;BI7 2>8!99$ )olfers, David$ Deep Things out of Dar,ness= The !oo, of /o"$ 1rand ?apids7 Derdmans, 6CC9$ )olfson, %arry A$ @The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and &aimonides$A HTR 26 H6C28I7 696!B2$ ?epr$ pages 67>99!BB in tudies in the History of +hilosophy and Religion$ Ddited by I$ Twersky and 1$ %$ )il! liams$ Cambridge, &ass$7 %arvard +niversity Press, 6CB2$ Bibliography 6B2 )olterstorff, .icholas$ @1od Dverlasting$A Pages 2;B!8> in Readings in the +hi$ losophy of Religion= An Analytic Approach$ Ddited by 4aruch A$ 4rody$ :d ed$ Dnglewood Cliffs, .$-$7 Prentice %all, 6CC:$ ?epr$ from pages 686!:=2 in &od and the &ood$ Ddited by Clifton -$ <rlebeke and ,ewis 4$ 'medes$ 1rand ?apids, &ich$; Derdmans, 6CB9$ )right, David$ Ritual in Narrati%e= The Dynamics of Feasting, 1ourning, and Re$ taliation Rites in the *garitic Tale of A5hat$ )inona ,ake, Ind$7 Disenbrauns, :===$ )yatt, .icolas$ @The ?eligion of +garit7 An <verview$A Pages 9:C!89 in Hand$ "oo, of *garitic tudies$ Ddited by )ilfred 1$ D$ )atson and .icolas )yatt$ ,eiden7 4rill, 6CCC$ )yatt, .icolas$ 1yths of +o#er= A tudy of Royal 1yth and )deology in *garitic and !i"lical Tradition$ &Jnster7 +garit!5erlag, 6CC;$ )yschogrod, &ichael$ @A .ew 'tage in -ewish!Christian Dialogue$A /udaism 26K2 H6C8:I7 299!;9$
3ella, Paolo$ @,Nepisode de Dnil et (othar H0T* 6$6B PY(TA 6BQ v 6!26I et 1en$ 6876!6;$A 7T :8 H6CB8I7 >82!88$
(Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series) Edward W. Klink III-The Sheep of The Fold - The Audience and Origin of The Gospel of John - Cambridge University Press (2007) PDF
(Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series) Edward W. Klink III-The Sheep of The Fold - The Audience and Origin of The Gospel of John - Cambridge University Press (2007) PDF