P.J.

Harland

The Value of Human Life

A Study of the Story of the Flood
(Genesis 6-9)
THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
 SUPPLEMENTS
TO

VETUS TESTAMENTUM
EDITED BY
THE BOARD OF THE QUARTERLY

J.A. EMERTON - PHYLLIS A. BIRD - W.L. HOLLADAY

A. VAN DER KOOI] - A. LEMAIRE - B. OTZEN - R. SMEND
J.A. SOGGIN - J.C. VANDERKAM - M. WEINFELD
H.G.M. WILLIAMSON

VOLUMELXN
 THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
A STUDY OF THE STORY OF THE FLOOD
(GENESIS 6-9)

BY

P.]. HARLAND

EJ. BRILL
LEIDEN . NEW YORK· KOLN
1996
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee
on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Biblical quotations when taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible copyright
1946, 1952 and 1971 are used by kind permission of HarperCollins Publishers Ltd.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Harland, P.].
The value of human life : a study of the story of the flood
(Genesis 6-9) I by P.]. Harland.
p. cm. - (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, ISSN 0083-5889 ;
v.64)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9004105344 (alk. paper)
1. Deluge. 2. Bible. O.T. Genesis VI-IX-Criticism,
interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series.
BS410.v452 vol. 64BS658
221 s-dc20
[222'.1106] 95-53246
CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahtne

[Vetus testatnentUIn I Suppletnents]
Supplements to Vetus testamentum. - Leiden; New York;
Kaln : Brill.
Friiher Schriftentreihe
Reihe Supplements zu: Vetus Testamentum
ISSN 0083-5889
NE:HST
Vol. 64. Harland, Peter].: The value of human life. - 1996
Harland, Peter J.:
The value of human life: a study of the story of the flood
(Genesis 6-9) / by P.]. Harland. - Leiden; New York; Kaln :
Brill, 1996
(Supplements to Vetus testamentum; Va!. 64)
ISBN 9o-D4-1 0534-4

ISSN 0083-5889
ISBN 90 04 10534 4
© Copyright 1996 by EJ. Brill, £eiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part oj this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in a'!JI form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission foom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal

use is granted by EJ. Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directlY to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

To my parents
 CONTENTS

Preface .............................................................................................. IX

Abbreviations .................................................................................... XI

Introduction....................................................................................... 1

I. The Causes of the Flood ........................................................ 21

II. The Righteousness of Noah ................................................... 45
III. God's Repentance in Genesis 6:6 .......................................... 71
IV. Creation, Uncreation and Re-creation .................................. 89
V. Restoration .......... ............ ................................ ............ .......... 113
VI. Genesis 9: 1-7 ................ ......................................................... 145
VII. The Image of God ............ ........ ...................... ...................... 177

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 211

Bibliography ........................................................................ ,......... 215

Index of Modern Authors ............................................................. 229

Index of Biblical References ......................................................... 233

 PREFACE

This book is a revision of a dissertation which was submitted for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Durham in 1992.
I should like to thank my supervisor the Reverend Dr. R.W.L. Moberly
for his guidance in helping me with my work, and the Reverend Dr.
A. Gelston for his advice at various stages. Thanks are also due to the
Reverend Professor J. Barton for acting as external examiner.
I am particularly grateful to Dr. J. Warner of the Department
of Physiology and Pharmacology at the University of Southampton
for allowing me access to computer facilities and for her advice on
various technical matters. Thanks are due to Mrs T. Cam who typed
part of the manuscript. I should like to thank the staff of EJ. Brill for
publishing the book and Professor A. Lemaire for his suggesions for
revisions of the original dissertation. Staff at the Libraries of King's
College, London, the University of Durham, St.John's College, Dur-
ham, the University of Southampton and the British Library have
given me great help in my work.
I should also like to thank the many friends who have helped
and encouraged me, in particular my parents, the Reverend Canon
H.WJ. and Mrs Harland, to whom this book is dedicated.
 ABBREVIATIONS

ANET J.B. Pritchard, (ed), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament, (3rd edition, Princeton, 1969)
ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDB F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1906)
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BN Biblische Notizen
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft von Alten und Neuen Testa-
ment
BZ Biblische Zeitschrifi
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarter[y
CQR Church Oyarter[y Review
CRB Cahiers de la Revue Biblique
Eo., Evangelical Oyarter[y
ET Expository Times
EvT Evangelische Theologie
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
GK Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late
E. Kautzsch (2nd edition, Oxford, 1910)
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IDB G.A. Buttrick, (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible (Nash-
ville, 1962)
IDBS K. Crim, (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplemen-
tary Volume (Nashville, 1976)
IKZ Internationale Katholische Zeitschrifi
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
jAARS Supplement to the JAAR
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical 1heological Sociery
JJS Journal ofJewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
XII ABBREVIATIONS

JNSL Journal oj Northwest Semitic Languages

JQR Jewish QyarterlY Review
JSNTSS Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supple-
ment Series
JSOT Journal for the Study oj the Old Testament
JSOTSS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series
JSPSS Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supple-
ment Series
JSS Journal oj Semitic Studies
JTS Journal oj Theological Studies (New Series)
KD Kerygma und Dogma
LXX Septuagint
NEB New English Bible (2nd edition, Oxford, 1970)
NIV New International Version (3rd edition, London, 1984)
NRT La Nouvelle Revue Thiologique
OTS Oudtestamentische Studiin
RB Revue Biblique
RSV Revised Standard Version (2nd edition, London, 1971)
5JT Scottish Journal oj Theology
ST Studia 1heologica
SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
TB 1jndale Bulletin
TWAT GJ. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, (eds.), 1heologisches
Wiirterbuch zum Allen Testament (Stuttgart 1970-) =
7DOT Theological Dictionary oj the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
1974-)
TG Theologie und Glaube
THAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann, (eds.), Theologisches Hand-
worterbuch zum Allen Testament (Munich and Zurich, 1971)
To.., Theologische Quartalschrifl
TP Theologie und Philosophie
rrz T rierer Theologische Zeitschrifl
G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, (eds.), Theologisches Wo'rterbuch
TWNT
zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1933-1979) =
7DNT Theological Dictionary oj the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
1964-1974)
TZ Theologische Zeitschrifl
VD Verbum Domini
VT Vetus Testamentum
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
WI] Westminster Theological Journal
 ABBREVIATIONS XIII

ZA W Zeitschrift for die alttestamentliche WlSsenschafl

;oK Zeitschrift for Theologie und Kirche
 INTRODUCTION

The story of the flood in Gen. 6-9 contains a paradox. In an account

of the destruction of the world and everything in it the story sets out
Israel's understanding of the worth of human life, and the prohibition
of murder. In the aftermath of the flood, the command not to kill is
given special prominence (Gen. 9:5-6). The story places the question
of the value of human life in a suggestive light. The task will be to
offer a reading of the text which develops this important but so far
largely neglected theme.
A special note needs to be made concerning terminology. In Eng-
lish we frequently speak of the 'sacrosanctity' of human life. Hebrew
does not use the root iDip in this respect, and it would probably be
better to talk of the 'value' oflife. 'Value' is a more general and less
loaded term. The main question which we shall try to answer is, what
it is that the story of the flood tells us about the value of human life
in the eyes of God? Several important themes and aspects of the story
will be considered in the course of the discussion. The introduction
will deal with the nature of the material, source critical questions and
methodology, since recently there has been much discussion as to the
appropriate ways of reading the Old Testament. The first chapter
will focus on the causes of the deluge, in particular violence, since the
topic of this book is presented at the outset of the story. The next
chapter asks to what extent Noah is exempt from the general depic-
tion of humanity in these verses; that is how Noah's relationship with
God is correct in contrast to the situation of the rest of humanity
which is described in chapter 1. Having looked at the human side of
the story, Chapter 3 discusses God's regret at the creation of man
(Gen. 6:6). Both chapters 2 and 3 examine how God relates to peo-
ple. The following chapter will move to a study of the flood itself, and
will contain a detailed analysis of the theme of creation, uncreation
and re-creation, which demonstrates the absolute sovereignty of God
over human life. Mter describing the punishment, Chapter 5 exam-
ines the promises of God never to send another deluge; these pledges
are the basis for the future safety of humanity. The promises which
God makes are not without implications for human behaviour, and
Chapter 6 will examine how the new era seeks to safeguard human
life. Finally, in Chapter 7 we shall examine the imago Dei in the
context of Gen. 9. This will be the climax of the study and it is the
most important issue which we are facing. The conclusion will bring
2 INTRODUCTION

together the themes which have been discussed. The originality of

the study will be found in its examination of the question of the value
of human life in Gen. 6-9 and in the particular way in which the text,
with its J and P elements, is handled.

1. The Nature oj the Material

Until comparatively recent times the flood was regarded as the
record of an historical event which occurred in the early history of
the world. The story was taken at face value; Noah was an historical
figure and the events of the deluge occurred as the text describes
them. With the rise of the Enlightenment and our greater knowledge
of history and science, in particular the antiquity of man, our under-
standing of the first few chapters of Genesis has changed. The world
is much older than conceived possible by earlier generations, thus
making it hard to accept the Bible's chronology. Only a small minor-
ity now see Gen. 6-9 as a non-legendary historical account.
In response some have argued that the story of the flood in Gen-
esis is the record of a local, rather than universal event. Typical of
those who try to save some kind of historicity is B. Ramm. I He gives
a discussion of the details of the ark, and argues that such a vessel is
credible. For him the flood is not a myth; critical views ought to be
eschewed. He argues that a universal flood would be impossible and
that the events which are recorded in Gen. 6-9 narrate a local inun-
dation. He points out that for a universal flood, one which would
cover the Himalayas (29,000 feet), eight times all the water the earth
has now would be required. The Bible gives no hint of the creation of
the extra water. If the earth were under six miles of water, where
would it all drain? The enormous pressure of such water as well as
the salt, would destroy all marine and plant life. How could kanga-
roos and polar bears have come to Noah, and how could the inhab-
itants of the ark have cared for all those creatures? There would also
have been astronomical disturbances caused by the increased mass of
the earth, so as to send it on a different orbit around the sun.
However, attempts such as Ramm's to interpret the story as· an
historical account of a local flood do not convince, though his points
against a universal deluge are valid. In addition there are other prob-
lems with the story. The dimensions of the ark are too small for the
transport of all the animals as well as sufficient food for them for

I B. Ramm, Ike Christian VIeW oj Science and Scripture (London, 1955), pp. 156-
169.
 THE NATURE OF THE MATERIAL 3

more than a year. The survival of other races shows that the flood
did not encompass the entire globe; the civilisations of India and
China reveal no sign of interruption.
The problem with Ramm's approach is that he is trying to read
back a modem scientific view of the world into the Bible. The reason
that he fails is that like so many fundamentalists he is trying to prove
Scripture infallible, and he does not appreciate the fact that the ac-
count of the deluge is not a literal scientific account. The story is not
the record of a local flood. The text speaks of a universal, not a
partial flood: 6:17, 7:4,21,23, 8:21. All flesh died. As will be seen in
Chapter 4, there is also the specific undoing of the universal creation
of Gen. 1. Ramm's attempt to explain this by universality of experi-
ence, (compare Gen. 41:57, 1 Kgs.l8:l0) does not work. The pas-
sage is emphatic. In Gen. 7:4 the writer would hardly have thought
that everything which God had made included only part of the
world. As noted, a universal deluge would have been impossible.
Ramm has tried to assimilate a modem scientific outlook to the
Bible. Yet the text remains impervious to the questions which have
been raised and it would seem to be describing a different sort of
reality, that is the primeval era where events do not conform exactly
to the nature of our world. Ramm's approach is typical of those who
seek to establish a doctrine of inerrancy in the conflict with modem
critical approaches to the Bible. He wrongly assumes that the Biblical
writers could only interpret the account of the flood as a piece of
history. As we shall see, the truth of the story of the flood does not lie
in whether or not it happened, but in what it teaches about God and
man. 2
There is limited evidence from archaeology to support the occur-
rence of even a local flood, despite what some have claimed. Bright
argues that as far as Syria and Palestine are concerned, there is no
proof at all of a major flood. He discusses Jericho which was founded
near the beginning of the later stone age, and which shows a continu-
ous existence without any sign of flooding. 3
Evidence from Mesopotamia is likewise inconclusive. Excavations
in 1922 and 1934 by Woolley found in the Obeid Layer (a section of

2 J. Barr, Fundammtalism (London, 2nd edition, 1981), pp. 94fT. See also S.R.
Driver, The Book oJGenesis with Introduction and Notes (12th edition, London, 1926), pp.
XXXI-XLIII.
3 J. Bright, "Has Archaeology Found Evidence of the flood?", BA 5 (1942), pp.
55-62. See also M.E.L. Mallowan, "Noah's flood Reconsidered", Iraq 26 (1964),
pp. 62-82; R.L. Raikes, "The Physical Evidence for Noah's flood", Iraq 28 (1966),
.pp. 52-63.
4 INfRODUCTION

earth for the first half of the fourth millennium) a stratum of river
mud ten feet thick. Was this Noah's flood? Almost certainly not, since
the evidence was only partial; only two of the five pits which were
dug, yielded this information. The mud could have been caused by a
small local flood or earthquake. At Dr there is no evidence of a break
in the continuity of the culture which one would have expected had
there been a deluge. Local floods caused by events such as the
Euphrates bursting its banks, were a common feature of life at that
time, and it is easy to see how the story of a universal flood could
arise. Needless to say stories of the remains of the ark on Ararat are
unfounded. Hence it appears unlikely that there is any historical
recollection even of a local flood behind Gen. 6-9.
Having claimed that the events of Gen. 6-9 are not the record of
an historical event, whether of a universal or a local flood, what is the
nature of the material, and is the value of the story undermined if it
is not the record of an actual occurrence? Is it saga, legend or myth?
The problem is especially acute since there are no generally agreed
definitions for these terms. It is virtually impossible to come to an
accurate meaning of the term myth, and to distinguish it from other
words such as saga and legend. J. Rogerson discusses twelve sug-
gested meanings. Some he dismisses as false; others seek to under-
stand myth in terms of its origin, others in the light of its function.
Furthermore there is a large cultural gap between the twentieth cen-
tury and the time of the Old Testament, which must not necessarily
lead us to regard more primitive cultures as inferior. Rogerson suggests
that we should develop a literary and functional understanding of
myth, but he provides no watertight answers. He concludes by noting
the complexity of the question and the need to handle it with care. 4
For the purposes of this study the following definition will be
adopted. Myth is probably best described as a genre of universal
stories which are set in a different era, the primeval time, and which
are charged with ideological significance. Legend on the other hand
relates to an historical figure, such as Abraham, whose magnetic
personality attracts various stories. Legend attaches itself to a particu-
lar individual or place, whereas myth is universal. 5 Gen. 1-11 does

4 ]. Rogerson, Myth in Old Testament Interpretation, BZAW 134 (Berlin, 1974),

epecially pp. 174-189. See also B.S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament
(London, 1962); B. Otzen, H. Gottlieb and K. Jeppesen, Myths in the Old Testament
(London, 1980);]. Barr, "The Meaning of Mythology in Relation to the Old Testa-
ment", VT 9 (1959), pp. 1-10;]. Rogerson, 'Myth', in R. Coggins and L. Holden
(eds.), A Dictionary oj Biblical Interpretation (London, 1990), pp. 479-482. and J.
Macquarrie, God Talk: an Examination oj the Language and Logic oj 1heologY (London,
1967), pp. 168-191.
5 S.B. Frost, 1he Beginning oj the Promise (London, 1960), pp. 25-34.
 TIlE NATURE OF TIlE MATERIAL 5

not tell of historical individuals, and its events are universal in char-
acter since they concern the origin of mankind.
Unfortunately 'myth' has in popular language taken on a pejora-
tive sense in the modern world, and its use could be seen as devaluing
the material. If we call the stories of Gen. 1-11 myth, it might suggest
that God did not create the world, that man is neither made in the
image of God nor fallen, that God does not sustain the world and
that human life is of little value in his eyes.
An alternative would be to read the stories as parables. 6 Of course
this is a loose use of the word 'parable', since the parables of the New
Testament usually have one main point (though this is now debated),
and that cannot be said so easily of the narratives of Gen. 1-11.
Furthermore the parables of the New Testament are set in the age in
which they are told, whereas the stories of Gen. 1-11 are accounts of
the primeval era. The events of Gen. 1-11 contain mythical elements
alien to the parables of the New Testament, which describe typical
events within the experience of the ordinary person. It would perhaps
be better to describe the primeval stories as 'parabolic' rather than as
parables. Both Gen. 1-11 and the parables ofJesus have in common
a narrative form, the contents of which are fictitious, and whose
meaning is conveyed apart from questions of historicity. To express
the truths told by these accounts in philosophical or bare theological
concepts would be to depersonalise them. Rather these stories convey
to man personal knowledge about himself, his existence and his de-
pendence on God, his alienation from him and his need for deliver-
ance. Thielicke calls these passages "parabolic symbolism"-an ex-
position of human life itself. 7
Whilst the story of the flood is myth, this does not mean that the
message, nor the theological truths which it conveys, are to be treated
as any less valuable. It is what the flood teaches about the relation-
ship between God, man and the world which is important. In the
sense that it conveys truths such as these it is parabolic. The message
of the account of the deluge will form the substance of this book.
The significance of this material can be seen in the way a well
known traditional Ancient Near Eastern myth of a flood was retold
by the Israelites in the light of their own particular beliefs; the story of
Genesis is imbued with the theological outlook from which it is told.
Mythical material is particularly useful for understanding the beliefs

6 A. Richardson, Genesis 1-11 (London, 1953), p. 30.

7 H. Thielicke, How the World Began: Man in the First Chapters qf the Bible (philadel-
phia, 1961), p. 13.
6 INTRODUCTION

of Israel since by comparing the accounts of Genesis with those of

Israel's neighbours, the scholar can see more clearly how Israel pre-
sented her own perception of reality. Israel's understanding of her
covenant God caused her to repudiate some of her neighbour's
mythological concepts such as polytheism. 8 By taking familiar stories
Israel could demonstrate to the world that her beliefs were unique.
There have been many discussions concerning the relationship
between the account of Genesis and similar stories in Israel's neigh-
bouring cultures, in particular the Epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. 9
A full discussion of this aspect of the story of the flood lies outside our
field of vision for the present study. What is important to us, and we
shall note this as we proceed, is that the Hebrew account manifests
the distinctively Israelite theological perspective. For example there is
the practical monotheism of Genesis and the ethical cause of the
deluge: human sin.

2. TIe Source Critical Questions of Gen. 6-9

The critical orthodoxy of the division of the Pentateuch into four
sources,], E, D and P, has been the consensus since the time of
Wellhausen. The narrative of Gen. 1-11 is made up of] and P. S.R.
Driver is typical of those who seek to divide Gen. 6-9 into two stories.
In Gen. 6-9 he argues that P consists of 6:9-22, 7:6, 11, 13-16a, 17a,
18-21, 24, 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14-19, 9:1-17, 28-29 and the rest be-
longs to the Yahwistic source. 10 We shall be taking this division as the
norm for our study.
Most scholars follow this division and claim that the two accounts
have been thoroughly integrated. The strands can be disentangled by
distinguishing the different names for God: in] inil' and in P l:I'i1'?~.
Source criticism argues that there are two different chronologies in
the flood:] held that the flood lasted forty days and was preceded by
a week of waiting and followed by a two week period afterwards:
8: 10, 12. P on the other hand spreads the flood over a longer period

8 Childs (1962), p. 98.

9 See A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago, 1946);
w.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atrahasis:the Babylonian Story oj the Flood (Oxford,
1969); C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974), pp. 536-546, = Gen-
esis 1-11 (London, 1984), pp. 398-406; G. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, 1987), pp.
159-166; E. Fisher, "Gilgamesh and Genesis: the Flood Story in Context", CBQ32
(1970), pp. 392-403; A.R. Millard, "A New Babylonian Genesis Story", TB 18
(1967), pp. 3-18; W.L. Moran, "Atrahasis: the Babylonian Story of the Flood",
Biblica 52 (1971), pp. 51-61;J.H. Tigay, The Evolution oJthe Gilgamesh Epic (philadel-
phia, 1982).
10 Driver (1926), pp. iv-v.
 THE SOURCE CRITICAL Q,UESTIONS OF GEN. 6-9 7

of time, and all the references to dates and the 150 day period come
from him (8:3b-5). There seems to be a contradiction over the
number of animals which entered the ark: in 6:18-20 Noah is in-
structed to take one pair of each species into the ark, but in 7: 1-5 he
must have seven pairs of clean and one pair of unclean animals.
There are doublets: the command to enter the ark (7:1-5, 6:15-22);
the coming of the flood (7: 10, 11); the increase of the waters (7: 17b,
18); the abatement of the flood (8: 1,2b,3a); the drying of the earth
(I3b, 14) and the promise never to send another deluge (8:20-22, 9:8-
17). If the two sources are separated, they form all but continuous
narratives, with the cause of the flood, the entry into the ark, the rise
and fall of the waters and the promise not to destroy the earth again.
As both narrative threads have been so well preserved, it is likely that
they were in a fIxed form before they came to J and P. 11
It is usually said that P is precise, formal and lacking in vivid
detail, whereas J is viewed as a graphic popular tale with descriptive
genius (8:6-12) and anthropomorphism (6:6, (see Chapter 3) and
7:16b). The P account does not have the command to enter the ark,
the closing of the door, the opening of the window and the sending of
the birds. J does not describe the building of the ark, the landing of
the vessel nor the exit of the passengers. The omission of the sacrifIce
in P is thought to be due to the desire to emphasise that the cult
began with Moses on Sinai; the writer wishes to make a distinction
between a pre- and post-Sinai context. In P it is God's word concern-
ing the fall of the waters (8: 14-17) which tells Noah what he discovers
by experiment inJ (8:6-12).
More recently this consensus has come in for considerable criti-
cism. There have been those like RendtorfP 2 and Whybray13 who
have challenged the whole basis of the documentary hypothesis.
More specifIcally there have been some who have argued that the
attempt to separate two sources in the flood has failed; there is one
coherent account which is the work of one mind. Cassuto 14 and
Wenham 15 argue that there are no discrepancies in either chronology
or the number of animals. For example Wenham claims that the 40
days are part of the 150 day period of 7:24 and that the commands

II Westermann (1974)~ p. 531, = (1984), p. 394.

12 R. Rendtorff, Das {)fjerlieferungsgeschichte Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Ber-
lin, 1977), = The Problem of tk Process of Transmission in tk Pentateuch, jSOTSS 89
(Sheffield, 1990).
13 N. Whybray, The Making of tk Pentateuch: a Methodological Study, jSOTSS 53
(Sheffield, 1987).
14 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on tk Book of Genesis: Part 2 From Noah to Abraham
Gerusalem, 1964), especially pp. 43-45.
15 GJ. Wenham, "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative", IT 28 (1978), pp.
8 INTRODUCTION

of 7: 1-5 are a more specific form of the order to take one pair of
animals in 6:19. Cassuto l6 , Anderson 17 , and Wenham l8 also attempt
to find a complete palistrophic structure in the whole text.
Yet, as Emerton has shown, these arguments have failed to con-
vince. 19 For example to make his palistrophe balance Wenham has to
omit 6:5-8 which is a quite arbitrary move as the verses are an
integral part ofthe story. The statement of6:22 that Noah performed
all the commands of 6: 14-21, including the taking of one pair of each
species of animal, fits awkwardly before the order of 7: 1-4, where the
command to take animals on board comes again. Emerton notes that
the 40 days of 7:4, 12 are hard to fit with 8:2,3. Did 110 days elapse
between the end of the 40 days of rain and 8:2? The chronological
system which speaks of 150 days sees that period as elapsing between
the start of the flood and the beginning of the decreasing in 8:3. If the
story is a unity, 8:2 refers to the end ofthe rain 40 days after it started
(7:4,12). Are we to suppose that 110 days elapsed between 8:2 and
the beginning of the process of decreasing? That seems unlikely given
the statement of 8: 1 and 3 where God makes a wind pass over the
water. It is more likely that God sent a wind and stopped the surging
of the water and rain, and the process of decreasing began at once
not three months later. It is improbable that 110 days are meant to
elapse between 8:2 and 3. There is thus a discrepancy between 150
days and 40 days. 20
Another issue which needs our attention is whether the Priestly
layer was ever a self standing document, or whether its material
represents the final editorial work of the Pentateuch. Naturally this
may be of some relevance since much of the subject matter for our
study, in particular with regard to the question of the value of human

336-348, and "Method in Pentateuchal Criticism", VT 41 (1991), pp. 84-109 where

he replies to J.A. Emerton.
16 Cassuto (1964), pp. 30-33.
17 B.W. Anderson, "From Analysis to Synthesis: the Interpretation of Genesis I-
II", ]BL 97 (1978), pp. 23-39, especially p. 38.
18 Wenham (1978), pp. 337-342; see also (1991) where he defends his position
and compares the palistrophe in the story of Sodom and Gommorah.
19 J.A. Emerton, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the
flood Narrative in Genesis", VT 37 (1987), pp. 401-420 and VT38 (1988), pp. 1-21.
20 Emerton (1987), especially pp. 403 and 405, and (1988) p. 13. For other
discussions of the chronology see E. Nielsen, Oral Tradition: a Modem Problem in Old
Testament Introduction (London, 1954), pp. 93-103; sec Emerton's reply (1987), pp.
416-420; Heidel (1946), pp. 245-248; N.P. Lemche, "The Chronology in the Story
of the flood", ]SOT 18 (1980), pp. 52-62; F.H. Cryer, "The Interrelationships of
Gen. 5:32, II: 10-11 and the Chronology of the flood" (Gen. 6-9)", Biblica 66 (1985),
pp.241-260.
 THE SOURCE CRITICAL QUESTIONS OF GEN. 6-9 9

life, is found in the Priestly layer. Amongst all that has been said on
the matter two arguments are of particular note for the story of the
flood. 21
First, there are some striking omissions from P. There is no ac-
count of the primordial rebellion; the first mention of sin is found in
Gen. 6: 11. There is no description of the making of the covenant on
Sinai,22 and the Patriarchal narratives are slender.23
This argument is less than convincing. P does make sense as a
complete text in the primeval history, where there are large blocks of
material. It may have been the case that P was not intended to have
been a narrative document like J with the same purpose and stories;
he may have taken some knowledge on the part of his readers for
granted (e.g. "the fall").24 Indeed P does see a major disturbance
through sin in Gen. 6:11ff with the total corruption of humanity.25
He may have omitted the covenant at Sinai because he wished to
emphasise the covenants of Gen. 9 and 17 all the more. 26 Cross seeks
evidence for his case by arguing that the prohibition of murder in
Gen. 9:6 refers to the story of Cain and Abel in Gen.4.27 On a joint
reading of the text we shall see that this allusion is apt, but even on
the level of P it fits his themes and purpose (1 :26ff and 6: 11). Hence
P need not be editorial.
Secondly, there is the formula m,'?,n i1'?~, which some have
argued is evidence for Priestly redaction since it introduces aJ section
in 2:4. 28 E. Blum has made a similar point, as he argues that a direct
link between 2:4a and 5: 1 is awkward, as is the connection between

21 See F.M. Cross, "The Priesdy Work", in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: EssU:}s
in the History and Religion if Israel (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973), pp. 293-325; E.
Blum, Studien ;:;ur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin, 1990), pp. 229-285;
Die Komposition des Viitergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), pp. 420-
458; Rendtorff (1977), pp. 112-142, = (1990), pp. 136-170;]. Van Seters, Abraham in
History and Tradition (New Haven, 1975), especially pp. 27fT; P.Volz and W.Rudolph,
Der Elohist als Er;:;ahler: ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik an der Genesis erlautert, BZAW 63
(Berlin, 1923), pp. 135-142.
22 Cross (1973), pp. 306-307, 318-320.
23 Rendtorff(1977), pp. 112-146, = (1990), pp. 136-177.
24 J.A. Emerton, "The Priesdy Writer in Genesis", ]TS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400,
pp. 392fT; and see N. Lohfink, "Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte", in].A.
Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, SVT 29 (1978), pp. 189-225 especially pp. 199ff.
25 E. Zenger, Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchung ;:;ur Komposition und 1heologie der
~sterschriftlichen Urgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1983), pp. 32ff.
26 W. Zimmerli, "Sinaibund und Abrahambund ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis
der Priesterschrift", TZ 16 (1960), pp. 268-280.
27 Cross (1973), p. 306.
28 Cross (1973), pp. 301-305. Compare also S.Tengstrom, Die Toledoiformel und die
literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Lund, 1982).
10 INI'RODUCTION

5:32 and 6:9ff, and 7:6 and 11. Each of these texts recapitulates after
a JE section. P he claims is a "Bearbeiter oder Redaktor". 29
Yet their case is less than convincing. There is no reason why
these verses could not have been inserted by the redactor who put the
two sources together. Cross demonstrates the present context without
showing that the text always had that context. 30 Against Blum it
should be noted that it is not so awkward to read 7:6 and 11 together,
since 7: 11 is a more specific statement with regard to the start of the
flood, which relates it not just to the year but also to the date and the
month, and which gives more detail as to the physical causes of the
deluge. Likewise 6:9fflinks Noah's righteousness to his offspring (as is
often done in the Old Testament e.g. Job 1:2, 42:13, Pss. 127 and
128), and therefore it does not fit so awkwardly with 5:32. These
repetitions are not just reiterative but each adds to our knowledge.
Finally we do not know what has been left out from P, and this makes
the question to some extent unanswerable.
In the story of the flood the various inconsistencies would seem to
suggest that the account is more likely to be the result of the combi-
nation of two sources by the redactor than of one strand being the
editing of the other, because an already existing source is more likely
to be preserved. Contradiction would seem more likely in the former
than in the latter. 31 There is enough material in P's account of the
deluge to produce a complete narrative, in contrast to P in Gen.18-
19. If P were editorial, why was it not integrated more thoroughly?
For example one would expect a closer integrating between 6:5ff and
6: Ilff. Editorial activity might explain some of P's material, espe-
cially in the Patriarchal stories, but this seems unlikely for Gen. 1-11
where the material which belongs to P is more substantial. There
could have been a basic Priestly document which was put together
with J by a redactor who had a Priestly frame of mind. Hypotheses
such as those which have been expounded by Cross could suggest
that P did not contain material which preceded its composition. As
Childs has noted, Cross has made too sharp a distinction between
source and redactor; it is possible that P was partly source and partly
redaction. In some parts, such as the story of Sodom and Gomorrah,
P is dependent on J, in others it has an integrity of its own (e.g.
Gen. 17).32

29 Blum (1990), pp. 278-285.

30 Emerton (1988), pp. 394ff.
31 Emerton (1988), pp. 396ff.
32 B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 1979), p. 123.
 THE SOURCE CRITICAL QUESTIONS OF GEN. 6-9 II

Further the fact that there appear to be two accounts of the story of
creation in Gen. 1-2, suggests that there are two stories of the flood
which have been put together, since, as we shall see in Chapter 4, the
accounts of creation and flood are intimately connected. As Koch has
noted, the making of Adam in Gen. 2:5 fits awkwardly with the cre-
ation of man in 1:26ff as does 2:7 with I :26. Could man be created
without breath? In Gen. 2 the man is made before the plants and
animals in contrast to Gen. I. Surely if P were editorial such problems
would be removed?33
This does not mean that P did not know ofl's story,34 (though this
is hard to prove since both accounts follow the same structure) but it
does suggest that P was not a reworking of] in the account of the
deluge. The two sources were probably placed together by a redactor
who seems to have given precedence to P, since it is preserved in
large blocks, and it is rare for an individual sentence from P to be
placed in the] material. Even in the middle of the story there is a
tendency for P to have substantial sections (e.g. 7:13-16a, 18-21,24-
8:2a, 3b-5, 14-19).35 Hence we shall assume that there are two
sources, rather than there being a Priestly redaction of the] material.
Finally the question of the dating of the sources needs a mention.
The problem is vast, and a thorough study of the issue lies outside the
scope of this book. With a few exceptions36 a date for] in the late tenth
or early ninth century BC has been maintained. The Yahwist of Gen.
I-II offers no direct evidence of a date, though 4:17-26 with its interest
in cultural achievements could point to the time of David or SolomonY
It also seems that aspects ofJ's primeval history share some of the con-
cerns of the Succession Narrative such as the pattern of sin, disaster and
grace. For example there is the possible parallel between the restoration
of David's kingdom after Absalom's revolt and the renewal of creation
in Gen. 8:20-22. 38 It seems possible that] dates from the this era.
The date of P has commanded far less unanimity of opinion.
Some place the date in the post-exilic era, 39 whilst]ewish scholarship

33 K. Koch, "P-kein Redaktor: Erinnerung an Zwei Eckdaten der Quellen-

schneidung", VT 37 (1987), pp. 446-467.
34 S.E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the PriestlY Writer (Rome, 1971), pp. 24-36
for the possibility that P knew J. See also J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: the r ahwist
as Historian in Genesis (Louiseville, 1992), pp. 160-173.
35 Westermann (1974), pp. 532ff and 578, = (1984), pp. 395ff and 430.
36 See F.V. Winnet, "Re-Examining the Foundations",]BL 84 (1965), pp. 1-19;
Van Seters (1975), pp. 148-153; see also Rendtorff (1977),pp. 80-112, = (1990), pp.
10 1-136 who doubts the existence ofJ.
37 Westermann (1974), pp. 728ff, = (1984), p. 589.
38 See W. Brueggemann, "David and his Theologian", CBQ.30 (1968), pp. 156-
181, "Weariness, Exile and Chaos (A Motif in Royal Theology)", CBQ.34 (1972), pp.
19-38, "Kingship and Chaos (A Study of Tenth Century Theology)", CBQ.33 (1971),
pp. 317-322, "From Dust to Kingship", ZAW84 (1972), pp. 1-18.
39 J.G. Vrnk, ''The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code", OTS 15 (1969), pp. 1-144.
12 INTRODUCTION

has tended to see P as pre-exilic. 4O It is certainly correct to say that

Lutheran presuppositions, in particular the negative attitude to the
law, have led some scholars to give P a late date on the grounds that
it contains so much legal material-a symbol to them of a more
formal, less spontaneous and pure religion. As we shall see in Chap-
ter 2, this is to read back alien ideas into the Old Testament. Positive
or negative assessments should in principle be entirely independent of
dating and genre. Scholars need to be aware of the presuppositions
which have influenced decisions of dating.
Unfortunately references in the Old Testament to the account of
the deluge are tantalisingly few. Second Isaiah refers to the flood
(54:9f1),41 and Ezekiel tells of Noah's righteousness,42 but it is hard to
be certain that they knew of P. It has even been suggested that Zeph.
1:2-3, Hos. 4:1-3 and]er. 4:19-27 might be referring to P's account
of creation and flood,43 but the allusions are too slender to draw any
firm conclusions.
In effect it is impossible to give a date to the story of the flood, and
this study will have to avoid the issue. P's account of the flood could
have come into existence at any time from between the tenth century
and post-exilic times; it is impossible to be exact in offering a date.
Neither can we be any more precise as to when] and P were joined
together. Most argue that the Pentateuch was finally compiled at the
time of the exile or in the period of the restoration, but this is impos-
sible to prove, and it is possible that] and P were joined in the
primeval history at an earlier date. Instead of focusing on the date, it
is necessary to turn the question round: in what context would a
reading of the story of the flood be especially appropriate? The story
is a paradigm of sin, judgement and mercy, a sequence which was
well known to Israel but was demonstrated as never before in the

40 Y. Kaufmann, The Religion qf Israel (London, 1961), pp. 175-200; Z. Zevit,

"Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the date ofP", ZAW94 (1982), pp. 481-
511; M. Haran, "Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priesdy
Source", JBL 100 (1981), pp. 321-333.
41 See for a discussion D.M. Gunn, "Deutero-Isaiah and the flood", JBL 94
(1975), pp. 493-502.
42 For a discussion of the relationship between P and Ezekiel see W. Zimmerli,
Ezekiel 1-24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 70ff, = A Commentary on the Book qf the
Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1-24 volume 1 ( Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 46ff; M. Haran,
"The Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII and its Relation to the Priesdy School",
HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 45-71; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study qf the Relationship Between the
PriestlY Source and the Book qf Ezekiel' a New Approach to an Old Problem, (Paris, 1982), and
R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical TYpology qf Biblical Hebrew Prose
(Missoula, 1976).
43 See M. De Roche, "Zeph. 1:2-3 and the 'Sweeping' of Creation", VI' 30
(1980), pp. 104-109; "The Reversal of Creation in Hosea", VT31 (1981), pp. 400-
409; M. Fishbane, 'Jeremiah IV 23-26 and Job III 3-13: a Recovered Use of the
Creation Pattern", VT21 (1971), pp. 151-167.
 METHOD FOR THE BOOK 13

exile. It is hardly surprising that some scholars have interpreted the

flood, especially P's version of it, in this context. Gen. 6-9 was a
paradigm ofIsrael's own experience of judgement and deliverance. 44
For example the statements of Gen. 1:28 and 9:1,7 would show that
God's will is for blessing which cannot be thwarted by exile. 45 The
doctrine of the imago Dei is a sign that God's people are not just
prisoners of war but are the vice-rulers of creation. Gen. 9 is a guar-
antee of the future stability of the world. 46 Whilst such a date cannot
be proved, there is no doubt that the story of the flood expressed
some ofIsrael's most profound beliefs, and would be well suited to an
exilic context.
Given these considerations it does seem likely that there are two
sources which have been put together in Gen. 6-9. There are major
problems with the documentary hypothesis which this book cannot
examine, and it does seem that the source critical problem of the
Pentateuch may be insoluble. The consensus has been badly dam-
aged in recent years, but no one has suggested an adequate solution
which is acceptable to all. The formation of the Pentateuch was a
long process which took place over hundreds of years, and involved
numerous additions and editings. Yet it does still seem likely that
there are two sources,] and P, in the account of the flood as has been
maintained during the last 100 years.

3. Methodfor the Book

It appears that there is a fairly clear dichotomy between the presup-
positions of the scholars who are involved in the debate. Those who
prefer literary readings, such as Wenham, are predisposed to adopt
harmonised readings of the text, whereas those who are more con-
cerned with the history of tradition are much less concerned to see
unity in the text. Unfortunately the tendency has been to go exclu-
sively in one direction or the other. At one end of the spectrum there
are those who insist that the appropriate way to approach the text is
by historical-critical methods (source, redaction and form criticism),

44 For a discussion of the exile see P.R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: a Study qf
Hebrew Tlwught in the Sixth Century BC (London, 1968); K. Elliger, "Sinn und Ursprung
der priesterlichen Geschichtserziihlung", ZJK49 (1952), pp. 121-143.
45 W. Brueggemann, "The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers", ZAW84 (1972),
pp. 397-414.
46 R.W. Klein, Israel in Exile: a Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia, 1979), pp.
125-148; and "The Message ofP", in L. Perlitt andJ.Jeremias (eds.), Die Botschaft urul
die Boten :Festschrift for H. W. Wolf (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 57-66.
14 INI'RODUCTION

which place the emphasis on the history of tradition, and who argue
that the text can only be understood in the light of its historical
context and date. At the other end, there are a considerable number
of studies which are concerned with the text itself as a piece of litera-
ture, and with readers' concerns being the major factor in assessing
the Bible.
The relationship between these approaches is unclear, and what is
even less obvious is how a fully theological approach is to be devel-
oped with them. Scholars sometimes push the argument too far in
one direction or the other; Wenham is unclear as to how far he
relates historical and literary issues, and others, such as von Rad, do
not attempt to offer a reading of the whole text. As we have seen,
Wenham and Cassuto sometimes offer contrived solutions to appar-
ent problems. Some difficulties are relatively easy to harmonise, other
harmonising readings do violence to the text. The present study can-
not expect to analyse the whole source critical question of the Penta-
teuch and the observations of all those who have grappled with its
intractable problems. It is hoped that by focusing on the account of
the flood useful observations can be made for further study of this
question.
This book hopes to offer an original perspective on the debate
over the sources in Gen. 6-9. Both Friedman47 and Oberforcher48
have written on J and P and the final form of the text, but much
more work needs to be done on this, especially with regard to the
story of the flood. It is hoped that this book will help to fill the gap.
Instead of focusing exclusively on either J or P, or entirely on the
final form of the text, our study will examine the two sources sepa-
rately, and then consider how they relate when they are put together
to form a single story. It is hoped that by studying earlier and final
forms of the text our work will shed light on their meaning more
clearly than if only one aspect is studied. The originality of the study
will be found in its attempt to move beyond the debate between those
who focus on source criticism and those who emphasise literary ap-
proaches, to a reading of the text which is sensitive both to its early
history, and to its complete form. By avoiding either extreme a bal-
anced view should emerge.

47 R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Na"atWe: The Formation qf the Deuuronomistic
and PriestlY Works (Chico, 1981).
4a R. Oberforcher, Dil Flutprologe als Kompositionsschliissel der biblischen Urgeschichte:
ein Beitrag zur Redactionskritik (Innsbruck, 1981).
 ME1HOD FOR 1HE BOOK 15

There is value in historical analysis of the text. First, analysis of

sources helps to explain discrepancies in the text as the result of a
complex history of compilation-a problem which we have noted in
Gen. 1-11. The discrepancies over the number of animals and the
chronology can be explained as due to the combination of sources.
Secondly, source criticism makes it easier to define genre and to
enquire as to the nature of a text. It can help specifY where a collec-
tion of myths ends and where legend or genealogy replaces it; each
may come from different traditions or backgrounds. For example the
genealogies in Gen. 1-11 might come from a separate source which
was a book of genealogies. By understanding the form of the text in
this way its meaning might be more apparent. By showing that a
particular source with its own genre was introduced, the purpose of
the text can be seen with greater clarity.
Thirdly, the theological importance of working at] and P can be
found in anchoring them in particular historical circumstances. The
range of Israel's faith can be appreciated. For example, if it can be
shown that] belongs to the tenth century, this might to some extent
explain why, and under what circumstances it was written. By taking
the original meaning of a text and removing it from its context in the
canon, it can be seen how Israelite theology developed, and what
influences from outside Israel have been brought to bear. Analysis of
sources can enable us to see how different generations brought dis-
tinctive perspectives to the text, and how what was authoritative for
one generation had to be modified for another. For example it is
frequently noted how] stresses the personal nature of God (e.g. Gen.
6:5-8), whereas P places greater emphasis on God's power and sover-
eignty in creation, to the extent that he almost totally excludes an-
thropomorphism (Gen. 1:1-2:3). In the flood P was especially con-
cerned with the issue of the value of human life (e.g. Gen. 9:1-7).
Attempts to find the supposed concerns of the writers and their his-
torical context have been found in the studies of the kerygma of the
Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly writers. H.W. Wolff in a study of E
aimed to find "an originally independent documentary source, with
its own technique of composition and an independent message" so as
to "consider toward what situation in Israel this new proclamation of
the canonical tradition might have been directed".49 Source criticism
can illuminate the purpose of the writers, and anchor the text in its
era. The danger with some modern literary criticism is that it some-

49 H.W. Wolff, "The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch", InterpretatWn 26

(1972), pp. 158-173, p. 161
16 INTRODUCTION

times seeks to sever the text from its historical roots, by claiming that
it is what the reader makes of the text, rather than the concerns of
the writer and his thought world, which are all important. To some
extent source criticism can prevent such subjectivism and the dangers
which it entails, since instead of freeing the text from historical con-
cerns, it seeks to enter a particular thought world.
Fourthly, by source criticism we can see why the two sources were
placed together, and what influenced the redactor as he compiled the
text which we now have before us. It may have been that one source
could have been misunderstood on its own and needed to be bal-
anced by the outlook of another. For example the strong personal
understanding of God in] was balanced by the sovereign omnipo-
tence of God which is portrayed in P. On their own neither offered a
complete picture of God but their combination presented a balanced
whole perspective. By source criticism we can see the final stage of
the tradition and the purposes of the redactor.
Study of] and P can enable us to understand the final form of the
text with greater precision. If, as in Gen. 6-9, the redactor kept so
much of both] and P that there is considerable repetition, it would
seem that there must be good reason for him to preserve what he did.
If we have analysed the individual parts and their concerns, it be-
comes apparent why the redactor wished to keep the two together.
The meaning which the texts may have had once is not necessarily
the same as that which it has now. By looking at the sources we can
see what constitutes normative Yahwism and how it has changed
from its earlier forms. Having looked at the sources, the nature of
normative Yahwism is placed in a much clearer perspective. By nor-
mative Yahwism we refer to that expression of Israel's tradition
which was set down for posterity in the present form of the Old
Testament, as opposed to its earlier versions such as] and P. This
normative form was preserved by the religious community as the
definitive statement of its beliefs.
There are on the other hand reasons for focusing on the final form
of the text. First, none of the sources survive outside the Pentateuch,
which means that source criticism remains hypothetical; theology
based on hypothesis could be fragile. Not too much should be made
of such methods, and it must always be borne in mind that dating of
sources is extremely difficult. Likewise their division is open to ques-
tion, whereas the extent of the complete text is not in doubt, even
though the division of its units has at times been questioned (for
example the extent of the primeval history). B.W. Anderson writes,
Since efforts to recover preliterary stages lead us away from the giveness
of the text itself into the realm of hypothesis, it is not valid to regard the
 METHOD FOR THE BOOK 17

reconstructed urform as nonnative for interpretation or as having some

superiority to Scripture itself. Whatever excursions into the prehistory of
the text are possible or necessary, the beginning and end of inte~reta­
tion is a 'free encounter with a writing in its final fonn' (Wilder).5
Secondly, the text which we have forms a permanently valid theo-
logical witness. The ultimate locus of theological meaning is to be
found in the final form of the story since the present version of the
text is the classic expression of normative Yahwism. The final form of
the text is not simply the view of the redactor, but represents what
subsequent generations of the community of believers have come to
regard as the definitive statement of their belief. It was put together
for a definite theological purpose and it was held to be normative for
church and synagogue. What it means now is different from what it
meant either asJ or P, and it is the whole which is central for both
Jewish and Christian communities. The complete text is more than
the sum of its parts, and cannot be appreciated fully by reading only
J and P. The combination of the two sources creates new contexts of
meaning; we shall see many examples of this throughout our discus-
sion. This is by no means to eschew source criticism and investigation
into the prehistory of the text, but rather to place it in perspective.
The problem is how to integrate the historical reading into a fully
theological one so that both bear upon each other. 51
The present form of the story of the flood is the normative expres-
sion of Israel's interpretation of the Near Eastern tradition. There is
a difference between a text being wholly consistent and one which
hangs together coherently. The story of the flood has several incon-
sistencies in its details, but does seem to have coherence. A coherent
plot emerges with the causes of the deluge, the rise and fall of the
waters, and creation, uncreation and re-creation, even if the details
within it are obscure. These minor inconsistencies should not prevent
a study of the whole story.
Thirdly, the emphasis on literary methods in the last twenty years
has shown the value of reading texts as they stand. The complete text
shows a range of techniques which would be missed if the sources
alone were studied. Literary scholars, are inclined to read the text as
a whole, rather than to focus on a hypothetical original. They are
concerned with structure and all the resources of prose and poetry.
The Bible's theology is bound up with its value as literature, and the
writers seek to reveal the enactment of God's purposes by the means

50Anderson (1978), p. 27.

51See R.W.L. Moberly, At the Mountain oJGod: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34,
]SOTSS 22 (Sheffield, 1983), pp. 15-43 and Childs (1979), pp. 69-106.
 18 INfRODUCTION

of story with its full range of techniques: choice of particular words,

repetition, dialogue and development of plot. Narrative is a discourse
on God's purposes in history and his requirements of humanity. If
repetition is only regarded as evidence for the existence of more than
one tradition, then its deliberate use by the writer to express a point
might be missed if a holistic reading is not undertaken. By reading
the text as a story, the truth which it teaches will come alive. 52
For example there are often compelling reasons for two accounts
of one event. In the biblical narrative it seems that the method of
incorporating multiple perspectives does not appear to have been by
the fusion of ideas, but by the montage of viewpoints arranged in
sequence. Such formulae cannot account for all the perplexities of
the Old Testament, but the writers clearly wished to encompass the
abiding complexity of their subjects. It would seem that this is prob-
ably the case for Genesis 6-9, where the placing together of two
traditions enables the reader to receive a fuller perspective of the
subject matter. If such blocks of material are just regarded as evi-
dence of sources, then this literary device and what it teaches will be
missed. 53
In order to be clear about our methodology we shall read the text
at both levels, as two sources and as a complete text. By doing this we
shall not push the argument too far in anyone direction. On the one
hand we shall accept the heuristic value ofJ and P, and analyse the
two sources. On the other we shall see what happens when the two
are read as a unity, and what new contexts of meaning are to be
found. Of course we are not entirely neutral, but a reading which is
sensitive to the various levels, canonical, source critical, form critical
and literary is likely to be more illuminating than one which focuses
on only one aspect of the text. We are concerned to avoid
absolutising one methodology. There is a danger of becoming ob-
sessed with correct method. Each of these approaches has something
of value, but none can be used to the exclusion of all others. Attempts
to find a correct method could lead to placing the text in a strait-
jacket and make us process it rather than hear what it has to say at
the various levels. We must be aware of each kind of reading and the
particular questions which it raises. 54

52 R. Alter, The Art oj the Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981), especially pp. 155ff;
see also J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible Gerusalem, 1978) and M. Sternberg, The Poetics
oj Biblical Narrative: Ideological literature and the Drama oj Reading (BlOOmington, 1985).
53 R. Alter (1981), pp. 47-62.
54 J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London, 1984), pp.
5ff, 198-207.
 METHOD FOR THE BOOK 19

Naturally the conclusion will help us to judge how successful we

have been and how well the text hangs together. It may be that by
then the need to speak of sources will not be so appropriate. Yet the
depth dimension will be used to understand the final form of the text.
We do not reject historical approaches to the Bible, but we also
guard ourselves against the tendency of some literary scholars who
put forward a view of the meaning of texts which is irrespective of the
date of composition and authorial intention. This approach is to be
eschewed. 55 Consequently the literary critic needs to be open to the
possibility of historical problems and the source critic needs more
awareness of the complete text. Both sides need to be prepared to
modify their positions. Often fine judgements need to be employed;
for example over whether a repetition is evidence of two sources or of
a deliberate stylistic device, or both.
The historical integrity of the text still has to be respected. The
study has to be aware of the kinds of meaning appropriate to Hebrew
thought and language. The story of the flood has been told from the
perspective of normative Yahwism. The book will examine how the
author has shaped and formed the story, which is set in a different
era, the primeval time. We shall note as we continue, how Israel
projected into the primeval era some of her most profound convic-
tions. 56

55 Barton (1984), pp. 158-179.

56 For a similar discussion see R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament oj the Old
Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic rahwism (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 182-191.
 CHAPTER ONE

THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

E.M. Good has suggested that the theme of Gen. 1-11 is the failure of
humanity to live up to the aims of creation. The motif of sin is played
out against the backdrop of Gen. 1:31 "And God saw everything that
he had made, and behold, it was very good" (RSV). There is ironic
incongruity in these chapters between man as he now is and man as
he ought to be, between the purpose of creation and how he now
acts. 1 This failure of mankind is the cause of God's decision to send
a universal deluge as a means of punishment for humanity's evil. The
first chapter of this book will examine the cause of the flood in J and
P, before seeing how a combined reading of the text enhances our
understanding of the story. From the outset the account places the
question of the value of human life in a suggestive light.

1. The Yahwist
Before moving to a detailed analysis of Gen. 6:5-8, it will be neces-
sary to look at the stories of Cain, Lamech and the angel marriages,
to see if they have any bearing on the causes of the deluge.

i. Cain and Abel

Not all the issues in the story of Cain and Abel can be examined
here, and we shall return to the story in Chapter 6. 2 Yet it is worth
noting that inJ's account of the primeval world before the flood, the
taking of human life is given special emphasis. It seems significant for
J that in Chapter 4 the two sins which are described are murders
(4:8-16, 23ft).
The context of Cain's killing of his brother is the jealousy which is
aroused by God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice and his rejection of
Cain's. The relationships between men break down in the horror of
bloodshed and hatred. Cain had rejected all necessary and appropri-

I E.M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield, 1981), pp. 81-89. Part of my
first chapter was read at the Society for Old Testament Study's summer meeting in
Jul~ 1993 at Exeter.
See the commentaries especially Westermann (1974), pp. 381-435, = (1984),
pp. 279-320 and Wenham (1987), pp. 92-118, and E. Van Wolde, "The Story of
Cain and Abel: a Narrative Study", ]SOT 52 (1991),pp. 25-41.
22 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

ate responsibilities, which are due to his brother. The defiant cry
"Am I my brother's keeper?" is an arrogant rejection of the moral
demands which are made on all human beings. Having described the
breakdown in relationships between man and woman in chapter 3,
there is now enmity between brothers. The fabric of the first human
community falls apart with the ensuing loss of social responsibility,
since Cain's cry of 4:9 is a rejection of the care which is due in the
human family. Cain is unable to hide his deed because the victim's
blood is crying to God from the ground. If Cain ignores his neigh-
bour, God will not. As punishment Cain is condemned to be a wan-
derer and a fugitive; the land will no longer yield its fullness (4: 11 £I).
Cain is expelled to face the possibility of death. Yet even in his sin
there is mercy: Cain the outcast is placed under God's protection by
a special sign which wards off all would be avengers (4: 15£1). Cain
stands under God's curse but no one has the right to intervene in
God's decision.

ii. Lamech
The story of Lamech is in many ways similar to that of Cain. No
details of the incident are given to us, but the song of 4:23-24 ex-
presses Lamech's arrogance:
"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
You wives of Lamech, harken to what I say:
I have slain a man for wounding me,
a young man for striking me.
If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold". (RSV)
It is unlikely that there is here a condemnation of Lamech taking
two wives. Polygamy is described in the patriarchal stories but is
uncondemned there; only with Deuteronomy is it criticised. 3 What is
more pertinent is that this is a song which tells of Lamech's pride,
with his refusal to suffer any hurt without exaggerated revenge. " ,
can mean either "young man" or 'boy'. The context does not specify,
but what is clear is that Lamech is killing someone who is by no
means as strong as he is physically. Vengeance is out of all reasonable
proportion. A non-traditional word pair emphasises the extent of the
revenge; the comparison with Cain is one of degree. 4
As Robert Alter has shown, the literary structure of these verses
brings out the extent of Lamech's revenge. The second line of each
couplet mirrors and intensifies the theme of the first. Every compo-

3 Westermann (1974),pp. 448ff, = (1984), pp. 330ff.

4 P.D. Miller, "YELED in the Song of Lamech", JBL 85 (1966), pp. 477ff.
 THE YAHWIST 23

nent of the first half of 4:23 is mirrored in the second: Adah and
Zillah / wives ofLamech, hear / give ear, my voice/ my speech. The
word order in each half line exactly mirrors that in the second.
Further 4:24 shows striking chiastic structure "If sevenfold
avenged is Cain / Lamech seventy-sevenfold". The literary format
emphasises the contrast between Cain and Lamech as regards venge-
ance. There is intensification of the theme of the first half of the
verse. The same is also the case for 4:23b; it is not any man whom I
have killed but a boy. 5 Vengeance has increased to a disproportion-
ate and destructive potential.
The barbarity of Lamech is emphasised by the repeated use of 'I'
and 'me' in the two verses. Lamech's seventy sevenfold vengeance is
in marked contrast to the rules of 9:5ff and Exod. 21 :23ff. All are at
the mercy of this cruel man 6 for whom the slightest offence brings
blood revenge. The arrogant and powerful slaughter at whim, and
the passage yearns for strict justice. 7 The song asserts Lamech's own
ego.
The other important feature of Gen. 4 is that the increase of
human capability and potential also has a dark side to it. With the
growth of man's ability and the complexity of civilisation, the likeli-
hood of killing is increased. The forging of instruments of bronze and
iron has a double edged potential, since it can lead to the manufac-
ture of weapons as well as of tools. Technical advance and morality
are not the same thing. The power of self assertiveness has grown to
such an extent that even the smallest offence leads to disproportion-
ate retribution. The text has shown both the positive and the nega-
tive aspects of the growth of civilisation. 8

iii. The Angel Marriages

The next incident in J is the unusual story of Gen. 6: 1-4. In view of
its proximity to the flood it might be suggested that the behaviour of
the sons of God and the daughters of men was a direct cause of the
deluge.
First, the identity of the Cl'i1?~i1 'jJ has been discussed at length.
There are three possible interpretations: first, they are non human
angels or spirits; secondly the sons of God are superior men such as
kings or rulers, or thirdly they are godly men, the descendants of Seth
as opposed to the godless line of Cain. It is not possible to give a full

5 R. Alter, The Art qf Biblical Poetry (Edinburgh, 1990), pp. 5-18, especially p. 7.
6 Wenham (1987), pp. 114,117.
7 B.W. Vawter, On Genesis: a New Reading (Garden City, 1977), pp. 99ff.
8 Westennann (1974), pp. 453-457, = (1984), pp. 334-7.
24 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

analysis here, but it seems more likely that divine beings are de-
scribed, since in 6: 1 I:J'~ refers to all mankind, and it is hard to see
how in 6:2 a more specific sense is required for 1:J'~i1 n:J::J. There does
seem to be a contrast between l:J'i1'?~ and I:J'~ in these verses.
l:J'i1'?~i1 'J::J elsewhere in the Old Testament usually refers to heav-
enly creatures (Ps. 29: 1 and Job 1:6). 9
Secondly, it is by no means clear that the writer saw the beings of
Gen. 6: 1-4 as committing a sin. Nothing immoral need be described
since the phrase i1iD~ np., is the usual expression for a normal mar-
riage; Gen. 6 offers no hint of rape or polygamy.1O Neither is
Westermann correct to see here parallels with Gen. 12:10-20 and 2
Sam. 11 where someone in a position of power selects a beautiful
woman. II He is right as far as there is a parallel between the superior
position of the l:J'i1'?~i1 'J::J and the king, but there is no hint of
adultery in Gen. 6 as there is in the story of David and Bathsheba.
The word '?:JQ need only mean "from among," and not necessarily
'whomsoever' in a condemnatory sense. 12 The text offers no con-
demnation and there is no hint of adultery.
Thirdly, it has been suggested that there is here the idea of the
breaking of bounds between the respective realms of heaven and
earth; a concern of particular interest in view of the importance of
separation in the account of creation in Gen. 1.13 Clines speaks of the
boundary between the divine and human worlds being broken. 14
Wenham argues that it is this breaking of bounds which is reprehen-
sible in the Old Testament, in view of the condemnation of the
crossbreeding of species, the growing of different crops in one field
and the use of more than one material in the making of a garment:
Lev. 19: 19, Deut. 22:9-11. 15 It was a transgression for the two realms,
heavenly and earthly, to mix in this way thereby breaking the
boundaries which were established by the Creator.

9 Wenham (1987), pp. 139ff. For a further discussion see Westermann (1974),
pp. 501-504, = (1984), pp. 371ff, Driver (1926), pp. 82fT, U. Cassuto, "The Episode
of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Gen. VI: 1-4)", in Biblical and Oriental
Studies Gerusalem, 1973), pp. 17-28 and A Commentary on the Book qf Genesis Part 1 From
Adam to NoahGerusalem, 1961), pp. 290fT, G. von Rad, Das Erste Buck Mose (5th
edition, Gottingen, 1958), pp. 92-94, = Genesis: a Commentary (2nd edition, London,
1963), pp. 109-112, and D. Clines, "The Significance of the 'Sons of God' Episode
(Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11)", ]SOT 13
(1979), pp. 33-46.
10 Cassuto (1961), p. 295, (1973), p. 24 and Wenham (1987), p. 141.
11 Westermann (1974), p. 501, = (1984), pp. 370ff.
12 Cassuto (1961), p. 295.
13 See Chapter 4.
14 Clines (1979), p. 36.
15 Wenham(1987),pp.141, 146andVawter(1977),pp.llOff.
 THE YAHWIST 25

It is questionable whether this is an issue, as there seems to be no

condemnation at all of these relationships. The statement of 6:3a has
perplexed commentators for some time l6 but it need be no more
than straightforward statement that man will not live for ever. There
seems to be no rebuke here. 17 Rather it is stated that the children
born of these unions will not live for ever; all whether of mortal or
immortal parents will die. Gen. 6: 1-4 gives rise to many different
interpretations and we do not fully understand what it means, but
there is insufficient evidence to link it to the sin of the flood.
Finally, it seems that Gen. 6: 1-4 has no direct connection with the
story of the flood. IS If it were a sin which is described, would not
God's declaration in 6:3 be ample punishment? R.S. Hendel argues
that Gen. 6: 1-4 tells ofthe original cause of the flood, which was later
moved by the Yahwist to give a more ethical motivation for the
deluge. 19 Yet the concerns of 6: 1-4 are not taken up in the rest of the
story of the flood. 6: 1-4 contain no hint that the flood is to follow. 20
The sons of God are not mentioned in the account of the deluge, and
if they were instrumental in bringing the flood, would we not hear of
them again? The author of 6: 1-4 seems unaware that the Nephilim
would be destroyed in the flood and neither is he aware of their
reappearance in Num. 13:33. 21 In short we have here an isolated unit
of obscure meaning, which does not help us to understand the cause
of the flood.
One might still ask about the juxtaposition of 6: 1-4 with the rest of
the story of the flood. Perhaps one reason why the two are placed
together is in order to develop the idea of humans multiplying "on
the face of the ground". Gen. 4: 17-26 has already set this theme in
motion, and it is not unnatural that a story of angelic and human
marriages should be placed here; human increase was helped by
heavenly beings. Nor would a section speaking of the Nephilim be
inappropriate in a context which deals with the origins of mankind.
The theme of human increase is set in fuller perspective if] and Pare
read together. 6: 1 echoes 1:28 and comes immediately after a long

16 See Wenham (1987), pp. 141ffand Westennann (1974), pp. 504-8, = (1984),
pp. 373-6 for a discussion.
17 Cassuto (1973), p. 26.
18 Cassuto (1973), p. 24.
19 R.S. Hendel, "Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of
Genesis 6:1-4",]BL 106 (1987), pp. 13-26.
20 J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd edition, Edin-
burgh, 1930), p. 141 and Driver (1926), p. 82 in contrast to D. Pouiet, "The Moral
Causes of the Flood", CBQ (1942), pp. 293-303 who argues that these marriages
were the cause of the deluge.
21 Driver (1926), p. 82.
26 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

genealogical section in Gen. 5. Gen. 6:1-4 would seem to illustrate

that alongside the multiplication of humans there was also intermin-
gling of human and divine beings in the antediluvian world. By plac-
ing 6:5 after 6: 1-4 the writer showed that despite human increase and
the angel marriages, man has made no moral advances. Not even
breeding with heavenly beings could save humanity from destruction.

iv. Genesis 6:5

J introduces the story of the deluge in Gen. 6:5-8. God's repentance
in 6:6 will be dealt with more fully in Chapter 3, and Chapter 2 will
explore 6:8 and the extent to which Noah is exempt from the sinful
generation. The present chapter will focus on the human sin in 6:5,
whereas God's reaction will be discussed more fully in the next two
chapters. God reacts to the situation with sorrow and pain, yet even
in the midst of despair there is hope (6:8).
The Yahwist sees the cause of the flood as the evil of man's heart,
and he provides a reflection on the state of sin which has overtaken
humanity. The heart ::J? in Hebrew thought was the seat of under-
standing, knowledge and reason. 22
In Gen. 6 the word ::J? is set in conjunction with n::JtDna i~' ?::Jl
The root i~' has various nuances of meaning: it can be used of
forming an object (Isa. 29: 16), or creating a living being (Gen. 2:7), or
it can be employed with reference to psychological and moral form-
ing (Deut. 31 :21, and Gen. 6:5).23 In Gen. 6:5 i~' and i1::JtDna have
virtually the same meaning--Luther translated "planning and striv-
ing".24 Humanity's state consisted in striving after evil all the time.
The passage portrays man as dedicating his whole life to evil. What
God forms for good in 2:7, humanity forms for evil in Gen. 6 .
.l7i in Gen. 6:5 is a comprehensive general term for wickedness.
The verb .l7.l7i means to be bad; .l7i in contrast to all other words for
sin, describes a state and does not refer to a wicked action as does
oan. A great wickedness had taken hold of humanity, which was in a
state of continuous and persistent evil.
"God saw" is used in other passages for a decisive divine interven-
tion (6: 12, 29:31).25 The phrase does not mean mere noticing but

22 H.W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1973), p. 84 and see pp.
84-90, = Anthropology qfthe Old Testament (London, 1974), p. 51 and see pp. 51-55.
23 P. Humbert, "Emploi et portee bibliques du verbe y~ar et de ses derives
substantifs", in O. Eissfeldt (ed), Von Ugarit nach Qymran: Beitrage :cur Alttestamentlichen
und Altonentlichen FOTschung, BZAW 77 (Berlin, 1958), pp. 82-8.
24 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 140 from Die Bibel Britische und
auslandische Bibelgesellschaft (Berlin, 1925)
25 Wenham (1987), pp. 143ff.
 THE YAHWIST 27

rather introduces an action. 26 God's response is to blot out man i1na

(6:7, 7:4,23). Those who sin will be annihilated. i1na can even be
used of wiping a dish (2 Kgs. 21: 13), and it provides a graphic de-
scription of the destruction which is to ensue.
Some scholars see in] a description of the intensification of sin in
the primeval era. Von Rad argues that sin had grown like an ava-
lanche up to 6:5. The Yahwist had portrayed increasing alienation
from God; sin expanded and grew since the expulsion from the gar-
den, through the stories of Cain, Abel, Lamech and the angel mar-
riages, until it reached a climax in Gen. 11. In these chapters the
chasm between God and man has widened. The first chapters of the
Yahwist provide the etiology for the events of 12: 1-3. Israel's redemp-
tion is linked to the history of the world. 27
Von Rad's point needs to be qualified, because, as we noted, the
episode of the angel marriages is not a description of sin. Further-
more we should agree with Westermann who argues that these chap-
ters do not portray a growth of sin, but rather the different ways in
which humans can defect from God's ordinances. The variety and
scope of alienation is set out. There is no apparent surge in wicked-
ness; rather the sins of Cain and Lamech are described before the
total wickedness of 6:5. There is insufficient evidence for a theme of
the spread of sin, but what is new in Genesis 6 is that wickedness has
enveloped a whole generation. The fratricide and the killing which
was perpetrated by Lamech were not enough to induce a universal
punishment. Punishment must fit the crime; total depravity leads to
total destruction. "He m
does not intend in his explanatory sentence
v5b to describe a general sinfulness which is concretised in individual
acts, but that God-created people are capable of the utterly horrify-
ing".28 As Westermann's more existential interpretation shows, these
chapters are concerned to treat universal human reality, and are not
just tied to the primeval era. As we noted in the introduction, these
stories have a parabolic function.
To summarise: Gen. 3-6 depict different ways in which humans
can defect, from the rebellion in the garden to the evil of a whole
generation. 6:5 specifies no particular sin, but the total evil of human-
ity is put in general terms. Throughout there is usurpation of God's
prerogatives, destruction of community and confrontation with God.

26 Westermann (1974), p. 551, = (1984), p. 410.

27 Von Rad (1958), pp. 88ff, 95ff, 127-9, = (1963), pp. 105, 113, 148ff. See also
Childs (1979), pp. 154ff.
28 Westermann (1974), p. 551, = (1984), p. 409.
28 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

2. 77ze PriestlY Source

The Priestly writer describes the sin which caused the flood more
specifically than J since he speaks of violence. M. Zipor has tenta-
tively suggested an emendation for 6: 13. The text is difficult since
nniD has two objects:
r'~i1 n~ cn'ntlio 'J:li11
Most modern commentators render n~ as 'with', "God will destroy
them with the earth". Zipor, though, argues that r'~ is a metonym
for the civilisation in 6: 11, 12a (see Lev. 19:29). He therefore argues
that we read r'~i1 n~ tJ'nniDo tJJJi11 "and they are corrupting the
earth", which follows "the earth is filled with violence through
them".29
Zipor is less than convincing since there is no textual evidence to
support his position. The text makes good sense as it stands, since the
motif of creation and uncreation which will be discussed in Chapter
4, does involve destruction of the earth, as the barriers between dry
land and water are removed. As man breaches the moral law so also
the physical world is broken. There is no need to emend the verse,
and n~ is best rendered as 'with'.3o
Prior to these verses the Priestly writer portrays Noah as an exem-
plary model of piety (6:9,10); he is righteous, blameless and walks
with God. The next chapter will describe Noah's righteousness in
greater detail, but it is important to note here the stark contrast
between him and the rest of humanity which is utterly corrupt. It is
because of this difference that Noah is instructed to build the ark
(6: 14-22) so as to deliver him from the destruction which is about to
overtake humanity. It is through the one righteous man that human-
ity is delivered.

i. Corruption
The Priestly source also has a general term for the state of sin which
has overtaken man. P sees it in terms of nniD-a word which is used
seven times in the story: 6: 11,12,12,13,17, 9: 11,15, but does not oc-
cur elsewhere in P. The root nniD is used over 160 times in the Bible.
The niphal of the root means "to be marred", 'spoilt' or 'destroyed'
aer. 13:7, Ezek. 20:44). The piel usually means 'destroy' (Ezek.
20: 17) but it is sometimes used of corruption (Exod. 32:7). The hiphil
can be used to mean 'destroy' (Gen. 6:12, 18:28) or "act corruptly"

29 M. Zipor, "A Note on Genesis VI 13", VI' 41 (1991), pp. 366-8

30 P J. Harland, "A Further Note on Genesis VI 13", VI' 43 (1993), pp. 408-411.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 29

(Deut. 4: 16, 31 :29). Through all these forms of the root there seem to
be two meanings: 'destroy' and 'corrupt'. What is the relationship
between these two translations and how do they coalesce into one
root?
The basic idea of the root nnw is destruction; e.g. Gen. 6: 13 where
God will annihilate all living beings. The root can be used for human
activity, such as the breaking down of a wall (2 Sam. 20: 15), the
ravaging of a city (2 Sam. 11: 1) and the verb is used of the destruc-
tion of Judah (2 Kgs. 8: 19). A glance at the words used in parallel
with nnw confirms this analysis: ":J~ Ger. 2:30), .I)'~ (2 Sam. 20:20),
n1:J (Deut. 20: 19), ,aw (Ps. 106:23), D1n (Isa. 37: 11 fl), J1n (Isa.
14:20) and "iD Ger. 48:18).31
Unfortunately the root does not occur again in P but it is used
several times in Ezekiel-a book which has much in common with P.
A look at the use of the verb here shows how it is given a strong
moral implication which can be seen in two ways.
First, destruction is often a punishment for sin. Ezek. 5: 16 employs
the root for destruction as punishment for evil (5:1-12), a judgement
which is described in 5: 13-1 7. nnw , destruction, is the appropriate
response to sin and similar uses are found in Gen, 6: 13, and in some
J passages (Gen. 18:28, 31ff, 19: 13, 14, 29, Exod. 8:20). As far as the
Old Testament is concerned, sin renders a person liable for drastic
punishment which brings with it the threat of destruction. Disobedi-
ence brings wrath and death.
Secondly, nniD is given moral significance by its use as a term to
describe the corruption of humans. Ezek 28: 17 speaks of corrupting
wisdom, 20:44 of corrupt deeds. Ezek. 23: 11 tells of harlotry 'cor-
rupting' Oholibah which brings the terrible judgement depicted in
23:22-35 especially 23:35, "Because you have forgotten me and cast
me behind your back, therefore bear the consequences of your lewd-
ness and harlotry" (RSV). Corrupt deeds ruin those who commit
them.
Further examples of this can be seen from other passages in the
Old Testament. Jer. 18:4 speaks of the potter's clay being 'spoiled';
the clay fails to turn itself into the desired object becoming fit only for
breaking up and reworking. Transferred to the moral sphere this
example illustrates how nnw is used of sin: it leads to corruption and
spoils or destroys those who commit it. Deut. 4: 16, 25 employ nnw in
the context of graven images; to use such a means of worship cor-
rupts the worshipper and leads to annihilation (4:26). Provo 6:32

31 See D. Vetter, "nmli", 1HAT2, pp. 891-894.

30 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

speaks of adultery destroying a man not because of some punishment

inflicted by another, but because the act per se is corrupting and self
destroying. There is, it would appear, an automatic link between sin
and death-a notion of cause and effect. It can then be seen how the
same root can be used of both corruption and destruction. The out-
come of sin is punishment in the form of destruction. Corruption
leads to destruction but as far as the Hebrew mind was concerned the
two were almost inseparable. Isa. 1:4 illustrates the destruction which
corruption brings. The first chapter of Isaiah presents a devastating
picture of a ruined, desolate land with few survivors-all as a conse-
quence of "the sons who deal corruptly". Man is not worthy of life
due to his own sin.
A comparison between Gen. 6 and Exod. 32 m
illustrates the
semantic link between corruption and destruction, as seen in the root
nn~. The two stories depict different sins, violence and idolatry, but
both share the fundamental view outlined above that sin is corrupt-
ing and that its consequences, both in and of itself and by God's
judgement, are destruction. In Gen. 6 this corruption affected both
the earth and all living creatures. The acts of ODn have led to a state
of corruption which makes destruction inevitable. Those who destroy
will destroy themselves.
The semantic point is clear: to act corruptly and destroy are one
concept in Hebrew thought. Both the generation of the flood and
those at Sinai have brought their own ruin upon themselves. What
God destroys in the flood has already destroyed itsel£ 32 Zenger notes,
"Man either survives with the created order by living in harmony
with it, or goes under with the created order by living against it". 33 In
the story of the flood there is a basic universal moral law which must
not be undermined. If it is, man's fundamental existence is de-
stroyed. 34 Ruin and destruction are of humanity's own making, and
irresponsible behaviour has brought disaster. Whilst human life is of
value in God's eyes, sin makes that life unworthy of continued exist-
ence and liable to the ultimate sanction. As far as the Old Testament
is concerned, God is justified in taking the life of the sinner, since
man has made himself unworthy of life. The renunciation of nn~ in
the future in Gen. 9: 11 is a testimony to the mercy of God in the face
of persistent human sinfulness.

32 D. Clines, "Noah's F1ood: the Theology of the F100d Narrative", Faith and
Thought 100 (1972), pp. 128-42, pp. 134ff.
33 Zenger (1983), p. 179, translated by J. Rogerson, Genesis 1-11 (Sheffield, 1991),
p.24.
34 N.M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York, 1970), p. 52.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 31

There is some dispute over itD:l '?J as to whether or not animals

as well, as humans are included in this picture of moral corruption.
Hulst cautiously argues that in 6: 12, 13 mankind is referred to, since
in prophecy itD:l '?J means only humans when it occurs in a context
of guilt and punishment (Jer. 25:31). However P uses the term in
different ways: animals only in 6:19,7:15, 16,8:17,9:15, and for
humans and animals in Gen. 6: 17, 9: 11, 16, 17.35 Westermann thinks
that only humans are included since animals are never the subject of
con, and the broad notion ofitD:l '?J is similar to that ofthe earth in
6:11,12. 36
It is hard to be certain, but as Wenham notes this narrow sense is
hard to justify since the covenant of 9:9-17 is made with both hu-
manity and beast. 37 Further, there is no reason why the animals
should not be seen as having some moral responsibility given the
statement of 9:5 that animals are liable for punishment (compare
Exod. 20: 10). If they have that obligation there, it seems as though
they are included in the judgement of 6: 11ff. It appears that itD:l '5J
includes the animals in Gen. 6: 11 ff. con can then refer to the preda-
tory deeds of animals. On a joint reading with] this is clearer (7:23).
Not only was all flesh corrupt, but they had corrupted "their way"
(6: 12). 'Way' refers to a persons way of life, lifestyle or direction that
their life leads them. Exod. 32:8 describes Israel as departing from
the lii which God had commanded them. In Deuteronomic litera-
ture lii is equated with the commands which are laid down by God
(Deut. 8:6ff).38
Gen. 6 is set in a quite different context from these two passages.
To what does the way refer in this pre-Sinai era? The only preceding
passage which could echo 6: 11 ff is Gen. 1:26-30. It would seem
probable that the way which these people have corrupted is that
ordained in 1:26ff. There man is told to have dominion over crea-
tion, to be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue the earth. It would
appear that in Gen. 6 man has corrupted and abused this dominion.
He has transgressed the boundaries which were established by the
creator. In the course of our discussion we shall see how the flood
demonstrates the absolute sovereignty of God over all life. It is for

35 A.R. Hulst, "Kol basarin der priesterlichen Fluterzahlung", OTS 12 (1958), pp.
28-68.
36 Westermann (1974), p. 560, = (1984), p. 416.
37 Wenham (1987), p. 171, and see Oberforcher (1981), pp. 461-478 and W.
Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law ,jSOTSS 140
(Sheffield, 1993), pp. 184ff, 255.
38 For a discussion see K. Koch, "li1", 1WAT2, pp. 288-312, = mOT3, pp.
270-293.
32 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

him to establish humanity's rule over creation as God's vice-gerent,

but that dominion has strict limits to it which must be observed.
When man oversteps these boundaries he is guilty of corrupting the
way of 1:26ff. According to P con is the primary cause of the deluge,
and this is an abuse of the dominion entrusted in Gen. 1. The taking
of human life (and possibly also animal life in this apparently vegetar-
ian context) is a corruption of the way which is outlined in Gen. 1.
Man is not supposed to exercise the power of life and death-that lies
outside his prerogatives and is reserved for God alone. Humanity has
ruined the order of creation which was established by God. As they
have done, so it will be done to them; they have destroyed their way,
God will annihilate them; those who spoil the way of God will be
ruined themselves. The moral decay of Gen. 6 is total. A similar
picture of moral collapse is found in Pss. 11 and 53. 39 Perhaps the
animals are included in the judgement because they had rebelled
against human authority. Though this can only be conjecture, one
has the impression that the whole created order had gone astray and
had rejected God.

ii. Violence
The Priestly source focuses on one sin in particular con. In the Old
Testament the noun con occurs 60 times, the verb con eight. Only
inJob 19 is it predicated of God, elsewhere it is used of humans, both
Jew and Gentile alike. 4o con is an action ('?.!JE) Isa. 59:6, i1tD.!J 53:9).41
In parallel to oon iD'~ is set .!Ji cn~ (Ps. 140:2), ::l'~ (Ps. 18:49) and
1,iD,? iD'~ (Ps. 140: 12). Placed in contrast to oon we find m~i::l (Prov.
10:6), ::l'~ (Prov. 13:2) and ~E:liDo (!sa. 59:6,8).42
There is considerable disagreement over the translation of the
term. HJ. Stoebe writes, "oon becomes a comprehensive general
term for sin".43 Speiser translates 'lawlessness'44 as does B.W. Vawter
who adds, "The author has offered no hint of the transgression of
divine prohibitions, no hint of murder or violence, no instance of
hubris or disorder".45 Cassuto claims that con can mean anything
that is not righteous since it is in parallel with other words for sin

39 P.D. Miller, Genesis }-11: Studies in Structure and 7heme, jSOTSS 8 (Sheffield,
1978), pp. 33/I
40 H. Haag, "D1:ln", 1WAT2 (1977), pp. 1050-1061, pp. 1050-1056, = TDOT4
(1980), pp. 478-487, pp. 478-482.
41 Haag (1977), p. 1055, = (1980), p. 482.
42 Haag (1977), p. 1054, = (1980), p. 48l.
43 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 416 from HJ. Stoebe, "Don", THAT 1
(1971), p. 587.
44 E.A. Speiser, Genesis (New York, 1969), p. 5l.
45 Vawter (1977), pp. 116ff.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 33

such as .t11, .t1rD1, il'?,.t1 and p~: Isa. 59:6,jonah 3:8, Ps. 58:3, 140:2,5
and Provo 4:17. 46 The LXX is no more specific in its renderings of
o~n since it uses ~eneral terms for human wickedness such as aOtKt<X.
and, 'to aOtKOV, 7 and for o~n rD'~ we find av~p K<X.KO~ or av~p
aOtKo~.
In contrast others have suggested that a more specific translation
is required. RSV, NEB and NIV render the word as 'violence'. We
shall argue that the latter translation is nearer the essential meaning
ofO~n.
We shall take as our starting point an important statement of
Robert Alter in his discussion of Hebrew poetry where he offers a
useful rule of thumb:
In the abundant instances, however, in which semantic parallelism does
occur in a line, the characteristic movement of meaning is one of height-
ening or intensification ... of focusing, specification, concretization, even
what could be called dramatisation ... The rule of thumb ... not invariable
law-is that the general term occurs in the first verset and a more spe-
cific instance of the general category in the second verset.
He quotes job 41: 16, "His heart is as solid as stone, / as solid as the
nether millstone".48 This principle may suggest that o~n is a more
specific term than 'unrighteousness' in some cases. For example
Cassuto quotes Isa. 59:6 as evidence that o~n is a general term since
it is set in parallel with 1'~. But if Alter is right, then as o~n is in the
second half of the verse, it may be a more specific term and may
possibly be better rendered as 'violence'. We shall discuss this further
below. The same applies in Ps. 140:2, where .t11 [J'~ is specified as
!:l'o~n rD'~ and 140:5 where .t1rD1 is parallel with [J'o~n rD'~. Ps. 58:3
offers a similar parallel:
ri~:l 11?.ilEln n?1.il :l?:l =,~
pO?Eln I:l:l',' oon
Proverbs 4: 17 does not offer us a specific context to determine the
meaning of o~n:
.ilWi I:ln? 10n? ':l
,nw' I:l'oon 1'"
Once more the parallelism suggests more than general unrighteous-
ness. It should be noted that the plural does not seem to point to a
significant difference of meaning. Perhaps it means violent deeds, but

46 Cassuto (1964), p. 52.

47 Haag (1977), p. 1054, = (1980), p. 481.
48 Alter (1985), p. 19.
34 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

in Ps. 140:2 the man of violent deeds is the same as a violent man. 49
The main problem is to find the common connotation of the
word; what sort of company does it keep? H. Haag has come closest
to the essence of the meaning:
Thus Don is cold-blooded and unscrupulous infringement of the personal
rights of others, motivated by foeed and hate and often making use of
physical violence and brutality. 0
The notion of rights is perhaps alien to the Old Testament, in that it
is a modern concept, which does not appear to be found clearly in
the Hebrew Bible. The importance of Haag's definition lies in his
understanding of oan as an attack on people which leads to an in-
fringement of their dignity. 'Violence' is probably the best rendering
of the term but this needs some qualification since in English the
word includes harm to property as well as to people. oan, we should
suggest, is used primarily of people, and the connotation is of oppres-
sion. Several factors seem to indicate this.
First, there are some passages which use oan in a prominent way,
e.g. Hab. 1:2,3. oan is one of the wrongs which caused the prophet
to cry out to God for help, not just for himself but for Israel. The
opening paragraph speaks of the perversion of justice, of strife, con-
tention, destruction, violence and trouble. oan is picked up again in
1:9 where the Chaldaeans come to inflict violent punishment on
Israel. 2:6-11 speak of plundering and violence, in particular blood-
shed is described in 2:8,17.2:12-14 condemn those who build a town
by bloodshed i.e. by killing. The first two chapters, amongst other
matters, seem particularly concerned with violence and oppression.
Chapter 3 continues by describing the punishment which is to come
as a result of this sin. Given these important themes in the book and
the prominent place which is given to oan, the word would seem to
be more accurately rendered as 'violence', rather than 'unrighteous-
ness'.
As we have already seen Ps. 140: 1ff uses oan in a similarly promi-
nent way. Once more the text suggests that the term is more likely to
be 'violence'. The men of violence stir up wars, lay a trap and try to
trip up the psalmist's feet. As a translation of oan 'unrighteousness'
would not do justice to the content of the Psalm.
Secondly, there are uses of oan where the context speaks of the
threat to life. The examples which have been quoted from Habbakuk

49 L. Kohler and W. Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden,

1958), pp. 311-2.
50 Haag (1977), p. 1056, = (1980), p. 482.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 35

illustrate this well. Judg. 9:24 refers to the killing of the seventy sons
ofJerubbal by Abimelech. InJob 19:7,Job cries out DOn; the siege
vocabulary of the passage suggests that he is suffering physical attack
of some sort (19:8-12).
Thirdly, there is a close association between Don and the spilling
of blood (e.g. Gen. 49:5). Don is often employed with 0'0' or 0', and
this relationship between the two words would suggest that Don
means more than unrighteousness and refers more particularly to
violence and bloodshed in particular. Hab. 2:8, 17 describe the shed-
ding of blood as doing violence to the earth-a reference probably to
pollution (compare Num. 35:29-34). The link between the two terms
can be seen in Ezekiel where 7:23 speaks of the land as "full of
bloody crimes and the city is full of DOn". Don can take on such large
proportions that the earth can be filled with it. Don ~'o is found
frequently in Ezekiel: 7:23 (where Don and 0'0' are synonyms), 8: 17,
and 28: 16. Violence can become so great that severe punishment is
inevitable. 51 Don is also employed in cultic contexts, yet the transla-
tion 'violence' is probably still appropriate since social abuse is often
linked to misuse of the cult and worship (Ezek. 22:26ff, cfJer. 19:4,
Ps. 106:38). Indeed given the role of blood in the cult and the impor-
tance of ritual purity, it is hardly surprising that Don is spoken of in
connection with the worship of Israel.
Further examples show the link between Don and blood. Joel 4:19
describes Don which has been done to Judah in terms of the shedding
of innocent blood. Isa. 59:6 puts this in clear perspective; 59:2 speaks
of iniquities separating man from God and in particular it is the
taking of life which is singled out: 59:3 "your hands are defiled with
blood"; 59:8 "the way of peace they know not". As will be noted
below, talk of unjust law in 59:4 could be for the purpose of seeking
another's destruction. Hence Don in Isa. 59 would seem to be more
appropriately rendered as 'violence'.
Some passages speak of Don as coming (~':l) upon ('?l') the doer,
returning to punish: Judg. 9:24, Ps. 7:17. AsJer. 51:35 shows, there is
here the same kind of expression as blood being on the head of the
offender. 52 "The violence done to me and to my kinsmen be upon
Babylon, let the inhabitant of Zion say, 'My blood be upon the
inhabitants of Chaldea'" (RSV). Like blood Don can stick to some-
body's hands (compare Isa. 1:15 andJob 16:17).53 The importance of

51 L. van der Wijngaert, "Die Siinde in der priesterschrifdichen Urgeschichte",

TP 43(1968), pp. 35-50, pp. 40-43.
52 Haag (1977), p. 1059, = (1980), pp. 485ff.
53 H.W. Wolff, Joel und Amos (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), p. 232, = Joel and Amos
(Philadelphia, 1977), p. 194.
36 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

clean hands and innocency is stressed in Ps. 24:3ff and this lies be-
hind such statements as 1 Chr. 12:18. 54 Both blood and Don defile
the land (Ezek. 7:23).
Fourthly, Don is often employed in connection with false accusa-
tion and unfair judgement. The writer of Ps. 58:2ff speaks of unjust
judges dealing out violence. 55
More specifically Don is often linked to ,,tJ. ,,tJ can mean plaintiff
rather than witness. In Deut. 19: 16 the false accuser is making an
attempt on his opponent's life; if the witness has lied, he is to die
(19: 18ll). Don means much more than lying; the point at issue is that
false accusation is being used to destroy another person. 56 The basic
idea of Don as oppression re-emerges (compare Mic. 6: 11 ff and Ps.
35: 11) with the word being employed in connection with those who
actively seek the destruction of others. As the false accuser has sought
the death of the accused, he has to suffer as he had wanted to do to
his brother. Of course in the court someone should experience the
exact opposite of Don. Don can then become a cry for help of some-
one who is attacked and can see no way of escape. Job 19:7 is the cry
of one who knows he is in the right and cries for just judgement (see
also Jer. 20:8).57
It can then be seen that "the primary context of Don is society". 58
It is the arbitrary exploitation and infringement of one's fellow, in
which brute force and bloodshed are employed. For example Amos
3: 10 accuses the rich of storing up Don in their houses i.e. treasure
gained from exploitation. It is here that there is an example of the
frequent combination of Don and "W, and this will be of help in
determining the meaning of the word Don.
Despite Haag's doubt about the distinction between the meaning
of the two words,59 Wolff is right to observe in the context of Amos
3: 10, that Don means (attempted) murder, or at least assault on life
and limb. ,'Won the other hand tends to refer to damage to material
goods. The word pair conveys the idea of murder and robbery,60 and
can almost be a single concept (Hab. 1:3). LL. Seeligmann writes,

54 I.L. Seeligmann, "Zur Tenninologie fur das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz

des biblischen Hebriiisch", in B. Hartman, (ed.), Hebriiische Woriforschung Festschrift for
W. Baumgartner, SVT 16 (Leiden, 1967), pp. 251-278, p. 258.
55 Haag (1977), p. 1057, = (1980), pp. 483ff.
56 Haag (1977), p. 1058, = (1980), p. 484 and see H. Boecker, Redeformen des
Rechtslebms imAlten Testament, WMANT 14 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964), pp. 57-66 for
the relation of oon to legal material.
57 S. Marrow, "Hamas ('violentia') inJer. 20:8", VD 43 (1965), pp. 241-55.
58 Haag (1977), p. 1056, = (1980), p. 483.
59 Haag (1977), pp. 1053ff, = (1980), p. 480.
60 Wolff (1969), p. 232, = (1977), p. 194.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 37

3: 10, Hab. 1:3, Ezek. 45:9. Stellen wie Ob 5, wo die n,',

i1tLi1 con ist eben eine feste Verbindung; sie findet sich noch in Amos
'ii1tLi den
Dieben c'::m parallel stehen (vgl auch Mic. 2:4) legen es nun nahe, in der
genannten Verbindung itLi als die an Gut und Besitz veriibt Gewalt zu
betrachten, oon wiirde dann ursprunglich den Angriff auf das Leben, den
Mordversuch bedeuten. Fur diese Annahme spricht, dass sich blosses oon
(Plll) ~iP erhalten hat, nicht blosses itLi ~iP, in con lage also wohl die
direktere korperliche Bedrohung. 61
Other uses of "tti suggest that it is primarily a word for attack on
material objects: destruction in battle (Isa. 13:6), of Jerusalem (Isa.
22:4), of despoiling (Ps. 12:6). The verb "tti can be used of the taking
of life (Judg. 5:27) but more often refers to property, in the sense of
destroying or laying waste (Isa. 15: 1, Jer. 4:20).
Perhaps the apparent overlap between the two terms is due to the
fact that the destruction of material objects and the taking of life
often come together in war or similar situations: Isa. 59:7 where
those who destroy also shed blood; Jer. 6:7 in the context of a siege,
where there is both the taking of life and the destruction of property.
Indeed the fact that the two words are used together so often, sug-
gests that they have different points of reference.
Whilst the two terms are often closely associated with each other
in contexts of punishment, it does appear that can is used primarily
of humans and "tti of property. Indeed damage done to people's
property can include personal harm since it is an infringement of
their dignity as humans. In one sense the word can is broader that
the English word 'violence' since it includes false testimony in court
but it is also narrower in that its primary focus is on people. Conse-
quently even in passages where the context is not specific, can should
be rendered as 'violence' (e.g. Provo 3:31, 26:6).

iii. Violence in Genesis 6

In relating the above discussion to Gen. 6 it would seem that the
translations of can offered by Cassuto ('unrighteousness') and Vawter
('lawlessness') are inadequate. The cumulative case of the above dis-
cussion shows that can is best translated as 'violence'. The Hebrew is
more specific than the English and there is no exact equivalent in our
language: can in Gen. 6 covers all violent crime, bloodshed and
oppression. Naturally this fits our interpretation of the corruption of
the way in 6: 12. Violence is a deliberate breach of the way ordained
by God in Gen. 1:26ff, since God does not permit the oppression of
one's fellows. The function of the imago Dei is corrupted, because
instead of faithfully exercising his role as God's representative (tJ'?~)

61 Seeligmann (1967), p. 257.

38 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

and vice-gerent, man grasps at powers which are not rightfully his.
Instead of using the dignity and power which is entrusted to the
image at creation for the benefit of the world, humanity assumes an
arbitrary false authority, which brings evil. The world is not just
corrupt, but it is corrupted by violence. It can then be seen why the
image of God is given such prominence both in the creation and in
the flood. Having severed himself from God by the sin of oan, man
has made himself liable for drastic punishment by death. Humanity
which commits oan destroys itself.
In contrast Noah is the faithful man of God who appears to be
free from the sin of violence. He has not corrupted the way of Gen.
1, and because of this he is chosen to be the means whereby human-
ity is delivered from annihilation. By faithfully obeying God in 6: 14-
21, he provides an example of the appropriate stewardship of crea-
tion which is so clearly lacking in the corrupt generation. The life
which is saved is the one which most resembles the image of God. It
seems that human life is of value in its relation to God, not just in its
own right.
The more specific translation of oan in Gen. 6 is supported by the
commands which are given at the end of the deluge in Gen. 9: 1-7.
These will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter 6. A parallel
from outside P is of help here. The story of the Golden Calf focuses
on the particular sin of idolatry which placed Israel in jeopardy.
Exod. 34: 17-26 gives a series of cultic laws with particular emphasis
on the eradication of idolatry: 34:17 echoes 32:1-6. The commands
at the end of the story deliberately focus on the particular cause of
judgement; there is a link between commandment and sin. Likewise
it would seem probable that the commands given in Gen. 9 would
bear a close relationship with the sin which caused the flood. It would
be odd if these commands were chosen at random, without any ref-
erence to their context. There murder is prohibited and human do-
minion over the animal world is defined more precisely; man may eat
meat so long as he abstains from the blood of animals. The fact that
the commands at the end of the deluge single out violence, in par-
ticular murder, as of special concern, would suggest that this was the
primary cause of the flood.
It is worth recalling that murder pollutes the land as well as having
consequences for individuals. If our interpretation of oan is correct,
the flood is not just a punishment but a means of ridding the earth of
pollution, and starting afresh with a clean world. oan can be used in
a physical way, covering hands (Job 16: 17) and clothes (Mal. 2: 16).
The problem of blood guilt was especially acute (Num. 35:30-34,
Deut. 21 :7fl). Israel believed that not only murder, but also sexual
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 39

abomination and idolatry polluted Ger. 2:6ff, Ezek. 36:18). T.

Frymer-Kensky argues that the writer of Genesis has interpreted the
primeval history in the light of these three sins. 62
I should like to agree with T. Frymer-Kensky that the context of
the story of the flood needs to be taken seriously in exegesis, but I
want to develop her argument by suggesting that murder was the
primary cause of the deluge. The writer seems not to have envisaged
sexual sin and idolatry before the flood; the story does not appear to
regard these as the sins which led to the deluge. It was oon, the
infringement of others which is the writer's chief concern, and this, in
view of the commands in 9: 1-7 and the concept of pollution, was seen
most especially in the taking of life.
Having noted the above points, it does seem that P does not use
his usual vocabulary for sin. oon and nnw are never used by P again,
since he prefers terms such as ~~n and l'l'. 63 K. Koch argues that
this was because in P's view sin was only possible when holiness had
been established in the cult.
Wie es namlich keine Heiligkeit vor Aufrichtung des sinaitischen Kultes
gibt, so auch keine Sunde (und damber hinaus keine Unreinheit). Die
dafur entscheidenden Wortstiimme ~~n und 11.0 (sowie ~o~) werden vor
Exod. 25 nie gebraucht, wahrend sie sich von da an haufen. Wohl gibt es
zuvor unter den Menschen Aufbegehren gegen Gott, gibt es Verge-
waltigungen (Don) auf Erden, die so hoch anwachsen, daB dadurch die
Sintflut heraufgeftihrt wird (Gen. 6: II ff); ja selbst Israel murrt gegen
Gott (Exod. 16)-aber es gibt noch keine Sunde! Sunde ist erste moglich
im Strahlun~bereich des Heiligen und angesichts der vollendeten
Offenbarung. 4
Koch's basic point seems useful. The establishment of the cult and
the laws concerning behaviour appropriate to its holiness, effected a
profound change in Israel's attitude to sin. P presents a cultic centred
concept of ethics; sin before the establishment of the cult on Sinai
was seen in a rather different light, and hence we have the more
general term of nnw instead of~~n or l'l'. In Gen. 6 sin concerns the
corruption of the ordinances of creation, not the rules of the cult.
Koch's point should not be pushed too far. It is not that sin is not
envisaged before Sinai, but rather a particular type of sin which is
associated with the cult and which is not found before Sinai. The pre-
Sinai material in P is not vast and it would be inappropriate to

62 T. Frymer-Kensky, "The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for our Under-
standing of Genesis 1-9", BA 40 (1977), pp. 147-154, especially pp. 152fT.
63 McEvenue (1971), p. 42.
64 K. Koch, "Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung", :(TK 55
(1958), pp. 36-51, especially pp. 45fT.
40 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

deduce too much from one passage in Gen. 6, since the omission of
1111 and toI;~n could have been coincidental. Perhaps the reason for
these distinct terms is that the context of the flood is universal, and
that the sin of Don and the corruption of the way of Gen. I were not
crimes to which only Israel was prone, in the way that disobedience
to the covenant stipulations was. There is always the temptation to
infringe the dignity of others. Koch's theory cannot be proved, but it
does suggest that the writer is aware of the differences between pre-
and post-Sinai times, and he reflects this in his vocabulary.
It must also be noted that Koch is arguing at the level of P, not of
the completed text. If the text is read as a whole, his point loses its
significance; 4:7 employs ntol;~i1.
In summary P is more specific about the sin which caused the
flood: it was corrupting the way which had been ordained by God in
1:26ff. In particular the wrong consisted of 'violence'; that prompted
God to bring a deluge.

3. Reading J and P Together

Our understanding of the flood is enhanced considerably by reading
the two sources together, as well as at the level of] and P. Gen. 6: llff
echoes other passages in the primeval history in Gen. 1-5. One has to
be a little careful in reading the text as a whole since there appears to
be some unevenness in the juxtaposition of passages and doubts
might be raised as to the validity of such an approach. There are
certain inconsistencies in the narratives of Gen. 1-11, some of which
have been discussed in the Introduction. For example the events of
4: 17 -26 do not seem to envisage a flood interrupting the line of
descent, and it might be questioned whether these have any bearing
on the deluge. 65 Care needs to be taken when the text is read even on
the level of], but all the more so when it is taken as a whole. It is
doubtful whether such problems should be taken too seriously in a
primeval context, as we are not dealing with historical narrative. The
various texts do not fit together evenly, but as far as the final foml of
the passage is concerned, it is suggestive that there are two accounts
of the taking of life before the deluge.
If the exegete is to accept the heuristic value of the sources in the
story of the flood, it seems that it is only whilst describing the actual
course of the deluge itself that the redactor has combined his two
strands, so that the introduction (6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7-9] and 6:9-22 P),

65 See Wenham (1987), pp. 97ff, and for the problem of 4: 17 see p.lll and
Cassuto (1961), pp. 194ff, 235, 246.
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 41

and the conclusion (8:20-22] and 9: 1-1 7 P), remain unaltered. This
is probably deliberate since the meaning of the story lay mainly in
these two sections, and it was necessary to allow each to speak for
itsel( As far as this book is concerned the focus of study will be on
these verses particularly in Chapters 1-3 and 5-7, since it is here that
the value of human life is given considerable attention. 66
J. Emerton writes, "I cannot find in 6: 11-12 anything substantially
new in relation to 6:5".67 As we have argued in the Introduction to
this book, there probably are two sources here, but the discussion
cannot stop there. Both sources offer a distinct perspective on their
subject matter, and P specifies that the flood was caused by violence.
Both sources ascribe the cause of the flood to human sin, though P is
more specific as to the nature of the wrongdoing, and] offers a more
anthropomorphic description of God's reaction to it. Against
Emerton it is to be noted that 6: 11 ff adds a great deal to 6:5ff.
Whilst two sources may have been behind Gen. 6, the repetition
may have been used quite deliberately as a literary device. By repeti-
tion the writer can develop the motif of human sin more effectively.
In 6:5 the wrongdoing is introduced in a general way, and the motif
is expanded and developed in 6: 11 ff. The repetition is not simply
reiterative, since the second passage intensifies and develops the
first, so as to underline the significance of Don and the corruption of
the way of Gen. 1:26ff.
As we noted in our Introduction, it seems that for the writer of the
flood (and also for the authors of passages like Gen. 1-2 and 1 Sam.
16-17), the method which was used in incorporating multiple per-
spectives was not the fusion of views, but rather a montage of view-
points which were arranged in sequence. In Chapter 5 we shall ob-
serve how this works for the conclusion of the story of the flood. Here
it is important to see how the compiler of the story of the deluge has
placed two descriptions of the flood beside each other, so that the
latter yields a more precise definition of the sin which led God to
bring punishment. The repetition is not superfluous or redundant.
The writer wishes to indicate how evil that particular generation had
become-a fact emphasised all the more by lJ1'i1 ?:::J and 1iD::l ?:::J. P
is more specific than] in describing the sin, but he also extends the
sin to cover the animal kingdom as well (6: 11 fl).
There are also important resonances between Gen. 6: 11 and other
] passages prior to it. First, the corruption of Gen. 6: 11 involves to
some extent a development of the sin of Gen. 3. There the transgres-

66 Westermann (1974), pp. 571fT, = (1984), pp. 424ff.

67 Emerton (1987), p. 412.
42 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

sion was hubris; by disobeying God the couple were attempting to be

like him, to grasp at the prerogatives which should belong to God
alone: the knowledge of good and evil. 3:5 "For God knows that
when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil" (RSV). Not satisfied with this, humanity
seeks to be like God and exercise the prerogative of life and death,
which rightly belongs to the creator alone (6: 11 £I). Whilst murder is a
crime against one's fellow human, it is also an inappropriate attempt
to be like God which oversteps the boundaries which are set by God
in 1:26ff. From Gen. 3 onwards man attempts to distort the image,
which has been entrusted to him, by his arrogant attempt to be like
God in ways which are strictly forbidden.
Secondly, this is developed in the stories of Cain and Lamech.
There the taking of life is an inappropriate use of the dominion
which is given in Gen. 1:26ff. Man is not permitted to rule over his
fellows to the extent of killing. Cain and Lamech deliberately mar the
image of God which is placed in all of humanity. They provide clear
illustrations of oon and the corruption of the way which is described
in 6: 11 fI Before the flood the taking of life is given special emphasis,
and Gen. 4 deals with this question in considerable depth. The in-
crease of both humanity and its technical ability do not result in
moral advance (4:17-22, 5:1-32).
Further, Gen. 4: 10 gives us an example of blood polluting the land
in the way that oon seems to do: "The voice of your brother's blood
is crying to me from the ground". Life is in the blood (Lev. 17), and
blood is a polluting substance; murder pollutes the ground. Abel's
blood cries for vengeance. p.v~ is the cry of men who are without
food and desperate (Gen. 41 :55), or who are oppressed by enemies
(Judg. 4:3). It is the plea of a woman who is being raped (Deut.
22:24, 27) and the cry of those who suffer injustice (Exod. 22:22). As
Gunkel writes, "Cain had tilled the land. He had offered the fruit of
the land, and given the land his brother's blood to drink: but from
the land the blood cries against him, for which the land refuses him
its fruit, so he is banned from the land".68 Cain cannot hide the deed
since the blood cries out to God for vengeance ,'?~ 'to me'. God
always hears the victim's blood even if no human does.
This will be discussed more fully in chapter 6, but here we should
note that as God hears the crime of Cain, so too he also observed the

68 Quoted in Wenham (1987), p. 107 from H. Gunkel, Genesis iiberset?:t und erldiirt
(3rd edition, Gottingen, 1910), p. 45, and see the discussion there and Westermann
(1974), pp. 414ff, = (1984), pp. 304ff. Compare Wisd. 10:4 which regards Cain as
the cause of the flood.
 LATER EXEGESIS 43

world which is full of oan. He is not indifferent to oppression, and

intervenes to punish as is necessary.
Gen. 6 also picks up the theme of i1a,~ which is prominent in
Gen. 1-11 especially in J where the word occurs 23 times (it occurs
four times in P but only in expressions such as i1a'~i1 tva, 1:25). In
3:17,23 the relationship between man and the ground (2:7) is broken
by human sin. Cain's fratricide causes the ground to yield him hard-
ship (4: 12), and the generation of the flood is removed from the
ground (6:7,7:4,23).69 Sin puts in jeopardy that which is so central
to human existence: the ground. Not only is murder a crime against
one's fellow but like oan it also disrupts and pollutes the environ-
ment, so that hardship comes to those who work it. Sin has its effects
on the physical world.
Further, oan echoes Cain's words "Am I my brother's keeper?"
As Cain abrogated his responsibilities to his brother, so also the
wicked generation used oan as a means of destroying social responsi-
bility.

4. Later Exegesis
Some slight evidence from later tradition is suggestive for our case.
In the Sybilline Oracles Noah preaches a sermon to his contempo-
raries chiding them for their sins, especially murder. Book 1 lines
109-119 describe the generation of the flood as being a warlike peo-
ple who shed much blood. Noah declares, "Be sober, cut off all evils,
and stop fighting violently with each other, having a bloodthirsty
heart, drenching much earth with blood", 154-156. Jubilees 7:20-24
states that the flood came because of fornication, pollution and injus-
tice. 7:23ffreads, "And everyone sold himself in order that he might
do injustice and pour out much blood, and the earth was full of
injustice .... And they poured out much blood upon the earth .... And
the Lord blotted out everything from the face of the earth on account
of the evil of their deeds. And on account of the blood which they
poured out in the midst of the land, he blotted out everything". 70 It is
interesting that these writers should single out murder as being a
particular concern for the ante-diluvian generation.

69 Miller (1978), pp. 37-42.

70 J.R. Charlesworth (ed), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha volume 1 (London, 1983),
pp. 337ff and Volume 2 p. 70.
44 THE CAUSES OF THE FLOOD

5. Conclusion
One of the significant differences between the account in Genesis of
the flood and the Mesopotamian versions is found in the cause of the
deluge. In the Atrahasis Epic humanity is created to relieve the bur-
den of the gods' work, but mankind multiplies so much that EnliI
cannot sleep:
"The noise of mankind [has become too intense for me]
[With their uproar] I am deprived of sleep".71
The Gilgamesh Epic gives no ethical cause for the flood: "Their
heart prompted the great gods to bring a deluge", Tablet 11 line
14.72 There is not a clear ethical motive for sending the deluge as
there is in Genesis, where the cause of the flood is attributed to
humanity's evil, in particular to con.
Both] and P parallel each other but each offers a distinct perspec-
tive, and the second is by no means a simple repetition of the first,
though they do have aspects in common. There are possibly two
sources but the repetition is not redundant. Further, the resonances
between the sources in Gen. 1-6 which we have discussed, show that
there are important new aspects which can be observed if the two
accounts are read as a unity. Significant points are omitted if the
scholar remains at the level of] or P. By reading the two separately
and then jointly, our understanding of the text has been enhanced
significantly.
It is clear from the outset that the flood places the question of the
value of human life as a motif for the whole story. It was the oppres-
sion of fellow humans which was the cause of the flood. Man does
not have authority over life and death; that prerogative belongs to
God alone. Yet con involves more than the taking of life; it is the
infringement of the dignity of others. It then becomes evident that
the story is concerned for more than the value of human life in and
of itself It is human personhood which is of value, that is people in
relationship to each other and above all to God. God has entrusted to
man the dignity of a relationship to himself in the form of his image,
to be his vice-gerent. con is a corruption of the function of the image
and thereby an attack on God's authority in the world. Human life
attains its value not in and of itself, but in its relationship to God
through the image. The remainder of the book will explore how the
story develops the question of the value of human life in its relation to
God.

71 See lines 358ffin Lambert and Millard (1969). See also Moran (1971), pp. 51-
61.
72 Quoted from Heidel (1946), p. 80.
 CHAPTER TWO

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

The account of the deluge presents Noah as an exemplary model of

piety. In the entire Old Testament he is the only man who is de-
scribed as p"~. In 6:8 ill Noah found favour with God, and in 7:1
ill his righteousness is seen in faithful obedience to God's command.
P describes Noah as righteous, blameless and as walking with God in
6:9ff. There does however appear to be a paradox: 6:8-10 seem to
exclude Noah from the general depiction of humanity, whilst 8:21
includes him in the statement that man's heart is evil from his youth
upward because only Noah and his family are then alive. The prob-
lem is how do these statements relate? The present chapter will ex-
plore Noah's relationship with God, and will relate the question to
the value of human life in the story of the flood.

1. Righteousness in the Old Testament

In order to understand our text, a study of the root P'~ is necessary.
A person was either righteous or not, there could be no intermediary
stages. I There is no precise English equivalent to terms such as i1P'~
and P'~, and the reader of the Bible needs to be careful not to
understand i1P'~ according to the western tradition of Roman law,
where an individual's proper conduct was judged over and against an
ethical norm. 2 Von Rad writes,
The mistake lay in seeking and presupposing an absolute ideal ethical
norm, since ancient Israel did not in fact measure a line of conduct or an
act by an ideal norm, but by the specific relationship in which the part-
ner had at the time to prove himself true. 3
Perhaps von Rad's distinction between absolute ethical norms and
relationships is not really justified since, as we shall see, moral stand-

I B.s. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London, 1985), p. 209.
See also W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments 1 Gott und Yolk (Stuttgart and
Gottingen, 1959), pp. 155-62, = Theology oftlte Old Testament 1 God and People (London,
1961), pp. 239-249.
2 Childs (1985), p. 208. .
3 G. von Rad, Theologie des Allen Testaments 1:Theologie der historischen Oberlieferungen
Israels (Munich, 1957), p. 369, = Old Testament neology 1: The Theology of Israel's
Historical Traditions (London, 1975), p. 371.
46 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

ards are central to the concept of righteousness, but von Rad is right
to note that at the heart of the Old Testament concept ofi1Pi~ is the
idea of a relationship. A righteous person was someone who meas-
ured up to the claims which the relationship laid upon him. Each
relationship, whether between individuals or God's covenant with
Israel brings demands upon the conduct of the participants. The
fulfilling of these claims ofthe relationship results in i1Pi~. pi~ refers
to a relationship between persons rather than to the relationship of
an object to an idea. 4 The most pertinent of these relationships was
that between God and Israel. i1Pi~ denotes the duties of each party
arising out of the relationship.
Any discussion of righteousness in the Old Testament must be
wary of modern, in particular Lutheran, presuppositions colouring
our view of the text. Luther taught that law and gospel were two
concepts which were in antithesis to one another: 5 the gospel is
viewed positively, the law negatively. In addition there is a noticeable
anti-Semitism in Luther's writing, particularly in his later works. 5 It
can come as no surprise that scholars from Germany may have been
particularly influenced by Luther in their treatment of righteousness,
and we need to be aware of this in our discussion.
Consequently Jewish writers have reacted against some aspects of
the understanding of i1Pi~ as expounded by such scholars as von
Rad and Eichrodt, who not only came from Protestant backgrounds,
but were also influenced by events in Germany in the 1930's.
Levenson points out that there is a tendency for both of them to
adopt a negative attitude to law and an unnecessary eagerness to see
a dichotomy between faith and works in the Old Testament.7 For
example von Rad says that the law became an absolute quantity
which ceased to be understood as the saving ordinance, but became
"a dictate which imperiously called into being its own community". 8
Of course there can be legalism in religion, but this does not neces-

4 Von Rad (1957), p. 369, = (1975), I p. 371 and see discussion there pp. 369ff
= Rp. 371fT.
5 For a discussion of the relationship between law and gospel see E.Jungel, Barth
Studien (Zurich, 1982), pp. 180-209 = Karl Barth: a 17uological Legacy (philadelphia,
1986), pp. lO5-126.
6 R.L. Rubenstein and].K. Roth, Approaches to Auschwitz: 17u Legacy qf the Holo-
caust (London, 1987), pp. 52-65.
7 See].D. Levenson, "Why Jews are not interested in Biblical Theology", in].
Neusner, B.A. Levine and F.S. Freirichs (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel
(philadelphia, 1987), pp. 281-307, "The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament and
Historical Criticism", in R.E. Friedman and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), 17u Future qf
Biblical Studies: 17u Hebrew Scriptures (Adanta, 1987), pp. 19-59, especially pp. 37fT.
8 Von Rad (1957), p. 201, = (1975), I p. 201.
 RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 47

sarily follow from the Old Testament in the way that von Rad sup-
posed, and legal observation in both Old Testament and Judaism can
bring great benefit to its adherents.
Whilst agreeing with von Rad that P'~ is primarily a relational
term, care needs to be taken with other aspects of his understanding
of the concept, since he pays insufficient attention to the role of
human action in the idea of righteousness. To a certain extent right-
eousness was a gift, and the word can denote God's saving acts in
history: Judg. 5:11, 1 Sam.l2:7, Mic. 6:5, Ps. 103:6, Isa. 45:8 and
46:13. 9 Yet righteousness also incorporated human obedience and
was not simply a gift from God. God's action was paramount but he
also drew on an active human response. Righteousness was God's
saving work but it also demanded and included human obedience to
Torah which played a central role in the life of the people of God.
The righteous man is one who keeps the moral law, and who "does
what is lawful and right", as Ezekiel puts it in Ezek. 18:5 (this chapter
will be discussed more fully below.). Ezekiel 18 envisages a clear link
between human action and a person's status whether righteous or
wicked: "Therefore I will judge you, 0 house of Israel, everyone
according to his ways" (18:30).
Consequently righteousness appears to be both the abundant gift
of God and faithful response to the moral law. The Old Testament is
by no means averse to merited favour. God draws people into fuller
obedience and righteousness by his commandments, not just by the
law, but also by the example of individuals from the past such as
Noah.
Abraham in Gen. 22 gives a supreme example of living according
to Torah and his response is normative for all Israel. 10 Here is a good
example of the connection between the divine promise and human
obedience. The promises of 22: 16ff which elsewhere are a unilateral
and unconditional gift on God's part, are here related to Abraham's
obedience. Abraham does not qualify to receive blessing by obedi-
ence since the promises have already been made (12:1-3, 15:1-6,
17:1-8). Rather the terms of reference have changed in Gen.22 in
that the promise is based not just on God's will but also on
Abraham's obedience (22: 16-18). Israel owes its existence both to
God and to Abraham. As Moberly notes, "Theologically this consti-
tutes a profound understanding of the value of human obedience-it
can be taken up by God and become a motivating factor in his

9 Childs (1985), p. 208, and von Rad (1957), pp. 370ff, = (1975), 1 pp. 372ff.
10 R.W.L. Moberly, "The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah", VT38 (1988),
pp. 302-323, pp. 304ff.
48 THE RIGlITEOUSNESS OF NOAH

purposes towards man".11 In Gen. 6-9 the existence of the whole

world is at stake and in Gen. 22 and Exod. 32-34 it is Israel which is
placed in jeopardy, but on each occasion deliverance is safeguarded
by the faithful response of a man to God. Each case shows the poten-
tial and significance of the human factor in relation to God. 12 It is
essential to realise that in the Old Testament actions have moral and
religious consequences. There is a clear connection between what a
person does and what happens to him. Righteousness leads to an
enhanced quality of life (Ps. 72: 1if, Isa. 11), and can bring life to
others (Gen. 6:9, 7: 1). Deut 6:25 sees obedience as righteousness, and
blessing is the outcome of obedience (Deut. 28:1-14). Human right-
eousness brings divine approval for the deed (Deut. 24: 13) and there
is a link between i1~':J and i1P'~. As Moberly writes with respect to
Gen. 15:6, "The semantic point that it can be difficult to distinguish
between i1P'~ as behaviour of man and as action of God reflects the
theological point that when man lives in full obedience to God there
is a convergence between human and divine action".13
Finally, it is necessary to note the suggestion of H.H. Schmid who
interpreted righteousness in the Old Testament in terms of a concept
of cosmic order which was part of an Ancient Near Eastern world-
view. Instead of arguing that righteousness was grounded primarily
in the covenant, Schmid claimed that i1P'~ was a world order which
encompassed areas such as law, cult, wisdom, war and kingship. Is-
rael derived this concept from the Canaanites. 14
Schmid's study is significant in pointing to the background of the
concept of righteousness, and in linking it to the idea of cosmic order.
However, as we have noted, the Old Testament's understanding of
righteousness involved more than an impersonal order or cosmic
harmony. Certainly the world is presented as a well ordered harrno-
nious structure, which can be disrupted by human sin (e.g. Hos. 4: 1-
3), but righteousness also involved a personal relationship with God
who intervenes to overcome Israel's sin. As we shall see, though
Noah is a man who lives in harmony with the created order, his
righteousness is also seen in his obedient response to the direct, per-
sonal command of God. Schmid has not done full justice to i1p,~.15

II Moberly (1988), p. 321.

12 Moberly (1988), pp. 318-322.
13 R.W.L. Moberly, "Abraham's Righteousness (Genesis XV:6)", in]. Emerton
(ed~ Studies in the Pentateuch, SVT 41 (1990), pp. 103-130, p. 126.
I H.H. Schmid, Gerechtigkdt als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des
Alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffen (Tubingen, 1968), especially pp. 66-9, 166-8.
15 B.S. Childs, Biblical Theology oJthe Old and New Testaments: Theological Rdlectiolls on
the Christian Bible (London, 1992), pp. 490ff.
 THE YAHWIST 49

2. 17ze Yahwist
"But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord", Gen. 6:8.
"Then the Lord said to Noah, 'Go into the ark, you and all your
household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this
generation"', Gen. 7:1 (RSV).
i1Pi~ is central to the Yahwist's portrayal of Noah in Gen. 7: l.
Perhaps the closest analogy to its use here is P'i~ in Gen. 18:22-33,
and the contrast to the wicked (.lJtDi). There are similarities between
the story of the flood and Genesis 18-19. Both concern non Israelites
and the complete destruction of a people by a natural event. Each
account portrays the deliverance of one man and his family, though
they also include a description of a breach of sexual mores and
drunkenness. There is re-population from a single hero, and the
question of righteousness is central to both, since punishment is based
on moral grounds (6:5-7, 18:23£1). In both one individual finds favour
in the sight of another: 6:8, 19: 19. 16
The problem on which Gen. 18 focuses is whether or not God
does justice in his dealings with the world, in particular with regard
to the problem of communal responsibility. Will the righteous suffer
the same fate as the wicked? The story tells the reader that the
destruction of Sodom and Gommorah was a just action, which was
directly related to the sin of these places. The passage aims to dispel
any doubt as to God's just dealings with humanity; he rewards the
pious and punishes the wicked. There is a strict correlation between
how God himself acts and the way he expects people to behave. The
problem arises when God judges the whole world, and it was vital to
show that he acts justly in history. "Shall not the judge of all the earth
do right?" The righteous will not be treated as are the wicked and
God is fair in his ways. In this case a small number of guiltless are of
such importance that judgement can be averted. 17 In this story it is

16 W.M. Clark, "The Flood and the Structure of Pre-Patriarchal History", ZAW
83 P971), pp. 184-211, pp. 195ff.
1 C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 334-57, = Gen-
esis 12-36 (London, 1986), pp. 283-293, von Rad (1958), pp. 177-183, = (1963), pp.
204-210 and R. Davidson, 1he Courage to Doubt· Exploring an Old Testament Theme
(London,1983), pp. 44-9. For a further discussion of Gen. 18 see T.D. Alexander,
"Lot's Hospitality: a Clue to his Righteousness", JBL 104 (1985), pp. 289-91; S.P.
Jeansonne, "The Characterisation of Lot in Genesis", BIB 18 (1988), pp. 123-129;
L.A. Turner, "Lot as Jekyll and Hyde: a Reading of Gen. 18-19", in D. Clines, S.
Fowl and S. Porter (eds.), 1he Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration qf Forty Years
qf Biblical Studies in the University qf Sheffield,JSOTSS 87 (Sheffield, 1990), pp. 85-101,
and G.W. Coats, "Lot as Foil in the Abraham Saga", inJ.T. Buder, F.W. Conrad
and B.C. Ollenburger (cds.), Understanding the Word: Essays in Honour qf B. WAnderson
JSOTSS 37 (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 113-132.
50 THE RIGHfEOUSNESS OF NOAH

Lot, his wife and daughters who are delivered from the destruction of
the city. They are spared because they do not partake of the gross
immorality of Sodom.
The same problem of whether or not God deals justly with the
world is found in the story of the flood. There the wickedness of
humanity is so great that God needs to destroy the whole world. The
wicked deserve their fate, but what of the righteous man who has
found God's favour? Will he too be swept away? Will the judge of all
the earth do justice? The same concern for justice is evident in both
stories since, like Lot, Noah is also saved. Innocent life is spared;
those who are P"~ do not deserve death.

i. In ~~o
"The basic meaning of the root Qnn is grace", writes Freedman. 18
The verb pn has the sense of the bestowal of a kindness which could
not rightfully be claimed (e.g. 2 Sam. 12:22).19 pn in the qal means
"be gracious", "show favour" and the Hithpael means "seek fa-
vour"-usually of God. On two occasions it has an aesthetic meaning
(Prov. 22: 11 and 26:25), but elsewhere is used of the favour shown in
personal relationships; the positive disposition of one person towards
another.
In contrast to 'Dn, which must be practised by both parties, In is
a free gift, usually from a person in a superior to one in an inferior
position, which is given only so long as the giver desires, and it may
be withdrawn at any time. 2o TJ'.lJ:J In 'n~~o is a common deferen-
tial phrase in secular use, which can be an elaborate 'please' (Gen.
30:27) or 'thank you' (2 Sam. 16:4). Whilst favour is a gift, it can be
given in response to merit (Prov. 13:15).21
The theological uses of the term are not dissimilar. Our concern
in this chapter is God's favour to humans. God is described as l1Jn,
an adjective used mainly of God (Exod. 34:6), (though it is used of a
righteous man in Ps. 112:4), who dispenses grace according to his
sovereign authority (Exod. 33: 19). Only God is said to give favour
and he never seeks it ofhumans. 22 Dan. 9:3, 17-19 show that God's

18 D.N. Freedman and]. Lundbom, "pn" in 1WAT3 (1982), pp. 23-41, p. 23, =
mOT5 (1986), pp. 22-36, p. 22. See this article for a discussion. See also D.R. Ap-
Thomas, "Some Aspects of the Root J:INN in the Old Testament", JSS 2 (1957), pp.
128-148.
19 W.F. Lofthouse, "J:Ien and J:Iesed in the Old Testament", ZAW51 (1933), pp.
29-35, p.29.
20 Freedman and Lundbom (1982), pp. 26ff, = (1986), p. 25.
21 Freedman and Lundbom (1982), pp. 30ff, = (1986), pp. 27ff.
22 Freedman and Lundbom (1982), pp. 32ff = (1986), pp. 30ff.
 THE YAHWIST 51

favour is his to give or withdraw and cannot be claimed as a right.

Whilst God alone grants favour, the Old Testament is by no
means averse to the idea of correct human behaviour gaining divine
approval. There are many passages which see a link between moral
action and divine pleasure. The Psalms contain pleas for divine fa-
vour sought either in terms of integrity (Ps. 26: 11), walking uprightly
(86:2ff, 112:4), righteousness or humility (119:29), or in terms of
righteousness coupled with repentance: 25:16, 41:5, 51:1 (compare 2
Sam. 12:22, 1 Kgs. 8:33, 47). Passages in other contexts show a
connection between action and finding favour: Num. 11:11, 15,
Amos 5: 15, Mal. 1:9, Provo 3:4, 24, 28:23. 23 It can then be seen that
there is a direct relationship between what a person does and the
favour accorded to, or at least requested for that person.
It is not the case however, that favour is always connected with
human action, nor is it wholly dependent on what man does. For
example Exod. 34:6 describes God as gracious in a situation where
Israel has sinned and not shown any repentance for her transgression
(see Chapter 5). Consequently the picture presented is not one of a
neat system of human action always meriting God's favourable dispo-
sition, but rather of a God who freely bestows favour, and this may
or may not be in response to human merit. God's sovereignty in
granting grace is paramount, but it can also take up humanity's obe-
dience in the process of giving favour. If someone is described as
finding favour, it mayor may not be due to merit or repentance on
his part, or it may be grounded in the free mercy of God.

ii. Gen. 6:8 and 7:1

It is in the light of the above that we are to understand Gen. 6:8. The
only other explicit statement of an individual finding favour in the
Old Testament is that of Moses in Exod. 32-34. The emphasis of
Gen. 6:8 is on God's pity and mercy in delivering Noah. It does not
say that Noah is righteous, but rather shows God's grace, which is
based on his plan for mankind. 24 Von Rad writes,
To the reader of the Yahwistic work Noah is known only by name (ch
5:29), i.e., not in such a way that God's choice could be made compre-
hensible. That choice finds its explanation only in God's gracious will,
who even before the frightful judgement has chosen the man in whom
some day his work of salvation can again be resumed. 25

23 Freedman and Lundbom (1982), pp. 33ff = (1986), pp. 31fT.

24 Vawter (1977), p. 114.
25 Von Rad (1958), p. 96, = (1963), p. 114.
52 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

In order to understand what is meant by Noah finding favour with

God it is necessary to integrate 6:8 with 7: 1 and the story as a whole.
No discussion of Gen. 7:1 can afford to omit reference to W.M.
Clark's interpretation of the verse. He notes that the problem re-
volves around the relationship between 7:1 and 6:8. He rejects the
idea that Noah found favour because he was righteous, or that he
was declared just as a result of having found favour. Clark argues that
there is a distinction between] and P at this point, in that for P Noah
was righteous before the flood, but for] Noah was only exempt from
the judgement. Clark argues that the favour of God is not motivated
by the prior righteousness of Noah. Elsewhere in the Old Testament
finding favour and righteousness are not equated. Neither is 7: 1b to
be translated, "I have seen on the basis of what you have done". He
concludes that Noah's righteousness is a prospective reality which
becomes actual when Noah realises it by obedience, possibly only at
the end of the flood, when the sacrifice is accepted. The reason is not
the past merit of Noah but is grounded in the purposes of God. Clark
compares 1 Sam. 16: 1 which he argues parallels Gen. 7: 1, and claims
that i1~' is used of election. 2 Kgs. 8: 13 also has this prospective idea
of election. He deduces that] has interpreted the righteousness of
Noah from the perspective of the election traditions of the early
monarchy. Noah is chosen that he may be Yahweh's P"~, not be-
cause of any particular moral advantage. He is a potential P"~
whose actions will save the world, and, like David, Noah is not cho-
sen because of his merit. The concern in Genesis, as Clark claims, is
not the salvation of a righteous man from a wicked generation, but
rather with the purposes of God for humanity when an entire genera-
tion is evil and destined for judgement.
Clark qualifies this by arguing that Noah's present righteousness is
not entirely absent since he has already built the ark, but the basic
orientation is still towards the future. The matter rests on the electing
grace of God. 26
Clark's interpretation lacks plausibility. It does not suit the context
and the link to royal vocabulary of election is strained. The most
natural way to take the word 'see' is in its usual sense as found in
Gen. 1:4 and 6:2. In 1 Sam. 16 God's decision has already been
made, and it is unwise to place too much emphasis on the prospec-
tive nature of this verse. It may be that there is some orientation to
the future in God's words, but Clark has failed to prove a meaning
which looks to the future from other uses ofp,,~.27 Perhaps the real

26 W.M. Clark, "The Righteousness of Noah", VT21 (1971), pp. 261-280.

27 Westermann (1974), pp. 572ff = (1984), pp. 426ff.
 THE YAHWIST 53

problem with Clark's paper is his apparent eagerness to read back

Protestant theological concerns. As noted, the Old Testament is not
averse to human righteousness winning divine approval.
There is an important source critical assumption here: in J the
account of the order to build the ark and its construction have been
omitted by the final compiler of the story. If it is assumed that J had
a short passage describing the order to build and the construction of
the ark, then whilst 6:8 is God's choice of Noah, Noah completed the
task without knowing why the vessel was to be built, since the flood is
announced in 7:4. He passed a test of faith similar to that of
Abraham in 12:4. P asserts Noah's righteousness,] describes it. 28
If, as we have argued, the Old Testament is not averse to divine
approval of human action, to what extent is Noah's finding favour
with God a response to his righteousness? As has been noted with
Genesis 18, deliverance was accorded to the man who was innocent,
and in the story of the flood the righteous man is saved (7:1).
In both] and P Noah's obedience is given great emphasis: 7:7-9
m, 6:22, 7: 16 and 8: 16 (P). The task of building the ark and of filling
it with animals is no small one, yet he fulfils it and carries out God's
instruction. Noah is not described as a heroic figure, as are Atrahasis
or Utnapishtim, but rather we are told again and again that Noah
obeyed God. He never speaks but just obeys God. He acts on all the
divine warnings and patiently waits in the ark until the earth is dry.
His obedience is what counts. As with many narratives in the Old
Testament, (though 1 Sam. 16: 12 is an exception), and unlike de-
scriptions of Greek heroes, we are not given a description of Noah's
physical appearance. 29 All that we are told is that he was righteous,
that he found favour with God, and in P that he walked with his
maker. The chief concern of both] and P in the story of the flood is
man's relationship with God rather than with other aspects of char-
acterisation. The emphasis of Gen. 6-9 is not so much on the drama
of the flood, but on how people react to the situation and their moral
evaluation. Perhaps Noah never speaks because the writer wishes to
stress Noah's obedience and submissiveness to God.
Given the emphasis on Noah's obedience and the statement of
7:1 "For I have seen that you are righteous before me in this genera-
tion", it would appear that Noah's righteousness and obedience are
factors in his finding favour with God. There is God's choice of Noah
for the deliverance of mankind, but Noah's obedience is taken up
and becomes a motivating factor in God's attitude to him. As in Gen.

28 Von Rad (1958), p. 98 = (1963), p. 116.

29 Licht (1978), p. 31.
54 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

22 Abraham's obedience is a reason for God's choice of him, so in

Gen. 6-9 Noah's right response to God is a factor in his deliverance
from the flood. To some extent Noah deserved the favour which was
shown to him. On its own the statement of 6:8 need not mean that
Noah necessarily deserves this favour, but when it is read with 7: 1
and the story as a whole, Noah does merit this grace because he is
righteous. Noah seems to be exempt from both the general depiction
of evil humanity and the judgement. Exemption from judgement
both here and in Gen. 18 is linked to upright behaviour.
On the other hand the translation of NEB of Gen. 6:8 "Noah had
won the Lord's favour" is inappropriate. 3D Noah merits this favour,
but the idea of winning implies that Noah gained it entirely on his
own initiative, whereas the translation 'found' preserves the unity of
both human and divine action.
A further point needs to be made; it should be noted that in J
righteousness is specifically linked to the building of the ark and the
obedience of Noah during the flood. 7:1 comes after what must have
beenJ's description ofthe construction ofthe ark. The emphasis is on
God seeing Noah as righteous in terms of his obedience in the story
of the flood. Consequently the statements of 6:8 and 7: 1 are relative
to this particular episode, whereas P offers a more general assessment
of Noah's character, which covers the pre- and post-flood world. 31
The problem then arises as to the precise relationship between
6:8,7:1 and 8:21: "For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth". How does Noah who is righteous in 7: 1 relate to this state-
ment? Noah is not said to be excluded from the depiction of human-
ity in 8:21 as he is in 6:5. Since Noah and his family are the only
people who are left, 8:21 must apparently be applicable to them.
Moreover the statement is made in an account of Noah offering a
sacrifice, thereby displaying an exemplary model of piety. This ap-
pears awkward.
It is important to notice the words mil ",:1
in 7: 1, since they
indicate that Noah is righteous with respect to that particular genera-
tion whose wickedness "was great in the earth" and whose "every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was onlY evil continuallY". The
words mil ",:1 indicate that Noah falls outside this category of hu-
manity. He does not belong to the class of people whose every action
is wicked. It may be that the writer was suggesting that Noah was

30 For a discussion see A.N. Barnard, "Was Noah a Righteous Man?", Theology
74 (1971), pp. 311-4.
31 Westennann (1974), p. 574 = (1984), p. 427.
 TIIE YAHWIST 55

only righteous with respect to this generation, since " , is singular,

and that had he lived at another time without such a group of people
to compare him with, he would not have appeared so good. As
suggested J sets the description of Noah's righteousness in terms of
the flood, whereas P offers a more general assessment in 6:9ff.
Further there is a difference in wording between 6:5 and 8:21,
since the latter no longer speaks of man's great wickedness, nor does
it suggest that human thought is onlY evil continuallY. Rather the ,~,
('imagination', 'intention') of man is evil from his youth. Man is still
inclined to evil and his mind is orientated that way; in that sense he
is unchanged from 6:5 and still has the capacity to return to the gross
evil which is described there. The reason why the verse does not
speak of the great wickedness of humanity is because that generation
has been wiped out, and in any case Noah, who was exempt, is the
only man left. It is the total wickedness of that generation from which
Noah is exempt, but that does not mean that he is free from the evil
tendencies which are common to all. Every human shares this funda-
mental disposition to evil, and the potential for great wickedness, but
Noah displays the possibility of rejecting temptation and living in
accord with God's ways. The text does not say that Noah is no longer
righteous, but rather that he shares the human inclination to evil. He
does not live in accord with this and is free from complete wicked-
ness. As far as J is concerned all have a fundamentally evil disposi-
tion, but it is possible for humans to rise above it and follow God's
ways. Human nature is unchanged after the flood, but the capacity
for righteousness remains unaltered as well.

iii. Noah's Drunkenness

What is the relationship between the story of the flood, in particular
the statements of 6:8, 7: 1 and 8:21 and the account of 9:20-27? First,
it should be noted that this is on a different level from the account of
the flood. Gen. 9:18-19 marks the conclusion of the deluge, and 9:20
is the start of another episode in the primeval era. Indeed the story
suggests that these events took place some time after the flood. The
concerns of the text are different, since the issues raised concern a
breach of sexual standards and the destiny of various peoples. 9:20-
27 is part of the story of Noah but not of the flood. Nevertheless the
juxtaposition of the texts is of significance.
Some have doubted whether Noah is being condemned for his
behaviour. The passage probably refers back to 5:29 in that the
cultivation of the grape brings comfort and amelioration from the
curse. Von Rad notes that Noah must be the first to learn of the
mystery of wine and he is completely overcome by the force of the
56 THE RIGHfEOUSNESS OF NOAH

fermented fruit. He is not to be condemned. 32 Brueggemann argues

that the Old Testament was not preoccupied with the issue of drunk-
enness and that Noah's inebriation is simply a context for what fol-
lows. 33
Certainly Old Testament tradition elsewhere warns of the over-
indulgence of drink (Isa. 5:22, Provo 21:17, 23:20-21, 29-35), as well
as self exposure (Hab. 2:15). The problem is whether what is said
there has any bearing on]. Even though Noah is the first to produce
wine, it would be hard to see how readers in ancient Israel would
have viewed the incident with anything other than disapproval.
Given that the Israelites were particularly concerned to avoid naked-
ness and its subsequent indiscretions (Exod. 20:26), it would seem
likely that a scene in which Noah lies both drunk and naked would
be viewed with disapproval. Further, in Gen. 19 over-indulgence of
drink causes a breach of sexual standards, and it would be strange if
J were to regard the situation in Gen. 9 with indifference. It is the
dangers to which excessive drinking can lead, of which J seems to
warn.
The conduct of Noah's sons has also raised problems. How should
the statement that Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's na-
kedness, be taken? Is it mere sighting of a naked man or does it
involve a sexual act, since seeing somebody's nakedness can imply
this (Lev. 18). Some argue that there is a case of incest here. A.
Phillips sees an act of seduction on the basis of Deut. 23: 1.34 F.W.
Bassett argues that as the text stands the action of Ham hardly merits
the curse which is given. Lev. 18 makes clear that seeing someone's
nakedness denotes sexual intercourse: Ham slept with Noah's wife
and the product of the union was Canaan. This would explain why
Canaan is cursed for Ham's action (compare Gen. 35:22 and 49:3-4).
Such a sin is rebellion against the father similar to Absalom's in 2
Sam. 16:22. 35
It is doubtful if so much should be read from the text. The fact
that covering was an adequate remedy for the sin suggests that the
wrong consisted of seeing. 36 Ham's sin lay primarily in the realm of
disrespect; he should have covered his father and not spoken to his
brothers about the incident, thereby adding gossip to disgrace. 37 In

32 Von Rad (1958), pp. 113ff = (1963), pp. 132ff.

33 W. Brueggemann, Genesis (Adanta, 1982), p. 89.
34 A. Phillips, "Uncovering the Father's Skirt", VT30 (1980), pp. 38-43.
3:> F.W. Bassett, "Noah's Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: a Case of In-
cest?", VT21 (1971), pp. 232-7.
36 Cassuto (1964), pp. 151£[
37 Westermann (1974), p. 653 = (1984), p. 488 and Wenham (1987), pp. 199ff.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 6:9 57

the ancient world respect for elders was of great importance since the
continuity of the group was dependent on a constant stream of tradi-
tion passing through generations. Regard for parents was needed for
the maintenance of harmony in the group. In the pre-flood world the
relationships between husband and wife, brother and brother, were
placed in jeopardy. Now father and son suffer similar difficulties.
Basic family values are in trouble and this is the primary thrust of
9:20-27. The same principles are at work in the fourth command-
ment and similar legislation (Exod. 21:15 and Deut. 27:18-26). An-
other aspect of human society is introduced: a brother is to be a slave
of his brother. 38
Consequently the story emphasises that man still has sinful ten-
dencies. Gen. 8:21 ff primarily looks back to 6:5, but by placing the
story of disrespect in Gen. 9, the final compiler illustrated the disso-
nance between Noah the righteous man and the man who lies drunk
and naked in his tent. Even the great men of the Old Testament can
commit misdemeanours. Nevertheless Noah's misbehaviour is minor
in comparison with the sin of the wicked generation of 6:5, and the
text neither sees a comparison, nor offers a hint that Noah is now
totally corrupt.
In summary, for J Noah's finding favour with God is God's choice
which is made to some extent in response to Noah's righteousness.
He is not part of the wicked generation, but he does share the basic
human inclination for evil (8:21). By being righteous he does not
follow the way of his contemporaries, but as 9:20-27 shows, everyone
can do wrong at some stage.

3. The Priestly Source 6:9

The Priestly source lays special emphasis on Noah's piety and the
part which that played in the salvation of the world. It is because of
him that humanity survives the deluge. Noah is a paradigm of a
blameless, pious man in the midst of a corrupt generation.
There are different ways of taking 6:9. Cassuto argues that tron is
an adverb which qualifies P'i~ "Noah was a wholly righteous man"
on the basis ofJob 12:4, Num. 19:2 and Provo 11:5. 39 The problem
of the relationship between the two words was felt by the Vulgate
and the Samaritan Pentateuch which appear to read t::l'Om. 40 Liter-

38 A full discussion of the difTerent peoples involved in Gen. 9 lies outside our
scope but see Phillips (1980), Bassett (1971), Cassuto (1964), p. 149, Westennann
(1974), pp. 655-8, 660fT = (1984), pp. 490fT and 493fT.
39 Cassuto (1964), pp. 48fT.
40 See Westennann (1974), p. 526 = (1984), p. 390.
58 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

ally the Hebrew reads, "Noah, a righteous man, blameless he was

among his generations; with God walked Noah". The word l::J'~n can
mean 'complete' or 'full', but it is also reasonable to take the word as
an adjective which describes Noah and contrasts him with his con-
temporaries. 6:9 contains three clauses in apposition, the second and
third of which specifY the nature of Noah's righteousness: he is
blameless and walks with God. 41 Both renderings seem feasible, but
we should prefer to adopt the latter as does RSV: "Noah was a
righteous man, blameless in his generations; Noah walked with
God". LXX is similar, and most modern interpreters follow.

i. Noah as Righteous
A useful parallel for a discussion of righteousness in P is Ezek. 18. It
has already been noted that there is a similarity of thought between
Ezekiel and P; Ezekiel himself was a priest. 42 There are important
aspects of i1P'~ in Ezek. 18 which are relevant for discussion of
Gen. 6.
First, Ezekiel places great emphasis on human responsibility. It
has often been claimed that the chapter concerns individual respon-
sibility. For example von Rad argued that Ezek. 18 encountered the
complaint that Yahweh lumped the generations together in
wholescale acts of judgement. In contrast Ezekiel claims that each
individual stands in a direct relationship to God, who was not indif-
ferent to his fate. Everyone is judged individually and on his own
merits. 43
A full study of this issue or of Ezek. 18 cannot be pursued here,
but it does seem that von Rad and others have overstated their case.
Rather, as Joyce argues, Ezek. 18 is an uncompromising account of
the responsibility of the nation before Yahweh. Israel is responsible
for her guilt, and the judgement is a just punishment imposed by the
righteous God on the sinful Israel (compare Ezek. 7:23fi). The events
of the exile are punishment for the sins of the people who are now
suffering.
The question at stake is whether or not God is a righteous judge.
The people feel that they are being judged urTIustly for the sins of

41 Wenham (1987), p. 152.

42 P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel, JSOTSS 51 (Sheffield,
1989), p. 25.
43 G. von Rad, Theologie des Allen Testaments: Die Theologie der prophetischen
Oberliiferungen Israels 2 (Munich, 1960), pp. 279, 244ff, (1957), pp. 391ff = OUf Testa-
ment Theology: The Theology qf Israel's Prophetic Tradition 2 (London, 1975), pp. 266,
230ff and 1 (1975), pp. 393ff. See also W. Eichrodt, Der Prophet Hezekiel Kapitel 1-18
(Gottingen, 1965), pp. 148-9 = Ezekiel (London, 1970), p. 237.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 6:9 59

previous generations: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the
children's teeth are set on edge". So tied are they to this, that they
would rather claim that God is unjust than admit their own fault.
Ezekiel tries to demonstrate that they are guilty, and that God's ways
are just. Ezekiel is not primarily concerned for the moral independ-
ence of contemporary individuals, since the legal practice takes this
for granted (e.g. Deut. 24:16). The question is rather one for the
whole community which is suffering for its own wrongdoing. Ezek.
18 places a heavy responsibility on Israel for the exile, which is a
catastrophe of her own making. 44
The account of the flood has a similar emphasis on man's respon-
sibility for the deluge. Those who committed the sin of oon and
corrupted the way ordained by God in Gen. 1:26ff, were fully re-
sponsible for what overtook them. "The earth is fIlled with violence
through them"; those who corrupted (nn~) their way (6: 12) must be
destroyed (nn~). It was their fault entirely. Humans are morally re-
sponsible for their own actions in Gen. 6 and Ezek. 18. In both
passages God is a righteous judge because he punishes the guilty and
spares the innocent. Retribution is exact and in fair measure.
Secondly, Ezek. 18 gives an indication of what it means to be
righteous. There is a link between a man's action, and his status
whether righteous or wicked. A man is righteous if "he does what is
lawful and right". Ezek. 18:6-9 specifies what this involves: keeping
God's ordinances. Everyone is responsible for his actions, "The right-
eousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon himself' (18:20). Fulfilling the commands is
righteousness.
Eichrodt argues that the man who is righteous in Ezek. 18 is not
necessarily sinless, nor has he conformed perfecdy to the legal system,
but rather he is a willing member of the cultic community whose
overall orientation is in accord with God's wil1. 45 Again Protestant
concerns seem to be coming to the fore and it is doubtful if his
assertion is justified. There are aspects of righteousness in Ezek. 18
which are non-cultic, such as the avoidance of robbery. Moreover
there is great emphasis on the fulfilment of individual command-
ments, not just on an overall orientation of life. 18: 19 says that the
righteous must observe all God's statutes, and nothing less than the
best will suffice. Such an emphasis on keeping the law is found in P:
Lev. 18:4, 26:3, 14ff.

44 Joyce (1989), pp. 35-60, 76ff.

45 Eichrodt (1965), pp. 150, 151ff = (1970), pp. 239, 242.
60 THE RIGIITEOUSNESS OF NOAH

The statement of Gen. 6 that Noah is righteous stresses that his

relation to God is essentially correct. In this primeval, pre-Sinai era,
Noah's standing needs to be seen in terms of Gen. 1:26ff, where
man's role in the world and his relation to God are defined. Noah is
righteous in that he faithfully fulfils the role of dominion as outlined
there, and he refrains from grasping at unjust exploitation, oppres-
sion and above all the sin ofOOn. It is here that the above statements
that i1P'~ is relational come to the fore. The relationship between
God and man is defined by the imago Dei (see Chapter 7) and
human stewardship of creation. It is within these terms that Noah is
righteous since he fulflls the demands and obligations of this relation-
ship. Later this was to be set out in God's covenant with Israel, with
obligations such as those of Ezek. 18 being added. The wicked gen-
eration however had broken their relationship with God by their
breach of the limits of Gen. 1 and by their use of unjust dominion.
Noah is righteous because he has not corrupted his way on earth
(6: 12). Further, Noah's obedience is emphasised; that too is central to
his standing as it was in J. To be righteous is to obey God. The
formula of obedience is a common trait in P: Gen. 6:22, 17:23,21:4,
Exod. 7:6, 10, 20, 12:28, Lev. 8:4. 46
Thirdly, the call to obedience and repentance is bound up with
the promise oflife in Ezek. 18. God willed human obedience and the
life which it brought; he took no pleasure in any body's death: 18:9,
13, 18,22-24,26-28, 30-32. The wicked deserve death and are pun-
ished by it, but the righteous live. God's will is for life and for the
people to obey him. Life is granted to the righteous, death to the
wicked. What a man does determines his fate and God summons the
people to life (Ezek. 18:30-32).
Moreover it is not just life which God wants, but life in full obedi-
ence to himself Life is not supposed to be mere isolated existence,
but is meant to be lived in full communion with God. Ezek. 18
emphasises that all life belongs to God and that he has sovereignty
over it (18:4). God is the dispenser and source of all life.
Similar concerns are to be found in Gen. 6. In Gen. 1 God cre-
ated humanity to live in a relationship with him. Righteousness is
also bound up with life in the story of the flood, since it is the right-
eous man who is delivered from the catastrophe. Both Ezekiel and P
show that God desires not just life, but life in full accord with himself,
in an ethically correct relationship. Both stories demonstrate an inti-
mate connection between life and righteousness; the two concept~ are

46 J. Blenkinsopp, "The Structure of P", CBQ38 (1976), pp. 275-292 especially

pp. 283fT.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 6:9 61

inseparable, as are wickedness and death. The purpose oflife is right-

eousness.
Fourthly, the issue ofrepentance which is so central to Ezek. 18, is
not explored at all in the story of the flood. This may be because the
writer of Gen. 6-9 regarded the decision to send the flood as a firm
decision. Furthermore, neither human repentance nor intercession
are involved because the writer had to accept the genre of an Ancient
Near Eastern popular myth, where there was little scope for such
questions. Nevertheless the call to repentance emphasises human re-
sponsibility for sin in Ezek. 18.
The text of Gen. 6 assumes that the patriarchal head of the family
saves his sons as well. This seems to be the case with Caleb in Deut.
1 and with Abraham, who alone is credited with being righteous
(Gen. 15:6). Ezek. 14:14,20 on the other hand say that Noah, Daniel
and Job would only deliver themselves by their own righteousness,
and not their families. Consequently it seems that the principle of
responsibility is applied with new rigour in EzekielY
Naturally this interpretation of righteousness in Gen. 6:9 indicates
that Noah's essential relation to God is correct. The point of the
verse is to stress that Noah seems to be exempt from the complete
corruption of his time. P does not talk of sinlessness and we should be
wary of such terms which are not used by the text. Whether Noah
never did anything wrong in his life is not explored by P, but the text
does emphasise his fulfIlment of the injunctions of Gen. I :26ff. Gen.
1:26ff provides the terms of reference for i1P'~ rather than a notion
of ethical perfection.
It may be that the writer of P was thinking of the standards of his
own day in post-Sinai Israel. Today if we judge a person from the
past, we often apply the criteria of our own time. It would appear
that there are two levels of reading the text: one is in terms of the
primeval history, and the other with reference to the standards of
later Israel. No doubt readers from Israel would have measured
Noah by the standards of their own time and by such obligations as
those found in Ezek. 18. Noah is portrayed as one would have ex-
pected a godly Israelite to behave.

ii. Noah as Blameless

There are certain similarities between the roots I:l~n and p'~. I:l'~n is
primarily a cultic term, common in P, which is used of a sacrificial
animal without blemish-"Free from defect" as Skinner translates

47 Joyce (1989), pp. 70-76.

62 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

(compare Lev. 1:3, 10)48. A priest must be free from physical defi:>rm-
ity (Lev. 21: 17ft). The idea is one of wholeness or completeness but is
used of humans less than p'i~. The word could mean 'complete' or
'full' (Lev.23:15), and could also be used of God whose ways are
perfect (Deut. 32:4, 2 Sam. 22:31).
Transferred to the human sphere the word had strong moral over-
tones and can be used for a person's conduct. It denoted behaviour
which was well pleasing to God. Abraham in Gen. 17: 1 is com-
manded to walk before God and be blameless. He must be free from
moral defect as is befitting one with whom God makes his covenant.
The ethical aspect of [J'on can be seen more clearly in Deut. 18: 13
where blamelessness is linked to the rejection of abominable cultic
practices and in Josh. 24: 14 where it involves the repudiation of
idolatry. Ezek. 28: 15 tells of Tyre as blameless "until iniquity was
found in you". Blamelessness involves the avoidance and rejection of
sin. The idea is of whole-heartedness in relation to God.
The word [J'on is particularly common in the Psalms and the
wisdom traditions. God's law is perfect (Ps. 19:8) and the criterion for
dwelling in the Lord's house is being blameless (Ps. 15:2). Ps. 37:18ff
contrasts the fate of the wicked who perish, with that of the blameless
whose inheritance will last for ever.
Other uses of the root [Jon bear out this analysis. Gen. 20:5, 6 use
the word [In with the sense of 'innocence', 'integrity'. There is an-
other aspect of [Jon which is worth exploring. The word can be used
in the sense of 'peaceful'. In Gen. 25:27 Jacob is described as a "quiet
man" (RSV), [In tli,~ in contrast to his brother. The evidence is not
especially strong, but it may be that [J'on in Gen. 6 is used in a
similar fashion. Seen in this way it may be that Noah is set in con1rast
to the men of oon around him by his peaceful dealings.
Like P'i~, [J'on emphasises Noah's right ethical conduct with
regard to the ordinances of 1:26fI He fulfilled the responsibilities of
the imago Dei blamelessly. Noah is thus portrayed as an archetypal
legendary figure whose piety is also of legendary nature. He is an
ideal who shows the way for all to follow.
Von Rad sees the description of Noah as P'i~ and [J'on not as
being sinless or perfect in an absolute moral sense, but rather in a
sacral context. The words refer to a man's condition which conforms
to the cult and is pleasing to God. 49
Certainly it is true that [J'on is the form of the root which is used
in connection with sacrifices which are without blemish, but von

48 Skinner (1912), p. 159.

49 Von Rad (1958), p. 104 = (1963), p. 122.
 THE PRIESTLY SOURCE 6:9 63

Rad's point needs to be qualified. As we have noted, P"~ and 1:l'r:lr1

appear to denote right ethical behaviour, and it is important to real-
ise the significance of human involvement. Noah's behaviour was
blameless.
Further, Noah is set in a pre-Israelite context where there was no
cult, and at the level of the story 1:l'r:lr1 does not refer to the cult. The
question again arises to what extent does the writer take his pre-
Sinai, pre-Israelite context seriously? An Israelite reader would have
judged Noah by the standards of his own day and these would no
doubt have included cultic acceptability. Once more there appear to
be two levels of reading the text. Noah can be judged blameless with
regard to the context of Gen. 1, but also by the standards of later
Israel. Were Noah to have taken part in cultic activity, he would have
been an accepted member of the cultic community.
Do these statements mean that Noah was sinless in that he never
did anything wrong?50 To what extent is righteousness the equivalent
of moral perfection in a person's lifestyle? Eichrodt, for example,
raised the issue of the relationship of sinless ness and righteousness:
But such being in the right in one's relationship with God does not, to
Israelite thinking, in any way rule out sin, so long at any rate as this sin
does not issue in insolent arrogance, bu leads to humble submission to
God's punishment or alternatively to readiness to make use of the means
of atonement provided by God. 5
Eichrodt speaks of the distinction between the righteous and the
wicked as being an overall orientation of life which is pleasing to
God.
The difficulty is that the text does not spell out exactly what it
means by Noah's righteousness. Later Jewish exegesis senses the
problem and tends to see Noah's righteousness as relative. Talmud
Sanhedrin notes that in 6:5-8 God's regret extended to all including
Noah, but that a special exception was made for Noah. 52 The
Midrash on 6:9 writes:
ClJ'::J? ':J'::J ilm 'n'tvl1 p ,tvl1 itz)~~ ':J~'

50 This question was tackled by Philo. See R. Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic
World: Phiw (Cambridge, 1989), p. 205.
51 W. Eichrodt, Theowgie des Allen Testaments 2 (Gottingen, 1961), p. 274 and see
pp. 274-8 = Theowgy qfthe Old Testament 2 (London, 1967), p. 394 and see pp. 394-
400.
52 Quoted in M. Zlotovitz (ed.), Bereishis Genesis: a New Translation with a Commen-
tary Anthowgisedftom Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (New York, 1980), p. 194,
Babylonian Talmud 108a.
64 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF NOAH

"And as for me, what they (the sinful generation) have done, I have
done equally; what is the difference between me and them?". 53 The
Zohar states that Noah sinned in not chastising his fellows and had
he done so the waters may never have come. Noah fulfilled the
minimum requirements but he could have done more and great peo-
ple can be dealt with severely for not doing right as much as for
doing wrong. It is sinful to withhold speech when it is beneficial to
others. 54
The text of Gen. 6-9 does not add any of these qualifications, but
it does show that Noah's relationship with God was felt to be a
problem by the Rabbis. The difficulty with Eichrodt's statement is
that it could suggest that human behaviour did not playa major role
in the divine-human relationship, and as we have seen this is not the
case. There is one word which helps the understanding of this prob-
lem.
It is possible that the statements of Gen. 6:9 are relative. It is
stated that Noah was righteous ,'n"J, and this could be taken two
ways. Resh Lakish wrote, "He was righteous even in his age; how
much more so would he have been righteous in other ages". It is
much harder to be righteous when violence and deceit are rampant.
In contrast Rabbi Jochanan wrote, "Noah was blameless only in his
age, but in other ages he would not have been considered right-
eous".55 In other words in a bad generation a good man will stand
out all the more.
In a nutshell is Noah righteous only with respect to his contempo-
raries i.e. the wicked generation, or was he righteous in an absolute
sense? The problem is similar to that in Gen. 7: 1. " , can take
various nuances of meaning, but often it meant generation in the
sense of the people who collectively became a person's contemporar-
ies: Exod. 1:6, Isa. 53:8,Jer. 7:29. The word is sometimes used of the
moral evaluation of people: Num. 32:13, Deut. 1:35,2:14, 32:20,Jer.
2:31. 56 Westermann translates ,'n"J "among his contemporar-
ies",57 Of Gen. 6:9 BDB says ,'n"J means "his own generation and
those immediately contiguous before and after". 58 Deut. I :35-40
seems to see Caleb exempt from the corrupt generation round about
him, and this would seem to suggest the possibility of an individual

53 Quoted in Zlotovitz (1980), p. 202.

54 Quoted in Zlotovitz (1980), p. 203.
55 See G. Plaut (ed.), The Torah: a Modern Commentary (New York, 1981), p. 61.
35 See Freedman and Lundbom, ";11", 7WAT2 (1977), pp. 181-194 = mOT3
(1978), pp. 169-181.
57 Westermann (1974), p. 523 = (1984), p. 388.
58 BDB p. 190.
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 65

separating himself from the sin which surrounds him. Caleb, though,
is not described as [J'Qn or p"~.
The text of Gen. 6 is too brief for a definite conclusion, and does
not seem concerned with these issues. What it emphasises is that
Noah is righteous in a generation which is totally corrupt. He falls
outside the category of 6: 11-13 and does not partake of their corrup-
tion. That does not mean he is necessarily sinless but rather that he
does not partake of gross corruption. In a time of widespread evil the
good stand out all the more. ,'n"J emphasises that Noah stands
apart from the corruption of his contemporaries. The word sets Noah
in contrast to those around, rather than links him to future times.
Whilst ,'n"J does relate Noah's righteousness specifically to his
time, it does appear to point to an absolute description of Noah's
status, rather than one which is seen only in terms of the story of the
m
flood. In 7:1 Noah is judged righteous before God in "this genera-
tion" ini1",J i.e. the wicked generation of 6:5-7. Noah's righteous-
ness is then linked specifically to a particular group of people. In P
Noah is righteous ,'n"J, and, as " , is in the plural, that presum-
ably includes ante- and post-diluvian contemporaries. The fact that
he lived 950 years suggests a considerable number of generations.
Noah is a righteous man even after the destruction of the corrupt
generation. He is a good man par excellence, regardless of those
around him. Consequently P's description is more general than J's,
and offers an absolute assessment of Noah, which is not dependent
solely on a contrast with others; P even omits the tale of the misde-
meanour of 9:20-27. Further, if readers were judging Noah accord-
ing to their own standards, then the description of Noah is not simply
a contrast to those around.
The text describes Noah as walking with God. It gives him a close
fellowship with God and he is put on the same level as Enoch (Gen.
5:22, 24). Noah enjoys the special blessing of God's presence.
Noah may have been an ideal, righteous man, but P tells us that
he died (9:28fI). He went the way of all flesh except for Enoch. Even
the righteous do not escape death.

4. Reading J and P Together

If the two stories are read together several points of interest emerge.
First, both sources place great stress on Noah's obedience: 7:5, 7-9,
8:20 m, 6:22, 7:14-16,8:16-19 (P). Repetition emphasises the point.
If the two sources are read together as a continuous narrative, then
this is given special emphasis. Both sources are keen to stress the
diligence and faithfulness of Noah in the seemingly impossible task of
66 THE RIGlITEOUSNESS OF NOAH

building the ark and collecting the animals. In both accounts he is

faithful: 7:7-9 (J), 7:13-16 (P). Further, if the two stories are placed
together, the point which was made earlier that in] Noah did not
know the precise reason for the building of the ark until 7:4 is now
invalid, since 6: 17 states the purpose of the construction of the vessel.
Secondly, a difference between] and P was noticed in terms of
Noah's righteousness. For] righteousness was understood with par-
ticular reference to the flood, its wicked generation and the building
of the ark (7:1). For P the description of Noah as righteous was a
general assessment which covered several generations. If the two are
placed together, then P's assessment predominates. Noah is not just
P'i~ in terms of the flood, but in general terms over many years. He
proves it in his response to God, in such a way that he demonstrates
the meaning of righteousness for all to see. 7: 1 following 6:22 makes
clear that obedience is an essential part of righteousness.
Thirdly, if 6:8 and 6:9 are placed together, Noah gains God's
favour because he is righteous. This is the only place in the Old
Testament where righteousness and finding favour are equated. In
the combined reading there is both God's saving act and Noah's
obedience playing crucial roles in the deliverance of the world. Con-
sequently Noah's obedience is taken up in God's plan of salvation
and is a motivating factor within it, as with Abraham in Gen.22.
Both sources give prominence to the obedience of Noah, but to dif-
ferent degrees. When placed together, the] account is subsumed into
that of P. 7: I confirms 6:9 in that Noah is still righteous in spite of the
difficult task which is set before him and the corruption round about
him.
Fourthly, there is the considerable problem of relating 8:21 and
6:9. Presumably Noah who is righteous, blameless and who walks
with God, is to be included in the description of 8:21, since only he
and his family are left. It has been noted that this is a problem for ],
but it is more acute on a joint reading. Is it possible to be P'i~ and
o'on, and yet part of the evil generation? A couple of points can be
made in response.
In the first place, as we shall see in Chapters 5 and 6, this problem
is not absent from P. The fact that P lists a number of commands in
9: 1-7, would suggest that man is still inclined to evil, since otherwise
such injunctions would be superfluous. Again it is only Noah and his
family to whom the commands are given.
Perhaps one way out of the difficulty is to distinguish between the
unchanged, evil nature of man, as found in 8:21 and the actions
which issue therefrom. This was discussed with regard to J. All share
this basic nature, but not all act in accordance with it. Despite the
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 67

basic inclination of humans to evil, there is the possibility of living in

accord with God's law. This included obedience, repentance and
expiation. The fact that righteousness was an act of both God and
man, would seem to suggest that man was both corrupt by nature
and yet capable of obeying Torah. This reinforces what was said
about J. It is also worth comparing Ezek. 18 again, which clearly
envisages the possibility of the righteous losing their righteous status.
A righteous man can fall away and commit abominations (18:24£1).
Similarly a wicked man can turn and repent (18:21£1). It is clear that
the P'i~ is capable of evil and it is possible, it would seem, to hold
together the statements of Gen. 6:9 and 8:21. What someone does
determines his status. All are inclined to evil but it appears that all
can also resist it. 59
Further, it may be that the writer is not taking his context entirely
seriously. He is writing in a different era from the events which are
described, and it may be that in 8:21 he is making a statement about
his own time as much as about the time of Noah. The narrator's
mask may have slipped for a moment. For a while he forgets his
imaginative context of Noah, since the purpose of 8:21 is to tell of
humanity at the point of writing. The story, as we noted in our
introduction, is parabolic. God is as justified in sending a flood now
as he was 3000 years earlier, since humanity is as sinful as ever. The
point of 8:21 is to explain why God does not send a flood even
though man is wicked. It is because of this sinfulness and God's
subsequent mercy that the writer wishes to tell the story. Hence per-
haps he does not take his context entirely seriously. The text can be
read at two levels: the imaginative context of the primeval era, and
the parabolic level of the writer's own time.
Fifthly, the passage of9:20-27 seems to suggest that despite Noah's
righteousness he is still capable of becoming involved in misdemean-
ours. The text never says that Noah's righteousness is lost, but Noah
does still share the tendency of all mankind to become involved in
disgrace. Nevertheless the misdeed is trivial in comparison with the
evil of his contemporaries.
Finally, there is the comparison between Noah, Abraham and
Phineas. R.W.L. Moberly in an article on Abraham's righteousness

59 In passing it is worth noting Ecclus. 15: 14 "It was he who created man in the
beginning, and he left him in the power of his own inclination" which offers an
interesting comment from a later perspective. He takes the term -,~, from the narra-
tive of the flood, and places it in the context of creation. By doing so he removes the
connotation of evil inclination, since as God planted it in humanity, it cannot be evil.
From being an evil inclination, it has been transformed into a neutral capacity which
enables moral choice. J.R. Levison, Portraits ojAdam in EarlY Judaism: From Sirach to 2
Baruch, ]SPSS 1 (Sheffield, 1988), pp. 34ff, 146.
68 THE RIGlITEOUSNESS OF NOAH

discusses the interpretation of Gen. 15:6 and compares it with Ps.

106:31. Not only did God's promise guarantee to Israel her existence,
but also Abraham's faithful and obedient response to God was a
central factor in the setting up of the covenant. The same phrase
"reckon as righteousness" is found in Ps. 106:31, where the zeal
which Phineas showed for God had an enduring effect for later Is-
rael, in the establishment of the priesthood which owes its existence
to him. As the Psalmist wrote of the priesthood and relates it back to
the account of Phineas' zeal, so too the writer of Genesis works from
the perspective of later Israel as Yahweh's people and relates it back
to the stories of Abraham's faithfulness. The priesthood owes its sta-
tus to Phineas, Israel owes its covenant to Abraham.
The term "reckon as righteousness" can now be understood as an
idiom for human obedience and what can be expected to issue
therefrom. The phrase indicates both the divine recognition of the
quality of the actions of Abraham and Phineas, and the positive
response which brought blessing. For both there was an outstanding
example of faithfulness to God, to which Yahweh replied in such a
way that lasting blessing was bestowed on Israel. The blessing was
connected with and grew out of human obedience. Consequently
human behaviour has profound significance in the purposes of
God. 6o
Moberly's argument can be taken a stage further by pointing to
the parallels with Noah. Noah as P"~ is not merely a statement that
he had faith in God, but also a testimony to his obedient response to
God. Noah as P"~ is the outcome both of God's gracious action and
his obedient response. What has been said of Gen. 15 and 22 of
Abraham is true also of Noah. The actions of Noah, Abraham and
Phineas have enduring significance for the world, Israel and the
priesthood respectively. These are in different traditions but there is a
pattern of concentric circles which focuses in on the priesthood. In all
three cases it was not just the promise, but also the faithful response
of an individual to God, which mattered. Noah's righteousness led to
the setting up of an eternal covenant and this is due, in part, to
Noah's blameless life. As the world owes its life to Noah, so Israel
owes its existence to Abraham, and the priesthood is based on
Phineas' zeal. The Israelite idea that there is a clear link between
what a person says or does and what happens to him, is clearly
illustrated in Noah. Similarly righteousness as a divine and human
attribute is hard to distinguish in the flood. Both are clearly present.

60 Moberly (1990), p. 126 and see discussion pp. 103-130.

 RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE 69

Noah's i1P'~ brings blessing for the world and is also enduring for
humanity, since without it there could not have been an eternal
covenant. God recognises the quality of the actions of Noah, and by
his deeds, seen most especially in the carrying out of God's com-
mands, he sets an outstanding example of human piety. In the flood
there is a strong sense of moral or immoral acts determining results.
Evil brings destruction, piety deliverance.

5. Righteousness and the Value of Human Life

The above discussion has an important bearing on the subject matter
of this book. There is evidence here for the way the Hebrews under-
stood God's regard for humanity. He clearly sees a distinction be-
tween the righteous and the wicked, and in the flood humanity is
divided into these two classes of individuals: those who have cor-
rupted the way of 1:26if and the righteous man Noah. Herein lies
their fate: the wicked are punished by death; the righteous live.
Those who have destroyed (nniD) themselves and the way ordained
by God (6: 12), are themselves to be destroyed (nntV). That is how
God views mankind, and he judges justly. It is life in accord with God
and his ways which is deemed worthy of preservation. Consequently
the value of life is to be seen in its relationship with God rather than
in any intrinsic property of its own. When man breaks his relation-
ship with God he forfeits his life. The unjust deserve death. That does
not mean that the death of the wicked causes God pleasure (Gen.6:6,
Ezek. 18:32), or that their life is of no value. Rather man's destiny is
to follow the way of his creator. This testifies to God's sovereignty
over life; it must be lived in accordance with him and his will, or not
at all.
Again it is worth comparing Ezek. 18. There the authority of God
over all life is affirmed: "Behold all souls are mine": (18:4). God has
sovereign control over the life of man, but that sovereignty is not
used arbitrarily. The punishment of death is imposed in accordance
with the principles of righteousness and justice. The righteous live;
the wicked die (18:9, 13,20). God imposes punishment justly in con-
trast to the wanton oppression of man in Gen. 6: 11 if.

To sum up Noah is portrayed as an exemplary pious man, who lives

as God intended humanity to live (1 :26£1). It seems that he shares the
tendency of all people to do evil (8:21), but instead of succumbing to
it, he remains faithful to God. In contrast to those around, he is a
model of life as God intended it to be. Life's value is found in right-
eous living with God.
 CHAPTER THREE

GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

"And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him to his heart" (RSV).
The God of the Old Testament is one who relates personally to
mankind. He is not cold or indifferent to the needs and circum-
stances of humanity but is deeply involved in the affairs of the world
so that when creation rebels, he is grieved by the rejection of his
purpose and by the judgement which he will have to bring. Nowhere
is this shown more poignantly than in Gen. 6:6ff where the wicked-
ness of man is so great that God repents of having made him. Such
a situation leads God not to rage but to regret and grie£ This chapter
will examine the theology behind this statement of God's repentance,
i.e. the full personal involvement of God in creation before doing a
thorough study of Gen. 6:6 itself. Such statements about divine re-
pentance raise problems of religious language, and we shall need to
be aware of these in our study.

1. The Problem oj Religious Language

Verses from the Bible such as Gen. 6:6 beg the question of the nature
of religious language. Is it appropriate to speak of God in terms of
repentance? Does he repent, and do such expressions need to be
qualified? The central problem is how do we use and qualifY observa-
tionallanguage in theology so that it can be appropriate for what far
exceeds it? I How can we talk of God who is ultimately indescribable,
in terms of human language which is finite? Ramsey sums up the
problem:
Christian doctrine will never give us a blue-print of God. It will talk of
God as best it can, but never in terms of more than models, metaphors,
key ideas and the rest; .. .in particular the language of Christian doctrine is
likely to bristle with improprieties. In surveying Christian doctrine, we
must therefore be constantly on the look out for logical oddities, for
language that is working oddly.2

1 I.T. Ramsey, Religious Language: an Empirical Placing qf Theological Phrases (Lon-

don, 1957), p. 38.
2 Ramsey (1957), p. 164.
72 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

Talking about God is quite different from talking about other things,
and a special kind of language is needed. At the heart of religion lies
something which language cannot express in a totally adequate man-
ner, since God transcends anything which our mind can grasp.3
In religious language there is a heavy dependence on metaphor
and this is exemplified in the notion of God repenting in Genesis 6:6.
However, defining a metaphor is not easy and there have been sev-
eral attempts at reaching a precise definition. 4 ].M. Soskice has per-
haps put forward the most satisfactory definition: "Metaphor is that
figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which
are seen to be suggestive of another". 5 She rejects the idea that meta-
phor is simply another way of saying what can be said literally, as
well as the suggestion that its force is primarily emotive. Rather
metaphor is not just a matter of comparison, nor of pairing similars,
but the bringing out of similarities in what previously might have
seemed to be dissimilar. Metaphor is not just substitution for literal
speech, but it expresses what can be said in no other way.6
It should, however, be noted against philosophers who argue that
all talk of a transcendent God has no significance, that to say that a
statement is metaphorical, is a statement of its manner of expression
not of the truth expressed. It is particular uses rather than facts which
are metaphorical. Neither are there two kinds of states of affairs, one
literal and the other metaphorical, but rather two ways of expressing
that state. 7 The fact that there is great use of imagery in the Old
Testament is a sign that the Hebrew writers felt no image was fully
adequate, and there is no reason to believe that the Hebrews were
unaware of the nature of figurative language. For example Jer. 2: 13
describes God as a fountain ofliving waters. 8 Clearly God was not a
fountain, but he was to Israel a source of life in the same way that
water was a means of livelihood to a people who lived in a hot
climate. If God is rejected, the people die as if they had no water.
The truth of a metaphor however is seen at the level of the intention
of the speaker and of the complete utterance. Metaphor is not just a
projection from human experience to the divine, but is a means of
describing and responding to the prior activity of God. Care needs to
be taken to avoid both reducing God to a projection of our imagina-
tion, or making him wholly other.

3 Macquarrie (1967), p. 24.

4 SeeJ.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford, 1985), pp. 1-14.
5 Soskice (1985), p. 15.
6 Soskice (1985), pp. 24-53.
7 Soskice (1985), pp. 67-71.
8 Soskice (1985), p. 77
 ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND GOD'S PERSONAL ACTION 73

2. Anthropomorphism and God's Personal Action in the World

When we turn to the Old Testament we find that it is quite happy to
use human language when it speaks of God and does so with little
reticence, which later generations found hard to cope with and un-
derstand. Indeed the Old Testament does not seem to see any need
to qualify these kinds of metaphor, by offering such statements as
"God is a jealous God but not in terms qf human jealousy".
Anthropomorphism seeks to interpret God in terms of everyday
human experience-God is portrayed after the manner of people.
Parts of the body can be ascribed to him (1 Sam. 5:11), as can
physical actions (Ps.2:7) or emotions (Gen. 6:6, Isa. 61 :8). It would
seem that the immanence of God threatens to overshadow his tran-
scendence in passages which contain such metaphors and conse-
quently later interpreters have had great difficulty with these pas-
sages. The translators of the Septuagint in the later period of the
Greek speaking world, where there was not such a strong sense of the
personal nature of God, took offence at many of these as did Philo.
Often it was felt that such anthropomorphic statements threatened
God's transcendence and power. Such expressions which are meta-
phorical, were regarded as inappropriate as they could be misunder-
stood as lessening God's transcendence. This illustrates the problem
of religious language and its dependence on metaphor, since meta-
phor can never be exhaustive when it refers to God, and it can be
taken too far in its application. Talk of God needs to be revised and
re-applied. That was the problem which was felt by the Septuagint
and later generations. What is significant is that it all depends on the
type of metaphor and analogy which people prefer. At the time of the
Septuagint metaphors of transcendence took precedence over those
of immanence.
For example LXX softens Gen. 6:6 so as to avoid talk of God
repenting: Kat EVEeu~~91) 0 eEO~ on
E1tOll1O'EV 'tOY (lVepO)1tOV E1tt 'tll~
yi1~ Kat 3tEVO~el1. 'Eveu~£o~at means "lay to heart", "consider well",
"be concerned at", "form a plan" and 3tavo£0~at "to think over".
Philo found talk of God's repentance unacceptable; God is not sus-
ceptible to passion. In Gen. 6:5-7 he notes that careless inquirers will
think that the creator repented of the creation of man; such an idea
is rejected: "For what greater impiety could there be than to suppose
that the Unchangeable changes?"g Both LXX and Philo have misun-

9 Philo, On the Unchangeableness qf God (Qy.od Deus Immutabilis Sit) Volume 3 of

Philo's works in the Loeb Classical Library translated by F.H. Colson and G.H.
Whitaker (London, 1930), V 20 pp. 2 Iff. For a further discussion see Williamson
(1989), pp. 52-4, 74-9, 172-5.
74 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

derstood the full implications of anthropomorphism due to philo-

sophical influences from the Greek world, which has led to a less
personal understanding of God.
Another way of explaining anthropomorphism is to see it as be-
longing to the primitive stages of religion, later to be replaced by a
more refined concept of God. Some, like Rowley, would regard it as
metaphorical, "Most of the anthropomorphisms which we find in the
Bible are mere accommodations to human speech, or vivid pictures
used for psychological effect rather than theological in signifi-
cance". \0 This is disappointing from Rowley. Such statements are
metaphorical, but they are not just "mere accommodations" to hu-
mans nor, as we have seen, are they only for psychological effect. It is
impossible to undertake theological discussion without a heavy reli-
ance on metaphor. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
combines both interpretations "Scripture, especially in the earlier
books of the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. 3:8, 32:24ff, Exod. 4:24) in
order to be intelligible to less developed minds, frequently uses an-
thropomorphic language, which is in most cases dearly metaphori-
cal"."
Such approaches to the problem are unsatisfactory. Clines points
out that anthropomorphisms are not confined to the earlier books of
the Bible (Isa. 42:14, 63:1). (compare P in Exod. 31:17 "The
Lord... was refreshed"). He notes that these expressions are not parts
of the Bible for which excuses have to be made but rather are an
essential element in the biblical understanding of God; a positive
evaluation is required. In contrast to those who wish to see God as
free from limitation, anthropomorphic language wants to speak of
God as expressing himself through his self-limitations. As when a
poet chooses to express himself in the form of a sonnet or a composer
in the form of a sonata, he takes up various limitations so as to make
that self expression possible, so God uses anthropomorphism in the
same way.'2
The fundamental key to understanding anthropomorphism lies in
the personal nature of God who relates to people in a personal way.
Anthropomorphism seeks to interpret the multi-faceted nature of
God in terms of human personality. Kohler summarises well by stat-

10 H.H. Rowley, The Faith qf IsraeL' Aspects qf Old Testament Thought (London, 1956),
pp. 75ff.
II F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (eds.), The OifOrd Dictionary qf the Christian
Church (London, 1974, 2nd edition), p. 63.
12 D. Clines, "Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology", Theology 83 (1980),
pp. 323-330, p. 326.
 ANI'HROPOMORPHISM AND GOD'S PERSONAL ACTION 75

ing that the meaning of the human descriptions of God in the Old
Testament is
not in the least to reduce God to a rank similar to that of man. To
describe God in terms of human characteristics is not to humanise Him.
That has never happened except in unreasonable polemic. Rather the
purpose of anthropomorphisms is to make God accessible to man ...They
represent God as person. They avoid the error of presenting God as a
careless and soulless abstract idea or fIxed Principle standing over against
man like a strong silent battlement. God is personal. He has a will, He
exists in controversy ready to communicate Himself, offended at men's
sin yet with a ready ear for their supplication and compassion for their
confession of guilt: in a word God is a living God. 13
Man takes the familiar situations of home and community and moves
from these to illuminate the activity of God so that the application of
these terms and phrases to God establishes an absolute ideal. Man
can then become more like God and anthropomorphism can help
him attain that goal. G.B. Caird writes, "Anthropomorphism is
something more than the imposing of man's preconceived and lim-
ited images on the divine. There is something that answers back in
perpetual dialogue and criticism".14
One of the most important aspects of Old Testament theology was
this strong emphasis on the personal nature of God. The individual-
ity of the Old Testament concept of God is to be seen here and it is
the foundation of Old Testament faith. The Old Testament sees a
God who is alive and fully personal in his dealings with the world. 15
By personal involvement we describe a God who engages with hu-
mans and their history, and is committed to their well-being and
existence. He interacts with humans on their own terms as we would
with each other.
There is in the Old Testament both a monarchical understanding
of God which emphasises his transcendence and the discontinuity
between God and the world, and a personal view which stresses the
intimate relationship between the divine and human realms. In the
flood both these aspects are present; on the one hand there is the
power of God who creates, uncreates and re-creates, on the other
there is his engagement with individuals on a personal basis: 6:6, 7: 1
(J), 6:9 and 8: 1 (P). God is not static but is known in his action in
creating, uncreating and re-creating, as he enters fully into the life of

13 L. Kohler, Theologie des Allen Testaments (fubingen, 1936), p. 6 = Old Testament

Theology (London, 1957), pp. 24ff.
14 G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London, 1980), p. 182 and
discussion therein pp. 172-182.
15 See Eichrodt (1959), pp. 131-134 = (1961), pp. 206-220.
76 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

the created order. God becomes fully involved in the world so that
events have an effect on him, as much as they do on other people.
The possibility of intercession in narratives such as Gen. 18 and
Exod. 32-34, suggests that God has so entered the human condition
that he allows humanity a part in his decision making. There is
genuine divine openness to the future, since human action plays a
role in determining God's attitude to people (see Chapter 2).
God is transcendent in his relationship with the world but is not
remote from it. He is the Lord of time but has chosen to be bound up
with human history. God is unchangeable but he also reacts to what
occurs in the world. When we speak of God and the world we are
talking of a relationship and, in any relationship God will have to
give up some freedom, since any commitment involves promise. God
has exercised freedom in making promises and thereafter his freedom
is limited by his commitment to the world. God will be faithful and
this involves not a freedom from the world but a freedom for it in
which, as we shall see below, there is some power sharing. 16 For
example God's promise never to send another deluge means that he
is not free to flood the earth again.
The God of the Old Testament is not a static timeless being but,
as we have seen, is in constant interaction with people and events. As
God is personal he relates to the world in such a way that he has
passion and emotion. The divine pathos shows the high worth of
humanity. God is not indifferent to man's cold rejection of him. In
other words God does not rule with the majesty of remote omnipo-
tence but reacts emotionally to the life of the world with all its suffer-
ing and tragedy. He is not cold or aloof and can feel the full repercus-
sions of every turn of the human drama.
Despite the fact that God relates to man in a personal way, there
is still a strong sense of the otherness of God. Care was taken to
ensure that human limitations were not too easily applied to him.
This can perhaps be seen in the flood where despite the anthropo-
morphism of Gen. 6:6 there is still a great emphasis on the majesty
of God in his sovereignty over creation. The divine nature was infi-
nitely superior to that of man as can be seen from such epithets as
"The Lord of Hosts" and exilic passages such as Isa. 40-43 where
God is portrayed as the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth--the
imperishable ruler of the universe who is set in contrast to the non
existent gods of the heathen. There are also explicit denials of limits

16 T.E. Fretheim, The Suffering God: an Old Testament Perspective (philadelphia,

1984), pp. 34-44.
 ETYMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 77

to the divine nature (Isa. 49:15). Another example oflimiting a meta-

phor is found in Ps.l21:4. The Psalmist is stressing the power of God
to protect and care for the individual. In order to underline his point
he refrains from human metaphor since God does not slumber or
sleep. The analogy between a human and divine keeper is not abso-
lute. Nevertheless the Old Testament does seem to find it easier to
tolerate the danger of lessening God's greatness and absoluteness
than to run the risk of giving up God's lively personal nature and
participation in things earthly. 17

3. Etymological Considerations
Now it will be necessary to look at the word om. The piel and pual
yield the uniform translation 'comfort' or 'console' 53 times (e.g. Isa.
40:1,49:13, Lam. 1:2). It is however the niphal and hithpael which
are more complex giving 'repent', 'regret', "change one's mind" as
well as 'comfort': Amos 7:3, 1 Sam. 15:11, Jer. 18:8, 31:15. The
hithpael can mean "be sorry", "comfort oneself', 'repent' or ease
oneself by taking vengeance: Gen. 37:35, Num. 23:19, Deut. 32:36,
Ezek. 5: 13. 18 The root om is not found in P which seems to prefer
more formalised language, though occasionally it does use anthropo-
morphic talk: Gen. 8:1, Exod.31:17.
Naturally linguists have attempted to find the semantic link be-
tween the different uses of this root. D. Winton Thomas drawing on
comparative Semitic philology, argued that the Arabic root na&ama,
to "breath hard", is the primary meaning of the Hebrew word. 19
From this he argues that the idea is developed into 'comfort', since
that is what is gained from drawing a deep breath as in Isa. 1:24,
Ezek. 5: 13, Ps. 119:52. N. Snaith also follows this method, pointing
out that the root is used of the breathing of a horse. 2o
The etymological approach does not help in understanding Gen.
6 and its methodology is highly questionable. J. Barr describes the
arguments of this method as "patently absurd".21 It is wrong to as-
sume that the use in Arabic is determinative for the meaning of a
word in a religious Hebrew text. There is a danger of making an
accidental etymological connection decisive for the interpretation of

17 Von Rad (1958), p. 96 = (1963), p. 114.

18 See BDB, pp. 636ff.
19 D. Winton Thomas, "A Note on the Hebrew Root em", ET 44 (1932-3), pp.
191-2.
20 N.H. Snaith, "The Meaning of the Paraclete", ET 57 (1945-46), pp. 47-50.
21 J. Barr, The Semantics qf Biblical Language (London, 1961), pp. 116ff.
 78 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

a root in a different context. It is not etymology but context and

usage which determine meaning.
Another attempt to discern the exact nature of em is represented
by H. van Dyke Parunak22 who argues that the semantic link be-
tween the meanings 'comfort' and the execution of wrath is located
in the fact that anger is an expression of relief of emotional tension.
When God has promised blessing or judgement and when the con-
duct of the intended recipient has rendered such treatment inappro-
priate, an emotional tension is built up which is relieved by retracting
the blessing or judgement. Van Dyke Parunak concludes that 'com-
fort' is the basic meaning of em, and the niphal and hiphil describe
the release of emotional tension.
Yet again this approach is not particularly helpful as it cannot be
proved that this was evident to the Hebrew mind. A more effective
method is to examine context, usage and the theology of the Old
Testament to understand the basic meaning of em. Ultimately for
our inquiry more will be gained from theology than etymology.
Whatever the origin of en:J, its meaning in its present context should
be the focus of study.

4. The Repentance of God in the Bible

The above factors provide the theological grounding for understand-
ing em. We have discussed the personal nature of God and his deep
involvement in the world. em is a good example of the use of a
metaphor and an anthropomorphic expression.
The traditional rendering of em as 'repent' is not entirely satisfac-
tory since the English has moral overtones not suitable for use with
God. On the other hand 'regret', 'relent' or "change one's mind" do
not suit em since these words are too bland. The rendering 'repent'
is conveniently flexible. 23 When we talk of God repenting it is not in
the sense of God having been at fault. Rather, it is man who has
changed usually because of sin. 24 It must also be noted that the Old
Testament does recognise important limits with regard to talk of
divine repentance. Usually em is used of God repenting and ~,rzj of
human repentance. The two can be juxtaposed: Jer. 18:8, Jonah

22 For a discussion ofenJ and its various nuances of meaning and details of usage
see H. van Dyke Parunak, "A Semantic Survey ofNJ:IM", Biblica 56 (1975), pp. 512-
532 and H. Stoebe, "OnJ" in THA T 2, pp. 59-66, and J. Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes:
As~ekte alttestamentlicher Gotte.svorstellung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1975), pp. 15-18.
3 R.W.L. Moberly, "Did the Serpent Get it Right?", JTS NS 39 (1988), pp. 1-
272 p. 10.
4 Rowley (1956), p. 67.
 THE REPENTANCE OF GOD IN THE BIBLE 79

3:10. The distinction is not absolute since em can be used of a man

changing his mind or having compassion (Exod. 13: 17, Judg. 21 :6,
15) and sometimes of moral repentance (Jer. 8:6, 31: 19, Job 42:6).
:J,iD is also employed of Yahweh (Jer. 4:28, Jonah 3:9); when it is, it
never has the idea of moral repentance but rather of responding
flexibly to a set of circumstances as with em. 25 Hence there is a limit
to the metaphor which is not to be exceeded; God does not repent
because he has sinned.
These uses of om illustrate that God is not unchangeable and that
he does respond to the happenings of the world in a personal man-
ner. Behind statements of God repenting there lies the basic idea of
God's relation to the world and, as noted above, God limits himself
for the sake of humanity by entering into human activity and re-
sponding accordingly. God does hear prayer and responds, as he
shows concern for temporal events.
Jer. 18 is perhaps the best example of the use of om in the Old
Testament and gives us a norm for its occurrence elsewhere. Verses
7-10 enunciate a principle which is followed in other parts of the
Hebrew Bible. Human deeds can move God to modify his actions.
Sin can make God punish (e.g. Gen. 6:5-7, 1 Sam. 2:17, 30, 15:11,
23, 26) but on the other hand repentance can avert disaster (e.g.
Jonah 3:7-10, Jer. 26:18-19).26 All these passages underline the Old
Testament's view that the relationship between God and man is pro-
foundly personal; Hebrew thought does not shrink from bold
anthropomorphisms. 27
Jer. 18 illustrates this well by displaying a strong notion of contin-
gencyas God reacts to human deeds. Feinberg puts it well, "In short,
with God repentance is not a change of mind but is his consistent
reponse according to his changeless nature to the change in the na-
tion's conduct. So in this parable the prophet is holding out the
opportunity for Judah to repent".28 God is changeless in the sense
that there are fundamental, absolute standards which God does not
revoke. These are the norms of the relationship with Israel and are
the means by which he measures his response to his people's doings.
God's nature is changeless, and it is in accord with this that he reacts
to people. God's opposition to sin is absolute, and it is in the light of

25 Moberly (1988), p. 11.

26 For a detailed discussion of Exod. 32:11-14 see Davidson (1983), pp. 69-79.
See also Amos 7:1-6. For the only use ofCnJ where there is no human influence on
God see 2 Sam. 24: 16 but even here the theology is not that different: see Moberly
(1988), p. 11.
27 Moberly (1988), pp. lOfT.
28 C.F. Feinberg, Jeremiah: a Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1982), p. 135.
80 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

this that he responds to the people whether in judgement or mercy. It

is his response to people which is personal and flexible, not his rejec-
tion of sin.
The parable of the potter becomes a good illustration of the prin-
ciple enunciated in verses 7-10. The potter can do with the clay
whatever he sees fit but the point is not that he will continue to work
patiently until the vessel is worthy but, as verse four shows, the clay
can frustrate the potter's intention and force him to discard it. Like
clay, the quality of the people determines what God will do with
them whether for judgement or mercy.29 The clay is not passive but
exerts a centrifugal force which presses against the hands of the pot-
ter. Yahweh is sovereign but the people have a will of their own.
Consequently God can change his mind according to the response of
the people. The parable of the potter presents us with a picture of
divine sovereignty alongside human freedom. Verses 7-10 naturally
explain this parable. 3o R.P. Carroll summarises well:
The principle is a symmetrical one: if the deity wills good for a nation or
kingdom ... and it does evil, then the deity will repent (om) of the good
intended for it. National changes bring about changes in the deity, and
the future of any nation or kingdom is not predestined but determined by
its preparedness to change (for good or evil). National turning is matched
by divine repentanceY
Consequently Jeremiah preaches repentance so that turning may be
possible (26:2-6). Sadly his word is in vain (17:1,18:12).
It should be noted that the language of the potter and clay implies
a less personal and interactive language than that which is taken from
the sphere of human relationships. The emphasis of Jer. 18 is as
much on the sovereignty of God to do as he wishes, as on human
freedom to respond. Nevertheless even in this context what man does
determines what God will do.

5. Divine Constancy
The question then arises as to what we are to make of texts such as
Num. 23: 19 "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man,

29 J. Bright, Jeremiah (Garden City, 1965), pp. 125ff.

30 w.L. Holladay, A Commentary on the Book qf the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-25
(philadelphia, 1986), pp. 513-18. For further discussion of Jer. 18 see E.W.
Nicholson, Preaching to the Exilts: a Study in the Prose Tradition in the Book qf Jeremiah
(Oxford, 1970), pp. 80fT, W. McKane,Jeremiah Volume 1 I-XXV(Edinburgh, 1986), pp.
420-428, J.A. Thompson, The Book qf Jeremiah (Grand Rapids, 1980), pp. 433fT, C.
Brekelmans, 'Jer 18: 1-12 and its Redaction", in P. Bogaert (ed.), Le Livre de Jeremie: Le
PrOjtMte et son Milieu Les Oraclts et ltur Transmission (Leuven, 1981), pp. 343-350.
R.P. Carroll,Jeremiah (London, 1986), p. 372 and discussion therein pp. 371-375.
 DIVINE CONSTANCY 81

that he should repent", and 1 Sam. 15:29 "And also the Glory of
Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should
repent" (RSV).32 There needs to be some limit to this metaphor of
repentance, or else God could be portrayed as lacking any consist-
ency. Neither denies what we have been saying so far. Rather each
makes the point that God is not untruthful but stands by what he
says. Both passages show that God does not repent in parallel to
statements that he does not lie: ~r:J" ,~ rD'~ ~" (Num. 23: 19), ~,
iprD' (1 Sam. 15:29). The essential element to grasp is that both texts
focus on the issue of God's faithfulness to his word (Num. 23: 19). For
Num. 23:20-24 it is God's blessing of Israel and for 1 Sam. 15 the
choice of David which are at stake. In both these cases God's purpose
of redemption can never be revoked. The idea of God not repenting
in the sense of not being false to his word is fundamental to the Old
Testament. Even the Psalms oflament 44 and 89 which point to the
apparent failure of God to honour his promises do not seriously
entertain the possibility that God is false to his word. Neither Psalm
resolves the problem. They do not question but rather affirm the
promises of God and appeal in the end to God's steadfast love (Ps.
44:26, 89:49).33 There is no hint of capriciousness or whimsical pas-
sions. 34 The point is then clear that God is fundamentally consistent
in his dealings with people. When he does repent or change his mind
it is in response to human fickleness and wrongdoing, and God's
reaction to sin is always in accord with his righteousness and his
faithfulness to his people. God is constant in his opposition to sin and
that causes him to regret creating man (Gen. 6:6). His regret is always
in accord with these absolute values. In short we must hold a bal-
anced view of God which allows for his sovereign purpose and faith-
fulness, and also one which takes into account his flexible response to
the deeds of people.
Ultimately it is important to see a distinction between being un-
changing in principle and immutable over a particular issue. The
Old Testament does not portray God as unchanging but as faithful to

32 A detailed analysis of 1 Sam. 15 will not be undertaken since it raises many

difficult problems of its own. It is fundamentally different from the story of the flood
since in the former Saul is replaced by David but in the latter the same humanity is
reinstated (Gen. 6:5, 8:21). For a full discussion see T. Fretheim, "Divine Knowl-
edge, Divine Constancy and the Rejection of Saul's Kingship", CBQ 47 (1985), pp.
595-602 and D. Gunn, The Fate ofKing Saul' an Interpretation of a Biblical Story,JSOTSS
14 ~Sheffield, 1980), and Jeremias (1975), pp. 27-35.
3 Moberly (1988), pp. 11-12.
34 Eichrodt (1959), p. 138 :::: (1961), p. 216.
82 GOD'S REPENfANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

his word and to himself. God, as noted above, is unchanging in that

he never lies but that does not mean that he is inflexible over every-
thing (compare Ps. 110:4,Jer. 4:28, Mal. 3:6). This goes some way in
responding to Carroll's assertion thatJer. 18:7-10 presents us with an
unreal predictable deity who is mechanical and lacks depth.35 This
misses the point. The aim of the passage is to underline the divine
consistency in God's relationship with the nations. God is consistent
and can be relied upon to act in a way which excludes unfairness.
To say that God repents is to deal primarily with the idea of
reversal and change. The term is not exhaustive since there is no one
to one correlation between the way that people and God repent. Yet
the metaphor makes the idea of God's involvement in the world
vivid.
Naturally this touches on the question of providence and its rela-
tion to freedom. The Old Testament does see the divine will deter-
mining the life of Israel and the world. There is a divine energy
which is all pervading; it directs lives in accord with God's will. For
example God causes Absalom to reject the advice of Ahithophel (2
Sam. 17: 14). He stirs up David to a disastrous census (2 Sam. 24: 1)
and hardens the hearts of both Pharaoh (Exod. 4:21) and of Israel
(Isa. 6: 10). Yet the Bible does not give a simplistic determinism. If
man were to have no responsibility, then the whole ethical teaching
of the Bible would be rendered meaningless. The concept of moral
freedom is found alongside the belief in God's effective rule in all
things. The Old Testament does not see a tension here in the way
that modern theology would. Both realities are found with no at-
tempt to resolve them. Ultimately it is left to the mystery and majesty
of God. 36 "The Old Testament does not present us with a God
whose personality is essentially simple and whose every action may
be readily integrated with the basic tenor of his personality, but with
one whose judgements are unsearchable and ways ultimately mscru-
table", notes Clines. 37

6. Genesis 6:6-7
Having oudined some of the basic tenets of the Old Testament's
understanding of God, it is now time to consider Gen. 6:6 in more
detail. 38 Here we encounter the issues which have been discussed
above. Gen. 6 shows God, who is deeply personal, responding flex-

3:; Carroll (1986), pp. 373ff.

36 Eichrodt (1961), pp. 119-121 = (1967), pp. 177-181.
37 Clines (1980), p. 328.
38 See B. Jacob, Das Erste Buck der Tora (Berlin, 1934), pp. 179-182.
 GENESIS 6:6-7 83

ibly to the situation of the world. Here is seen the innermost heart of
God and his deepest feelings. The principle of Jer. 18 is well illus-
trated here, with God repenting of the good he has done in the
creation of the world because humans have rebelled. Anthropomor-
phism is used to underline the personal nature of God's relationship
with the world.
Gen. 6:6 then is testimony to the personal relationship between
God and man. God cannot dissociate himself from people. By using
anthropomorphism the text seeks to come to terms with the apparent
contradiction that God first creates then destroys humanity. God's
regret is set in the context of the decision to destroy. Unlike the Epic
of Gilgamesh, there is no plurality of gods, one of whom wills de-
struction, another life. The regret of God emphasises the monotheis-
tic nature of the text by placing the dissension between gods in the
one God . The one God in reality wills life for his creation, but
humanity is so irredeemably wicked that God is left with no option
but to send a drastic punishment. It is clear that in Gen. 6 it is man
who has been inconsistent not God. The J account then emphasises
the horror of what is about to take place. Since the will of God is for
the good of his creation then the impending doom causes him an-
guish, sorrow and regret. He can react in no other way to the rejec-
tion of his loving purposes. This is so important that J repeats the
statement (6:6,7).
The pain of God relates both to the general sin of humanity as
well as to the divine decision to destroy. Some argue that the sorrow
and repentance of God are connected with the general sinfulness of
man. Gunkel notes, "At base there is a deeply pessimistic reflection
on human sinfulness".39 Skinner calls it a "pessimistic estimate of
human nature".40 Naturally there is truth in these statements: 6:5-8
offers an assessment of the state of man. Yet this is not just a general
statement but rather the attempt of J to come to terms with the
decision to destroy. 6:5 should be seen in the context of 6:5-8. The
words are not simply a reflection on the state of sin. A whole genera-
tion has been corrupted with sin and the drastic decision taken by
God, that destruction is the only possible response, causes him to
repent of creating humanity. God is grieved at the coming destruc-
tion which he has to bring upon the world. J is attempting to come to
terms with this.41

39 Quoted from Westermann (1984), p. 408 from Gunkel (1910), p. 60.

40 Skinner (1912), p. 150.
41 Westermann (1974), pp. 549-51 = (1984), pp. 408ff.
84 GOD'S REPENTANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

,:J, ,~ :J~,I)n"
further emphasises the grief which comes to God.
:J~,I) is used to express some of the deepest human emotions: the
feeling of the brothers of Dinah after her rape (Gen. 34:7); of
Jonathan after hearing of Saul's plan to kill David (1 Sam.20:34); of
David on hearing of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 19:3); and of a deserted
wife (Isa. 54:6).42 Consequently this is the pain and love of a God
who cares deeply about man and is spurred to take drastic action. 43
God suffers in the judgement which he will have to bring. God is no
pitiless destroyer.
Not only do we see a God who repents at creating man but we
also see the divine constancy in this story. Despite the repentance of
God the narrative ultimately testifies to God's promise to uphold
creation in spite of continuing human sin. He promises not to re-
spond to such complete corruption by the sending of a flood to kill
all. God both repents and ensures survival. God limits himself in his
dealings with man by excluding universal deluge from the possible
range of punishments. God has opened himself to the possibility of
further suffering with the resolve to abide with man as he is (8:20-
22).44 The change in God assures his fundamental consistency. In the
flood we see the immutability of God and his dependability in the
preservation of the created order. That does not rule out the possibil-
ity of God sending punishment by other means but the basic struc-
ture of creation is upheld. The flood then becomes a good example of
the Old Testament's belief in God's consistency and his flexible re-
sponse to man. The Old Testament can hold these two together
without tension.

7. Reading Gen. 6:6 with P

Talk of God's repentance is found in the J stratum but not in P,
which seems to avoid anthropomorphic expression. In what way is
the text enhanced by a joint reading, and how is P altered by adding
to it talk of God's repentance?
First, if the two sources are read together it is corruption of the
way ordained by God in Gen. 1:26ff, in particular by ODn, which
causes God so much grief. The filling of the earth with violence made
God regret the creation of the world; that brought the necessity of
the deluge. God seems to be most especially grieved at the crime of
killing. We shall suggest in Chapter 6 that God is bringing the pun-

42 Wenham (1987), p. 145.

43 Wenham (1987), p. 147.
44 Fretheim (1984), pp. 112ff.
 READING GEN. 6:6 WITH P 85

ishment of life for life in line with 9:5ff. Yet even though this is a just
punishment since humans have set themselves on sin, God still feels
pain at the decision to destroy. Even though destruction (nnrv) is the
appropriate response to the people who have destroyed themselves
(nnrv) , this is still an horrific prospect for God and he is filled with
regret at destroying even a corrupt (nnrv) humanity. Read by them-
selves the statements of 9:5ff could appear to state a mechanical
notion of retribution. The fact that God does not decide on punish-
ment with cold indifference, and that he is appalled at loss of life,
adds a solemnity to the charges of 9:5ff.
Secondly, the point that in P there is almost complete silencing of
anthropomorphism is no longer valid when the two sources are read
together. When P is added to J the whole account is anthropomor-
phic. Further, 8: 1 (P) is to some extent anthropomorphic; the point
should no be pressed too far. If J is added to P, there is a stronger
sense of the personal involvement of God in the world. The corollary
is also true; the addition of P to J with its emphasis on God's sover-
eignty, forms an appropriate limit to talk of God's repentance.
Thirdly, a joint reading helps us resolve the apparent contradic-
tion as to why did God create man if he knew that he would cause
trouble?45 This has been explained in part by the above discussion in
that God takes risks as he makes himself vulnerable to humanity and
is prepared to suffer grief There is also a partial answer in 6:8 where
God preserves just one man. The one who is grieved at heart is also
the one with whom a single human being finds favour. God is no
pitiless destroyer. Despite widespread evil, his creation is made
worthwhile by the righteous. The original world was very good
(1 : 31) and that goodness made it worthy of creation. It is man not
God who is responsible for its collapse.
If the two sources combine, there is another answer to this prob-
lem. Not only is there this presence of God in the world but there is
also a divine power sharing (Gen. 1:26-30) so that in God's ongoing
creation there is an element of intermediacy: Gen. 1:28, Ps. 8:5-8.
God's continuing work is shared with humans. In the context of this
power. sharing there is a divine enabling and empowering which
helps the creature to move freely. When God relates to man he
shares power with him in a vital relationship of co-operation which
involves God taking risks. Consequently God has to accept what
people do with the power they are given, even if, as in Gen. 6 they
rebel and exploit their fellows. The co-operation between God and

45 See Westermann (1974), pp. 553ff = (1984), p. 411.

86 GOD'S REPENfANCE IN GENESIS 6:6

humanity is not always successful and God may have to compromise.

The Old Testament speaks of God's vulnerability as he limits himself
by the creation of man. Consequently traditional language concern-
ing divine omnipotence must be used with care. God has immersed
himself in the world of time making himself available in vulnerability.
God is ready to take risks with his creation. 46
Naturally this is important for the flood. Not only does God take a
risk with the world by opening himself up to vulnerability, but the
flood then becomes a most suitable place for a discussion of the
Imago Dei. It can then be seen why this is placed in this context by
the writer of the story. If the account is read as a whole, then the
placing of the image of God in the same story as a description of the
frustration of God at the failure of his creation, makes good sense.
The story is an account of the way in which the power sharing
between God and humanity has gone badly wrong. Man has over-
stepped the limits set by God, and, in oppressing his fellows, espe-
cially by the taking of human life, has taken power which should
rightly belong to God. Only God has the authority to take life. There
is then an interesting perspective when J and P are read together.
God has given humanity freedom and responsibility, seen most espe-
cially in the imago Dei, and is pained when he sees that man's role as
the image is corrupted by sin. A combined reading of the text adds
a fuller perspective to om and consequently it can be seen to be
God's repentance at giving man not only a part but also authority in
his creation. Again the prohibition of murder is apt here since the
taking of life can then be viewed as an assault on the power of God
delegated in the world. That power is to be used and not abused by
man, and when it is misused God is grieved and forced to repent of
the making of humanity.

8. Gen. 6:6 and the Value qf Human Lift

The above material is also significant for the main subject matter of
our book. Gen. 6:6 illustrates the horror which God has at killing; the
taking of life is something which causes God pain and regret, and is
only to be used as a last resort when there is total corruption. God is
so bound up with humans that anything which happens to them has
a deep effect on him. God does not just exist for himself, but he
reacts personally to peopleY Consequently it is not just life as mere
existence which is of value to him, but life in relation to God which

46 Fretheim (1984), pp. 72-76.

47 Westermann (1974), p. 548 = (1984), pp. 407fT.
 GEN. 6:6 AND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE 87

is valuable. If God regrets the destruction of life, even corrupt life,

then it must be of value to him. When man abuses the responsible
position which he holds in creation God is saddened. We quoted
G.B. Caird who noted that anthropomorphism summons humans to
act like God. Man must be as reluctant to kill as God, and he ought
to share the same horror at death. Man is to feel the same responsi-
bility to his fellows as God does to humans. Even if man is to execute
(9:5f1), he is to show great reluctance to take life.
Further, Gen. 6:6-7 emphasises God's absolute sovereignty over
life: "for I am sorry that I have made them". As we shall discuss in
the next chapter, only God has the authority to take life, because he
has made it.

Conclusion

We have seen how Gen. 6:6 speaks of God's personal love, care and
concern for humanity by the metaphor of repentance. Punishment is
used only reluctandy and in spite of this, the passage is ultimately a
testimony to the value of human life which provides a suggestive
context for a discussion of the imago Dei. Humanity should be as
reluctant to destroy as God.
 CHAPTER FOUR

CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

The story of the flood presents the reader with an almost complete
reversal of the account of creation in Gen. 1-2. The sovereignty of
God is eloquently portrayed in the primeval history as he creates,
uncreates and re-creates. This combination of the accounts of crea-
tion and flood is not unique to Israel and can be found in both the
Sumerian and Atrahasis epics. l The present chapter will examine the
motif of creation and uncreation which is found more clearly in P
than inJ, but is especially striking on a joint reading of the text. Such
a theme provides a suggestive context for discussion of the value of
human life.

1. Israel's Understandingqf Creation

Before doing a detailed exegesis of the story a few comments need to
be made about Israel's understanding of creation. Both the narratives
of creation and deluge presuppose a belief in a majestic, omnipotent
God who is the source of all that is created. Gen. 1 invites compari-
son with other texts where the mystery and wonder of God's work in
creation are expounded: e.g. Job 38-42, Provo 8:22-31. God alone is
the sovereign Lord of all that exists and since he is the sole creator, so
too he can become the un creator of the world. Israel, in contrast to
the surrounding cultures, had one God who ruled without the slight-
est hindrance from lesser deities. 2
Levenson on the other hand postulates, for the purposes of com-
parison, a hypothetical alternative to the traditional understanding of
the flood where there is only the activity of one God. He suggests that
the story can be read as a conflict between two gods. One held high
hopes for creation, would not tolerate evil, and sent a flood to destroy
the world with the exception of one family of righteous people. He
was overcome by a more realistic deity who was prepared to bear
with man despite his evil inclination, and who made sure that such a
flood would not come again. Levenson argues that this polytheistic

1 H-P. Miil1er, "Das Motiv fUr die Sintflut: die hermeneutische Funktion des
Mythos und seiner Analyse", ZAW97 (1985), pp. 295-316.
2 See Wenham (1987), p. 10.
90 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

story is little different from that in Gen. 6-9 where God changes his
mind twice (6:7, 13, 8:21).3
There are weaknesses in this approach. First, Levenson has not
seen that the story is a testimony to the abundant mercy of God. The
point of the narrative is that the one God does change his mind
about humanity and the reason for both punishment (6:5) and mercy
(8:21) is not the rivalry between two gods, but rather one God decid-
ing not to punish man in such a way again. As we shall discuss in the
next chapter, God changes his policy towards humanity. 4 Secondly,
though it is not uncommon to see suffering as the result of the activity
of rival deities or as the influence of angels, spirits and demons (see
Job 1-2), the story of the flood makes no mention of any other forces
operating in the destruction and re-making of the world besides God.
The text only speaks of the Lord in these verses and no other deity is
mentioned. If one were to read at the level of the present text, as it
stands before us, then there is no room for polytheism. It may be that
J inherited a polytheistic account from a non Israelite source, but he
has purged it of any such tendencies. Both at the level ofJ and of the
complete text, there is only one God who operates in the flood.
It can then be said that the early chapters of Genesis portray God
as the sovereign Lord and creator who has no rival. All created things
stem from his unbounded, undivided will and authority. Israel expe-
rienced God as a unified will of incomparable strength which left no
room for polytheism. When God was acknowledged as creator, crea-
tion could not be founded on whim, nor could it be subject to hostile
powers which sought to subvert God's rightful rule. Creation was
given stability, rationality and meaning by God. In contrast to
Enuma Elish and other ancient cosmologies, there are no stories of
the emergence of gods. How God came into being was not a question
for Israel; she did not know a time when God was not, and there is
no question of a theogony. By rejecting such concepts the Old Testa-
ment expresses a world-view established unconditionally on the will
of God. Gen. 1-9 are a testimony to the one sovereign God to whom
all in heaven and earth owe their existence. 5
The idea of God's sovereignty is reinforced by the notion of crea-
tion by word. Everything which happens proceeds from God's word

3 J.D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion (New York, 1985), pp. 57ff.
4 Moberly (1983), pp. 89-93, 113-115.
5 Eichrodt (1961), p. 60 and discussion pp. 59-67 = (1967), p. 98, discussion pp.
96-107.
 ISRAEL'S UNDERSTANDING OF CREATION 91

of command which assumes a radical distinction between creator and

that which is created. Creation is not part of God but proceeds from
his personal will (e.g. Gen. 1:3).6 The idea of creation by word is
different from that found in Gen. 2 where man is formed out of the
dust, and it emphasises more clearly the complete otherness of God.
Creation by word emphasises the freedom and authority of God. The
word moves out forming the individual and calling into being that
which does not exist. 7 Here ~':l achieves its significance-a word
used exclusively with God as its subject. When the verb is used there
is never any mention of material from which something is created. B
Talk of God's sovereignty brings us to one of the most important
aspects of Israel's theology of creation: contingency. This word must
be used with some care as it has achieved significance in the debate
about the relationship between theology and the natural sciences.
R.W. Hepburn writes, "In the sense most relevant to the philosophy
of religion, an event or an entity may be called 'contingent', if it
could have not happened or not existed; if it is conditional (or de-
pendent) on some other event's occurring or some other entity's ex-
isting". 9 There is a distinction between that which is necessary and
that which is contingent. Naturally the Old Testament does not
speak in such terms but it does see the created order as conditional
upon God, and the fact that in the flood God destroys what he has
created, illustrates that the world does not have an automatic right to
exist; it is entirely dependent on the sustaining care of God. God's
goodness is seen not just in creating but also in his daily sustaining
and preserving of the created order. God lifted the world from form-
lessness and he holds the world in being in the face of potential
disaster. Creation and preservation are two aspects of God's activity
as he sustains, loves and upholds his work. The world lives in the
presence of God whose will is to preserve it as a good creation. Ps.
104 offers a clear example of contingency; we do not have here a

6 Von Rad (1958), p.39 = (1963), pp. 49ff.

7 D. Bonhoeffer, SchOpfong und Fall (Munich, 1933 reprinted 1989), pp. 38ff =
Creation and FalL' a 17zeologicalInterpretation qfGenesis 1-3 (London, 1959), pp. 19ff.
8 See W. Zimmerli, GrundrijJ der Alttestamentlichen 17zeologie (Stuttgart, 1972), p. 37
= Old Testament 17zeology in Outline (Edinburgh, 1978), p. 35. For a full discussion of
~':J see Westermann (1974), pp. 120fT, 136-139 = (1984), pp. 86ff, 98-100. The
question of creatio ex nihilo arises in the first chapter of Genesis but it is doubtful if this
was a major issue for the writer of the first chapter of the Bible. The idea of creation
from nothing is not found until 2 Mace. 7:28. There has been considerable debate over
the first verse in the Bible, see Wenham (1987), pp. 11-14, Westermann (1974), pp.
150-152 = (1984), pp. 108-110, Eichrodt, (1961), pp. 63-66 = (1967), pp. 101-106,
and A. Heidel, 17ze Babylonian Genesis: 17ze Story qf Creation (London, 1963), pp. 89ff.
9 R.W. Hepburn, 'Contingency', in A. Richardson and J.Bowden (eds.), 17ze
New Dictionary qf Christian 17zeology (London, 1983), p. 121.
92 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

simple cause and effect but rather God's continued care for the world
(Ps.l 04: 14). Von Rad notes that the intention of the Psalm is
to show how the whole world is open to God-in every moment of its
existence it requires to be sustained by God, everything 'waits' on him vs
27; and it also receives this sustenance all the time. Were Yahweh to turn
away from the world even for just one moment, then its splendour would
immediately collapse (vs29).IO
The cosmos is not autonomous but is governed by God. ~i:::l is not
simply a once for all act but it does denote the continuing process of
God's will for life. The forces of destruction are not destroyed but are
set within bounds and controlled (104:9)." In the flood God releases
these powers but they remain under his authority to do his bidding.
The sovereignty of God is seen particularly in his lordship over the
waters. The sea, as in other ancient cosmologies, was regarded as a
life threatening force. Throughout the Old Testament the waters are
restive, eager to reclaim their dominion and reassert their primordial
status. God's ability to contain the waters is a sign of his sovereignty;
e.g. in Ps. 74:12-17 Yahweh is king because he has triumphed (com-
pare Pss. 18:7-15, 29:1-4, 10, 93:1-4, 104:5-9). Through God's
breath or voice he shows his dominion (Isa. 40:7, Nahum 1:4). Wind
can stir up, agitate or subdue at God's command; it is the instrument
by which he works.

i. Israelite Cosmology
The Israelites did not think of heaven as immaterial but understood
it to be a massive structure. At creation it is called the l'~Pi, that
which is stamped down (Greek eJ'tEpeOOJl<X, Latinfirmamentum). It was
as hard as a molten mirror Gob 37:18) and rested on pillars Gob
26: 11); Isa. 40:22 likens it to a tent. The function of the l'~Pi is to
separate heavenly and earthly waters which, if allowed to flow to-
gether, would bring destruction as occurred in the flood (Gen.l:7,
7: 11). The flood returned the world to the pre-creation state of one
large ocean. Interestingly the l'~Pi is not mentioned in the flood as its
function appears to have been temporarily suspended.
As with the heavens so too with the earth, which was likened to a
well constructed building which stood on pillars that were sunk into
waters underneath: Exod. 20:4, Ps. 104:5, Job 9:6, 38:6. The earth

10 Von Rad (1957), pp. 358ff = (1975), Volume 1, p. 361.

II B.W. Anderson, "Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Crea-
tion Faith", in B.W. Anderson, (ed), Creation in the Old Testament (London, 1984), pp.
1-24, especially pp. 13ff.
 ISRAEL'S UNDERSTANDING OF CREATION 93

rests on a lower ocean which surrounds it on all sides: Pss. 46: 4 (3),
104:6ff, 136:6. The earth is connected to this ocean by streams and
springs (Gen. 7: 11). The world is surrounded on all sides as well as
from above and below by forces hostile to it and which threaten to
destroy it if they are unleashed. It is God's will that these waters are
set a statutory boundary: Gen. 1:7 (compareJer. 5:22),I2
It is here that we need to return to the question of the interpreta-
tion of religious language. In a discussion of 2 Sam. 22 and Ps. 18
Robert Alter writes, "The Hebrew imagination, we might note, was
unabashedly anthropomorphic but by no means foolishly literalist."13
How far is this poetic language of the cosmos to be taken literally?
Did the Israelites believe that the world was constructed like this?
This is hard to answer but, as such statements are found in prose
passages such as Gen. 1 and Exod. 20, it would seem that they were
taken at face value. It appears that the flood envisages such a world
VIew.

ii. Gen. 1 and Mythology

There has been considerable discussion as to the extent of mythologi-
cal influence on Gen. 1. Gunkel played the most significant role in
this debate when he published Schbpfong und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit
where he argued that the Babylonian account of creation with its
battle between the god who creates and the forces of chaos, was the
source ofmythopoeic imagery in the Old Testament. Gen. 1 was not
a free composition but rather showed the influence of the Babylonian
tradition. For example Gunkel argues that there is a correspondence
between the Babylonian name of the chaos monster Tiamat and the
name of the primeval sea l:l1iln (Gen. 1:2). As 1:l1i1n appears without
the definite article, it was once a proper name which was used to
designate a mythical figure. 14 Most scholars have followed Gunkel in
recognising this connection between t:l1i1n and Tiamat whom
Marduk defeats in battle and uses in the creation of the world.
Babylonian influence is strong but it has been toned down to make it
acceptable to the Hebrew frame of mind. There has been a
judaicised re-working of the material in the following stages:

12 Eichrodt (1961), pp. 57-59 = (1967), pp. 93-96.

13 Alter (1990), p. 36.
14 H. Gunkel, Schiipfong und Chaos in Urztit und Endzeit: tin religionsgesckicktliche
Untersuchung aber Gm 1 und Ap Jok 12 (Gottingen, 1895), pp. 112-114 = "The Influ-
ence of Babylonian Mythology upon the Biblical Creation Story", in Anderson
(1984), pp. 25-52 especially pp. 42-44.
 94 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

1) the Babylonian myth was brought into Israel;

2) there it lost its mythological and polytheistic character;
3) in Gen. 1 the myth was as fully judaicised as possible. 15
It seems that with Cl1im Gunkel has overstated his case. There is no
cosmic fight with a dragon in Genesis. 16 Tsumura has pointed to
weaknesses in Gunkel's position. Whilst he notes that Cl1i1n is related
etymologically to the Akkadian Tiamat and the Ugaritic thm, this is
not sufficient evidence to link it to a Babylonian divine name which
has been demythologised. He points out that the root is used in both
languages in mythological contexts without personification. The He-
brew he argues should be taken as a common noun. The lack of a
definite article which could betray influence of a divine name,
presents no problem since there are other nouns in Gen. I which do
not possess it e.g. Cl1\ '1~ and lwn. The use of this word in its plural
form with the article (+:::l) in Isa. 63:13 and Ps. 106:9 reinforces the
view that 01i1n is an ordinary noun as it is also in Ugaritic, Akkadian
and Eblaite, meaning 'sea' or 'ocean'. In Hebrew the word refers to
a flood or to subterranean waters. There is no sign of a struggle
between Marduk and Tiamat in Genesis. Tsumura concludes that
there is no link between Gen. I and the chaos myth. 17
J. Day has criticised Tsumura's study of Cl1i1n. He agrees that
there is not a direct borrowing but says that to deny that the divine
conflict with the sea and the dragon, which is attested elsewhere in
the Old Testament, ultimately lies behind Gen. 1:2 "savours of spe-
cial pleading". "The fact that tehom regularly lacks the definite article
in the Old Testament suggests that a mythical name underlies the
word, and in Ps. 104, which is closely related to Gen. I and appears
to be older, we actually read of a divine conflict with the waters (w6-
9) including 01i1n (v6)".IB
Given allusions in the Psalms such as this it might seem that
Tsumura's position is in jeopardy. The fact that the Psalms func-
tioned in a way not dissimilar to a hymn book might suggest that it is
unlikely that the readers of P would have been unaware of such
allusions. Nor should we react to the history of religions school and
assume that Israel existed in a vacuum cut off from her environment.
One could perfectly well accept the presence of such mythological
influence without adopting Gunkel's method as a whole.

15 See Anderson (1984), pp. 1-24 and Gunkel (1895), pp. 1-170, especially pp.
117-ln
16 Heidel (1963), pp. 111-114.
17 D. Tsumura, The Earth and tIu! Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: a Linguistic Irwestigatum,
]SOTSS 83 (Sheffield, 1989), pp. 45-65.
18 J. Day in a review of Tsumura's book in ET 10 1 (1990), p. 211.
 ISRAEL'S UNDERSTANDING OF CREATION 95

Whilst such echoes may be present in both Psalms and Isaiah (e.g.
Isa. 51 :9fI) it does not necessarily follow that they are also found in
Gen. 1. The fact is that the word r:::mm need not necessarily mean
anything other than deep water, and there is no allusion to a chaos
myth in Gen. 1. It is also to be noted that the article is sometimes
omitted in Hebrew where one might have expected it (e.g. Gen. 2:4b,
14:19b)19, especially in poetry where lJ'i1n often occurs. Provo 8:27
uses lJ'i1n in the context of creation without any reference to dragons
or mythology, and despite Day's claim, Ps. 104 need not necessarily
refer to Babylonian mythology but may just be expounding Israelite
cosmology concerning the depths. Consequently, following the work
of Tsumura we should wish to play down the extent of Babylonian
influence on Gen. 1. As such allusions to mythology are not found in
the account of the flood which is seeking to make a parallel between
creation and uncreation, and where in Gen. 7:11lJ'i1n means "deep
water", it would seem unlikely that there is strong Babylonian influ-
ence on Gen.1.
The other important aspect is the word pair ,i1:J, 'i1n which is
usually taken to mean the life threatening chaos. Cassuto argues that
these words refer to the terrestrial state in which "The whole material
was an undifferentiated, unorganised, confused and lifeless agglom-
eration"-a watery chaos. Water was "above and solid matter be-
neath, and the whole a chaotic mass, without order or life".2o
It is doubtful that this is a correct representation of the situation in
Gen. 1. A glance at all the occurrences of 'i1n suggests that the
meaning 'desert' is better than chaos. In Isa. 24:10 RSV translates
"city of chaos", but in a context which speaks of devastation, the
translation 'emptiness' seems more suitable. In the other occurrences
of the word, 'chaos' is not an apt rendering. Westermann divides the
twenty uses of the word into three groups:
1) the desert: e.g. Deut. 32: 10, Job 6: 18, 12:24;
2) a desert or devastation which is threatened: e.g. Isa. 24: 10, 34: 11,
40:23;
3) nothingness: 1 Sam. 12:21, Isa. 29:21,40:17.
From this analysis Westermann translates Gen. 1:2 as "a desert
waste".21

19 B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

(Winona Lake, 1990), 13:7a, p. 250.
20 Cassuto (1961), p. 23.
21 Westermann (1974), pp. 141-144 = (1984), pp. 102ff.
96 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

Similarly, Tsumura claims that the idea of desert is more apt. The
Arabic parallel means "be empty". 22 The earth in Gen. I is a bare
state; only in 1: 11 does life appear. The earth is being described as an
uninhabited and unproductive place; the author was conveying to his
readers that the earth was not as it was known to the people of Israel:
it was emptiness. 23 '11~' 'I1n is the opposite of creation (Isa. 45:18
"He did not create it a desert").
Consequently mythical influence on the text does not appear as
great as some have suggested. The flood should not be seen as a
cosmic battle. The whole debate is similar to that over etymology, on
which Barr has had such an influence. It may be that at one time the
word D'l1n was derived from the name Tiamat, but even at the level
of P there seems to be little indication of such mythology. If one
wishes to understand the text in its present form, there is little need
for such references; D'i1n simply means 'deep'. Further there is no
allusion to the myth in the story of the flood where D1l1n (7: 11) means
'deep'. Study of myths is pertinent if the scholar's primary concern is
the history of traditions, but if the focus of study is on the present
form of the text, indeed even of P, then such questions are less ur-
gent. Gen.1 does not demand a direct link to the myths of Israel's
neighbours. Only in passing have such allusions to myth survived in
the Psalms and Isaiah. If one wishes to move to an understanding of
the present form of the text, then one has to go beyond the history of
religious thought.

2. 17ze Yahwist
The theme of creation and uncreation is not found so clearly in J as
it is in P. The account in Gen. 2 is shorter than that of the first
chapter. Nevertheless there are certain points which do seem to es-
tablish a link between creation and uncreation.
There is the theme of the waters which is so central to the account
of the flood. Gen. 2:6 speaks of the ,~ 'mist' or 'flood' rising from the
ground and watering the whole earth. ,~ probably refers to the
subterranean waters which inundated the earth. Since the land was
not irrigated properly there could be no vegetation, and there was no
proper control of the waters. 24 In the creation this water is controlled
in such a way that plants can grow and rivers can flow (2: 10fl). In the

22 Tsumura (1989), pp. 17-43.

23 Tsumura (1989), pp. 43 and 156.
24 Tsumura (1989), pp. 117-139.
 THE YAHWIST 97

flood this appropriate regulation of the waters was ruined, and the
waters overwhelmed creation: 7:1-4, 7-10, 12, 17b, 22, 23.
In J the flood is attributed to rain (7:4, 12) rather than to the surge
of these underground waters. The pattern of creation and uncreation
does not seem to be fully developed in this respect, but the flooding of
the earth does undo the control of the waters of Gen. 2.
Most obviously the flood is uncreation by death. In creation man
is created a living being who is destined for life: il'n tV:JJ (2:7). In the
flood death is first employed as a punishment, though it is threatened
in 2:17. Creation is undone. Man is created from the land and re-
turns to it at death (2:7,3:19); the flood is a means of returning man
to his origin in the ground; the play on the words ilD'~ and t:l,~
emphasises this. 1:J,l) in Gen. 2:7 indicates that whilst humans are
destined for life, they are made of perishable material. The relation-
ship between ilD'~ and t:l1~ is that humans and the earth belong
together, the earth is there for humanity, and humans are there to
populate it. In the flood the earth returns to a pre-creation state and
becomes antagonistic to man. As Gunkel observes, "Man is created
from the ground and he is called to till the ground; his dwelling is on
the ground and he returns to the ground when he dies". 25 This does
not mean that he is created solely as a farmer but rather that his
powers include those of agriculture. There is a deep bond between
humanity and the earth. Not only is man killed in the flood but his
environment is destroyed so that he is separated from the necessities
of life.
Man is much more than mere breath; he has the breath of life
which is given by God himself (Gen. 2:7, Ezek. 37:9). It is only the
divine breath which makes man a living being (compare Ps. lO4:
29ff, Job 34: 14fI). Of course breathing is an essential characteristic of
all life (Gen. 7:22) but it is only humanity which receives breath
direct from God and this makes a distinction between animal and
human life. This does not mean that there is a distinction between
body and soul, but rather a distinction between body and life. 26 A
person is not implanted with a soul but is made a living being. The
term tV:JJ has a wide range of meanings 27 which include throat, appe-

25 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 206 from Gunkel (1910), p. 6.

26 Von Rad (1958), pp. 61ff = (1963), p. 75.
27 Wolff (1973), pp. 25-48 = (1974), pp. 10-25. This is in contrast to later Greek
thought, the influence of which can be seen in Wisd. 15: 11 "inspired him with an
active soul and breathed into him a living spirit". Here the soul is distinct from the
body, and will return to God when the body perishes 15:8. The soul is independent
of the body and dwells in it ; only the soul is immortal. Levison (1988), pp. 53, 145.
98 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

tite, person, soul, but in essence the word means the life of a person,
and it is not a detachable component.
This aspect of uncreation is evident if we compare Gen. 2:7 and
7:22:
"El~:l nEl" i10'~i1 10 1El,l] t:J'~i1 n~ t:J'i1?~ mi1' 1~"
i1'n rDElJ? t:J'~i1 'i1', t:J"n nDrDJ
,no i1:l1n:l 1rD~ ?:JO "El~:l t:J"n m1 nDrDJ 1rD~ ?:J

It can be seen from the parallel vocabulary that the flood is a re-
versal of creation. Instead of man living as he ought, he dies and the
breath which causes life and which in the case of humanity is given
by God, is removed by him (Ps. 146:4).
Gen. 2:7 demonstrates the profound care which God has for hu-
man life. Passages such as Gen. 2 show the value of man's bodily and
physical existence. The use of anthropomorphic language emphasises
the personal involvement of God in the world with God fully in-
volved in the creation of man. The flood tells of a complete reversal
of this with the very constitution of humanity falling apart.
Animal life also suffers the fate of death (7:22, 23). 2:9 specifically
mentions the growth of vegetation on earth; presumably this was
destroyed in the flood since 8:21 ff speaks of the restoration not just
of the seasons but also of seedtime and harvest. In the flood man's
stewardship of creation, as seen in the tilling of the garden, (2: 15ff,
19) is ruined. The supply of food is also disrupted.
The flood also uncreates the human community. Humanity is not
destined to live in isolation, and the man of Gen. 2 is only fully
human when he is given a companion to correspond to him and be
his counterpart. Whilst community is not the issue of 2:18ff, the
passage does show that man is not to live a solitary existence: "It is
not good that the man should be alone".28 Man as community, to-
gether with his task of reproduction, is destroyed in the flood.
The writer of] in Gen. 6-9 may have seen the flood as a reversal
of human achievement. There is inconsistency in the text in that
Gen. 4:20-22 do not appear to be aware of a deluge which interrupts
the line of descent. The juxtaposition of tradition has been far from
coherent at this point since the descendants of the people in Gen.
4:17-22 could hardly all be descended through Noah. Yet it may be
that the text possibly sees the flood not only as God's uncreation of
the world, but also the sweeping away of all human achievement by

28 For a discussion see D. Clines, J.11hat does Eve do to Help? and Other Readerl;y
Qyestions to the Old Testammt, JSOTSS 94 (Sheffield, 1990), pp. 25-48.
 THE YAHWIST 99

the water. This is a vague allusion but presumably human endeavour

had to start afresh after the flood.
As we have seen in our first Chapter, the uncreation is due to
man's evil. He is responsible for the disaster since he was not created
wicked. The flood is not a penalty chosen at random by God but sin
and punishment fit together. In Gen. 3 the attempt to be independ-
ent of God brings success for which man did not bargain: expulsion
from the garden and true alienation (compare Isa. 59:2). Punishment
fits the criminal: the serpent, Adam and Eve are given appropriate
penalties concerned with movement, work and the rearing of chil-
dren. Likewise Cain the man slayer is driven from human society
(4: 14).29 The same principle of retribution operates in the flood. As
Westermann notes in the context of 2:17:
The primeval prohibition which, without any further refinement, recalls
a taboo, indicates that neither community among humans nor any sort of
relationship with God can exist without such limits. Where human free-
dom means utter lack of restraint and hence complete arbitrariness, then
human community and relationship with God are no longer possible. 3o
For man to step outside the limits set by Torah is to bring disaster
upon himself At the heart of Hebrew thinking there is a recognition
that freedom entails acknowledging the restrictions of the law. When
such limits are transgressed man makes himself liable to punishment.
The generation of the flood refused to restrain their behaviour. Now
that humans have decided to live without limits, God removes the
restrictions and controls on the created order and allows humanity to
be engulfed. Man who seeks to live against God finds his life is
destroyed.
The theme of uncreation is rounded off by restoration. This will
be discussed further in the next chapter, but it is important to note
that as the waters come onto the earth, so they recede (8:3, 6ff),
vegetation returns (8: 11), and seedtime and harvest are restored, so
that humans can dwell in security (8:22).
To summarise, the theme of creation and uncreation is not devel-
oped as clearly as one might expect, but there are important
resonances between the two accounts such as man's revolt, death and
the surge of the waters.

29 Clines (1972-1973), p. 135.

30 Westermann (1974), p. 305 = (1984), p. 224.
100 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

3. TIe PriestlY Account if Creation and Flood

Von Rad has argued that there are two strands to the P account of
the flood: A= 7:6, 18, 20b~, 23a, 24, 8:5,13; B= 7:11,19, 20aba, 21,
8:4, 14.3\ As we shall see in the following chapter, it is doubtful if this
division will work, and it should be recalled that repetition is an
important literary device. His distinction between 7:6 and 11 does
not necessarily imply two sources; 7:6 is a statement of Noah's age
with regard to the flood; 7: 11 gives the exact date of the bursting
forth of the deep. 7: 18 speaks of the floating of the ark; 7: 19 of the
covering of the mountains with water, and this is not a doublet. 7:20
specifies 7: 19; the mountains were covered to a depth of 15 cubits. It
may be that Ararat was regarded as the highest of the peaks (8:4) and
it was a little time before the others were seen (8:5). It is doubtful if
there is a doublet between 8: 13 and 14 since ::J,n means "to dry out"
and tD::J' "to be dried out" (cf Isa. 19:5).32

i. TIe Concept if Separation

The concept of separation is one of the most important aspects of the
account of creation and by inference of the story of the flood as well.
The separation of light and darkness sets in motion a rhythm of time
which is good and proper (1 :4). There is also the separation of water
and dry land (1:6-10), day from night (14), and the plants and ani-
mals are each created according to their kind (11,21,24). Clines has
pointed out, "There is a fundamental concept of the binary nature of
created existence: there is heaven and earth, light and darkness, day
and night, upper and lower waters, sea and land, plants and trees,
sun and moon, fish and birds, animals and man, male and female,
sacred time and non-sacred time". 33 The flood reverses some of these
by bringing a reversal of creation. The world returns to the watery
mass from which it rose, with these distinctions (except for the divi-
sion between day and night, sun and moon, light and darkness) being
obliterated.
Separation is also an important concept in the rest of the Priestly
material, underlying as it does the very being of the chosen people.

31 G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: literarisch untersucht und theologisch

gewertet, BWANT (Stuttgart, 1934), pp. 7-10.
32 P. Humbert, "Die literarisch Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis
(kritische Untersuchung der These von von Rad)", {AW 38 (1940-1941), pp. 40-42.
33 Clines (1972-1973), p. 136. See also the discussion in P. Beauchamp, Creation et
Separation: Etude Exegetique du Chapitre ltemier de La Genese (paris, 1969). Beauchamp's
structuralist approach is discussed in Barton (1984), pp. 122-127.
 THE PRIESTLY ACCOUN!' OF CREATION AND FLOOD 101

The root '?1::J is often employed in this respect and the same word is
found in Gen. 1:4,6,7,14,18 but not in the flood, not even in the
account of re-creation, possibly because such barriers are broken.
The root is found in a number of contexts which speak of separation:
Lev. 10: lOuses '?1::J for distinguishing between clean and unclean,
holy and common; 20:26 tells of God's holy people being separate to
him. Consequently for P, whether in creation or in the choosing of
Israel, there is a strong sense of order and structure with everything
given its rightful place in creation. 34 As man has separated himself
from God by his sin in Gen. 6, so the appropriate boundaries and
divisions of creation are destroyed. The flood is a breaking down of
order and life which reduces the world to a pre-creation state where
boundaries do not exist.
P attributes the source of the flood to the bursting forth of the
subterranean waters and the opening of the windows of heaven
(Gen. 7: 11, 8:2).] speaks of rain but P tells of an inundation rather
like water pouring constantly from a bucket or tap. The point is that
P, unlike], does not speak of rain. It may be that P intended the
opening of the windows as a metaphor for rain but this is not obvi-
ous. Since the word is frequently used for the windows of buildings
(e.g. Isa. 60:8, Hos. 13:3, Eccles. 12:3), it would seem that P under-
stood there to be openings in the sky through which water poured.
The word m::J'~ is used of the opening of the vaults of heaven (Gen.
8:2,2 Kgs. 7:2, 19, Isa. 24:18, Mal. 3:10) which are opened at divine
behest. What was so devastating in the flood was that water flowed
down without the intermediary function of clouds. 35 These apertures
were not just intended for rain (Ps. 78:23) but when water was al-
lowed to flow out unchecked the effect was devastating, with the
result that the whole world was flooded (a theme picked up in Isa.
24: 18fI). The destructive power of water can be seen from Pss. 18:17
(16), 65:5-8, 69: 1, 93:3ff, and this is portrayed clearly in the story.
By allowing the earth to flood the appropriate divisions of Gen. 1
are broken down in a way that brings destruction. The Cl1i1n is not in
itself a destructive force, but when released by God onto the earth it
becomes a threat to life. God still remains in control of it, and he can
use it as he wishes (Gen. 7: 11, 8:2); there is no hint of God struggling

34 P.P. Jensen, Graded Holiness: a Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSS
106 (Sheffield, 1992), especially pp. 215ff.
35 For a discussion see E. Sutcliffe, "The Clouds as Water Carriers in Hebrew
Thought", VI 3 (1953), pp. 99-103; Westennann (1974), p. 583 = (1984), p. 434;
Wenham (1987), p. 181 and S.E. Loewenstamm, "Die Wasser der biblischen
Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden", VI 34 (1984), pp. 179-194.
102 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

with chaotic powers. At the beginning of creation the cmm covered

the earth; in the flood these waters return with horrifying conse-
quences. God who lifted the earth from a watery mass returns it to
that same state with the divisions between dry land and water being
broken.
In view of this, it is perhaps surprising that the writer does not
employ the term ,;,:J, ,;'rJ to describe the flood's effect. This might
have been because the flood did not effect a complete reversal of
creation, in that for a return to a pre-creation state, a destruction of
the heavenly bodies, light, day and night would have had to ensue.
Nevertheless, in so far as ,;,:J, ,;,rJ means a desert it is true that in the
deluge the world was reduced to a lifeless waste.
It is also worth comparing Ps. 104:5-9 which speaks of the waters
being assigned to their appropriate place so that the mountains and
valleys appear (104:8). God appoints a boundary which they are not
to pass:
ri~i1 niO~? p:mo' ?:J (104:9)
For both Gen. 1 and Ps. 104 one of the most important aspects of
creation was the separation of the land from the water and it can
come as no surprise that the story emphasises this aspect of the
uncreation by the use of repetition. It is twice stated that the water
covered the mountains (7:19, 20).

ii. Destruction if Animal and Plant life

P takes great interest in animal and plant life by repeating several
times that the representatives of each species entered the ark (6: 19ff,
7:14£1), as well as describing the death of the rest in detail (7:21). It
seems that the writer of the story is unconcerned about the status of
the fish. They appear to be exempt from judgement, and the writer
does not explore whether or not they are sinless. The story is mythi-
cal and one should not press all its details and implications. Moreover
the land animals' natural habitat is harmed (1 :24ff), and they are
separated from the territory assigned to them in the opening chapter:
cattle, creeping things and beasts are removed from the ground.
Consequently plant life which was granted to man in 1:29 and
created by God in Gen. 1: 11 ff, suffers. The interest in plants seems to
be in the way in which they effect humans since Noah is commanded
to take food (which was then apparently vegetarian) into the ark.
While it is flesh and not plant life which is corrupt, both suffer in the
flood; human sin effects the environment as well as fellow beings.
Further it should be noted that 7: 19ff follows the approximate
order of creation: 7:21 "All flesh died ... birds (1:21b), cattle (1:24),
 THE PRIESTLY ACCOUNf OF CREATION AND FLOOD 103

beasts (1:24), all swarming creatures (1 :25) ... , and every man (1 :26ff)"
(RSV). All flesh perishes. 36

iii. Uncreation qf the Imago Dei

Death undoes other intentions of creation. Humanity is created in
the image of God and when dead can no longer fulfil this function,
since he is unable to exercise the role of dominion conferred on him;
neither can he have a relationship with God (e.g. Ps. 30:10 (9)).
Service of God becomes impossible and man's destiny to praise his
maker fails at death (e.g. Ps. 147:1). Man, who was made for an
obedient living relationship with God, is now corrupt, and is, in the
flood, finally cut off from his creator. The world overpowers the one
who is supposed to have dominion over it.
Connected with this is the reproduction of the species: humanity is
to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and have dominion in it.
The emphasis on Noah and his family in the story indicates that for
him this was not reversed; he still enjoys the blessing which was given
in 1:28ff. It is God's will that humans should continue the process of
creation and the power of fertility is granted to them so that man can
be part of the ongoing creative will of God. God is not Lord of an
unchanging world but wills the continuation of life; indeed life in its
essence is life creating. The verb ~1:J is often used in close proximity
to l1:J which indicates that creation and blessing go together: 1: 21,
22, 27, 28, 2:3. All this is reversed in the flood.

iv. Reversal of Blessing

Since God renews his blessing after the deluge it would seem that the
author saw the flood as a reversal of the blessings given at creation.
Westermann offers a helpful definition of blessing. He sees a distinc-
tion between God's acts of deliverance (i.e. his direct intervention)
and blessing as the constant activity of God. Both affect each other
and are part of contingency. Besides God's mighty acts there is also
activity which cannot be dated with precision, but which still has
historical reality: for example the sending ofrain Ger. 14:21ff), provi-
sion for human need and birth, and the preservation of life. For
example Westermann argues that Isa. 2: 1-5 describes a state of bless-
ing but Isa. 7 proclaims deliverance from foes i.e. a direct interven-

36 See for a further discussion of the lists of animals W.M. Clark, "The Animal
Series in the Primeval History", IT 18 (1968), pp. 433-449.
104 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

tion. 37 God's blessing is his providential care in sustaining and sup-

porting life.
The opening chapters of Genesis provide us with the widest appli-
cation of the theme of God's blessing where all creatures are blessed.
God's blessing is one of the great unifying themes of Genesis with
animals (1:22), humanity (1:28), sabbath (2:3), Adam (5:2), Noah (9:1)
and the patriarchs (12:3=J, 17:16, 20=P) all receiving God's benedic-
tion. Most especially this is seen in the gift of children and God's
promise guarantees success. Blessing is a continuation of God's activ-
ity, and Genesis is a book of the fulfilment of divine blessing: 1:28,
9:1,17:16,20,28:3, 48:4=P, 41:52=].38
Perhaps it would be unwise to push this distinction of
Westermann's too far, but it does help us to see how the flood re-
verses the creation in this respect. In the deluge God's sustaining care
was withdrawn leaving death and disaster.

v. The Heavenly Bodies and Cultie Concerns

It is important to notice that we do not have a complete reversal of
creation in the narrative. There is no destruction of the heavenly
bodies nor talk of their functions being nullified. It is surprising that
more is not made of darkness in the story so as to echo 1:2. 39 It may
be that by describing such a heavy downpour the writer was indicat-
ing that the normal functions of giving light were impaired. There
can be no proof of this but it does remain a possibility and it would
be appropriate for judgement to be accompanied by darkness, per-
haps caused by heavy clouds. Time, day and night, are not broken by
the deluge.
There may even be a vague allusion to 1: 14 in the story of the
flood. The translation of l:J'i111D'?1 nn~'? 1'm is difficult, as 'signs',
"fixed times" and 'days' are prefixed by'?, whereas 'years' lacks the
preposition. Presumably days and years go together as '? governs
them both. The relation between signs and fixed times is also prob-
lematic. Perhaps the best way forward is to see 'signs' as covering two
categories: i) "fixed times", ii) "days and years". 40 What is clearer is
that the bodies have four functions: "to separate, to indicate, to give

37 C. Westermann, Der Segen in der Bibel und im Handeln der Kirclu (Munich, 1968),
pp. 9-22 = Blessing in the Bible and the Lift of the Church (philadelphia, 1978), pp. 1-14.
For further discussion see Chapter 6 of our study.
38 Wenham (1987), p. 24.
39 See Wenham (1987), p. 16 for Gen. 1:2.
40 Wenham (1987),pp. 22-23 and Westermann (1974),pp. 179-181 = (1984),pp.
129-131.
 THE PRIESTLY ACCOUNT OF CREATION AND FLOOD 105

light, to rule".41 Naturally they played an important role in determin-

ing the fixed times of cultic celebration. 42 1.1"0 can mean a place
appointed (Josh. 8: 14), and is often used of the tent of meeting (Lev.
1: 1) as well as of appointed times (Num. 10: 10, Isa. 33:20). Certain
times of year were set aside for particular cultic acts and celebrations:
Exod. 13: 10, 34: 18. Whilst Gen. 1 has a more general reference, the
basis for cult is established there. At the time of Noah there was no
formal cult as found after Sinai, but the creation does allow for its
later provision, and the flood seems to suggest that this potential
might not be realised. In this respect the writer appears to have
allowed for a pre-Israelite context. This aspect is not made explicit
but it may well have been apparent to an ancient Israelite reader that
under these circumstances all cult would cease, despite the continued
presence of the sun, the moon and the stars, since the seasons as they
effect humanity were disrupted. Given the fact that the calendar was
at first synchronised with the agricultural cycle, that this link was not
removed, and that religious faith was brought into line with the
realities of life, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest (Exod. 23,
Lev. 23)43, disruption of the farming seasons would also interrupt
worship. Booding would jeopardise agriculture which in turn dis-
rupted the seasons and the cult which was dependent on them. In
this pre-Israelite context, though worship is not a major issue, an
ancient reader may have realised that the appropriate conditions for
cultic practice had been removed.
A similar question is raised when we ask in what way the flood
reverses the hallowing of the seventh day in 2:1-3. The keeping of the
seventh day is a fundamental aspect of the world as God has made it.
Can it be said that this is undone in the flood? Perhaps it is the
intention of the Sabbath which is reversed here. The verb rv1P con-
veys the idea of separation: the seventh day is set aside from the other
six and becomes a day of rest. Days of rest are a gift of the creator to
his people: Exod. 20:11, Jer. 17:21, Ezek. 20:22ff. Yet this is more
than a day when no work is done, since it receives God's blessing-
a bestowal of power which makes it fruitful for human existence, to
stimulate, to enrich, and to give fullness of life. In the flood blessing is
changed into punishment. The Sabbath is no longer fruitful for hu-
man existence since the world is engulfed in water. Fullness of life,
which is the aim of the Sabbath, is now nullified in the flood. By

41 Westermann (1974), p. 176 = (1984), p. 127.

42 Wenham (1987), pp. 22-23.
43 Childs (1985), p. 162 and see Eichrodt (1959), pp. 68-78 = (1961), pp. 119-
133.
106 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

destroying life, an institution which is life-giving is undone. This is

not an explicit resonance between creation and flood but it may none-
theless have occurred to readers of the text in their ancient context.

vi. Reversal qf the Goodness qf Creation

All the aspects of creation discussed so far can be seen as a reversal of
the goodness of creation as intended originally by God. In 1:31 God
declares that the newly created world is very good and corresponds
to his will. At the onslaught of the deluge most of this is undone. But
it is humanity not God who is to blame for the disaster. In Gen. 6
instead of talk of the goodness of God in creation we hear of o~n,
nniV and human rebellion. Man has destroyed the goodness of crea-
tion by his wickedness and the sending of the flood is a logical
outworking of human sin, especially o~n. As the world has destroyed
(nniV) itself through sin (6: 11 £I), God sees that it is destroyed (nniV).
What God destroys has already set itself on the road to destruction
and by its corruption has virtually destroyed itself. The punishment is
measure for measure. The break-up of the divisions, as discussed
above, is suitable retribution. The restrictions which God placed at
creation are removed when humanity lives without regard to the
moral limits imposed by God. The world will not tolerate behaviour
which is unchecked. Man has nullified the purpose of creation by his
actions and death is no more than a consequence of his behaviour.
Man brought the catastrophe on himself. As man has corrupted the
way ordained by God in Gen. 1:26ff and abused his position in
creation by grasping at unjust dominion, as he has exceeded his
limits, so too the waters burst their bounds and destroy everything.
There is a clear connection between right human behaviour and the
functioning of creation.
Mercifully there is re-creation; the second half of the story paral-
lels the first: the waters subside (8: 1£I), the fountains of the deep and
the windows of heaven are closed (8:2), the mountains re-appear, the
seasons return, vegetation re-grows, God's blessing is given again
(9: 1), and humanity retains the imago Dei (9:6). The ark contains the
continuity between the pre- and post-flood worlds.

4. Reading] and P Together

As we have noted the theme of creation, uncreation and re-creation
is developed more fully in P than in J. This is partly because P's
account of creation is longer than J's. When the text is read at its
canonical level the theme which we have been discussing is more
obvious since J adds to P's motif in a number of ways.
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 107

First, it is important to notice how repetition is used in Gen. 6-9 to

underline the theme of the reversal of the creation in the opening
chapters of the Bible. A casual glance might suggest that there is a
great deal ofredundant repetition in the account. 44 A closer look at
the texts reveals that this repetition serves a particular purpose, espe-
cially with regard to the theme which has been discussed in this
chapter. The retention by the redactor of so much ofJ could appear
superfluous, unless one notes that it reinforces the concept of crea-
tion, uncreation and re-creation which is so evident in P.
This is well illustrated by the destruction which is seen in the story.
At the outset, 6: 7 states that God will blot out man and beast and
creeping things and birds of the air; a list which reverses the order of
creation in 1:20, 24, 26. Further, the verse stresses that it is God who
has made them; God blots out what he has created. He is the subject
of the verbs in these verses. As Gen. 1 portrays a majestic omnipotent
creator, so Gen. 6:7 contains the message that God can uncreate
what he has created. Just because God has made the world does not
mean that ruin cannot come. Likewise the removal of man from the
face of the ground in 6:7 illustrates that the boundaries of dry land
and sea which were established in Gen. 1 are to be broken.
Having asserted at the start that God will blot out what he has
created, the narrative as a whole works out the implications. Time
and again the destruction is underlined (6:13, 17, 7:4,23) and the
promise never to return the earth to such a state is similarly empha-
sised (8:21 tT, 9: 11,15). Throughout God is in control; he is the maker
(7:4) who can reverse his creative process. The repeated reference to
God's power to destroy underlines the point that only he has author-
ity over life; it belongs to no other. Hence the commands of 1:26ff
and 9:1-7 which are so concerned with life's value and appropriate
human dominion, are set in a context which demonstrates God's
absolute sovereignty over life in a way matched by few other passages
in the Bible. God is sovereign because he has made life on earth, and,
as such, only he has the right to take it away (6:7, 7:4). Hence ajoint
reading with its repetition brings this central matter to the fore.
Similarly the means whereby God blots out is also stressed by the
employment of repetition, which again emphasises his sovereignty.
O'Q is a leitwort which runs through Gen. 6-9, and points to the
undoing of the boundaries of Gen.l. Time and again we are told that
the waters increased (7:7, 10, 11, 17-24). By the end of chapter 7 the

44 For a discussion of repetition see Whybray (1987), pp. 72-91; J.A. Emerton,
Review of Whybray (1987), VT39 (1989), pp. 110-116; Alter (1981), pp. 88-113 and
Licht (1978), p. 113.
108 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

reader can be left in no doubt that there has been a reversal of

creation. On a joint reading not only is Gen. 1 echoed, but so is the
,~ of Gen. 2, and the irrigation which was established there for the
benefit of flora and fauna. All that is reversed in the deluge, and there
is a return to the situation of Gen. 2 where there was no life on the
earth. Similarly the decrease of waters in Gen. 8 highlights the return
to normality by narrating the process of the drying of the earth.
Despite such repetition monotony is avoided since it is not merely
reiterative, but often each time a statement is repeated the reader is
told something new. For example, both 7:18-20 add to the informa-
tion of 7: 17 by noting that not only did the water prevail mightily
upon the earth, but that it also covered the mountains to a depth of
15 cubits.
There are other aspects of the theme of creation and uncreation
which are clearer on a joint reading. First, death is described in terms
of the removal of the breath oflife which was given by God in 2:7.
The verb .l1,J which is used by P in 6:17 and 7:21, does not just mean
'die' but 'expire' or "breath one's last" (Gen. 25:8, 17, 35:29); the
word is employed elsewhere in the context of breathing (Ps. 104:29,
Job 34: 14ff). The theme of the breath of life is played out in other
parts of the story (7: 15,22), and the horror of drowning is conveyed.
God who gives breath removes it.
Secondly, there is linked with this the uncreation of the human
community as found most especially in male and female (1:26ff, 2:18-
25). The role of human reproduction as seen in Gen. 1 and in Adam
and Eve is nullified in the deluge. Only Noah is left and he is the key
to the human race's survival. The apparently prolix passages con-
cerning Noah's family (7:1, 7, 13, 8:16, 18) echo the command of
God in Gen. 1:26ff. Hence the story of creation and flood develops
the significance of the human community through creation, destruc-
tion and reconstitution.
Thirdly, the theme of uncreation by death develops the idea of the
wiping out of all human achievement as initiated in 4:17-22. P's
account of the construction of the ark is the continuity of this human
ability into the post-flood era (6: 14-16). By a joint reading man's
ability to use the resources of the earth is placed in fuller perspective.
Not only is the ark the means of humanity's survival, but it is also the
symbol of his ability to maintain technical mastery and dominion
after the deluge.
Fourthly, there is also the destruction of animal and plant life. The
death of the animals (7:22fI) evokes recollection of 1:24ff since 7:23
reverses the order of creation as found in Gen. 1. The references in]
to seedtime and harvest in 8:22, and the journey of the dove (8: 11)
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 109

suggest that the creation of plant life is undone (1:11£I). Human sin
can have terrible consequences for the environment.
Fifthly, we saw in Chapter 1 that human sin is placed in a clearer
light by focusing on the text as a whole. The statements of human
wickedness at the start of the story form an appropriate introduction
to the events of Gen. 7, and the breakdown of the created order
there. Man has not only broken the bounds which were set by God in
Gen. 1:26ff and 2: l5ff, but he has now added to his earlier sin (Gen.
3-4) by the total depravity of Gen. 6. Gen. 1-9 illustrate how human
sin has consequences for the environment. Central to Gen. 1 and 2 is
the idea of command and limitation on humanity as well as freedom.
In Gen. 3: 14-24 there are physical effects due to sin, as there are for
Cain in Gen. 4: 12. In the flood this idea is developed; total depravity
leads to total destruction (6: 11-13). On a joint reading the theme of
human sin and its consequences is much clearer. Man refuses moral
limits at his own peril; first on a local scale in the garden, then in the
whole of creation. Man's rejection of moral limits entails the removal
of physical boundaries. Hence after the flood more restriction are
placed on him (9:1-7).
Sixthly, if the two strands are placed together the origin of the
flood is put in fuller perspective. P speaks of subterranean waters and
the opening of the windows of heaven, but] tells only of rain (7: 11 ,
12). P on its own implies that the water cascaded down from heaven
like water pouring from a tap rather than the flow of raindrops. On
a joint reading this water which comes through the windows is to be
interpreted as rain. The rain passes through the windows of the sky.
Seventhly, by implying that there was such heavy rain (7:11), the
writer might be suggesting that the heavenly bodies and light were
blotted out (1 :3ff, 14fI), with the subsequent disruption of the sea-
sons. This point, which we tentatively suggested in our section on P,
is clearer on a joint reading of the text, though it is still not made
explicit. Nevertheless the promise of 8:22, the fixing of an established
order for all time, shows that the pattern of the seasons as they
impinge on humanity in seedtime and harvest was disrupted, and
that in re-creation this would not happen again. If the seasons were
disrupted (8:22), then the provision for cult and its calendar was also
interrupted, since the cultic calendar was so closely integrated with
the agricultural seasons. As Noah is portrayed by] as a pious Israel-
ite, the joint reading might suggest that his religious life was disrupted
by the deluge. The sacrifice of 8:20 implies that offerings to God
ceased during the flood.
Finally, we noted in our third chapter that] has a strong sense of
the personal nature of God both in creation and flood (2:7, 6:6). P
110 CREATION, UNCREATION AND RE-CREATION

places greater emphasis on the sovereignty and majesty of God,

which leads to a description of creation which is more cosmic in its
dimensions than that of]. P focuses on the entire universe, whereasj
is concerned primarily with the earth and those who dwell therein. In
the flood, j tells merely of rain, while P has a catastrophe of cosmic
dimension with the surging of the deep and the opening of the win-
dows of heaven. P portrays God in grander terms than the more
personal J. The combination of the two means that both the sover-
eignty and personal nature of God are held in balance in a way
which would be lost if we remained at the level of the sources. 45 God
is the universal creator, uncreator and re-creator, who in his sover-
eignty controls the very boundaries of creation (7: 11), but who is also
so deeply immersed in the life of humanity that his personal relation-
ship with man remains uncompromised (6:6) by his lordship over the
created order.

5. Creation, Uncreation and the Value if Human Life

Uncreation puts the main topic of this book in a suggestive light.
First, it was noted how the world depends on God to prevent it
lapsing back into a pre-creation state. The fact that God does sustain
the world and human life is a sure sign that both are valuable to him.
It is God's will for the world to be kept from the forces of destruction:
life is good and to be preserved (8:21ff, 9:1-17).
Secondly, it was noted that the Israelites believed in the absolute
sovereignty of God in creation. As he has created so he can also
uncreate. In the light of this it is only for God to create and destroy,
to give and to take life. He is sovereign in creating and is the Lord of
life and death (compare Deut. 32:39, Ps. 104:29). This is again picked
up in 9: 1-7, and, by placing the command not to kill in the context of
God's sovereignty in creation, the value of human life is placed in a
suggestive light. Before the flood humanity had overstepped the limits
of Torah by committing Or::ln and usurping God's control over life
and death. Humanity by virtue of the imago Dei has dominion in
the world but that does not include the right to take life; that belongs
to God alone. To take human life is an assault on God's rightful
authority in creation. Humanity's life is a gift from God and he has
control over it (compare Ps. 104:29ff,job 34:24fI). The word which
creates is also the word which sets man limits. If these are trans-
gressed God will take the appropriate action. As 6:7 emphasises
"man whom I have created" (RSV)-God is sovereign.

45 Friedman (1981), pp. 122ff.

 CREATION, UNCREATION AND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE III

Thirdly, the flood shows the opposite of God's will for humanity.
God wants man to live and enjoy the fullness of life in a safe secure
world, in which he shares in the dominion. Destruction and death
are not God's original plan but something carried out reluctantly and
only when man has destroyed himself (6:6, 11ff).
Finally, the fact that there was not complete annihilation shows
that by the provision of survival for the chosen few God cares for
humanity. If he is prepared to start again with his people, then hu-
man life is of great value to him despite human sin. It is a marvel that
the God who created and uncreated should care for insignificant
humanity (compare Ps. 8:5 (4)).

The account of the flood is a clear but not total reversal of creation,
which is seen more clearly in P than in]. The theme is put in a much
fuller perspective when the two are read together. The theme of
creation, uncreation and re-creation is ultimately a testimony to
God's grace. Talk of God's sovereignty provides an ideal place to
discuss the value of human life.
 CHAPTER FIVE

RESTORATION

Ultimately the story of the flood tells of God's commitment to his

creation. Both J and P testify to the mercy of God, who promises
never again to send a universal deluge, even though man has
achieved no moral improvement. The J account puts this in sharp
focus in 8:21, where the reason for God's mercy seems to be that
man's heart is evil from his youth. The P account gives no hint of any
improvement in the human condition, yet God still pledges never to
send another flood and guarantees this assurance by the covenant.
The present chapter will explore how the two sources present the
theme of God's commitment to the world in the post-flood era.

1. God's Maintenance rf the World

In order to understand both the J and the P accounts of restoration it
is important to grasp the Old Testament's belief in God's personal
maintenance of the world. In Chapter 3 we discussed the personal
involvement of God in the events of the world; the created order is
not detached from its creator. Eichrodt writes,
On the one hand, by the concept of the creature, which is inseparable
from the idea of creation, it presupposes the permanent dependence of
the world on God, with no room for a detachment of the created thing
from him who created it; and on the other it shows that a necessary
consequence of the act of creation is an historical process which finds its
forward motive power in the permanent life-relationship of the creature
with the Creator. l
Given this involvement of God in the world, there was an inherent
regularity in the events of nature with God's law being manifested in
the natural process. The forces of nature do not have lives of their
own but are subject to God's rule and command. Through his om-
nipotence God controls both nature and history.
God's personal care can be seen in the provision of food, rain and
fertility (e.g. Pss. 65:9-13, I07:35ff and 147:15ff). The events of na-
ture are the outcome of God's action; he fashions and forms each

1 Eichrodt (1961), Vol 2, p. 100 = (1967), p. 151 and discussion pp. 100-108 =
(1967), pp. 151-162.
114 RESTORATION

individual (e.g. Ps. 139: 13ff, Job 10:8-12). The gifts of the seasons,
day and night, seedtime and haIVest all come from God's care. In
everything God's wonders can be seen. The verb ~i:::l can be used
for both creation and preseIVation, which shows that creation is not
just a single act but is part of the continuing sustaining process. 2
In P nature receives attention for its own sake as a work of God's
creating and sustaining power. Gen. 1 regards creation as a suitable
object for man's joy and wonder. Both Gen. 8:20-22 m
and 9:8-17
(P) fit in with this belief in God's care for the world by witnessing to
the stability of creation. The Priestly story of creation makes a dis-
tinction between creation and preseIVation by concluding the ac-
count of the making of the world with the day of rest (2: 1-3), which
affirms the continuity and constancy of the divine creative will. Crea-
tion is not a matter of caprice, but it is given a mandate to exist by
God. The creative act is seen as God's purposeful will; his mainte-
nance of creation is a demonstration of his ,on (Ps. 136: 4-9).

2. Genesis 8:20-22
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean
animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the
altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odour, the LORD
said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of
man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nei-
ther will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
While the earth remains, seedtime and haIVest, cold and heat, sum-
mer and winter, day and night, shall not cease (RSV).

i. Gen. 8: 21
In the story of the flood the promise to meet sin with mercy is set in
Gen. 8:21, where God promises not to curse the ground further for
the same reason as he introduced the universal judgement in 6:5.
The verse is difficult to interpret and has caused some discussion over
its precise meaning. Rendtorff has made a significant contribution to
the debate and translates 8:21, "I will never again declare the earth
to be cursed (as I have done hitherto) on account of humanity be-
cause the imagination of the heart is evil from one's youth".3 He
adds, "Von jetz an regiert nicht mehr der Fluch die Welt, sondern

2 Eichrodt (1961), p. 102 = (1967), p. 154.

3 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 454 from R. Rendtorff, "Genesis 8:21 und
die Urgeschichte des Yahwisten", KD 7 (1961), pp. 69-78, p. 73.
 GENESIS 8:20-22 115

der Segen. Die Zeit der Fluches ist zu Ende, der Zeit des Segens
bricht an".4 From now on blessing not curse will rule the world.
Rendtorff argues that the verse does not mean that God will not
again curse the earth, but rather that the period of the curse which
was inaugurated in 3: 17ff "cursed be the ground because of you", is
now over.5
There are, however, difficulties with RendtorfPs translation. First,
his interpretation depends on the distinction he wishes to make be-
tween '?'?p and ii~. He understands '?'?p in a declarative sense ("I
will never again declare the earth cursed"), and notes that the word
can often mean "view as accursed", 'revile', 'insult'. (e.g. 2 Sam. 16:5,
7). But as Petersen has noted, there are problems with this rendering.
There is some overlap between the two words which makes this
nuance difficult to prove; for example in Deut. 28: 15, 45 the nominal
form i1'?'?p is used to summarise the covenant curses as they follow in
the standard ii~ formula. Both verbal and non verbal forms of'?'?p
can be used in parallel with 1i:J, as is also the case for ii~.6 Fur-
ther, Westermann observes that '?'?p is not declarative in 12:3, its
only other occurrence in J. 7 But whilst there is indeed overlap be-
tween the two terms, '?'?p is somewhat broader in meaning than
'curse' and includes the idea of contempt and dishonour,8 whereas
ii~ means curse in the more restricted sense. 9 Whilst the two are not
quite synonymous it would be straining the evidence to suggest that
'?'?p has a declarative sense in Gen. 8.
Secondly, the position of"ll in 8:21a does not support Rendtorffs
case; it comes after '?'?p'? not after =]O~ ("ll '??p'? =]O~ ~'?), in
contrast to the parallel clause 21 b:
ni:Ji1? ill.) :"jO~~? "I will never again smite"

Rendtorff has not taken proper account of the nuances of the =]0' +
infinitive clause. IO It designates repeated activity which is either con-

4 Rendtorff (1961), p. 74.

5 W.M. Clark follows Rendtorff to some extent: "The flood and the Structure
of Pre-Patriarchal History", ZAW83 (1971), pp. 184-211, p. 207. See D. Clines, The
Theme qf the Pentateuch, JSOTSS 10 (Sheffield, 1978), pp. 70-72 for a discussion of
RendtorfPs argument.
6 D.L. Petersen, "The Yahwist on the flood", IT 26 (1976), pp. 438-446, p.
442.
7 Westermann (1974), p. 610, = (1984), p. 455.
8 BDB p. 886.
9 BDB p. 76. See also J. Scharbert ""~", 7HAT 1 (1973), pp. 437-451 =
mOT I (1974), pp. 405-418
10 See P.Jouon, Grammairc de l'Hebreu Bibliquc (Rome, 1947), 177b for a discussion
of this construction.
116 RESTORATION

tinuous or discontinuous. Because of his interpretation of ??P,

Rendtorff assumes that the construction of 8:21 refers to a continu-
ous viewing of the earth as accursed, and means that God will no
longer regard the earth as accursed.
Rendtorff has failed to see that ~O' + infinitive + "lJ can convey
the sense of "not to do further" which would mean in Gen. 8:21 "I
shall not curse the earth further". That would suggest the curses of
Gen. 3 are still in force but God is promising not to add to them.
God will not curse the earth further so as to increase what is already
in place, (that is, the curses of Gen. 3) as he did in the flood. It is hard
to distinguish between the meanings 'further' and 'again' even in
English. For example Deut. 3:26 uses the construction ~O' + infini-
tive + "lJ:
1lll ,'?~ 1J1 ~o'n '?~

The words could have the connotation of "Speak no further to me"

i.e. in addition to what you have already said. It does seem reason-
able to argue that in Gen. 8:21 the verse means that God will not
curse the earth over and above the curses of 3: 17ff. The clue to the
meaning of 8:21 must be determined by its context.
The position of "lJ must then mean that the curse remains valid
but will not be augmented. In 8:21 b "lJ qualifies ~O~ (1,lJ ~O~ ~?
r11:Ji1?), and means that God will not act in the same way again for a
second time, that is to bring a universal deluge onto the earth as he
did in Gen. 6-8. Never again will everything be wiped out by God.
Only if in 21 a "lJ were qualified by ~O~ (?,p? "lJ ~O~ ~?), could
the verse bear the meaning Rendtorff wants.11
Consequently Rendtorff's claim that the curses of 3: 17 are lifted
after the flood cannot stand. Wenham's translation catches the idea
"I shall not curse the soil any further". 12 Ibn Ezra interprets, "I will
not add any more to the curse which was pronounced against the
ground because of Adam". 13 The curse is not lifted but God promises
not to add to it. The punishment of the deluge was over and above
that in 3: 17. The curses pronounced there, weeds, toil, pain and
death, are still part of present reality after 8:21, and it is not said that
they are lifted. 14 As the curse of Gen. 3 is unaltered, Rendtorff's
translation cannot be accepted. Whilst the introduction to the story

II Moberly (1983), pp. 113ff.

12 Wenham (1987), p. 190.
13 Zlotovitz (1980), p. 280.
14 Wenham (1987), p. 190 and Westermann (1974), p. 610, = (1984), p. 455. See
also Cassuto (1964), p. 120.
 GENESIS 8:20-22 117

does not designate the flood as an act of cursing, the verb 'destroy' in
8:21 b parallels 'curse' in 21 a, which suggests that the two refer to the
same event, and that the flood was a means of cursing the earth over
and above the curses in Gen. 3.
That is not to say that the words Cl'~ and i1a,~ do not recall Gen.
2-3, but 8:21 refers primarily to 6:5. This is brought out by the ':l
clause,
1'''.I):JO .I)" I:l'~il :::1? .,~, 'J, which parallels 6:5,
1:l1'il ?J .I)" p" 1:::1? mtlino .,~, ?J1.
Rendtorff has tended to minimise the theological significance of the
':l clause; it is retrospective, dealing with a human state in the past as
a cause of judgement and does not represent a post-diluvian assess-
ment of man. 15 But an interpretation of the clause which minimises
its significance is unlikely. Moberly has noted that if the ':l clause is
omitted Yahweh's speech forms two lines of 3:3 rhythm:
I:l'~il ,,1:::1.1):::1 ilO'~il n~ '1.1) ??P? ~O~ ~?
'n'tD.I) .,tli~J 'n ?J n~ n1Jil? '1.1) ~O~ ~?1
The probable deliberate inclusion of the clause makes the theologi-
cally minimalist interpretation improbable. 16 The point is that if the
clause is omitted, 8:21 most naturally refers to Gen. 3. If it is in-
cluded, it refers to 6:5ff and the whole perspective is altered. By
arguing that the verse refers to 3: 17 and the curses there, Rendtorff
has underestimated the significance of the ':l clause and given it
insufficient attention. If the verse refers to 6:5, then the ':l clause is of
enormous significance. There was a time once when God decided to
curse the i1a,~ on account Cl'~. This will never occur again. God
has decided to abide with human evil. 17
Thirdly, the story of 9:20-27 does not help RendtorfPs case. Clark
develops RendtorfPs argument by saying that 9:20-27 is "a verification
that the curse has been lifted off the ground which can henceforth
produce vineyards, a symbol of fertility". 18 Yet this misunderstands the
relationship between 9:20-27 and 5:29; the relief promised is the mak-
ing of wine, not the removal of a curse. The story does not speak of the
curse being lifted, but of the possibility of comfort for humanity in the
fruit of the vine. Indeed, the post-diluvian world can hardly be an era
of blessing since 9:25ff describes the curse of Canaan. Even though

15 Rendtorff (1961), p. 73.

16 Moberly (1983), pp. 113/f.
17 Westennann (1974), pp. 611ff = (1984),p. 456.
18 Clark (1971), p. 208.
118 RESTORATION

there is blessing for Shem andJapheth, the focus of the story is on the
servitude of Canaan. The new world is not free from curse.!9
Neither can it be said that Rendtorff is right to see here the end of
J's primeval history, i.e. the end of the period of the curse. 20 His
claim that 8:20-22 marked the end of the curse is inseparable from
his belief that the primeval history ended there as well. His argu-
ments fail to convince, since if there is no end to an era of the curse
in Gen. 8, the case for an end to the primeval history there is also
weakened. It is the threat of another flood which is removed. The
development of Gen. 1-11 demands an end to the primeval history
in Gen. 11 not 8, since in Gen. 11 we move from mythological,
universal stories of the origin of mankind, to focus on Israel and
Abraham in particular. There is a change of genre in 12: 1. As noted
in the Introduction, we move from myth to legend. 12: 1 marks the
beginning of Israel's history and the end of primeval reality. J did not
see the primeval history as one of curse, which was detached from an
era of blessing. The close of the account is not described as the start
of an era of blessing, and it is better to see 8:21 as J's end to the story
of the flood rather than the close of the primeval history as a whole.
The verse is an abrogation of the decision to destroy.2!

ii. A Comparison with Exod. 34:9

R.W.L. Moberly has observed that there are striking parallels be-
tween the story of the deluge and the account of the Golden Calf in
Exod. 32-34.22 This can be seen most especially in the relationship
between Gen. 8:21 and Exod. 34:9, where a theological paradox is
expressed. The following discussion will draw on the parallel in order
to explore this aspect of Israelite theology.
In neither story is there any hint of repentance on the part of those
who have committed either the sin of the wicked generation or idola-
try. In the flood destruction is decreed but in the later story total
punishment is withheld, though a plague is sent and 3000 men are
put to death (Exod. 32:28). The people mourn in Exod. 33:4, but
that could be a reaction to the loss of their gold rather than any
sorrow for what they had done. Neither the root om nor :mv is used
with human subjects in either story. The mercy shown by God is all
the more striking in that it is in no way due to human repentance. 23

19 Clines (1978), p. 72.

20 Rendtorff (1961), pp. 75-78.
21 Westermann (1974), p. 610 = (1984), p. 455.
22 Moberly (1983), pp. 91-93, 113-115.
23 Moberly (1983), pp. 60, 90.
 GENESIS 8:20-22 119

Both stories speak of the persistent, stubborn nature of the people:

Gen. 6:5 OWl~::l l1i pi ,~~ n~ttino i~' ~::)1

8:21 ",.IiJQ.Ii, t:J'~il :J? ,~, ':J is only slightly different. In a more
specific reference Exod. 32-34 speaks of the Israelites as stiff-necked
:"j'.Ii iltlip t:J.Ii (32:9, 33:3, 5, 34:9). "Go in the midst of us, although it
is a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin" (RSV).
This phrase is found only six times in the Old Testament (twice in
Deuteronomy). The combination of :"j'.Ii and iltlip in its various
forms is predicated only ofIsrael in the entire Old Testament, except
for the general remark of Provo 29: 1. Israel's nature is to be stiff-
necked and stubborn; a concept deeply embedded in her tradition. 24
The story of the flood, whilst using different but related phraseology,
represents the same idea of human perversity to do evil. Instead of
confining the judgement to Israel alone, the whole of humanity is
diagnosed as intrinsically wicked in J. In Chapter 7 we shall discuss
how this relates to more positive statements about humanity such as
the imago Dei.
It is the ':J clause of Gen. 8:21 which states the precise relationship
between divine mercy and the human condition. The particle ':J has
many nuances of meaning and a diversity of function in its 4500
occurrences in the Old Testament. The word is a particle which
points the way forward in a sentence and joins clauses together.
Often it is used for emphasis. The translation of ':J has given rise to
some discussion. The problem is not easy to resolve as one language
may make a distinction which another may not. There are three
possible renderings of ':J for Gen. 8:21. 25
First there is the concessive meaning, "I will never again curse the
ground because of man although the imagination of man's heart is evil
from his youth". Other examples of this use include Jer. 14:12,
Isa.l:15, Ps.23:4 and Isa.54:10. 26
The second possibility is an emphatic concessive, as proposed by
Vriezen. This would mean that Gen. 8:21 would be translated as "I

24 Moberly (1983), pp. 185ff.

25 For a discussion of '::l see J. Muilenberg, "The Linguistic and Rhetorical
Usages of the Particle '::l in the 9ld Testament", HUCA 32 (1961), pp. 135-160; T.e.
Vriezen, "Einige Notizen zur Uberstzung des Bindeswort ki", in O. Eissfeldt, Von
Ugarit nach QJimran: Beitriige zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung, BZAW 77
(Berlin, 1958), pp. 266-273. A. Schoors, "The Particle '::l", OTS 21 (1981), pp. 240-
276; A. Aejmelaeus, "Function and Interpretation of '::l in Biblical Hebrew", JBL
105 (1986), pp. 193-209; T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew,
(Jerusalem & Leiden, 1~85), pp. 158-164.
26 U. Woller, "Zur Ubersetzung von ki in Gen. 8:21 und 9:6", ZAW94 (1982),
pp. 637-8; Jotion (1947), 170d; Vriezen (1958), pp. 267ff.
120 RESTORATION

will never again curse the ground because of man although indeed (or
however much) the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth".
Vriezen rejects the causative translation of ':J to translate, "Ich will
das Erdreich nicht mehr verfluchen von der Menschen willen, wenn
auch das Dichten des Herzens des Menschen von seiner Jugend an
sehr bose ist". 27 He compares Exod. 34:9 where he renders ':J as
"wie sehr auch". Other examples which he gives include Isa. 43:22,
Jer. 30:17 and Hos. 7:14.
The third translation would be to render ':J as 'because'. "I will
never again curse the ground on account of man because the imagina-
tion of man's heart is evil from his youth". ':J gives the reason for
God's mercy.
It is hard to be dogmatic as to which of the three to choose but the
third seems preferable. The context of the story of the flood should
determine the meaning which is chosen. Aejmelaeus points out that
in many instances where ':J has been translated with a concessive
meaning, a causal rendering is acceptable. He claims that concession
and reason are quite different translations which could not be en-
compassed in a single particle. Whilst he concedes that a concessive
would be suitable in Gen. 8:21, this is by no means necessary. Here
the difference between causal and concessive renderings is only a
slight nuance. Further LXX does not render ':J concessively in any of
the cases which are regarded by some as concessive in Hebrew. In
Dan 9:9 Aejmelaeus argues that the sin is the reason for, and not a
concession to, the forgiveness. Aejmelaeus concludes by claiming that
fewer functions for ':J will produce less ambiguity. 28 Further
Vriezen's distinction of an emphatic form and ordinary concessive is
hard to demonstrate. 29
Perhaps it would be wrong to rule out a concessive meaning for ':J
but the evidence does suggest that in 8:21 the particle is one of
motivation. Certainly there is no shortage of examples of ':J taking a
causative meaning. 30 This can be seen in the motive clause in Old
Testament law (e.g. Exod. 20:3-6, Deut. 15:7-11).31 The use of':J for
introducing motivation for statements is common in the Old Testa-

27 Vriezen (1958), p. 272 and see pp. 270-3.

28 Aejmelaeus (1986), pp. 205-9
29 Schoors (1981), pp. 271-273.
30 Schoors (1981), pp. 264-267 and Muilenberg (1961), pp. 150ff.
31 See B. Gemser, "The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament
Law", in E. Hammerschaimb, Congress Volume, SVT 1 (Leiden, 1953), pp. 50-66. See
also R. Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels
(Chico, 1980).
 GENESIS 8:20-22 121

ment (Gen.17:5, Hos. 1:4). ':1 in this sense is found in oracles of

assurance (Jer. 1:8). Such motive clauses are a central part ofIsrael's
faith; they show the ways of God with humans and contain the impe-
tus for inspiration and obedience. They also serve to warn or admon-
ish. They illustrate that the ways of God are not arbitrary, but are
good and right. 32
Further examples can be seen from the primeval history. In Gen.
3:5, ':1 is employed as a particle of motivation, as it is in 3: 14, where
it is used to express the reason for the curse on the snake. In 3: 17 the
ground is cursed ("~) because r:1) Adam has obeyed his wife rather
than God. (Compare also 2:5,23,3:19,20) In these cases, which are
all from], ':1 introduces the specific reason for the curse and is
rendered 'because'. It is then likely that in 8:21 ':1 also means 'be-
cause' since it introduces the reason for God not cursing. Likewise in
6:7 ':1 is used with the sense of motivation: 'r1anJ ':1. God plans to
destroy the earth because he regrets creating it. Human sin has
caused God regret. As sin causes God to regret, it also causes God to
have mercy. Given these usages of':1 elsewhere in J's primeval his-
tory, it seems likely that ':1 in Gen. 8:21 should be rendered as
'because'; it introduces the specific reason for God's mercy.
Hence we should prefer not to use the concessive meaning for ':1
of 'although'. Such a rendering would not convey the emphatic and
paradoxical nature of the verse. The same problem is found in Exod.
34:9. The particle ':1 is problematic there as well. Three translations
are possible: 'because', 'although' or 'however much'. In Exod. 34:9
RSV translates 'although', but Moberly rejects this arguing that it
evades the paradox. He opts for either the first or the third since
these emphasize the paradoxical nature of the statement and the
motivation for God's mercy. 33
The ':1 clause in Gen. 8:21 is then of great significance. Its impor-
tance is brought out all the more by the fact that it is placed in one of
the soliloquies, which reveal the essence of the Yahwist's thinking. 34
It is here that we encounter the crucial paradox in both stories. In
Exod. 32:9ff, 33:3, 5 "stiff-necked" is the reason for God's judge-
ment. In contrast, not only is 34:9 set in a statement of God's mercy,
but it is also the reason for that same grace. Israel's sin, which causes
judgement also brings mercy. To the sinful who ought to be de-
stroyed, God's mercy is given - a bold concept, which verges on the

32 Muilenberg (1961), pp. 150ff.

33 Moberly (1983), p. 89.
34 Moberly (1983), p. 114.
122 RESTORATION

contradictory. Exod. 34:9 is an excellent parallel to Gen. 8:21, where

the same reason is given for mercy (8:21) as for judgement (6:5).35
The story of the flood makes it clear that man is answerable for his
actions and that he has only himself to blame for the terrible catastro-
phe which overtook him. Man is unchanged. God decides that he
will not be bound by the simple equation of act and consequence, i.e.
always responding to human sin by the punishment of death, but
promises instead to uphold creation. Even though man is still sinful
there will never be a universal flood again. Man's permanently evil
nature will be met by God's unfailing mercy. God may still punish
individuals or groups, but there will never be another all destroying
deluge. The change is grounded in the free decision of God and the
relationship between deed and punishment is altered. God assumes
responsibility for man and sin cannot threaten the world again. In
contrast to other Near Eastern flood myths, in Genesis there is a clear
ethical perspective, not only in the origin of the deluge, but also in
God's response to the continued situation of man. 36 The focus of the
flood is on the change wrought in God. From now on he will ap-
proach the world with patience and will not allow human sin to sway
him from his plans. 37
Does this make God inconsistent? A superficial reading of the text
could suggest this but it need not be so. Does God's failure to meet
sin with punishment in Exod. 32-34 prove him erratic?
To take such a view would be to see consistency in the wrong
terms, since it does not rest in God always doing the same thing all of
the time, in every set of circumstances, but is seen rather in his
constant purpose for his people and his faithfulness to them. God
may react to sin in different ways at different times, with varying
degrees of punishment but he is fundamentally consistent in that he
wills and works for the continued existence of his people and of the
world, even though that may be through a remnant and judgement.
God is consistent but there is a mystery about his ways. The point is
that God's mercy cannot be presumed upon or taken for granted.
Neither does the text mean that Israel is to sin in order that she
may obtain mercy. No one could seriously suggest that the Old Tes-
tament encourages sin. Exod. 34:9 in its immediate context presents
a theology of grace which is unsurpassed: the people receive from
God the judgement they deserve and the mercy they do not. It is the

35 Moberly (1983), pp. 89ff.

36 V. Fritz, "»Solange die Ercle steht« von Sinn cler jahwistischen F1uterzahlung
in Gen. 6-8", ZAW94 (1982), pp. 599-614 especially pp. 608-612.
37 Brueggemann (1982), pp. 80ff.
 GENESIS 8:20-22 123

character of God to show mercy, even to a persistently sinful peo-

ple. 38 This is reinforced in 34:6ff, where the forgiving nature of God
is given one of its clearest expressions.
It is this paradox which we find in Gen. 8:21ff, where God prom-
ises not to curse the ground again, even though man's heart is evil
from his youth upward. Petersen argues that the Yahwist had realised
that the flood had not fulfilled God's intentions; it had destroyed
neither mankind nor his propensity for evil. Mesopotamian narra-
tives could explain this as a conflict between two gods, but that expla-
nation was not possible for the Yahwist. For P, Petersen argues, man
had changed drastically, since after the flood God makes a covenant
with Noah. For the Yahwist there was no change; the flood was an
ineffectual ploy. The Yahwist saw God's plan as inappropriate and
incongruous and he viewed it with ironic detachment. The flood
solved nothing. 39
Yet as Moberly notes, such criticism of Yahweh would be without
parallel in] or any other part of the Old Testament. That is not an
absolute criticism, but a theologically congruent explanation which
does justice to the text and echoes with emphases of] elsewhere is to
be preferred. 4o If human sin is seen as the reason for God's forgive-
ness, there are no grounds for viewing the story as a criticism of an
ineffectual ploy on the part of God. Further, in the context of a
document which speaks of the power of God to create, un create and
re-create (Gen. 2-8), it would be strange if at the close of the flood,
God were to be portrayed as weak and ineffective. He is never por-
trayed as impotent in the rest of the Old Testament, even though
some laments complain of the power of evil.
Indeed it is doubtful if, as Petersen suggests, P was much different
from] at this point. The fact that P supplies humanity with basic
commandments could indicate that the tendency for wrong is still
there. We shall discuss this further below.
Exod. 34:9 provides an excellent parallel with Gen. 8:21ff. '::1 is
used in the same way in both stories and each account presents a
pattern of sin, judgement and restoration. 41 Furthermore in both
Gen. 6-9 and Exod. 32-34 the future of the world and the future of
Israel are in the balance. Both the world in its infancy and the newly

38 Moberly (1983), p. 89.

39 Petersen (1976), pp. 438-446.
40 Moberly (1983), p. 114. For a discussion of Levenson's suggestion for 6:5 and
8:21 see Chapter 4 of my study.
41 For other parallels between Exod.32-34 and Gen.6-9 see Moberly (1983), pp.
91fT.
124 RESTORATION

constituted Israel have incurred God's wrath. The crucial issue for
both is how can a sinful people, live before God without being de-
stroyed? In both the answer is given that if sin is met by judgement,
there is no hope; but there is also God's mercy which depends exclu-
sively on his grace. 42

iii. The Role if Noah as Mediator

Moberly writes with reference to the narrative as a whole,
Both narratives (Gen. 6-9, Exod. 32-34) display the same theological
tension that on the one hand God's mercy is shown to continuously sinful
man and is dependent upon himself alone, and on the other hand this
mercy is shown through a man who is chosen by God and whose right
response to God, whether through sacrifice or prayer, constitutes the
necessary medium through which this mercy is shown ... God's mercy
does not override man, but man is given an indispensable role within
God's purposes. Such is the understanding of Yahweh's dealings with his
people expressed by Exod. 32-34. 43
The role of Moses as intercessor is developed much more than that of
Noah, even to the point of arguing with God. 44 Through human
prayer judgement is averted and God's presence is restored.
The whole question of intercession is wholly lacking in the story of
the flood. It is surprising that in contrast to Abraham in Gen. 18 and
Moses in Exod. 32 and many other leading figures such as David and
Amos, Noah seems to make no attempt at intercession. Indeed Noah
says nothing throughout the entire story. In contrast to Exod. 32-34
and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the question of human inter-
cession is not on the agenda. Noah is a much more passive figure,
and it may be that the question as to why he never interceded is
inappropriate. Intercession may have been thought unnecessary if
the writer regarded God's decision to destroy as irreversible. One
possible away of reading the text is that the sin of the wicked genera-
tion was so bad, even worse than the sin of the calf, that Noah could
offer no defence of them. Proof is impossible but the text leaves open
several possibilities.
Given that Noah never intercedes or prays, what is the signifi-
cance of Noah's sacrifice? Does it have any affect on God's decision
not to destroy the world again? Unfortunately commentators give

42 Moberly (1983), pp. 90ff.

43 Moberly (1983), pp. 92ff.
44 For a discussion of Moses' intercession see Davidson (1983), pp. 70-79 and
Moberly (1983), p. 50.
 GENESIS 8:20-22 125

widely differing views on the matter. Gunkel writes, "He offers sacri-
fice because God, who hitherto has been so terribly angry with hu-
manity, is still at enmity with it; he wants to silence what remains of
the anger". 45 Procksch writes, "The earth is now freed from the
burden of the curse by means of the 'olot ... the sacrifice of Noah is a
means of propitiation". 46
Cassuto takes the opposite point of view. There is no atonement
since the suffering and death in the flood have taken away all human
iniquity. Noah's sacrifice is one of thanksgiving and deliveranceY
Westermann takes a similar line; those who leave the ark must cel-
ebrate the extraordinary deliverance which they have undergone.
The sacrifice of Noah is made in response to deliverance and salva-
tion - a constant theme in worship. The phrase "Yahweh smelled" is
a figurative term meaning that God acknowledged Noah's sacrifice. 48
The problem here is that there is a loose relationship between the
sacrifice and God's response, since the purpose of the sacrifice is not
clarified. 49 How was the i1'?.ll understood in the Old Testament? It is
hard to be certain about the precise meaning since, though Lev. 1
describes the ritual, it presumes that the meaning was so well known
that it has been left without explanation. Even though this is a P
passage, we can be fairly certain that its traditions antedate the time
of the exile. Milgrom is probably right to see the i1'?.ll as a sacrifice
for a broad spectrum of need. ~~n and Clrv~ expiate for the limited
sins of pollution and desecration of sanctuaries, but the i1'?.ll is used
for a wider range of sin, thanksgiving (Lev. 22: 17-19), as well as
petition (1 Sam. 13: 12). The i1'?.ll was an all encompassing sacrifice,
which responded to the whole range of a worshipper's needs. Origi-
nally it was the sole expiatory sacrifice, since the earlier sources do
not mention the Clrv~ or i1~~n.50
Earlier traditions also seem to employ i1'?.ll with the sense of expia-
tion (e.g. Josh. 8:31). 2 Sam. 24:22-24 seems to suggest that the
sacrifice bears an expiatory function, even though it is accompanied

45 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 452 from Gunkel (1910), p. 65. .

46 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 452 from O. Procksch, Die Genesis Ubersetz
und erklart (Leipzig, 1924), p. 69.
47 Cassuto (1964), p. 117.
48 Westermann (1974), pp. 607fT = (1984), p. 453. Jewish interpretation is simi-
lar. Hirsch explains that the purpose is to bring about closeness between God and
man, not appeasement, Zlotovitz (1980), p. 278.
49 Von Rad (1958), p. 100 = (1963), p. 118.
50 Milgrom, IDBS, "aLA" p. 769. See also G. Wenham, The Book rif Leviticus
(Grand Rapids, 1979), pp. 48-66. For a difTerent approach see B. Levine, In the
Presence rif the liJrd: a Study rif Gult and Some Guttic Terms in Ancient Israel (Leiden, 1974),
pp. 22-27. See also Jensen (1992), pp. 155fT, 163-5.
126 RESTORATION

by supplication. God heeds David's prayer and sacrifice, and the

plague is averted. The sacrifice is unlikely to be one of thanksgiving
since it is not until 24:25 that God responds favourably; it seems that
this is in part owing to the sacrifice. In] in Genesis the only other use
of il?l1 is in Gen. 22, but the expiatory purpose of sacrifice is not
developed there since the emphasis of the passage is on the testing of
Abraham.
Whilst there is an element of thanksgiving in Noah's sacrifice, we
should suggest that there is propitiation here as well. Neither thanks-
giving nor atonement are exclusive and both are found in Gen. 8.
Lev. 1:4 (compare Lev. 9:7, 14:20, 16:24 and Ezek. 45:15, 17) refers
to atonement and there are many passages which speak of a burnt
offering appeasing God's anger: e.g. Num. 15:24, Job 1:5. It could
also be offered for thanksgiving as in Exod. 18: 11 ff. The burnt offer-
ing brought reconciliation between God and man, as well as express-
ing thanks. 51 Furthermore the term iln'J, "soothing aroma", suggests
that the sacrifice had a pacifying effect on God. 52
In Gen. 8 it would seem that the sacrifice operates as a means of
atonement between God and man. God's attitude to humanity is
altered by the pleasing aroma. The offering does not change man but
it does make fellowship between God and sinful humanity possible. 53
The fact that the offering precedes the promises suggests that it has
some expiatory function. If it were one of thanksgiving, it might seem
more natural to place it after the promises of 8:21 ff. If] is examined
as a whole, then as God is moved to regret at creating man and to
punishment of human sin 6:5ff (see Chapter 3), so too at the end of
the flood he is moved to restoration by the right response of Noah to
God in obedience and sacrifice. What Noah does is significant in the
purposes of God and to some extent the world owes its existence to
his faithfulness. God reacts personally to man and interacts with the
world in dialogue. As Moses' intercession saves the Israelites from
disaster, Noah's sacrifice ensures the continuation of the world-order,
a peaceful coexistence between God and man.

iv. Genesis 8:22

The promises of 8:22 guarantee the future stability of the world, and
they are given in the context of persistent human sin. Humanity is
protected by this promise for as long as the earth will last. Not even
the wickedness of man can disrupt this security, since God has ac-

51 Wenham (1979), pp. 57-63, (1987), p. 189.

52 Wenham (1987), p. 189.
53 Wenham (1979), p. 57.
 "BUT GOD REMEMBERED NOAH" 127

cepted responsibility for preserving the created order. Man stays evil;
God remains merciful,54 with his forbearance being seen in uphold-
ing the natural orders. The whole of time is set under the guarantee
that the world order will be upheld. Through catastrophe it has
achieved permanence with a steady, mighty rhythm of time: seedtime
and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night. 55
This alternation of day and night, summer and winter is essential to
all life. A rhythmical pattern is set up in which God's blessing is made
effective. 56
This picks up the theme of creation, uncreation and re-creation
from Chapter 4. It would appear that the flood disrupted the seasons
and the pattern of day and night which was established in Gen. 1.
Rashi argued that the distinction between day and night was not
visible during the deluge and that the heavenly bodies did not func-
tion as norma1. 57 It seems reasonable here to argue from 8:22 to an
implied aspect of the preceding flood. God restores the seasons and
the rhythm of day and night. Gen. 8:20-22 affirms the mercy of God
in the face of human rebellion.

3. "But God Remembered Noah"

Gen. 8: I is the turning point in the narrative. Chapters 6-7 describe
the coming of the flood, the destruction of the earth and the deliver-
ance of Noah. Amidst the devastation there is only one small ray of
hope: the ark, in which is contained the person by whom the promise
of 6: 18 will be fulfilled. Chapter 8 speaks of the subsiding of the
waters and the leaving of the ark on the mountain. Thereafter nor-
mality returns and the covenant is renewed. The account displays a
pattern of sin, judgement and mercy, and 8: 1a is the first statement of
the section wherein punishment is withdrawn. God's remembrance
of Noah is given a crucially important place by the writer of the story
and it is the catalyst for the rescue of Noah. By its position, i:Jr is
paradigmatic for its use elsewhere in the Old Testament.
It would be wrong to see i:Jr as 'remember' simply in the sense of
recall. In English, for example, when we speak of a man remember-
ing his wife's birthday, we do not mean that he just recalled the date,
but that he also did something to mark the occasion, such as buying
a present. In Hebrew the relationship between thought and action is

54 Fritz (1982), p. 611 II

55 Westennann (1974), p. 613 = (1984), p. 457.
56 Westennann (1974), p. 614 = (1984), p. 458.
57 Zlotovitz (1980), pp. 282II
128 RESTORATION

closer than that in English. Often 1:Jr implies an action, e.g. Jer.
14: 10 where 1:Jr is placed with 'pE:l; compare also Num. l5:39ff.
The parallel of1:Jr and 'pE:l in Jer. 15: 15 is of special note: "0 Lord,
thou knowest; remember me and visit me" (RSV). Schottroff calls it
"das tatige Eingehen Gottes auf den Menschen, die personal
zuwendung, welche die Situation des Menschen, dem sie gilt, andert,
da nun Gott sein Lage iiberpriift und ihm Abhilfe schafft".58 In He-
brew, memory was not just recollection but the putting into effect of
an action. 59 When God remembers he intervenes.
Many examples of this can be given. 60 The problem of childless-
ness is apt. Fertility is seen as a sign of God's blessing and infertility
leads to disgrace - a stigma of God's disfavour. When God remem-
bers the woman's plight, he grants blessing. In Gen. 30:22 (P) God's
memory is seen in terms of opening the womb. 61 God's memory can
also involve rescue from enemies or the granting of strength in times
of trouble Qudg. 16:28).
Gen. 8 offers an excellent example of God's memory leading to
deliverance. "But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all
the cattle that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow
over the earth, and the waters subsided". (RSV)
The essence of God's memory is his action towards people. The
nearest example in P is Gen. 19:29, where God remembers Abraham
and delivers Lot from the city and the destruction which ensues. As
Noah saves his family by his righteousness, so Abraham delivers Lot
by his upright behaviour. As Noah and his family are delivered from
the punishment of the flood, so too God's gracious remembering of
and turning to Abraham ensures Lot's survival. Gen. 8: 1 becomes a
paradigmatic example of God remembering an individual in distress
and delivering him from need. God does not just recall Noah but has
compassion on him through which life is renewed.
Not only does God remember Noah but he also remembers all on
board the ark, which shows that animal life is also of value. By
remembering Noah, God shows that man is destined for life not
death, and that he wants to live in a relationship with humanity.

58 W. Schottroff, 'Gedenken' im Allen Orient und im Alten Testament (Die Wurzel Z41G4R
im semitischen Sprachkreis), WMANT 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), p. 190.
59 For a discussion of the relationship between Hebrew mentality and linguistic
structure, see Barr (1961), pp. 21-45;]. Pedersen, Israel' its life and Culture 1- II I.J-.on-
don, 1926), pp. 106-7; B.S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israell.J-.ondon, 1962), pp.
29ff. Pedersen overstates his case when he claims that memory and action were
identical to the Israelite mind. The point is semantic not psychological.
60 See Schottroff (1967), pp. 183-197.
61 Schottroff (1967), pp. 187fI
 "Bur GOD REMEMBERED NOAH" 129

What God does not remember is destined for death (Ps. 88:6(5)), and
the dead lie outside the range of God's salvation. For God to forget is
the same as the ending of life. The opposite of iJt in Ps. 88 is not
nJiD but itJ "cut off', which shows that iJt is not just bare recollec-
tion but also the sustaining oflife. 62 God's memory brings life. As von
Rad has written of Gen. 8: 1, "The bold anthropomorphism makes
the freedom of the divine resolve for salvation especially impres-
sive" .63
There is also a moral element in the use of iJr. In the flood the
wicked perish but the righteous man is remembered by God. It is the
righteous who are remembered. In Lev. 26:40-45 (P) God promises
to remember the land if the Israelites humble themselves before God.
If they are obedient, God will remember the land and bring prosper-
ity. This theme is found elsewhere: Jer. 14: 10, Ezek. 33: 13, 16, Hos.
7:2, 2 Chron. 6:42, Neh. 5:19, Lam. 3:19. God's remembering of
Noah looks forward to the covenant of Gen. 9 and picks up the
promise of 6: 18.
Vawter argues that 8: 1 either means God responded to a prayer
or that he acknowledged some action of Noah's.64 In the absence of
any reference to prayer one must assume that Noah is saved by
God's mercy working through his righteousness, not in response to
any particular act. This stands in contrast to a reading of Gen. 19:29,
since in Gen. 18-19 God's remembering is linked to intercession.
Another passage which forms an interesting parallel to Gen. 8: 1 is
Ps. 9: 13 (12). As we discussed earlier, the flood was caused by vio-
lence. Ps. 9: 13 speaks of God being mindful (iJr) of the cry of the
affiicted, and he who remembers them avenges blood. God shows his
concern by punishing those who affiict others. Both passages illus-
trate God's care and concern for human life; those who commit Don
will be punished but the innocent are preserved.
All these uses ofiJt are summarized in Ps. 8:5ff (4ft). The psalm
speaks of the glory and majesty of God and his work in creation. In
spite of all this he is mindful of frail insignificant man:
'J'pEln ':J I:m~ p' m:Jrn ':J tD'J~ i10 65
In the awesome power displayed in the flood it is a wonder that God
should be concerned about the only life which is left on the earth.
Even in the context of the overwhelming forces of uncreation God

62 Schottroff (1967), p. 184.

63 Von Rad (1958), p. 106, = (1963), p. 124.
64 Vawter (1977), p. 127.
65 Schottroff (1967), pp. 192-195.
 130 RESTORATION

remembers man. In Gen. 8: I God is mindful of man in the same way

as in Ps. 8. Both texts highlight the value of humanity.

4. The Covenant with Noah (Gen. 9: 8-17)

The covenant of Gen. 6: 18 is the first of about 290 occurrences of the
word n'1J in the Old Testament. Despite the prominence of this
term in the flood, little attention has been paid to Gen. 9 by scholars.
Not even Eichrodt, for whom covenant was so important, has a long
discussion of Gen. 6-9. The reason for this is that scholars have
tended to be dominated by historical concerns. They have focused
their attention on the study of covenants in earlier sources such as
those with David or Abraham or with Israel at Sinai, and have
claimed that as P is a late document, the covenant with Noah is a
retrojection ofIsrael's covenant back into the primeval era. However,
even if it was written relatively late in Israel's history, and was a
reflection of her covenantal beliefs, it is still given a literary position
of some importance. In one sense it is a retrojection of Israel's later
belief, yet if one reads at the level of the canonical form of the Old
Testament, as opposed to attempting to reconstruct a history of Isra-
el's religious thought, the covenant of Gen. 9 is of vast importance,
since it is the first in the Old Testament, and it forms the framework
for all others.

i. Literary Structure
Von Rad noticed that there are certain repetitions in the narrative of
Gen. 9, and concluded from this that there were two recensions, not
just here, but in the entire Priestly strata. Gen. 9 contains two streams
of tradition: A 9:lla, 13, 16, 17; B 9:9, 10, lIb, 12, 14, 15. The
covenant is announced twice 9:9, II as is its sign 9: 12, 17 and the
bow 9:13, 14.66
Von Rad's analysis is not convincing primarily because P uses
repetition a great deal: 1:27, 2:2-3, 7:14-16, 9:5, 23:17-20, 49:29£[67
This need not be evidence of two recensions in P but rather shows a
literary technique which delights in detail and emphasis. 68 When
read as a literary whole, the passage drives home its teaching by
means of repetition.

66 G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrifl im Hexateuch, literarisch untersucht und theologisch

gwertet, BWANT 65 (Stuttgart, 1934), pp. 1-11.
67 M.v. Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of Priestly
'OTH Etiologies", RB 81 (1974), pp. 557-596, p. 571.
68 McEvenue (1971), p. 74.
 THE COVENANT WITIl NOAH (GEN. 9: 8-17) 131

There are other weaknesses in von Rad's analysis. 9: 11 a is a fitting

conclusion to 9:9, 10 and it is not pleonastic; never again will all flesh
be cut off; that is the content of the covenant in Gen. 9:9, 10. 9: 11
resumes 9:9 after the list of covenant partners in 9: 10 to state the
essence of the covenant. In 9: 11 b ri~iT nntD' ,,:JO specifies '0
,,:JOiT of lla and also picks up nntD of Gen. 6. Neither need there be
a distinction of sources in 9: 12 and 17 over the sign of the covenant.
12 introduces the sign, 17 is the conclusion of the narrative as a
whole, and itD:J'~ in the latter verse specifies verse 12. The word
'this' in 9: 17 refers back to the previous statements (compare Num.
7:17b) and in 12 it points forward as it does in 5:1 and 6:15.9:12-17
form an homogeneous whole. Von Rad sees in 9: 13 and 14 a doublet
over the rainbow. This seems a litde forced since 9:14 and 15 explain
the role of the rainbow which is placed in the clouds in 9: 13. 9: 16
summarizes 13-15. 9:8-17 can be read as a whole and there is no
compelling reason to see two strands here. 69
Westermann seeks to distinguish in Gen. 9 between repetitions of
the same thing and those which are stylistically conditioned. In Gen.
9 verses 14, 15 and 16 are genuine doublets: one aspect of which is
described in successive verses. Verse 11 is also a doublet. Two formu-
lations were at hand to P and he wanted to keep both. The other
repetitions are stylistic:
9: 13 as the sign of the covenant between me and you;
9: 15 between me and you and all living beings;
9: 16 between God and all living beings, flesh of every kind that are on
the earth;
9: I 7 between myself and all flesh that is on the earth.70
It is surprising that Westermann does not note a fifth reference to the
partners of the covenant in 9:12 as does Wenham.?l Westermann's
basic point that there is a distinction between genuine doublets which
say the same thing and those which are stylistically conditioned is
useful. Certainly he is right to point to the stylistic repetitions which
he lists. Yet he seems to have forced his case a litde in Gen. 9. As we
have pointed out in our discussion of von Rad's theory, verses 11, 14,
15 and 16 are not simple doublets which say the same thing, but
serve as a means of inculcating the message of Gen. 9. The slight

69 P. Humbert, "Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis

(kritische Untersuchung der These von von Rad)", ZAW 58 (1940/41), pp. 30-57,
especially pp. 43-45. See also W. Gross, "Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der
rrz
Priesterschrift", 87 (1978), pp. 98-115, p. 106.
70 Westermann (1974), pp. 632ff = (1984), p. 472.
71 Wenham (1987), p. 195
132 RESTORATION

variations show that P has a purpose: he wishes to hammer home the

message of this passage. Given the significance of the event and P's
use of repetition elsewhere, it can hardly come as any surprise that so
much emphasis is placed here.
On the other hand it is unwise to push the literary argument too
far. Wenham argues that there is a concentric arrangement to the
chapter:
a) 9-11 "confinn the covenant";
b) 12a "sign of the covenant";
12b covenant "for the farthest generation";
13-16 "my bow";
16 "eternal covenant";
c) 17 "sign of the covenant";
17 "confinn the covenant".
The first speech (9-11) introduces the future stability of the world and
the covenant. The second (12-16) speaks of the sign confirming the
r1'i:J. The final speech 9:17 sums up the whole episode. 72
Whether such a structure was in the mind of the writer is difficult
to prove, but it would seem unwise to select certain words and build
up a pattern on them. It is rather unbalanced: 3 verses for the first
section, one for the third. In 9: 11 the actual promise never to send a
flood is not repeated in 9: 17.
Yet Wenham is right to note that the structure seems to hinge on
the three speeches which begin "and God said": the first announces
the setting up of the covenant, its beneficiaries and content; the sec-
ond focuses on the sign assuring man of the promise and the third
provides a succinct summary of the whole passage. Each section
serves to inculcate a particular point but the repetition of key phrases
from other passages links the whole together in a unity. As Gross has
shown, the first and third speeches form an inclusion to the second,
which is the longest and most comprehensive, as it includes the estab-
lishment of the covenant, its sign, its function, the partners, and the
promise never to send another deluge. 73 The whole passage is held
together by the theme word 'covenant'. 9:9-11 announce it, the part-
ners and the promise; 9: 12-16 describe the sign which guarantees it,
and 9: 17 is the conclusion which sums up the entire discourse. The
passage contains unity of theme and purpose. The repetition in each
serves as an assurance after the destruction of the flood that all life
will be safe from further universal punishment.

72 Wenham (1987), p. 194.

73 Gross (1978), p. 104.
 THE COVENANf WITH NOAH (GEN. 9: 8-17) 133

ii. The Translation if Cl'pil

The distinctive term in P for the setting up of the covenant is Cl'pil.
The translation of the hiphil is difficult; it can mean either 'set up' i.e.
for the first time or 'confirm' i.e. referring to something which exists
already. The meaning needs to be determined by the context.
As far as the flood is concerned, evidence for a prior covenant
needs to be found ifthe latter position is to be adopted. IfWellhausen
is followed, then the problem could be resolved. He argued that for
P, history was divided into three phases with four covenants. The first
covenant was with Adam in Gen. 1:28-2:4, of which the sign was the
Sabbath; the second with Noah, the third with Abraham, of which
the sign was the circumcision (Gen. 17) and the fourth the Mosaic
covenant with the sabbath (Exod. 31: 13-17).74 If Wellhausen is fol-
lowed, it could be that God is 'confirming' his covenant with Adam.
However, Wellhausen's scheme has found little support, and de-
spite the similarities to covenant formula in 1:28-2:4, such as the
blessing to be fruitful and multiply, it is doubtful if his suggestion can
work, since P does not describe creation as a covenant. Wellhausen is
right to see the importance of covenant in P, but that pattern of
covenant began in Gen. 9 and continued with the narrower covenant
of Gen. 17.75 There are only two covenants mentioned in P: one with
Noah and one with Abraham. 76
Of crucial importance is the relationship between Gen. 6:18 and
Gen. 9. Wenham argues that Cl'pil is never used of setting up a
covenant in P. n1;:' is the term for initiating a n'1:l and Cl'pil is
always used to ratify pre-existing words (e.g. Deut. 9:5), promises (e.g.
2 Sam. 7:25), oaths (e.g. Gen. 26:3), threats (e.g.Jer. 30:24) and vows
(e.g. Num.30:14). In Gen. 6:18 he translates C1'pil as 'confirm'; Noah
is already in a covenantal relationship with God, the chief conse-
quences of which are deliverance from the flood. The covenant is
confirmed in 9:8-17. The perfect + , consecutive in 6: 18 refers to 9:8-
17.77 Of course talk of Noah as righteous could indicate a covenant
relationship, but the text nowhere speaks of a covenant already estab-
lished with Noah prior to Gen. 9. Wenham's theory fails to convince.
De Boer also argues that the translation 'keep' 'maintain' is better
than "set up". The covenant was not something new but was the
maintaining of an already existing relationship. He argues that there

74 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883), pp. 336-40 =

Prolegomena to the History qf Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 338-40.
75 Cross (l973), pp. 295ff.
76 E. Kutsch, "»Ich will euer Gatt sein« berit in cler Priesterschrift", ;cTK7l
(l974), pp. 36l-388, p. 362.
77 Wenham (l987), p. 175.
134 RESTORATION

was an old myth which ended with a treaty between God and the
living creatures, whereby God guaranteed to maintain the laws of
nature against the powers of destruction. 78 It is this treaty which God
promises to maintain in Genesis 9. In the absence of any explicit
reference to this in the text of Genesis, such a proposal is hard to
justify. 79
A look at the other uses ofO'Pil in the Old Testament shows that
both Wenham and de Boer have narrowed the range of possible
renderings. The hiphil of 01P bears several meanings which include
"set up", 'establish' (Lev. 26:1), as well as 'fulfil' and 'maintain'. Ezek.
26:8, 34:23, 29 seem to use the hiphil of01P with the sense of 'estab-
lish'. Ezek. 16:60 might be using the hiphil of01P in the same way to
refer to the establishment of the new covenant, which is everlasting in
contrast to the last one which had failed. The Hebrew word not only
refers to the setting up of the covenant but also to its maintenance
and fulfilment. The promise is not just to establish but also to main-
tain the covenant. The covenant is perpetual in Gen. 9, and does not
need just establishment but also maintenance. Had P used the word
n1;:' then he would have restricted himself primarily to the act of
covenant making, whereas the other term also includes the idea of
future maintenance. The connotation of O'Pil is more important
than the precise translation. That connotation includes both the set-
ting up and the future fulfilling of the covenant.
The most important point against Wenham is that a key element
of the story is that the promise not to send a further deluge is made
for the first time. That means that something new is being created
since before there was the possibility of universal flood. As far as Gen.
6 and 9 are concerned it is better to render the hiphil of mp as
'establish'. Not only is the covenant to maintain the world in a way
different from that prior to Gen. 9 set up, but it is also assured for
ever. For P the difference between pre- and post-flood worlds is
found in this promise which the covenant guarantees. Something has
changed and a new world order is inaugurated. Given this, Gen. 6: 18
most naturally looks to chapter 9. The sign is also new, suggesting
that something fresh is being set up. 01P is best rendered 'establish'
here as this reflects the inauguration of this covenant.

78 P.A.H. De Boer, "Quelques Remarques sur l'Are dans la Nuee Gen. 9:8-17",
in C. Brekelmans (ed.), Qyestions Disputees d'Ancien Testament Mitlwde et Thiologie
(4uven, 1974), pp. 105-115.
79 See further CJ.L. Kloos, "The Flood on Speaking Terms with God", ZAW94
(1982), pp. 639-642.
 THE COVENANf WITH NOAH (GEN. 9: 8-17) 135

A glance at the other Priestly covenant seems to confirm this.

There the word 1m is used suggesting that a new order is being
established (17:2). The covenant is new and cannot refer to anything
previous. Whilst 17:7 'nO'pi1 could mean 'confirm', it is also likely
that it could be rendered 'establish', since it is not referring to any
covenant set up in the past, and it is set near Gen. 17:2 where the
word 1nJ is used. This word indicates that the covenant is being
inaugurated. The sign of circumcision is also new. Likewise Exod. 6:4
is more likely to be rendered 'establish' because the covenant was set
up with Abraham, and not with anyone prior to him. The fact that
elsewhere in P Cl'Pi1 is used of setting up or erecting suggests that
'establish' is an appropriate rendering. One must not be over dog-
matic since in Lev. 26:9 (P) the idea is of confirming an already
existing covenant. The hiphil ofCl'P takes several meanings but as far
as Gen.9 is concerned 'establish' is the most suitable. 8o

iii. 77ze Content of the Covenant

n":l in Gen. 6: 18 focuses on the saving act of God in delivering
Noah. The act of salvation initiated here makes possible what is said
in 9:8-17. 81 Having delivered Noah, God reveals the content of the
covenant in Gen. 9. The promise is clear: there will never again be a
universal judgement to destroy everything; this is the essence of the
covenant. The world will henceforth dwell in safety from deluge.
God pledges himself to the world - 'Verpflichtung' as Kutsch renders
n":l here. 82 Westermann calls n":l a "solemn assurance" 83 (com-
pare Isa. 54:9). The sovereign creator who uncreated the world now
re-creates it and pledges never to return it to a state of uncreation.
The character of Genesis 9 is mainly one of promise, with God
making a pledge not to destroy the earth again. This marks Gen. 9
off from the covenant in Gen. 17 where there is greater human
involvement with the command to be circumcised.
By making this pledge the natural orders are fixed by God's word.
He graciously pledges to support his world by giving it the stability it
needs to prosper. Had God not given these promises then the bless-
ing of 9: I, 7 would have been jeopardized. 84 In Chapter 4 we dis-

80 Westennann translates l:l'Pi1 as "setting up" (1974), p. 616 = (1984), p. 460,

Driver as 'establish', (1926), p. 97.
81 Westennann (1974), p. 568 = (1984), p. 423.
82 Kutsch (1974), pp. 369ff.
83 Westennann (1974), p. 800 = (1984), p. 601.
84 Rashi in Zlotovitz (1980), p. 292 speaks of Noah as being fearful of being
fruitful and of multiplying in the face of God sending another flood.
136 RESTORATION

cussed the notion of contingency and it is here that it can be seen

again in God's promise to uphold the natural order. Creation is
reaffirmed. An atmosphere of trust and security is created wherein
life has a goal and meaning. Life is affirmed and God demonstrates
his authority over the whole world.
The covenant appears to be a gift on God's part which is be-
stowed unilaterally. There is an address by God to Noah, but Noah
does not respond. Gen. 9 describes what God prescribes and lays
down and the assurances which he gives. 8S W. Gross writes of both
Gen. 9 and 17, "Die berit wird allein von Gott verheissen, sie ist und
bleibt YHWH's berit, nicht der Menschen berit'.86 The initiative lies
with God and is not bilateral. The fact that it is designated "my
covenant" shows that it stems exclusively from God's initiative. 87 The
covenant of P is "eine reine Gnadenbund".88 In contrast to the J
account there is no sacrifice on the part of Noah. Legitimate sacrifice
is only possible after Sinai. 89 The promises are made to the righteous
one who survives the flood rather than in response to sacrifice.
These promises are made in spite of human sinfulness and to some
extent P shares the same paradox as J does in 8:21. The commands
of 9: 1-7 suggest that humanity is still inclined to evil even though this
is not stated explicitly. The commands of 9:5ff show that man is still
prone to violence as he was in 6: 11, and his violence needs to be
curbed as never before. The covenant is truly merciful in that it is
made in spite of continued human sin. Even if all flesh were to
become corrupt (r1ntD), God will not destroy (r1ntD) the world again.
Though man still deserves this, it will not happen.
Given that the paradox of 6:5 and 8:21 is the probable reason for
J wishing to tell the story, why would P wish to tell it if the point
about continued human sin is less explicit? Part of the reason may
have been that he wanted to incorporate a well known Near Eastern
tradition into his narrative. More importantly it seems that the story
of the flood develops the themes of creation as set out in Gen. 1; Gen.
6:1 Iff unfolds aspects of 1:26-30, as does 9:1-7, and the uncreation of
the flood echoes Gen. 1. It then seems that a major theme of P is the
value of human life and its relation to God and the animal world. We
shall discuss this further in Chapters 6 and 7.]'s account is written as
a striking affirmation of God's mercy. This is not absent from P, but

85 Westermann (1974), pp. 630ff = (1984), p. 471.

86 Gross (1978), p. 115.
87 Schottroff (1967), pp. 203ff.
88 Zimmerli (1960), p. 279.
89 Zimmerli (1960), p. 273.
 THE COVENANT WITH NOAH (GEN. 9: 8-17) 137

he seems more concerned with questions regarding the value of hu-

man life than does J. P tells the story as an affirmation of human life
and its appropriate function in the world.
What is the relationship of the commands of Gen. 9 to the cov-
enant? Is the covenant conditional upon their observance? The rela-
tionship is somewhat loose since they precede the covenant itself,
unlike the commands of Exod. 34 which follow the granting of the
covenant. Sforno, for example, argued that the covenant was condi-
tional on the observance of the command not to shed blood. If mur-
der became widespread, another deluge would arrive to wipe out
mankind. 9o
The link which Sforno makes to 6:llffis important, but the prom-
ises of Gen. 9 are unconditional. Under no circumstances will there
be a universal flood. The commands are a means of controlling hu-
man impulses and ensuring that the stability of the world, which God
has pledged to maintain, is not disrupted further. Man is obliged to
obey but not in such a way that a universal flood will come if he fails.
The covenant is not conditional on obedience to these commands. 9!
God has pledged a safe created order. Man must do his part by
ensuring that his fellows dwell in safety, and observe the laws of Gen.
9:1-7. In renewing the earth God renews his demand on humanity.
The fact that man is to carry out punishment on an individual basis
for each murder (9:5£1) ensures that violence can be contained. From
now on humanity will enact the punishment. In a post Sinai context
there seems to be a greater emphasis on obedience in order to main-
tain the covenant (Lev. 26:3, 9). As far as the universal context is
concerned, the covenant is unbreakable. The covenant will endure
for ever. God's promise cannot be thwarted;92 it is eternal and not
dependent on human obedience.

iv. The Sign if the Covenant

God sets his bow in the clouds as a sign of the covenant and of its
enduring validity. There has been considerable discussion of r1rvp in
Gen. 9 and several scholars have suggested that the bow is a weapon
of war as opposed to a rainbow. Gunkel writes,

90 Zlotovitz (1980), p. 293.

91 Compare Skinner (1912), p. 173 who argues that 9:1-7 is supplementary
within P itsel£ Its aim is to bring under the time of Noah the elementary universal
obligations. There can be no proof of this and further subdivision of sources is
precarious, especially as 9:1-7 form a natural link to 6:11-13.
92 For a discussion of P and the Davidic covenant see R.E. Clements, Abraham
and David: Genesis XV and its Meaningfor Israelite Tradition (London, 1967), pp. 70-78.
138 RESTORATION

The original meaning of the sign derives from the word n~p which is the
bow that takes aim ... Yahweh is a mighty warrior who carries bow and
arrow ... When Yahweh has become tired of shooting arrows he lar his
bow aside and so the rainbow appears in the sky after the storm. 9
The problem is that Hebrew uses the same word for both bow and
rainbow.
However, Gen. 9 need not be understood as referring to bows and
arrows. 94 Jacob notes that when r1rDp means 'rainbow' plJ:J is always
added to clarify, as in Gen. 9:13, Ezek. 1:28. 95 The story makes no
use of the idea that Yahweh is a warrior. If God has enemies, surely
these are wicked humanity rather than flood waters?96 God has taken
a simple natural phenomenon which happens to be called r1rDp and
uses it as an m~.
Instead of referring to a bow of war in the sky, the bow might
provide a representation of the firmament which is created in Gen.
1:6-8 to be a barrier to the waters above. The covenant of Gen. 9
promises that this heavenly ocean will be restrained, i.e. the firma-
ment will fulfil its original function to separate the waters from above
and below. The rainbow points to the permanence of the heavenly
structure. In the only other occurrence of r1rDp as a rainbow (Ezek.
1:26fI), there is also a reference to the lJ'P' (Ezek. 1:22) which sepa-
rates the creatures from God's throne above. The juxtaposition of
r1rDp and lJ'P' points to the bow-like shape of the splendour.97
M.V. Fox divides the uses of the word r1'~ into three categories:
1) proof signs which convince of a truth which may be in doubt; 2)
symbol signs which represent something and 3) cognition signs which
arouse knowledge of something. The third category is divided into
two subsections: identity signs and mnemonic signs which bring to
consciousness something already known. The latter are not identity
signs since they do not say x is y. Fox sees the rainbow as a mne-
monic sign which reminds God of his covenantal promise.

93 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 473 from Gunkel (1910), pp. 150ff. Com-
pare von Rad (1958), p. 110 = (1963), pp. 129fT, Brueggemann (1982), pp. 83fT and
the discussion of the Rabbis as to whether or not the bow existed before the flood,
Zlotovitz (1980), pp. 295ff. See also Cassuto (1964), pp. 139ff. De Boer in contrast
argues that the bow is taut ready for conflict against the "1:Jr:l, (1974), pp. 105-115.
See also Zenger (1983), pp. 125-131, and U. Rtitersworden, Dominium Terrae: Studien
;;ur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung, BZAW 215 (Berlin, 1993), pp. 131-154.
94 Westermann (1974), p. 634 = (1984), p. 473.
95 Jacob (1934), pp. 253ff.
96 L.A. Turner, "The Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant in Genesis IX 11-
13'i VT 43 (1993), pp. 119- 124.
9 Turner (1993), pp. 119-24.
 THE COVENANI' WITH NOAH (GEN. 9: 8-17) 139

The rainbow neither imparts new knowledge by identifying something as

belonging to a certain class, nor does it in itself symbolize the non-
destruction of the world, nor does it even serve as evidence that God will
not again bring a destroying flood (this is the usual interpretation), for it
is explicidy stated that it is God who observes the sign (Gen. 9: 16), and
evidence is not intended to convince the one who makes a statement,
but the one who hears it. 98
All the n'rm~ in P (except for Exod. 7:3) are cognition signs: luminar-
ies, rainbow, blood of paschal lamb, sabbath, altar-cover, Aaron's
rod and circumcision. The n'~ is a permanent sign whose purpose is
to stir up cognition so that a covenant, promise or commandment is
maintained. In Gen. 9 the m~ is a sign which recalls the covenant
and reminds God!
Certainly we should agree with Fox that the bow is there to re-
mind God but the fact that man can see it as well is an assurance for
him too. The impersonal statement "the bow is seen" (9: 14) suggests
that the bow also serves to remind the world. The assurance is that
there will never be another universal flood.
It is remarkable that the sign is there to remind God. P does not
seem bothered by this anthropomorphic statement. It shows God's
personal involvement in the world and its events. If God were to deal
with man according to his deserts, a regular flood would be needed.
If God were to react to the dictates of strict justice, then man would
deserve to die. The rainbow reminds him not to respond to the
requirements of the justice of simple cause and effect, but to remem-
ber his promise of mercy.
The m~ causes God to remember his covenant. The phrase 1:;,r
n'1:::l occurs eight times in P: Gen. 9:15, 16, Exod. 2:24, 6:5, Lev.
26:42, 45. It is used of God alone; man is not said to remember the
covenant. The phrase speaks of the preservation of the covenant and
since it is used of God alone, it shows that the initiative lies with him.
It is most often employed when people are in danger whether
through natural phenomena (e.g. Gen. 9:15), through enemies (e.g.
Exod. 2:24, 6:5) or through Yahweh himself when he punishes
(e.g. Lev. 26:40-42). Memory of the covenant ensures that God will
not bring destruction. 99
As with our discussion of 1:;,r above, this is not bare intellectual
thought but represents activity on God's part. The opposite of re-
membering the covenant here is not n:;,rz; but n'1:::l 1~i1 (e.g. Lev.
26:44).100 God's memory ensures that the covenant is not just a past

98 Fox (1974),pp. 563ff and see discussion pp. 557-596.

99 See discussion in Schottroff (1967), pp. 202-206.
100 Schottroff (I 967), p. 206.
140 RESTORATION

event but that it is actualised in the present. The relationship is en-

sured and safeguarded. Remembering the covenant is a demonstra-
tion of God's ,on. Lev. 26:44 shows the opposite of '~r: O~r:l, i1~~
and ~.iilIOI As Schottroff writes,
Man muB daraus schlieBen, daB n'1::J 1:Jr nicht nur ein Beriicksichtigen
des Bundes zugunsten ... sondern die Zuwendung der Gottheit zum
Menschen in Rettung und Heil ist, wie es sich in der Wahrung des
Bundes auBert. I02
When the clouds appear man may think that he is in jeopardy but
the rainbow marks a boundary beyond which God will not go; if he
did the covenant would be broken.103 The preservation of humanity
is entirely in God's hands and it is for him to ensure its survival. The
divine will of healing forbearance is at work in the natural orders,
guaranteeing God's involvement with the world. 104 God's memory is
not a re-creating of the past but a continuation of his own purpose.
'~r testifies to the Priestly writer's concern to present history as a
witness to the unfolding of the purpose of the covenant God. IOS
As Westermann notes of Gen. 9, the safeguarding of man is in
God's hands as he promises to remember it. "All flesh, all life on the
earth, every living being in the millennia of the history of nature and
of humanity is preserved in God's affirmation of his creation".106

v. Genesis 17
Brief mention needs to be made of the other covenant in P: Gen. 17.
A detailed discussion is impossible here but one feature is worthy of
mention. The covenant with Noah is with all of humanity; that with
Abraham with Israel alone. There are "two concentric circles" 107 as
the covenant with Abraham is only fulfilled in the context of the
universal covenant with Noah. Within the stability of the whole
world order, God can work out his sovereign purpose with his own
people. The promises to the Patriarchs are a specific form of those
given to the whole world in Gen. 9. The covenant with Noah is the
theological context of the covenant made with Israel. Israel could
read the history of mankind as her own salvation history. lOB

101 Schottroff (1967), p. 209.

102 Schottroff (1967), p. 208.
103 Schottroff (1967), p. 211.
104 Von Rad (1958), p. III = (1963), p. 130.
105 Childs (1962), p. 42.
106 Westennann (1974), pp. 635ff, = (1984), p. 474.
107 Procksch (1924), p. 518 quoted in Eichrodt (1961), p. 58.
108 L. Dequeker, "Noah and Israel: The Everlasting Divine Covenant with Man-
kind", in Brekelmans, (ed.), (1974), pp. 115-129, p. 128.
 READING J AND P TOGETIIER 141

Another point of interest here is the question of the land-an

important concept in Priestly thought. It is part of the covenant
promise (17:8). In Lev. 26:40-45 God promises to remember the
land. The stability of the natural world promised in Gen. 9 safe-
guards the land of Israel so that future life and fertility is given its
necessary security. God's concern for the land of the chosen people is
a particular example of his sustaining care of the world.
It is easy to see why the blessing of fertility is bestowed in this
context (9: 1, 7). Given the re-creation of the world, the stable envi-
ronment enabled man to reproduce in safety. Man's efforts to
repopulate the earth will not be frustrated on such a large scale
agam.

5. Reading] and P Together

In our introduction we noted how frequently Hebrew narrative
places a series of perspectives in sequence. Instead of meshing the
sources into one section, the final compiler places two descriptions of
God's promise at the end of the story. Each offers a distinct perspec-
tive on God's post-flood commitment to the world. If read together,
8:20-22 forms a brief statement of the nature of man and God's
corresponding promises, the implications of which are developed in
9:1-17.
First, it is made clear that the pledges of Gen. 9 are purely unilat-
eral on God's part. 8:21 states that man is unaltered, and it is in the
face of this statement that God makes the covenant. The saying of
8:21 is then grounded in a covenant. 8:21 and 9:8-17 complement
each other well. The promise of 8:21 is guaranteed by the covenant
of Gen. 9:8-17 and the rainbow, which reminds God of this solemn
pledge. The joint reading emphasises this unilateral promise.
Secondly, the pledges which are made after the flood are more
specific if the two strata are read in conjunction. The P version
specifies that the curse of 8:21 involves the cutting off of all living
creatures by water (9: 11). The cursing of the ground in 8:21 refers to
the sending of the waters to destroy the earth. Gen. 9 does not revoke
the curses of Gen. 3 nor does it say that they are not in force. The
joint reading is an even more amazing statement of God's mercy
since God makes a covenant with a persistently wicked humanity.
Likewise the withholding of the waters ensures that the seasons of
8:22 can continue as normal. This is guaranteed by the sign of the
covenant. Read together 8:20-22 and 9:8-17 form an effective sur-
rounding for 9: 1-7. God's blessing of fertility can only make sense
when the world has been assured that there will not be another
142 RESTORATION

deluge. Even though the pledges of 8:20-22 come before the com-
mands of 9: 1-7, there is no hint that these promises are dependent on
the fulfilling of the commands. The promises are unilateral, and are
not qualified in any way.
Thirdly, it seems that our understanding of Noah's sacrifice is
altered if the two sources are read together. J seems to believe that
God's attitude to humanity is changed by the sacrifice, but, if the text
is read as a whole, God has already been gracious to Noah in the
promise of 6: 18 to establish his covenant and through remembering
Noah in 8:1 and the order to leave the ark in 8:15-17. It would then
seem that the sacrifice is merely one of thanksgiving when the text is
read as a whole. A sacrifice to appease God is unnecessary when God
has already turned to Noah. This need not rule out all expiatory
elements in Gen. 8:20ff since it might be that Noah is making the
sacrifice on behalf of other people. 109 This is not made explicit and
the most likely interpretation on a joint reading is that the sacrifice is
one of thanksgiving.
Fourthly, a joint reading emphasises what was said earlier about
,~. In 6: 13 ,~ is used to express the reason for God's decision to
destroy the earth:
con ri~i1 i1~'?o ':l.

As is used as a particle of motivation here for the reason for the

,~
flood, it is likely that in 8:21 it means 'because' since it is there used
to introduce the cause of God's decision not to bring a flood.
Finally Chapter 6 will discuss the relationship between 8:21ff and
9: 1-7, and Chapter 7 will examine the imago Dei in the light of Gen.
8:2l.

6. Conclusion
Life is given a goal and purpose after the flood with the earth being
granted an atmosphere of trust and security. The covenant in Gen. 9
impressed a special character on human life which gave it purpose
and direction. As B.W. Anderson writes,
This Noachic covenant opens up the horizon of the future by predicating
the hope of the human and non-human creation on the unconditional
commitment of the Creator to humankind, to non- human creatures,
and to the order and regularity of 'nature'. 110

109 Wenham (1987), p. 190.

110 Anderson (1984),pp. 152-171,p. 169.
 CONCLUSION 143

The verses we have discussed present a striking commitment of God

to human life, which God affirms, not simply by promising no further
deluge but by assuring the stability of the created order. The text as
a whole provides a most suitable context for commands which affirm
the value of human life. Gen. 8:20-9: 17 is God's 'yes' to life.
 CHAPTER SIX

GENESIS 9:1-7

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, 'Be fruitful and
multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be
upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon
everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your
hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for
you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you
shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will
surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of
every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the
blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his
own image. And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on
the earth and multiply in it"'. Gen. 9: 1-7 RSV

The chief focus of Gen. 9: 1-7 is on the sovereignty of God over all
life. As we have seen, especially in Chapter 4, the story as a whole is
a testimony to God's supreme authority in the created order and this
is further emphasized in the solemn charges of 9: 1-7. It is only by
God's permission that man is allowed to eat meat, provided he ab-
stains from blood. Murder is put under an absolute ban but where it
does occur, man is given the authority to enact capital punishment,
life for life. Gen. 9 is a supplementing and development of the con-
cept of the imago Dei of 1:26ff, and aims to prevent a return to the
violence of Gen. 6. Further, in contrast to humanity before the flood
which was set on violence, man is blessed and told to breed on the
earth. The total authority of God is emphasized and man's limits are
defined clearly.
As we argued in Chapter 1, these regulations are closely related to
the sin which caused the flood. In Gen. 6 it was noted that Dan was
the specific reason why God sent a deluge, and the commands of
Gen. 9 focus on the tendency of man towards violent acts. The cause
of the flood is met head on in Gen. 9:1-7. As we saw in Chapter 5,
God gives stability by promising no further deluge and man, in re-
sponse, is to obey his command. The fact that God blesses humanity
and promises freedom from further universal deluge does not mean
that man is set free from all constraints so that he can do as he
pleases. In the context of blessing God gives regulations to curb the
particular tendencies of man which caused the flood. In being given
a new start, humanity is placed under God's command, and life is to
146 GENESIS 9: II

be respected in a way which did not occur before the flood. The
corruption of 6: 11 if means that humanity must now be placed under
law. In Gen. 2:16-17 man is given commands concerning the garden
but in Gen. 9 we have regulations for the whole of humanity after the
'fall'.
In accordance with our procedure the P account will be examined
first, verse by verse, before seeing how it combines with the] material
which immediately precedes it.
An important question is raised here about the Priestly source:
what is the relationship between law and narrative in this document?
Gen. 9 provides an example of the mixing of these two aspects of P.
For the Priestly source, Israel came into existence at Sinai where God
gave the law and established the cult. The continuity of world history
and Israel's part in it is developed more in this source than in the
others owing to its precise dating and the use of the formula i1'~
n",n. The chronology is carried without a break from creation to
the Exodus but the narrative is spread broadly and unevenly. Usually
it deals with legal principles: Gen. 1: 1-2:4 (sabbath), 6-9 (commands
to Noah), 17 (circumcision), Exod. 12 (the introduction of Passover
and unleavened bread) and the giving of the law at Sinai (Exod. 25-
31, 35-40). When P is not associated with divine law it rarely goes
beyond genealogies and short notes. On the other hand] is narrative
in character with the legal material being found mainly at Sinai.]
speaks of the derivation of customs and practices (e.g. Gen. 32:33)
but the legal material lies in the background. In P the opposite is the
case and we are given the impression that the narrative is only a
thread on which the legal material may be hung. What P does em-
phasize is that the history of Israel is bound up inseparably with that
of the whole world. Her origins are the same as all people every-
where and the narrative sets out God's eternal ordinances for each
generation. I
Gen. 9 looks to the fuller revelation of the law to the chosen
people at Sinai. An interesting question is then raised: to what extent
has P allowed for a pre-Sinai context? For P Sinai was the inaugura-
tion of the people of Israel, and it would seem that whilst the author
is writing from an Israelite standpoint, he has made some allowance
in the way he tells the account for the pre-Sinai, pre-Israel context of

I O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alten Testament unter Einschl~ der Apokryphen und
Pseudepigraphen (3rd edition, Tubingen, 1934), pp. 231ff = The Old Testament an Intro-
duction (Oxford, 1965), pp. 205 ff; G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alten Testament
(Heidelberg, 1965), p. 199 = Introduction to the Old Testament (London, 1976), p.183
and Wellhausen (1883), p. 7 = (1885), p. 7.
 9: 1,7 147

the primeval story in his work. The statements of Gen. 9 are of a

general nature since they apply to all of humanity, and they lack the
specific nature of the commands of the Mosaic era. Gen. 9 sets forth
an agenda for the whole world, which is developed more specifically
for Israel. Israel's law becomes a more detailed form of the divine law
for the whole world. P has taken the primeval context imaginatively
in his work.
Consequently care needs to be taken when Gen. 9 is compared
with later legal material, since the perspective is different. Gen. 9
certainly points to the law of Sinai with its institution of sacrifice, lex
talionis and laws of asylum, but each of these raises large issues of its
own and it will be impossible to deal with them fully in this book.
Instead we shall focus on Gen. 9: 1-7 and see how what is said there
bears upon the story as a whole, though Chapter 7 will examine the
imago Dei in greater detail.

1. 9:1, 7
We shall not be accepting the proposed emendation for 9:7b which
Westermann advocates, to change 1::Ji to 1'i on the basis of 1:28,
since the text makes good sense as it now stands. 2
The blessing on man after the flood to be fruitful and to multiply
is given in the context of a pledge that there will never be another
universal flood. Now that the human race is no longer under threat it
can safely breed upon the face of the earth. The same blessing which
was given over a world which was pronounced very good (1 :28, 31),
is repeated. The blessing is effective in begetting, conception, birth
and the succession of generations.
As the story shows, God alone is creator and master of the uni-
verse. As the blessing of 1:29 was reversed in the flood, so now it is
conferred again. Having destroyed the world by flooding, God in the
merciful post-flood dispensation confers the effective power which
makes a secure future possible. This blessing is the force behind the
history of the world, which will continue without interruption. These
verses testify to the abundant mercy of God and afford a striking
example of divine forgiveness. God's memory of Noah (8:1) is seen in
giving humanity a completely fresh start.
This concept of being fruitful and multiplying is developed in the
Priestly source: Gen. 17:2, 6-7, 16, 28:3-4, 35:11-12, 47:27, 48:4-5,

2 Westennann (1974), pp. 617, 629 = (1984), pp. 460 and 469; Wenham (1987),
p. 155 and U. Rappaport, "The Poetic Structure of Gen. IX 7", VT21 (1971), pp.
363-369.
148 GENESIS 9:1,

Exod. 1:7, Lev. 26:9 (compare also Gen. 12:1·2, 13:14·16, 16:10,

mula m,",n
41:52, Isa. 54:1.3,Jer. 3:16, 23:3·4, 29:5·6, Ezek. 36:11). The for·
i1"~ also bears out this theme: Gen. 2:4,5:1,6:9, 10:1,
11:10,25:19,36:1,9, 37:2. In these passages we see the promise of
Gen. 9 working out amongst the chosen people. Noah and his sons
are to be the basis of a new humanity in the same way that Jacob is
to be the originator of a new nation (Gen. 35: II, 48:4fi). In the
former Noah is the forefather of humanity, in the latter Jacob is the
ancestor of Israel. 3
Noah, Abraham and Jacob are all paradigmatic figures in the old
Testament, in that they are forefathers, Noah of the World,
Abraham and Jacob of Israel in particular. It is through them that
the outworking of the blessing takes place and Israel comes into
being. As we saw in Chapters 2 and 5 there are two concentric circles
which are operating; the outer in Gen. 9 includes the whole world
and is the blessing which is given to Noah. The smaller of the two
circles is the specific blessing and promise to Israel through
Abraham, and Israel's existence is dependent on that of the whole
world.
It is important to notice that in almost all instances of the com·
mand to be fruitful and multiply, survival is at risk. For Noah the
repopulation of the world after the flood appeared an impossible
task. In the face of the possible extinction of humanity, God gives an
unconditional 'yes' to life. From now on people will be able to live
securely under the care of God. 4 There is no threat of universal
destruction. In the case of Abraham and the Patriarchs the blessing
was a guarantee that despite the weakness of their present position as
wanderers, God would grant to them not just their own survival but
growth for their descendants. 5
It is worth noting that Gen. 9: I, 7 stand in contrast to other
Ancient Near Eastern traditions. In Genesis the flood is not caused
by overpopulation and the disturbance thereby caused to the gods
but by human sin. On the contrary Genesis encourages humanity to
breed upon the earth. 6

3 Jacob (1934), p. 24l.

4 Zlotovitz (1980), p. 292. Rashi claimed that Noah feared to beget more off-
spring until God promised not to destroy the world.
5 For a full discussion of 1:28 and parallel texts see M. Gilbert, "Soyez Feconds
et Multipliez (Gen. 1:28)", NRT96 (1974), pp. 729-742.
6 Frymer-Kensky (1977), p. 150; see also A.D. Kilmer, "The Mesopotamian
Concept of Overpopulation and its Solution as Reflected in the Mythology",
Orientalia 41 (1972), pp. 160-177.
 9: 2 ,3 149

There is in these two verses a striking affirmation of the value of

human life. Instead of the corruption, bloodshed and oppression of
6: 11 ff, humanity must dedicate itself to the well-being and growth of
the species. Not only is there the command not to kill but there is also
the positive side to that command; man is to ensure increase and
spread oflife on the planet. Humanity is commanded to work for life.

2. 9:2, 3
As in Gen. 1, the command to be fruitful and to multiply is linked to
the dominion over the animal world. This time that rule has taken on
a different connotation with animals going in fear and dread of man,
in contrast to the responsible care of 1:26ff. 7 Blessing is then put in an
unusual light since it is set in the context of the permission to kill for
food. o:Jnm O:J~i'D is distinctive military terminology (Deut. 1:21,
11 :25, 31 :8), which refers to the fear which falls on Israel's enemies so
that she can take the land. The words reflect the animosity between
man and the animal world. Israel to some extent shared the ancient
world-view tha,.t animals were the enemy of humanity (e.g. Gen.
37:33, 1 Kgs. l3:24,Jer. 50:39-40). If animals are let lose against the
state, there is destruction (Deut. 32:24). "Into your hand they are
delivered", shows that man now has the power of life and death over
animals, and can kill them for food. 8 Cassuto likewise stresses the
submissive attitude of the creatures towards man by suggesting that it
may be due to the fact that they were saved from the flood by hu-
mans and that consequently they should recognize the superiority of
the human species. 9 The text does not allow for this particular inter-
pretation but rather suggests that the fear is due to man being
granted meat for food (9:2b, 3).
The formula 'nnJ mil occurs in P in Exod. 31 :6, Num. 18:8, 21
where a portion is allotted to the priests. The formula is found here
in 9:3 but without mil (compare Gen. 17:20, 23:11, Lev. 6:10). The
words signify a bestowal, an assignment or conveyance, which is a
public act of provision.
In a section on the use of the perfect in Hebrew, GK 106m notes
that the perfect can be used, "To express .fUture actions, when the

7 Clines (1972-3), p. 138.

B Wenham (1987), p. 192. See Zenger (1983), pp. 117-123. The Zohar claims
here that the animals lost their fear of man as they no longer saw in him the sacred
impress of the divine image. After humans sinned it was man who dreaded the
animal world. In 9:2 God blessed man and restored his dominion. Zlotovitz (1980),
p. 285. The text does not support this interpretation.
9 Cassuto (1964), p. 125.
150

speaker intends by an express assurance to represent them as fin-

ished, or as equivalent to accomplished facts ... Gen. 23: 11. Espe-
cially in promises made by God, Gen. 1:29 ... 17:20."10 Conse-
quently in 9:3 Cl:J? 'r1r1J signifies a definite arrangement.
The translation of RSV "as I gave you the green plants" (i.e. that
the plants were given at a time prior to 9:3) is not entirely accurate,
even though the preposition :J often expresses comparative likeness.
This would contradict 1:30 where :::l~.l) p1' is given to the animals. If,
however, :J is taken as a particle of identity (cf Lev. 24: 16), the diffi-
culty can be eased. Both the animals and the :::l~.l) p1' are given to
humans. W.P. Brown translates "As well as the green plants I hereby
give to you every one". 11
There is then a clear distinction between pre- and post-flood
worlds in that man's mastery over the animals is extended to the
point of consuming them for food. This ties in with 6: 12 and the
corruption of the way of 1:26ff which was perpetrated by all flesh,
including the animals. As we saw in Chapter 1, man is guilty there of
inappropriate, unjust use of the dominion which was granted in Gen.
1:26-30. In Gen. 1 humans are to eat grain and fruit, and animals are
to consume grass and plants. The difference between humans and
animals on the one hand and plants on the other, is that plants have
neither tDElJ nor Cl1. Though there is no explicit prohibition of meat
eating in Gen.l, it is implied that it is not for human consumption. It
would seem that the generation of the flood violated this ordinance
(6: 11ff).
The vegetarian state of humanity is then ended in 9:2, 3. The
imago Dei is extended to include the power to slaughter animals for
food. Man to some extent images God's authority over life, but not to
the extent of taking the life of his fellows. God makes a major conces-
sion in permitting this, and to some extent he is abiding with the
sinful tendency of humans as found in 6: 11 ff. It seems likely that part
of the sin of that generation was the inappropriate dominion over
animals and in order to curb human sin God grants man permission
to eat meat. As we argued in Chapter 1, animals also partook of the
corruption and presumably this took the form of either rebelling
against humans or attacking each other. It may be because of the
corruption of the animals that God allows humanity meat for prov-
ender. Man's authority in the created order needed to be increased
owing to corruption amongst animals. Hence the commands of Gen.

10 GK 106m.
II W.P. Brown, Structure Role and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts qfGenesis 1:1-
2:3(Atlanta, 1993), p. 79.
 9: 2 ,3 151

9 are a way of rectifying the disorder of 6: 11 fI Naturally this is

conjecture to some extent, but it does fit the sense of the story.
From now on there is a degree of enmity between man and beast.
In 8:17, whilst God desires that animals multiply, he does not bless
them as he does man in 9: 1, 7. The blessing of 1:22 is not renewed.
This is probably because humans can now eat meat. This enmity is
echoed in Lev. 26:6, 22 where there is a threat to humans from the
animal world, and this, as suggested, may lie behind Gen. 6: I1ff and
9:2fI For his own safety man can kill animals. Meat eating corre-
sponds to God's order but not to the original order, and the
'Messianic' age seems to see a return to this vegetarian state (Isa.
11 :6-9, 65:25, Ezek. 34:25). Similarly, in contrast to the Mesopota-
mian view that humanity is to provide food for the gods, in Genesis
God gives man food.
"Every moving thing that lives" excludes the consumption of ani-
mals which have died from natural causes (Lev. 11 :40, Deut. 14:21).
Surprisingly the text gives no rules concerning the eating of clean and
unclean meat. Was Noah unrestricted and is P stressing that there
was no cult before Sinai? Wenham suggests the distinction between
clean and unclean may have been taken for granted in view of the
passage's concern to prohibit the consumption of blood, a more seri-
ous crime than the eating of the wrong meat (Lev. 17: 10).12
Wenham may be right, but if the story is read at the level ofP, we
are in a pre-Israelite context. The dietary laws are, according to P, a
means by which Israel consecrates herself and shows that she is the
holy people of God (Lev. 11 especially 11 :44-45). By refraining from
eating certain types of meat Israel demonstrated that she was the holy
people who had been set aside by God for a special purpose. In the
primeval era when Israel did not exist, such laws would not be neces-
sary. The laws in Gen. 9 are for humanity as a whole, not just for
Israel. 13
Of course, questions whether carnivorous animals were created in
Gen. 1, are inappropriate in the primeval reality of Gen. 1-11 which
is not subject to the conditions of present experience. Attempts to
rationalize misunderstand the nature of mythical material in Gen. I-
ll.
Some have even suggested that Gen. 1:29 contradicts 1:26, in that
there can be no dominion without the ability to kill for food. Gunkel
claims it is a later insertion. 14

12 Wenham (1987), p. 193

13 For a discussion of the dietary laws see Houston (1993).
14 Gunkel (1910), p. 114.
152 GENESIS 9:1,

This may be so and certainly there is much in Gen. 1-11 which

does not appear to tie up satisfactorily. Yet it would be wrong to
assume that dominion can only be associated with killing animals for
food. In Gen. 2 (J) man exercises dominion without the need to slay
any of the creatures. Perhaps the writer is influenced by his present
context, but animals can be used for labour, food such as milk, and
man's rule can be for their general well-being without the taking of
life. We must not take the primeval history too literally.

3. 9:4-6
S.E. McEvenue argues the case for 9:4-6 being an interpolation as
the context is one of blessing not law. His point appears reasonable
since 9: 1, 2, 3, 7 can read well without 9:4-6, which he claims inter-
rupts the flow of the narrative. Verse 4, he argues, comes as a shock
and is the result of misreading 9:3 as law where the context is not
legal but one of blessing, as it is in Gen. 1. The word l~ is foreign to
Pg since it chiefly functions in legal contexts not to introduce law, but
to change direction in the middle of a series of laws. The natural use
of l~ in Gen. 9 would lead us to expect a law such as "but corpses
you shall not eat", in connection with 9:3a. A dietary law is unex-
pected here, since there is nothing like it in Gen. 1. 9:4 corresponds
to nothing earlier in the way that 9:8-17 relates to 6: 13 or 9:2-3 to
6: 11.
As far as 9:6b is concerned, whilst McEvenue notes that motives
are often added to maxims (Prov. 22:9, 17-18, 22-23, 23:6-8, 25:6-
17), he claims that no theological motive of the sort found in Gen. 9:6
is added elsewhere, and therefore the one who wrote it read 9:6a as
law. The glossator breaks with the whole context by speaking of God
in the third person singular. The style of 9:6a he claims is proverbial
rather than law since there is a tight six word chiastic structure ABC-
CBA -the first three words are repeated in reverse order. The literary
technique emphasizes the punishment. McEvenue argues that this
rhyming quality and chiastic structure lean more towards proverbial
style, though the distinction between law and proverb is not always
great. A Hebrew proverb is usually a simple observation made inter-
esting by a clever comparison (e.g. Provo 26:14) or a striking word
arrangement such as chiasmus (e.g. Provo 15:22) or rhyme, rhythm or
repetition, (e.g. Provo 11 :22, 12: 1, 13: 12). Laws are not generally
marked by these characteristics. Hence Gen. 9:6 is more of a proverb
than a law.
On 9:6a McEvenue writes, "From the point of view of style, this
jingling chiasmus is not similar to the more discreet and prosaic
 153

chiasms of the priestly writer". 15 He notes that if one examines the

ancient classic form of talion law as found in Deut. 19:21 and Exod.
21: 12-25, then it is less similar in form to Gen. 9:6 than the late form
of the same law in Lev. 24: 19-20. The ancient form parallels only
nouns but the later pairs both nouns and verbs and consequently the
claim of von Rad that 9:6 is ancient is unproven. There is no link to
9:1-3 or to j, and consequently it cannot be proved that 9:6a was
ever taken over by P. McEvenue concludes that 9:4-6 belong to Ps
and are clearly glossed.
McEvenue's case needs considerable qualification. Stylistic
grounds are not sufficient evidence for deleting these verses. Wester-
mann observes that 9:3 in no way excludes any limitation and he
compares 2: 16-17, where God grants man food but restricts the
scope of his diet. "This limitation implies no restriction of the bounty
of the giver ... ; it serves rather to preserve what has been conceded.
Were there no limitation, what was conceded would no longer come
under the blessing".16 Man is not given over to the unrestrained
taking of life. McEvenue has not seen this nor the tension between
the granting of the diet with meat and killing. The whole passage
9:4-6 is seen as a restriction of the concession of 9:3 and this is
underscored by the twice repeated l~ (9:4, 5). 9:4-6 are not to be
understood apart from 9:3. They are an integral part of the com-
mand to eat meat; man is not allowed to consume the whole animal
but must abstain from the blood. As these verses fit their context, it is
hard to demonstrate that they are secondary.
There are two other reasons why 9:4-6 need not be seen as an
addition. First, as we have seen, the commandments of 9:4-6 reso-
nate well with con in 6: 11, 13. 9:4-6 correspond to 6: 11 ff. In view of
the fact that violence was the cause of the flood, it is entirely appro-
priate that at the close of the story there should be regulations con-
cerning the value of human life. Further, these are appropriate in the
context of 9: 1-7 and the granting of meat for food. Even though 9:6
may be a proverb it is certainly apt in its context. As noted above,
9:4-6 is the corollary of 9: 1, 7; on the one hand man is commanded
not to take life, on the other he is told to work for human well-being.
Secondly, McEvenue's statement that the context is one of bless-
ing is not sufficient to rule out the introduction of law at this point. It
is certainly apt for the story to be used to inculcate the fundamental
tenets of Israel's law, and there is no reason to suppose that legal

15 McEvenue (1971), p. 71 and see discussion pp. 67-71.

16 Westermann (1974), p. 621 = (1984), p. 463.
154 GENESIS 9:1,

concerns should be excluded. Whilst the covenant of Gen. 9 is un-

conditional, it is no surprise to find jjjin accompanying it. As hu-
mans are sinful, they need to have the urge to con controlled. In the
context of a description of the dire state of human sin, the introduc-
tion of law at this juncture is entirely appropriate.

4. 9:4
In 9:4 the eating of blood is prohibited. There has been some dispute
over the nature of the prohibition here. Is 9:4 an absolute ban on the
eating of blood or does it just prohibit the consumption of a living
animal? Westermann argues that the sentence is to be taken literally
in that one is not to eat animal flesh with the blood still pulsating.
Flesh can only be eaten when it no longer has life in it. The verse is
not a prohibition of the eating of blood per se, nor is it concerned
with blood as such, but rather blood in so far as it is the life of the
flesh. The original object of the prohibition is W5JJ and tJ, is added by
way of clarification. wm is only identical with pulsating blood not
with blood itself It is prohibited to eat the life of the animal together
with its flesh; i.e. when it is still alive. The problem of translation lies
in the laconic nature of the verse. 17
Westermann's position is also found in Jewish tradition. Kimchi
argues that the verse prevents the tearing of a limb from a living
animal because that is an act of gross barbarism and if allowed,
people would learn cruelty. Similarly Rashi argues that here both
flesh and blood are prohibited from a living animal-iW5JJ::l refers
both to the beginning and the end of the sentence, flesh with its soul
and blood with its soul. Sforno sees here only a prohibition of eating
meat from live animals and that Noah's generation were permitted
blood from dead creatures. IS
Nevertheless, whilst Westermann is right to see a prohibition
against eating from a living animal, it would seem to us that the
prohibition is more general in that eating blood is put under a total
ban. Several passages stress that blood should be drained before the
animal is eaten: Lev. 3:17, 7:26-27, 19:26, Deut. 12:16-25, 1 Sam.
14:32-34. It might be that despite the pre-Israel context, Genesis is
placing a rule fundamental to Israel's life back into the primeval
era. 19 The horror of eating blood was so strong that it was regarded

17 Westennann (1974), pp. 621ff = (1984), pp. 464ff.

18 Zlotovitz (1980), pp. 286-288.
19 Wenham (1987), p. 193.
 155

as a universal rule for the whole world rather than just for Israel, in
contrast to the way that the dietary laws were solely for the people of
God. In view of the enormous significance of blood elsewhere in the
Old Testament, it is likely that there is an absolute ban on it here.
The verse not only prohibits the eating of living animals but also
blood itself. By ensuring that blood was never eaten there could be
no question of eating living creatures. It is also worth noting the
seriousness with which the eating of blood is viewed in Ezek. 33:25-
26. There it is associated with idolatry, homicide and adultery, and
ranks as a serious sin.
The passage then leads to the reason for this absolute ban on
blood which was unparalleled amongst Israel's neighbours. First,
blood signified life-indeed it was the life itsel( This is by no means
surprising in view of the fact that a beating heart and pulsating blood
are signs of life. The iDElJ was believed to be the life and vitality of
people, their life force. Originally the word meant throat and by
extension that which comes out of the throat, breath~O The iDm was
held to have its seat in the blood which in no circumstances was to be
eaten (Lev. 17:11, Deut. l2:20ff).2! The iDm is equated with life, and
is bound up with the body. Seen in this way the blood is the iDElJ , and
consequently loss of blood is loss oflife. 22 10' in Gen. 9:4 defines the
previous substantive so as to prevent misunderstanding (compare Isa.
42:25) "with the life thereof (which is) the blood thereof".23 In Lev.
17:11 we may well have an example of beth essentiae 24 which would
identify 0' and iDElJ here. 25 (See also LXX of Lev. 17: 11. ;, rap 'IIuxn
1ta01\~ (ra.PKO~ ailla autou EO-tty).
Secondly, in a story which is so concerned for the value of human
life, it is not surprising that the prohibition of blood is introduced at
this point. The whole story emphasizes the absolute authority of God
over all life. The prohibition of blood shows that life is the exclusive
property of God and that wherever slaughter is carried out the ban
on eating blood serves as a reminder of God's sovereignty over living
beings. This applied to the whole world not just to Israel. Von Rad
comments, "Even when man slaughters and kills, he is to know that
he is touching something, which, because it is life, is in a special
manner God's property; and as a sign of this he is to keep his hands

20 For a discussion oftDElJ see Wolff (1973), pp. 25-48 = (1974), pp. 10-25.
21 M. Noth, Das dritte Buch Mose Leviticus (Gottingen, 1962), p. 113 = Leviticus
(London, 1977), p. 132.
22 Eichrodt (1961), p. 88 = (1967), pp. 135ff.
23 GK 131k.
24 GK II9i.
25 J. Milgrom, "A Prolegomenon to Lev. 17: II", JBL 90 (1979), pp. 149-156.
156 GENESIS 9:1,

off the blood". 26 Life is seen as a gift of God, and man, though he is
given dominion over creation, must respect and acknowledge this by
showing that the blood, which contained the life, belonged to God.
This leads us to a third aspect of the prohibition of blood: it
prevents unwarranted cruelty and downgrading of life in man's de-
sire for mastery over the created order. Life is not to be tampered
with indiscriminately. There is here a qualification on the dominion
over the animals. Killing carries with it the danger of blood lust, i.e.
killing for the sake of killing: e.g. Hos. 4:2. The prohibition then
becomes a preventative measure against brutality. It led to a horror
of blood and forestalled barbarity.27 This is important because bar-
barity is hard to control by law, and the prohibition of blood is
connected to human conduct towards animals, which is linked with
conduct towards people. In Gen. 9 commands concerning animals
naturally lead to those concerning humans. Whilst we wish to qualify
Westermann's precise interpretation of 9:4 he is right to see here a
restriction of humanity's overweening power. The prohibition is a
reminder of the original vegetarian state of man. 28 The refraining
from blood upheld the sanctity of life, and it is only by God's express
sanction that life could be taken and even then limits were set. 29

26 Von Rad (1958), p. 109 = (1963), p. 128.

See Jacob (1934), pp. 247-252 for a discussion and Westermann (1974), p. 623
P
27
= 984), p. 465.
8 Cassuto (1961), pp. 58£[
29 J. Milgrom, "The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System", in Studies in Guttie
Theology and Terminology (Leiden, 1983), pp. 104-118.
A possible connection with the dietary laws emerges here. The Talmud, much more
so than the Old Testament, gives detailed instructions concerning the slaughter of
animals. The aim was to cause the minimum of suffering by using razor sharp
instruments and by draining the blood. Milgrom argues that the dietary regulations
follow from here in that they restrict the choice of meat the Jew may eat, so that he
may aspire to a higher way of life - the holy. It is in the dietary laws that Israel is
commanded to be holy with the most urgency. Milgrom argues that the restrictions
give theJew a system whereby he is taught reverence for life by a reduced choice of
meat, humane slaughter and the prohibition of blood. Food is used to inculcate the
inviolability of life. Milgrom (1983).
The problem of the dietary laws is complex. Unfortunately their original significance
and origin is not clear (see Houston (1993)). There is also a strong tendency in Jewish
tradition to develop moral aspects of regulations. If Milgrom is right, then we may
have the reason why there is no distinction between clean and unclean in Gen. I,
since the world was vegetarian. Milgrom may be correct but there are weaknesses in
his approach. First, there is no restriction on the quantity of clean meat, which would
seem to be a more appropriate way of teaching respect for life. Secondly, if the priests
had wanted to teach reverence for life, would it not have been more appropriate to
have designated the protected species as holy rather than unclean? (cfHouston (1993),
p. 77), E. Firmage, "The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness", in J.
Emerton, (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch, SVT 41 (1990), pp. 177-208, p. 195. What is
important to note from Milgrom's paper is that Israel did not allow indiscriminate
taking of animal life. It is less clear that this was the origin of the dietary laws.
 157

It can then be seen why blood is given such a prominent place in

the story. One of the key issues of Gen. 1-11 is the imago Dei and
humanity's rule over creation. That dominion has been extended to
include the eating of meat, but the rule which humanity exercises on
behalf of God needs to be defined precisely to avoid abuse of that
power. Only God has authority over the lifeblood and man must
never partake of it. Given the violence of Gen. 6: 11 ff and the corrup-
tion of the way of 1:26-30 which occurred, it is of special importance
that the post-flood world is given clear guidance as to its appropriate
and necessary rule over life. All life comes from God, and the absten-
tion from blood is a means not just of respecting life, but also of
exercising the appropriate dominion which has been entrusted to
humanity. Again this is of universal significance and does not just
refer to Israel.
Fourthly, the question of blood as a pollutant was discussed in
Chapter 1 and will be examined further later.
Lasciy, Gen. 9:4 has links with cult and sacrifice. 30 In sacrifice
blood was the chief medium of power especially in expiation and
atonement. The blood was endowed with power which could remove
the stain of sin. It was sprinkled on doors, altars and other cultic
objects. The sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, which included the
sprinkling of the altar and the mercy-seat with blood, illustrate its
sacred power in purifying and consecrating. The smearing and sprin-
kling with blood represent the giving to God of the most important
part of the victim-that is the life of the animal-which made a
correspondence between the life of the sinner and that of the ani-
mal. 3l It is not blood, but blood in so far as it contains the life which
makes expiation (Lev. 17: 11), and because it fulfils this function its
consumption is prohibited,32 something which was peculiarly Israel-
ite. 33 It is not possible here to do a thorough study of Israelite sacri-
fice and the role of blood in it, but it is important to observe in
passing the highly significant part it played in cultic procedure. P has
placed in the primeval time a major aspect of later cultic law.
Yet as far as the pre-Sinai world of Gen. 9 is concerned, these
aspects are undeveloped. All that we have here is the command to
abstain from blood; the institutions of sacrifice must wait for the
setting up of the cult at Sinai. By not developing the sacrificial impli-

30 For discussions see]. Milgrom, "Sacrifices and Offerings in the Old Testament",
IDBSp. 770; Milgrom (1979); von Rad (1951), pp. 249--260 = (1975) 1, pp. 250-272.
31 For a discussion see Eichrodt (1959), pp. 96-105 = (1961), pp. 158-172.
32 Von Rad (1957), pp. 268ff = (1975) 1, pp. 269ff.
33 See DJ. McCarthy, "The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice",]BL 88 (1969),
pp. 166-176.
158 GENESIS 9:1,

cations the writer has allowed for a pre-Sinai context. Yet by making
this prohibition here, the way is opened up for reconciliation between
God and the world. The radical change in the relations between man
and animals which allows their slaughter (9:2£1), conveys the possibil-
ity of sacrifice and all that that implies, but there is only a faint hint
of that in Gen. 9. A new aspect of the divine-human relationship is
revealed. In a world which has seen the total corruption of a genera-
tion (6: 11£1), the way is now open for reconciliation without recourse
to punishment.

5. 9:5
The prohibition of blood naturally leads to a command concerning
the value of human life. The statement of 9:5 that God will require a
reckoning for the blood of man reinforces the belief that murder
deprives God of something which belongs to him exclusively. Homi-
cide shows utter contempt for life. Animal blood may be shed but not
consumed; human blood may not be shed at all. This was not just
because blood pollutes the land but because God is the unique source
of life (compare Deut. 32:39,jer. 38:16). The blood of the deceased
had passed to the control of the murderer, and he had to die as the
only means of expiation so that the control over the blood went back
to Yahweh (Num. 35:33£1).34
The word Wi' 'seek', 'require' is used three times in Gen. 9:5
placing emphasis on God's sovereignty over human life. The com-
mand not to kill is unconditionally binding on all humans without
qualification. Wi' has the meaning here "to demand account for"
(compare 2 Chr. 24:22, Ezek. 33:6, Ps. 9: 13(12)). God claims the
right to human blood for himself, and consequently denies man the
right to dispose of his own blood.
i1'n '?::l "0: there is also retribution against all wild animals who
kill humans-compare the punishment for the goring ox in Exod.
21:28-29. Westermann argues that this is only meaningful because
man has cared for and provided for the animal so that it is part of the
community.35 Yet this is not what Gen. 9 has in view since all ani-

34 See A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Low (Oxford, 1970), pp. 95ff. ttN~ "0
"n~ is difficult to translate; see GK 139c, Skinner, (1912) pp. 170ff and A.B.
Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh, 1902), lld, p. 13. The precise rendering is
disputed but the idea is reasonably clear; God will hold men accountable for taking
the lives of their fellows and the killing of others is equivalent to fratricide.
35 Westermann (1974), p. 624 = (1984), p. 466.
 159

mals, domestic and wild, will be held responsible if they kill humans.
Gen. 9:5 demonstrates further the link which is frequently found
in the Old Testament between tD~J and blood (Deut. 27:25,
Pss.72:14, 94:21). It can then be seen how suitable the command of
Gen. 9:4 is in the same context as Gen. 9:5. Having described the
powerful and mysterious nature of blood, it is then appropriate to
continue by discussing human blood and the law of homicide. This is
particularly apt when the context of the flood speaks of OQn.
When a man took the life of another he was understood to have
become liable for the blood (2 Sam. 4: 11), which, if not released by
the execution of the killer, cried out to God for deliverance (Gen.
4:9ff, job 16:18, Ezek. 24:7). The power released when blood was
shed brought about and demanded vengeance (Isa. 1:15,59:3). Shed
blood is also a sphere of danger which moves with power against the
murderer and seeks to alight upon him: 2 Sam. 16:8, 1 Kgs. 2:33,
Ezek. 35:6. When the blood passes out of God's control, he actively
seeks its return (Gen. 42:22, Ezek. 3: 18, 20). But where there was a
need to execute someone, the victim's blood did not pass to the
hands of the executioner, but it remained on the criminal (Lev. 20:9,
1 Iff, 16, 27,josh. 2:19).36 All blood belonged to God, to whom it had
to be returned and who actively sought it. Gen. 9 reiterates the
ancient Israelite prohibition of murder.
The text also makes it clear that murder disrupts the community.
Morality in Ancient Israel was heavily orientated towards relation-
ships among people and to the creation of a society in which all
would act in a way which was conducive to the community. In Gen.
9 God imposes his absolute authority on humanity, but man himself
is then charged with a solemn duty towards his neighbour. Human
obligation to God brought about a moral imperative to other people
whom God had created. The taking of life was not just a crime
against God but also against one's fellows. It was the breakdown of
responsibility to the dignity of those around which lay at the heart of
OQn and the corruption of the way in Gen. 6. Gen. 9: 1-7 focuses on
human duty to preserve life in the community and to work for its
benefit, not its detriment.
The murder of one by another is fratricide. "n~ means 'brother';
mankind is knit together in a close relationship like that of brothers,
and murder is a violation of the human communityY P explains in
principle what j expounds in the story of Cain and Abel.

36 Phillips (1970), pp. 85ff and see also B. Kedar-Kopfstein, "O''',TWAT 2, pp.
248-66 = TDOT 3, pp. 234-250.
37 Cassuto, (1964), p. 127; Jacob, (1934), p. 246.
160 GENESIS 9:1,

Murder places the community in danger. In later time there was a

great interest in identifying the killer and eliminating him. In difficult
cases a formula could be used, "let his blood (that is his blood guilt)
be upon ... " Gosh. 2: 19, Judg. 9:24, 1 Kgs. 2:33, 37) or a prayer
could be said (Deut. 21 :8). By catching the criminal the blood guilt
was turned back upon his own head i.e. he was executed, thereby
saving the community from disaster (2 Sam. 16:8, 1 Kgs. 2:5, 31ff).
Bloodshed carries along with itself its own retribution (Judg. 9:22ff);
blood is laid on the culprit. Malign consequences which follow the
shedding of blood attach themselves to humans, e.g. 1 Kgs. 2:28-34
where Joab's ClJn 'Oi, wanton bloodshed (2:31) has lead to blood
taint. The putting to death ofJoab removes the blood from Solomon
(2:32ff).38 Ultimately the killer knew that the crime would catch up
with him.
Later Jewish tradition saw in Gen. 9 a reference to the prohibition
of suicide. Rashi saw in Cl:::l'niV5:lJ? a reference to death where blood
is not spilled e.g. hanging. This is a pertinent issue when many Jews
have preferred death at their own hands to apostasy.39 The text itself
does not specifY this but rather stresses that no human life is to be
taken, thereby ruling out suicide.
Consequently this raises the interesting possibility as to whether in
the flood God punishes humanity on the basis of life for life i.e. that
the deluge is God's way of requiring a reckoning for the crimes of
Don committed by that generation. The wholescale corruption
caused by the violence called for total destruction. God used the
flood as a just punishment for the infringement of human life which
had occurred earlier. This cannot be proved but if there was murder
before the flood, then punishment of this nature was due. The plac-
ing of the solemn charge of Gen. 9:5 in the context of the deluge
might suggest that the flood was the means whereby God sought the
blood of the slain. The fact that Don was the sin of the pre-diluvian
world does suggest that the punishment of death did fit the crime.
The people who sinned by killing, received their due punishment. As
there was no law whereby man executed the murderer, as found in
Gen. 9, God took it upon himself to deal out justice.

38 For a discussion of this difficult passage see H. McKeating, "The Develop-

ment of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel", VT25 (1975), pp. 46-68, pp. 56ff.
For a discussion of the idea of blood returning on the head of someone see H.G.
Reventlow, "Sein Blut komme tiber sein Haupt", VT 10 (1960), pp. 311-327 and K.
Koch, "Der Spruch 'Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt' und die Israelitische
Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut", VT 12 (1962), pp. 396-416.
39 ZIotovitz (1980), pp. 288£[
 9: 6 161

6.9:6
There is a problem over the exact rendering of 9:6. Instead of RSV's
rendering ofO'~:l as "by man", NEB gives, "For that man his blood
shall be shed", after LXX a.Vtl toU ai.,..t<XtO~ autou. The difference
between the two is that the former authorizes man to enact capital
punishment, but the latter reserves the execution to God alone.
Whilst the text does suggest that God himself will punish, it seems
likely in our view, that man is being authorized to execute the mur-
derer and we should keep the traditional rendering favoured by RSV
"By man shall his blood be shed". 40 The preposition :l takes several
meanings, and it is hard to translate it exactly, but in view of the fact
that Hebrew law so strongly emphasized the death penalty for mur-
der, and that these verses deal with the authority of man over life, it
would seem natural to render 9:6 as "by man". O'~:l is placed in a
prominent position, which would seem to suggest that something
major is being said for the first time i.e. that man shall carry out the
execution. "By man" is stronger than "for man", and fits the empha-
sis of the sentence better. Likewise the passive construction might
suggest that an agent is more likely here. 41 If the verse were referring
to a non-human agent, one would have expected this to have been
specified either by "God will pour out" or "I will pour out". Further,
the preposition? would have been more appropriate if NEB's trans-
lation were to be adopted. If the text were not authorizing capital
punishment to be enacted by humans, one would expect less ambigu-
ity. The authority to execute is hereby given.
Similarly there is a discussion over ':l in Gen. 9:6 Woller writes
"Das wiirde die Dbersetzung des ki mit < < obgleich > > aufdecken,
weil die Gottebenbildlichkeit auch des Morden gesehen wiirde".42
The rendering 'although' would mean that humanity is allowed to
enact the death penalty even though man is made in the image of
God. If the translation 'for' or 'because' is employed, the passage
gives the reason for the prohibition of killing and the need for the
drastic use of capital punishment.
We noted in the previous Chapter the difficulties of translating ':l
and it is hard to be certain which is most apt. It may be that both are
to some extent intended, and both fit the sense of the story. The
translation of RSV is probably most suited. Gen. 6:11ff use ':l with
the meaning of 'for', and the motive clause is common in Hebrew-

40 See GK 116w, 121f.

41 See BDB, p. 89 III 2c.
42 Woller (1982), pp. 637-638.
162 GENESIS 9:1,

compare Exod. 20:8-11 and many examples in P (e.g. Lev. 11:44,

19:2).43 Many legal prescriptions are motivated in this way. Conse-
quently we should suggest that the RSV's translation is to be re-
tained. Man is not to kill because he is made in the image of God.
A further point needs clarification; could it be that Gen. 9:6 is
speaking of the threat to humans from animals and that man is being
empowered to kill animals rather than humans, because they have
been attacking him? Does 9:6a mean that every beast which kills a
human is to be put to death by man? Mter all the context does speak
of the right of man to take animal life.
In our view the usual interpretation that the subject of l~tV in 6a
is man, is more plausible. Given the significance of the death penalty
in Israel, it would seem that the verse is speaking of the authority of
humans to enforce the death penalty. Further 9:5 envisages the death
of the manslayer, and the immediate context suggests that 9:6 is the
bestowal of the authority to enact the death penalty. Nevertheless in
view of 9:5 and the goring ox in Exod. 21, it seems reasonable to see
the punishment of 9:6 being laid on animals as well as humans.
We have already noted the poetic structure of this verse. The
chiastic formula of 9:6a underlines the due punishment for murder.
Each word in the first clause is repeated in reverse order emphasizing
the strict correspondence between act and punishment. There have
been various attempts to classifY the passage. Gunkel suggests 9:6
could be "an old legal saying". Skinner describes it as "possibly an
ancient judicial formula which had become proverbial". Von Rad
says it is "an old statement from sacred legal terminology". Jacob
calls it a "prophetic admonition". McEvenue, as we saw above, de-
scribes it as proverbial but not ancient. 44
It is hard to know to what kind of genre this verse belongs. Its date
cannot be determined, but probably the best solution is to see it as a
legal formula which has been expressed in poetic, proverbial style.
Once more 9:6 emphasizes that human life belongs to God and
that he has complete sovereignty over it. It is only by God's express
permission that humanity is allowed a limited share in that authority,
to take the life of the manslayer. The protection given to man is
grounded in the divine image. An attack on the image is an assault
on God's rightful dominion: murder confronts God, and is a revolt
against him. The story singles out murder from all the sins of the
decalogue as being particularly wicked, emphasizing that God will

43 See Gemser (1953), pp. 50-66 and Sonsino (1980), esp. pp. 90ff.
44 Gunkel (1910), p. 149; Skinner (1930), p. 171; von Rad (1958), p. 109 =
(1963), p. 128; Jacob (1934), p. 247; McEvenue (1971), p. 70.
 9: 6 163

exercise the ultimate sanction in this matter. This is not just a com-
mand for Israel, but is binding on all peoples wherever they may be,
in a world where the murder of one's fellow is a choice which faces
man. 45
It is because of this special status of man that the death penalty for
murder is obligatory. In a world where man is sinful, the divine
image has taken on the more powerful aspect of the authority of
humans over each other. The avenger and the executioner are both
in the divine image. 46 Human dominion has broadened since the
flood with sombre potential.
Westermann on the other hand argues that the text does not speak
of authorization but rather there is a form of law underlying the verse
which postulates that the punishment be executed by humans. 9:6
illustrates what was said in 9:5 in that what is there asserted is dealt
with in the human sphere by law. There is no trace of authorities,
executioners and representatives in this text, in contrast to those who
see here their institution as representatives of God. On the contrary
Westermann claims that 9:6 is universal and states that the execution
of the death penalty is an outworking of the command of GodY
Westermann has overstated his case. Of course we do not find
here the judicial system of later Israel, but there is empowering in
9:6. The passage is vague because the writer has allowed for a pre-
Sinai context which awaits fuller development. This is the first time
in the Bible that the death penalty is introduced, and it would seem
probable that the verse is not only a statement of what occurs in
practice, but also an authorization for man to enact capital punish-
ment for murder. In a context where man is commanded to eat
meat, to be fruitful and multiply, to abstain from blood and has
further authority over the animal world conferred on him, it follows
that 9:6 offers another authorization. The rest of 9: 1-7 is about com-
mand and the granting of authority, and there is no reason why 9:6
should be an exception. The passage limits humanity but also makes
provision for breach of those limits.
What is most important to note is that 9:6 stresses that life belongs
to God and that man can only kill if God has so authorized him. No
one may dare to take the life of another as though they were God,
and, if someone does, the community must act on God's behalf and
execute the manslayer. However the executioner is not guilty of a

45 Westermann (1974), pp. 626ff = (1984), pp. 468ff.

46 Clines (1972-73), p. 139.
47 Westermann (1974), pp. 626ff = (1984), p. 468.
164 GENESIS 9:1,

crime because the murderer has brought the punishment on himself

(Ezek. 18: 13).
The Old Testament sees a distinction between killing which does
serve the cause oflife (e.g. capital punishment for murder or death in
war) and killing which does not. 48 There does appear to be a distinc-
tion between warfare and the death penalty on the one hand, and
acts of unjustified violence on the other. But does this not contradict
the sixth commandment which is so sweeping and seems to rule out
all taking of human life? Is the Pentateuch self-contradictory? Does
the command to execute the death penalty not contradict the state-
ments on the value of human life as found in the story of the flood?
Part of the answer to this dilemma, as Harrelson argues, is that the
last five commandments in Exod. 20 focus on crimes which could
ruin the community; consequently the prohibition needs to be broad.
The commandments in the decalogue need to be wide in order to
cover large areas of human conduct in laconic form rather than
setting specific punishments as a guide for judges. 49
Perhaps another answer to the question of why the law permits
capital punishment is found in the suggestion by some scholars that
the murderer has expunged the image of God from himself Cassuto
notes this is implied in Gen. 9, and the idea is found in the
Midrash. 5o Yet the text does not go as far as this and the Old Testa-
ment nowhere speaks of the loss of the image for any reason. What
would appear to happen is that the relationship between God and
the killer is set in jeopardy by his actions, but to say that the image is
then lost would be to go too far.
However, the key to the answer to our question of why the law
permits execution and war is to be found in the notion of the absolute
sovereignty of God over human life. The sixth commandment is
dependent upon the earlier ones in the list where the claims of God
over all life are absolute, and must be acknowledged. There are no
rival deities and the sovereignty of God is unrivalled. 51 Similarly in
the account of the deluge the command not to kill is set in the
context of a demonstration of God's power over all life--to create,
uncreate and re-create, as we saw in Chapter 4. Only he has the
power and authority to dispose of life and the commands of 9: 1-7
reinforce this.

48 W. Harrelson, the Ten Commandments and Human Rights (philadelphia, 1986),

pp. 108-11 O.
49 Harrelson (1986), pp. 111-113.
50 Cassuto (1964), p. 127 and Zlotovitz (1980), p. 291.
51 Harrelson (1986), pp. 113ff.
 9: 6 165

Consequently both Exod. 20: 13 and Gen. 9:6 emphasize belief in

the rule of God over all life, rather than the sacrosanctity of human
life. The life of the murderer could be taken since he might take the
life of another. Harrelson writes:
There was in ancient Israel no notion of the sanctity of human life in and
of itself. The sanctity of human life lies in the action and will of Yahweh
as these are revealed to the people of Israel. God himself protects human
life, and Israel is required to follow the path of God in protecting human
life. Human life has its basic meaning in relation to God's own purpose
for life and not in the sheer fact of life itself.
No abstract statement about the sanctity of human life can be derived
from the sixth commandment. Life belongs to God-that is an under-
standing different from the view that life is itself sacrosanct.52
Thus Gen. 9:6 does not teach the absolute sanctity of human life but
rather that life belongs to God, and can only be taken when God
permits i.e. to execute the murderer. The flood speaks of God's sov-
ereignty over life more than the absolute protection of that life.
Westermann writes:
A community is only justified in executing the death penalty insofar as it
respects the unique right of God over life and death and insofar as it
respects the inviolability of human life that follows therefrom. The death
penalty carried out by the organs of state can also be murder. Every
single violation of this limit, be it based on national, racial, or ideological
grounds is here condemned. 53
The point is that all threat to life, whether from criminals or enemies,
had to be eradicated, and it was sometimes necessary to take life in
order to preserve the community and its well being. 54
Consequently the community must not take life unless it is acting
on behalf of God and it is done in the most just manner. God's
claims are sovereign. This is also connected with Israel's existence in
the land, which had been given to them by God. Killing is a chal-
lenge to God and his gift of life in the land for the individual. 55 This
is well illustrated in the universal context of Gen. 9: 1-1 7 where God
has provided, as a gracious undeserved gift, a stable world in which
man can be fruitful, multiply, prosper and live safely. By taking life, a

52 Harrelson (1986), p. 116.

53 Westermann (1974), p. 628 = (1984), p. 469. See also Zimmerli (1972), p. 117
= (1978), p. 135.
54 D.A. Knight, "The Ethics of Human Life in the Hebrew Bible", in D.A.
Knight and P J. Paris (eds.), Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor oj W. Harrelson (At-
lanta, 1989), pp. 65-88.
55 Harrelson (1986), p. 117.
166 GENESIS 9:1,

killer is denying this to his fellows and jeopardizing the stability and
prosperity of the world. Both the generation after the flood and the
people of Israel had been given a future safeguarded by God in a
secure land. Murder disrupts this stability. 56
Given the above considerations the story offers an important per-
spective on the value, not simply of human life, but also of human
personhood i.e. humans in relation to each other and to God. The
latter is more specific and significant than the former, since it does
not see people on their own but in relationship with each other and
with God. The use of the imago Dei as the reason for the prohibition
of murder emphasizes that it is much more than human life in and of
itself which is valuable, but rather humanity in its relationship with
God. It is this relational aspect which makes human life sacred, and
life is seen as valuable in relation to others. Here we see the vast
difference between human and animal life.
The concept of the absolute sovereignty of God over human life
fits well with an observation which we made in Chapter 1. It was
mentioned there that the modern idea of rights is not clearly found in
the Old Testament. It seems that there is a difference between the
focus of attention of modern human rights and the law of the Old
Testament. In the latter there is the command from God, a direct
address from him to the individual, but in the former there is a right
which attaches itself intrinsically to the human person. There is an
important difference between the command not to kill and the right
to life. In the former, life is set in its relation to God who has com-
plete sovereignty over it, but the idea of the right to life need not be
associated with any religious view since it is a human centred idea. In
the story of the flood, human life is declared valuable because of its
relation to God, and God's authority over life is declared to be invio-
lable. Consequently in Gen. 9, the command not to kill is grounded
in God's sovereign will and purpose, not in human life per se. Biblical
commands are theonomous, human rights anthroponomous. Rights
are based on the value of freedom to which a human has a right. In
the Bible ethics are based not on freedom but on the direct command
of God, as seen in Gen. 9.
The case must not be pushed too far since the word C!lEltDO, does
sometimes have the connotation of the modern word 'right': Deut.
21:17, Jer. 32:7, 8. The poor seem to have some claim to a right
(Exod. 23:6, Deut. 24: 17). Yet there is a difference here from the
modern idea of human rights; the Bible grounds these claims of the

56 Harrelson (1986), pp. 117ff.

 GEN. 9:1, AND WIDER ASPECTS OF ISRAEL3S LAW 167

poor in the express command of God and his redemptive purpose,

which brings about a moral duty to the neighbour.
Of course some of the commands of the Bible reflect customs and
regulations from other cultures (e.g. Exod. 21 :28fl), and it cannot be
said that Israel was the only society in the Ancient Near East which
viewed murder as unacceptable. Consequently many of the ethical
norms of the Ancient Near East were accepted and brought into
Israelite society. There was however a crucial difference: God placed
his absolute authority behind these rules. The punishment of life for
life was common in the time in which the Bible was written, but what
the writer of Genesis does, is to take the concept and place it under
the authority of God as a decree for all peop1eY

7. Gen. 9:1-7 and Wider Aspects if Israel's Law

i. Death and Pollution
Purity and purification were fundamental aspects of Israel's cult and
it was the duty of the priest to enforce regulations concerning pollu-
tion. Murder, idolatry, and sexual abomination were particularly se-
rious in this respect and could have severe effects on Israel's history;
blood was so polluting because it was the bearer of the life. It is said
of the Canaanites that they lost the land on account of these practices
(Lev. 18:24-30). By the time of the Exile the land ofIsrael is seen as
thoroughly polluted (1 Kgs. 14:24. 2 Kgs. 16:3, 21:2,jer. 2:7, Hos.
6:8), and the people had to be sent into Exile as punishment. Both
flood and Exile were necessitated by the state of the land. The story
of the flood is told in the light of Israel's conception of pollution.
Without laws man would ruin the world by his immoral acts. 58 Mter
the flood a rule oflaw was inaugurated for the whole world to control
these impulses and to prevent pollution. The fact that the flood sin-
gles out ODn as the chief cause of the flood shows a special concern
with pollution resulting from murder (see Chapter 1).
It was in part owing to this that the law so strongly opposed
payment of money as punishment for murder. Only the death or
banishment of the murderer ensured purity. The commands of Gen.
9 seek to safeguard the purity of the land as well as the sacredness of

57 See for a discussion J. Barr, "Ancient Biblical Laws and Modem Human
Ritts", in Knight and Paris (1989), pp. 21-33.
T. Frymer-Kensky, "Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Biblical Israel",
in C. Meyers and M. O'Connor, (eds.), The Word oj the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in
Honor ojD. N. Freedman (Winona Lake, 1983), pp. 399-414, esp. p. 409 and discussion
therein.
168 GENESIS 9:1,

life. The whole idea of clean and unclean was important in a society
which believed its land to be holy (Amos 7: 17), and that it belonged
to Yahweh (Lev. 25:23). Consequently the society had to take careful
precautions to ensure safety from pollution by blood, life for life
(Num. 35:33ff, Deut. 21 :22ff). For P pollution cannot be removed by
ransom since the offender pollutes the land in which he lives. In this
respect the life of the whole cultic community was at stake. Gen. 9
projects back into the primeval time one of the most important pre-
cepts of Israelite purity. 59
This concept of purity was also found in the law of asylum which
in part was designed to protect the High Priest from impurity by the
presence of a killer in his city. Only after the Priest's death could the
killer return, since his presence caused impurity. Execution or ban-
ishment removed the cause of the offence. The laws of homicide may
have originated in a code of discipline for the priests. 60

ii. The Lex Talionis

The punishment for murder as found in Gen. 9 reflects the lex tal-
ionis (Exod. 21:23ff, Lev. 24:17ff, Deut. 19:21) which shows the deep
concern of the Israelites to match punishment with crime. There
could be no whim or caprice; punishment must correspond to crime
precisely. Life was so sacred that no monetary compensation could
be paid for homicide (Exod. 21: 12, 28ff), and this was only allowed
in the case of the goring ox (21 :30).61 Even an ox that killed a man
had to be put to death. Life and property were incommensurate with
each other. Property offences were not punishable by death though
in extreme cases such as Achan's breach of the covenant, the ban
operated with its own set of rules Gosh. 7). Since money could not be
paid in compensation for death, the system did not favour the rich.
Neither was death used as a punishment for theft and the whole
system is, in this respect, quite different from the rest of the Ancient
Near East. The scale of punishment in Israel was in no way con-
nected with social class. 62 Even where death was accidental there
could still be the possibility of judicial execution (Num. 35:9-34).
Blood shed unintentionally could result in blood guilt. 63 There is not
time here to discuss the whole concept of the Cl'i1 '?~J, the avenger
of blood, but that was a means of enforcing the principle of Gen.

59 Von Rad (1957), pp. 271-278 = (1975) 1, pp. 272-279.

60 R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneform Law (paris, 1988), pp. 77-83.
61 A. Phillips, "Another Look at Murder", JJS 28 (1977), pp. 105-126.
62 C. Wright, Living as the People qf God (Leicester, 1983), pp. 163-168.
63 See Zimmerli (1972), p. 116 = (1978), p. 134.
 1HE RELATIONSIDP BETWEEN GEN. 9:1, AND J 169

9:664 . If murder was committed by persons unknown, propitiation

still had to be made to God (Deut.21:1ff).
A system of refuge was established where a person who had com-
mitted an act of homicide, whether intentional or not, could flee to a
safe city (Num. 35:9-34, Deut. 19, Josh. 20). The details must be
omitted here 65 but it was in this context that the t:l,n ?~j operated. P
could not envisage someone taking part in Temple worship if he was
not ritually pure, and only the death of the High Priest could make
way for his return (Num. 35:25, 28).66
Yet all this expansion of the principle enunciated in Gen. 9 is
undeveloped because the writer is taking his pre-Sinai, pre-Israel
context seriously. There can be no cities of refuge in an era when
there is no priesthood and no cult. Similarly the writer seems to
understand that the primeval era is a less developed time since there
is no provision for the t:l,n ?~j or of courts for the dispensation of
justice. All we have in Gen. 9 are the basic principles, and the further
ramifications are left for the detailed giving of the law on Sinai. The
writer has taken his pre-Sinai context imaginatively.

8. 17ze Relationship Between Gen. 9: 1-7 and]

It is now time to see how Gen. 9: 1-7 relates to the J material of the
primeval history. The story concludes with a brief statement from J
(8:20-22), the implications of which are developed in 9: 1-17. P gives
a special emphasis to the close of the story. Gen. 9: 1-17 is divided
into two parts each beginning with almost the same sentence:
9:1=9:7 and 9:9= 9:17b. Both sections have their own message but
they are part of one conclusion to the account. Read together the two
sources of 8:20-9: 17 fit well as an integral whole.
Wenham notes that if read on its own, chapter 9 gives no reason
for the change in God's attitude. 67 Without the passage of 8:20-22,
we would have no idea as to the reason for the commands. If there
were such a gap in P, there would be a non-sequitur.
Perhaps Wenham has pushed his case too far, since we saw that
God remembers Noah in 8: 1, and that is where God turns from

64 For a discussion of the identity of the C1il '?~~ and his function see: Phillips
(1977); McKeating (1975); Eichrodt (1961), pp. 161, 254ff = (1967), pp. 237, 366fT;
R. De Vaux, Les Instituti()TlS de L'Ancien Testament (Paris, 1958), pp. 26-8 = Ancient ISTtuL'
Its Life and Institutions (London, 1961), pp. 10-12. See also Phillips (1970), pp. 83-109.
65 For a discussion of asylum see McKeating (1975); Phillips (1970), pp. 99ffand
M. Greenberg, "The Biblical Concept of Asylum", JBL 78 (1959), pp. 125-132.
66 Phillips (1970), pp. 107-109.
67 Wenham (1987), p. 188.
170 GENESIS 9:1/

anger to mercy. The text can be read without 8:20-22, but it is

enhanced considerably if these verses are included in a joint reading
of the text. 8:20-22 is an entirely appropriate preface to 9: 1-17. A
statement on the wickedness of man is suitable before the actual
commands which regulate man's tendencies. The blessing of human
fertility (9: 1,7) is apt when favourable conditions have been promised
and no further flooding will happen: 8:21, 22, 9:11. Both the conclu-
sions of] and P tell the same message but emphasize different aspects
of the promise never to send another flood.
The final word of the story of the deluge is one of grace. The
world is restored but not to a state of complete perfection since man
is still sinful (8:21), in a world where sin is a permanent feature. 68 The
flood has not improved humanity, and the reason for the punishment
is still there. On the contrary there has been a change in God's
attitude, as he pledges another course of action. God's grace is free
and unconditional, but that does not imply that humanity is released
from all moral obligation. God gives regulations to limit human de-
sire for evil. In being given a new start, humanity is placed under
Torah so that life is to be respected in a way which did not happen
before the flood, and man is set free to safeguard the life of his fellow.
The world is placed under God's command in a way quite different
from that before the flood.
This is set in sharp focus if Gen.9: 1-7 is read with 8:20-22. Man's
heart is evil from his youth upward and laws must be given to curb
his evil nature, so as to ensure the safety of others. Man is not to live
by his instincts but by laws which are the sine qua non of human
existence. One way in which God responds to human sin is to grant
laws and this goes some way to help us resolve the paradox that
human evil both causes the flood and ensures that it will never hap-
pen again. Man's heart is evil, and his impulses need to be re-
strained. 69
Further, if the text is read as a whole, McEvenue's argument that
9:4-6 is an interpolation loses its significance to some degree. If laws
are needed to curb human sin, it is certainly apt for 9:4-6 to follow
8:21, especially if man's sin before the flood was Don.
If the two stories are read together, the question of clean and
unclean animals is set in a different perspective.] presupposes that
Noah observes these distinctions (7:2, 8, 8:20) and the complete text
might presume that the command of9:2ffis only for clean meat. This
fits a little awkwardly with the idea that the dietary laws are a mark

68 Clines (1972-3), p. 138.

69 Frymer-Kensky (1977), p. 151.
 THE RELATIONSmp BE1WEEN GEN. 9:1, AND J 171

of Israel's unique status as the holy people of God, since Israel did
not exist in the primeval era. It seems that] does not take his context
as seriously as P does, and is more concerned to present Noah as a
pious Israelite. In the final form less attention is given to the primeval
pre-Sinai context.
Likewise, the perspective on eating meat might be altered by the
combination of the two sources. It may be that meat eating is envis-
aged from the time of the 'fall'; Adam was given garments of skin;
Abel sacrificed sheep. If the two sources are read together, 9:2ff
might be ratifying the 'post-fall' practice of eating meat. 70
For example, Cassuto discusses three texts which seem to contra-
dict 9:3. On 3:21 where God makes garments of skin, he doubts that
there is any contradiction, since there is no necessity to suppose that
the verse refers to the skin of catde which had been slaughtered for
human consumption. In 4:2 he notes that sheep could be kept for
wool and milk without use for slaughter, and the conduct of the
brothers need not have been in accord with absolute standards, as
the fratricide shows. For 4:4 he suggests that the fat and blood were
placed on the altar but not necessarily eaten.7 1
Whilst these explanations are plausible, proof is impossible since
there are many aspects of the story which do not tie up neatly. It does
seem that Cassuto's points are a litde forced. Can sacrifice and ani-
mal skin be disassociated from the killing of living creatures? We are
in a mythological genre and not every problem is to be solved. Before
the flood man may have overstepped the boundaries given to him.
What does seem apparent is that the canonical text is a little less clear
on this matter than P by itself.
The rule of blood in 9:4 fits Noah's sacrifice well (8:20). There is
now a marked difference in the relation between humans and ani-
mals, as not only can animals be eaten, but they are used for sacri-
fice. Since man is still sinful (8:21), it is necessary that there should be
sacrifice to effect reconciliation between God and humanity (see
Chapter 5). Given that sacrifice is part of the divine-human relation-
ship, it is natural that a law concerning the abstention from blood is
placed here. In a world where human sin is a permanent feature,
blood will take on the power not just of life but of expiation as well.
Man must never partake of it. Again] differs from P in that he
envisages sacrifice before Sinai, and unlike P does not treat it as a
phenomenon which belongs solely to the holy people of God after

70 Wenham (1987), p. 34. Gen. 7:3 does not seem to envisage the existence of
unclean birds. Houston (1993), pp. 145ff.
71 Cassuto (1961), pp. 171,203,206.
172 GENESIS 9:1,

Sinai, but of the whole human race. When the two texts are put
together, it isJ's understanding which prevails. ], and hence the joint
reading, are less strict in adhering to the pre-Sinai context. Further-
more human life must be of considerable value to God, if he has
provided the means of reconciliation between himself and the world.
The command to abstain from blood resonates with the story of
Cain and Abel, which we discussed in Chapter 1. The commands of
Gen. 9 are a way of ensuring that such pollution and killing do not
happen again. Not only do these verses inculcate that blood is sacred
and to be treated with reverence, but the rule whereby the death
penalty is decreed is a means of preventing further killing such as that
committed by Cain. The threat of life for life is there to act as a
deterrent to further bloodshed and the pollution which results from
it.
Similarly Gen. 9 relates to the story of Lamech and his boast of
exaggerated vengeance for small hurts (see Chapter 1). By laying
down the strict correspondence of life for life, excessive, unfair re-
venge is outlawed. Lamech should not have slain a young man for
wounding him; life should only be taken as punishment for murder.
Gen. 9: 1-7 seeks to prevent the tyrannical, egotism of those who, like
Lamech, seek to abuse power and oppress the weak.
The comparison of Gen. 9 and Gen. 4 brings out another impor-
tant aspect of reading] and P together. It would seem that as far as
the world of Gen. 1-11 is concerned the demand for the death of the
manslayer is new after the flood. Cain and Lamech are not treated in
the way that is required in Gen. 9 for the manslayer; neither die for
their deeds,72
The question of the death penalty for murder is not an issue for]
in this primeval context; it is only taken up by P. When the text is
read together the question of the death penalty for the manslayer
becomes an issue after the flood. Naturally this cannot be pushed too
far since there are examples in the Old Testament, such as the killing
of Abner by]oab, and Amnon by Absalom, where the principle is
not applied. Obviously Old Testament ethics are complex with many
traditions from several eras bringing different perspectives, but as far
as Gen. 1-11 is concerned, it does seem that Gen. 9 marks a new
departure in the way that murderers are to be treated, even if this
standard was not always applied rigorously.
There has been much discussion as to why Cain does not receive
the death penalty. Some try to rationalize; the Midrash for example

72 Frymer-Kensky (1977), p. 153.

 THE RELATIONSmp BE1WEEN GEN. 9:1, AND J 173

writes, "Cain's judgement shall not be as the judgement of other

murderers for Cain had no one from whom to learn". 73 Cassuto
notes that capital punishment served not just as a penalty but also as
a preventive measure. Since Adam, Eve and Cain were the only
people in the world, only they could learn the lesson. On the other
hand people yet to be born would see the bitter fate of Cain and
draw the moral from him. Further, it would not have been right for
God to have inflicted further loss on Adam and Eve. 74
The problem of other people in the world besides Cain is not
really an issue. Such speculation goes beyond the scope of the text
and ignores the primeval mythological context and genre. The crite-
ria of historical thought should not be applied in the primeval era
and questions like this ought not be asked. There is much in these
chapters which does not tie up.75 Further, this does not explain why
Lamech seems to escape the consequences of his deed.
Some have noted that banishment can be an alternative form of
punishment for murder (2 Sam. 13:34-14:24),76 Expulsion can be as
severe a punishment as death (compare 2 Sam. 16:7ff). "Cursed from
the ground" (RSV) does not just mean banishment from a particular
region but also cutting Cain off from the means of his livelihood
(4:2).77 Not only is Cain banished from the earth but he is also ban-
ished from God's sight (4:14). The relation between Cain and the
earth is disrupted by Abel's blood (4: 11). Despite the fact that he is
cursed, Cain is given a mark to protect him from blood revenge; no
human has the right to step in and execute God's judgement. It is
only when God institutes the death penalty in 9:6 that the manslayer
is to die.
The story may be an attempt to reduce blood revenge to a mini-
mum by showing that the death penalty was not part of the original
order. It is only to be used sparingly. Only the Judge of the whole
world and judges who judge in his name have the authority to pass
sentence on the murderer. 78
Isaac Schapera has tried an anthropological approach by noting
that in Israel fratricide was often treated leniendy. Abimelech killed
all his 70 brothers but one, and then governed Israel for many years

73 Quoted in Zlotovitz (1980), p. 154.

74 Cassuto (1961), pp. 221ff.
75 Westermann (1974), pp. 422ff = (1984), pp. 31Off.
76 Wenham (1987), p. 108.
77 Pedersen (1926), p. 310. See also van Wolde (1991), pp. 25--41, esp. p. 28, pp.
33ff.
78 Cassuto (1961), pp. 184ff, 225.
174 GENESIS 9:1,

before dying in the siege ofThebez Uudg. 9). Absolom killed Amnon,
fled, was recalled and forgiven (2 Sam. 13-14). Solomon had
Adonijah slain and ruled many years before dying peacefully (1 Kgs.
2:13-25, 11:43).Jehoram killed all his brothers but was later smitten
by God (2 Chr. 21).
Some anthropologists argue that killing in the kinship group is
treated differently either because it meant further loss to that group
or because they preferred to leave vengeance to God. Neither of
these points is entirely satisfactory since 2 Sam. 14:5-7 indicate that
the usual vengeance might be applied to one who sheds his brother's
blood. There was apparently no legal distinction between the killing
of relatives and non-relatives. How then do we account for Cain and
those like Solomon?
Schapera, after comparing practices in other cultures, argues that
there was in kin groups a greater desire to end blood feuds so that
peace could be restored to the family as soon as possible. Cases of
fratricide he argues, were determined not by fIxed rules but by con-
tingent factors such as the size of the family or the circumstances of
killing. This was particularly acute when the duty of punishment lay
with relatives. Perhaps Cain was spared because at the time he was
the only surviving son (compare the importance of offspring in Israel-
ite society, Deut. 25:5ff, 2 Sam. 14:7).79
Schapera may be right, but the other examples of fratricide which
he quotes and their subsequent lenient treatment may be due to the
abuse of power which those in authority are not unknown to perpe-
trate so as to further their own ends. Further Schapera has not taken
the story of Lamech in Gen. 4 into account where a homicide is not
punished. We must remember that we are dealing with primeval
reality which is larger than life and matters like this are not easily
settled.
I should like to suggest that the answer to the problem is to be
found in Gen. 9: 1-7. It seems that the death penalty was not part of
God's original intention even after Gen. 3, and it is only when the
earth has become full of con and humanity has corrupted its way,
that God decides to institute the means whereby murder is to be
punished. There has been a major change in God's attitude to man
not just in abiding with his sin, but by instituting a new means of
punishment. Cain and Lamech's deeds, though terrible, were isolated
events, and it was not until the utter corruption of Gen. 6 that God
decided to introduce the drastic means of curbing violence. There

79 I. Schapera, "The Sin of Cain", in B. Lang (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the

OM Testament (London, 1985), pp. 26-42.
 CONCLUSION 175

does appear to be a reluctance on God's part to introduce the death

penalty, and it is only in extreme circumstances that he does so. As
man has not changed, the death penalty is needed for a deterrent.
In addition to these points the command to be fruitful and multi-
ply echoes important themes in Gen. 1-11. The theme of God's
blessing in 1:28 is worked out in subsequent chapters. 3: 16 shows that
this blessing might be jeopardized by child bearing. 4: 1, 17-26, 5: 1-
32 continue the blessing, but alongside this there are the crimes of
Cain and Lamech which show a darker side to human multiplication.
The theme is continued in Gen. 10 and 11.80 In the flood humanity
receives its greatest threat, and there is here the possibility that the
human race will be wiped out. Hence 9: 1, 7 pick up the theme of
Gen. 1-11 which is developed in both sources.

9. The Commandments to Noah

Jewish tradition has developed these commandments of Genesis 9
into a list of seven which were regarded as being binding on bothJew
and non Jew alike: the prohibition of eating the flesh of animals still
living, of murder, idolatry, blasphemy, sexual sin, theft, and finally,
the command to establish a legal system. 81
Yet though this takes the pre-Israel context seriously, it goes far
beyond the original intention of the chapter which focuses on the
authority of man over life, in particular the power to kill. The elabo-
ration from later time must not be allowed to hide the striking em-
phasis of these verses on the value of human life. It is perhaps a little
surprising that there are not more commandments, for example the
prohibition of robbery and assault. Yet the laconic nature of these
rules emphasizes the great importance which is attached to the value of
human life, and the protection which is thereby to be accorded to it.

10. Conclusion
Gen. 9 reaffirms the value of human life in its relation to God. It is
worth noting that until the book of Daniel there is no explicit refer-
ence to life after death in the Old Testament. Hence life was one of
the great values; it was to be lived to the full in a way undiminished

80 L.A. Turner, Announcements qf Plot in Genesis, JSOTSS 96 (Sheffield, 1990), pp.

21-49.
81 Frymer-Kensky (1977), p. 152,].P. Lewis, A Study qfthe Interpretation qfNoah and
the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature (Leiden, 1968), pp. 186-189. See also]. Boss,
Becoming Ourselves: Meanings in the Creation Story with a New Translation qfGenesis 1-11 jom
the Original Hebrew (Stroud, 1993), pp. 205-210.
176 GENESIS 9:1,

by oppression, hunger and sickness. Protecting it was an obligation of

the first order. God's will for humanity was life in security and peace
(Gen. 8:20-9: 17). All threats to life were to be eliminated, including
the manslayer. God is the source of all life, and he had absolute
sovereignty over it (compare Deut. 30:19-20,job 33:4, Ps. 36:9,jer.
2:13).82
There are many aspects of the Israelite prohibition of murder
which are not discussed here but we have shown that the command
is well suited to its context in Gen. 9. The new age must not be
marred by murder as it was before the flood. God has given his 'yes'
to life, and man must respond by safeguarding humanity. God, in the
pledge never to destroy the world, increases his demands on man.

82 Knight (1989), esp. pp. 82-88. See also M.A. Knibb, "Life and Death in the
Old Testament", in R.E. Clements, (ed.), The World qfAncient Israel' Sociological, Anthro-
pological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 395-415.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

THE IMAGE OF GOD

Few texts in the Old Testament have aroused as much interest and
discussion as Gen. 1:26ff, "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" (RSV).
References in the Old Testament to the Image of God in man are
tantalizingly few: Gen.l :26ff and 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own
image" (RSV). Man is in some way like God and is the most impor-
tant creature in the world, but his status is still less than that of a god.
The doctrine assumes the worth and dignity of humanity, and is
central to all discussion of the value of human life. In the story of the
flood this is given special attention: Gen.9 grounds the prohibition of
murder in the creation of man in God's image.
In what does the image consist? This question has exercised the
minds of theologians from New Testament times onwards, and many
interpretations have been proposed, which have often reflected the
concerns of particular generations. There is, however, little in the
Old Testament on this issue. Either the significance of the image was
well known or the writer did not want to be specific.
A general consensus seems to have developed recently that the
functional aspect of the image, (i.e. the rule over creation) is the
central feature of the creation of man in the divine image, but there
have been some notable dissenters from this view such as
Westermann. I
The present chapter wishes to explore an aspect of the imago Dei
which has received comparatively little attention: its relationship to
the account of the deluge. Why is the imago Dei placed in this
particular context, and what does that tell us about the value of
human life? How does the imago Dei relate to the rest of the story of
the flood and the issues which we have discussed so far? We shall
consider the question of the image in the context of the Priestly

I G.A.]6nsson, The Image of God Gen 1:26-28 in a Century of Old Testament Research
(Lund, 1988), pp. 219-225. This book offers a history of the interpretation of the
image, as does D. Cairns, The Image of God in Man (London, 1973).
178 THE IMAGE OF GOD

source, and ask what aspects of the divine-human relationship are

manifested in its account of the flood, to see if they give any clue as
to the essence of the image of God in man, and the prohibition of
murder which follows therefrom. We shall examine the meaning of
t:l?~, mo, and the two prepositions J and ~, and their use in Gen.
1:26 and 9:6. Having looked at the question from the context of P,
we shall in the final section ask what difference is made when the two
sources J and P are read together.

1. t:l?~
The translation of t:l?~ is by no means straightforward. The word
and its cognates are primarily used in the literal sense of three dimen-
sional objects which represent gods, men or animals. 2 In the Old
Testament over half the uses of t:l?~ refer to physical objects-9
times in 6 contexts: of tumours and mice (1 Sam. 6:5, 11) of gods
(Num. 33:52, 2 Kgs. 11:18 (= 2 Chr. 23:17), Amos 5:26, Ezek. 7:20);
of men (Ezek. 16: 17). Only 8 uses in 5 contexts could be understood
as not referring to three dimensional objects, and this is further re-
duced since t:l?~ in Ezek. 23: 14 refers to a drawing or representation,
and Gen. 5:3 speaks of physical likeness. Gen. 1:26ff and 9:6 are
problematic. Hence only in Pss. 39:7 and 73:20 could the word pos-
sibly refer to something non-physical, and these two occurrences are
the hardest to analyse. Koehler has suggested that in these two pas-
sages we have a different root meaning "be dark", but this seems
unnecessary. 3
RSV renders Ps. 73:20 as "They are like a dream when one
awakes, on awaking you despise their phantoms" (t:lO?~). Whilst t:l?~
is here the image in a dream, it is still the shape or form of some-
thing. c.A. Briggs calls it an "image of the imagination".4
Ps. 39:7 (6) is more difficult; RSV renders "Surely man goes about
as a shadow!" (t:l?~J probably uses beth essentiae here). Given the
parallelism oft:l?~ with ?Ji1 in 39:7, Clines suggests that we translate
verse 7 as "Surely man goes around as a dream image",-"as an

2 L. Koehler, "Die Grundstelle der Imago Dei Lehre Gen 1:26", TZ 4 (1948),
pp. 16-22, where on pp. 17-19 he gives a discussion of Ancient Near Eastern cog-
nates. See also W.H. Schmidt, Die SclWpfongsgeschichte der Priesterschrifi zur
OberlieJerungsgeschichte der Priesterschrifi von Genesis, 1, 1-2, 4a und 2, 4b-3, 24, WMANT
17 JNeukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), pp. 132ff
Koehler (1948), p. 18. D. Clines, "The Image of God in Man", TB 19 (1968),
p. 74 and H. Wildberger, "Das Abbild Gottes (Gen 1:26-30)", TZ 21 (1965), pp.
245-259, 481-501, pp. 251ff.
4 C.A. Briggs, The Book qf Psalms 2 (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 146.
 179

insubstantial will-o'-the-wisp, which has appearance and form, but

not much else". 5 Briggs writes that this is "an image rather than the
thing itself ... a shadowed likeness, .. , an insubstantial vaporous
body".6
Both these are references to insubstantial images, but in both cases
Cl'?~ means 'representation', in the sense that an image in a dream
reflects something. These two cases do not speak of the non-physical,
but rather of the ephemeral nature of human existence. In all these
uses the idea of physical shape or form is present.
Further help can be found from other terminology of idols and
images: Cl'?~, n1rJ1, i1~'rJ, m'rJn, n':J:Jn, '?OEl, i1:JOrJ and '?rJO. Barr
observes a distinction between words which have transparent mean-
ings, i.e. one can see through them to see why they have that mean-
ing, and those which are opaque. For example i1:JOrJ is transparent
since it is linked to the root 10:J which means 'pour'. In contrast Cl'?~
is opaque. Some see here a word meaning 'cut' but the basis for this
is thin; the Arabic verb is not used of forming an image but of cutting
off an ear or nose. Cl'?~ lacks a reference to a verb in common use,
and is of unknown derivation. 7
Hence some words were unacceptable to the writer of Genesis:
i1~'rJ would have suggested that God could be seen; n':J:m points to
human activity of building; '?OEl and i1:JOrJ could be neutral but were
usually used of objects designated as evil, and would be inappropriate
for the creation of man since they pointed to carving or metalwork;
'?rJO was invariably negative, and m'rJn was too closely associated
with seeing (Deut.4: 12, 15, 16). Cl'?~ was somewhat more ambivalent.
It does not stand in the pre-Priestly laws against idols, not even in
Deut. 4: 16 where terms are piled up. It is not used in the negative
way of other terms; Cl'?~ in 1 Sam. 6:5, 11 offers no hint that the
object is evil. Given the nuances of Cl'?~, it was more suitable than
any of the other terms for the divine-human relationship. Had the
writer written in Aramaic, where ~rJ'?~ is much more closely associ-
ated with 'statue', 'image' or 'idol' he would have chosen another
term. The language of P must be seen in its context. s
J. Miller has rejected Barr's study as inadequate, since he claims
that Cl'?~ is no better than any of the other words cited. Outside Gen.

5 Clines (1968), pp. 74ff.

6 C.A. Briggs The Book of Psalms I (Edinburgh, 1906), p. 347.
7 See D. Clines, "The Etymology of Hebrew $ELEM", ]NSL 3 (1974), pp. 19-
25.
8 J. Barr, "The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: a Study of Terminology",
B]RL 51 (1968), pp. 11-26. See also J.F.A. Sawyer, "The Meaning of CJ'i1'~ CJ'~J
(In the Image of God) in Gen. 1-ll",]TS25 NS (1974), pp. 418-426, p. 420.
180 THE IMAGE OF GOD

1-11, P only uses o?~ in Num. 33:52 (On:lOr:l 'r:l?~ ?:l) where O?~ is
used of evil objects which are used in idolatry.9
We should, however, wish to accept Barr's analysis. It is certainly
true that there is some ambiguity over the term but of all the words
it has the least negative connotations, particularly in view of Pss. 39
and 73. Against Miller it is to be noted that O?~ is not used on its
own in Num. 33:52 but is qualified by n':lOr:l, which suggests that
there the word O?~ was not sufficiently precise on its own; it had to
be specified by i1:l0r:l to indicate the nature of the object. Had O?~
alone been used it would not necessarily have had the negative con-
notation it does if joined to i1:l0r:l. Whilst O?~ can refer to an idol, it
does not have to take this meaning, and its context always needs to
be taken into account in translation. Just because it is used in Num.
33 in connection with an idol, does not mean that its referent is
always negative in every context. As we shall see it can bear a positive
meamng.
Consequently O?~ must be a physical image in Gen. 1:26ff and
9:6, but the word is more subtle and particular; connotation rather
than precise translation is more important. The essence ofO?~ would
seem to be the portrayal and representation of something rather than
a simple effigy, and this understanding of the term covers all its uses.
O?~ means concrete representation. Schmidt notes, "The word does
not have to be restricted to 'material form', but rather means a 'rep-
resentation"'.lO O?~ is not the technical term for a god, though it can
have that meaning in some places. If the primary meaning is 'repre-
sentation', there is no need to look for a second root "be dark" for
Pss. 39 and 73. The translation 'representation' is apt for all cases. II
A O?~ represents and points to that which is represented whether by
model, picture, human or dream. Man is created as the representa-
tion of God. God is the prototype of the image who represents him.
Man is not a simple copy of God but rather is in some way a repre-
sentation of him.
It is here that we ought to discuss extra-Biblical parallels, since
these seem to show that the image is a representation of someone or
something. Statues of kings would seem to have some spiritual con-
nection with the rulers whom they represent. Assyrian kings set up
statues of themselves in conquered territory, not just out of pride, but
to represent their presence in the occupied area. 12

9 J.M. Miller, "The 'Image' and 'Likeness' of God", JBL 91 (1972), pp. 289-
304, pp. 298ff.
10 Cited by Westermann (1984), p. 146 from Schmidt (1967), p. 133.
II Westermann (1974), pp. 201ff = (1984), p. 146.
12 Clines (1968), pp. 82ff.
 181

There are frequent references in texts to humans, usually the king,

being the image of God. Esarhaddon is addressed as the image of
Bel, "The father of the king, my lord, was the very image (.~almu) of
Bel, and the king, my lord, is likewise the very image of Bel". In
Egypt the idea was more frequent. In the eighteenth Dynasty of the
sixteenth century B.C. Pharaoh was entitled "image of Re". Such
terminology was used right up to the Greek period. Amon Re says to
Amenophis III, "You are my beloved son, who came forth from my
members, my image, whom I have put on earth. I have given to you
to rule the earth in peace". The king, not mankind as a whole, is the
image, and the image is bound up with dominion. The king, as
image of God, is his representative. 13 One passage of special note is
an Egyptian text of the twenty-second century B.C., the Instruction
for Meri-ka-Re, "Well directed are men, the cattle of the god. He
made heaven and earth according to their desire, and he repelled the
water monster. He made the breath of life (for) their nostrils. They
who have issued from his body are his images."14
W.H. Schmidt has argued that this is a democratisation of the
concept of the image. IS Wildberger also claims that this democratis-
ing had occurred in Egypt at an early date. It is Egyptian influence
which is most important in Gen. 1, and the first chapter of the Bible
reflects royal ideology. 16 These two scholars have given special em-
phasis to extra-Biblical texts and have argued that the concept of the
image is derived from non-Biblical sourcesY
However it is doubtful if the democratisation of the concept from
the king to all mankind antedates the Bible. The text just cited comes
from a time several centuries before the regular use of the term
"image of god" for the king. In Egypt only the king was in the image;
in Israel all were in the image, rich and poor, powerful and weak,
male and female, but the title was never used of the king, not even in
Isa. 9 or Ps. 45. 18 It seems that Israel was deeply influenced by such
non-Israelite concepts, but she adapted them in the light of her own
distinctive beliefs.
The recently discovered statue and inscription from Tell
Fekheriyeh offer the most precise parallel with Gen. 1:26. The statue
probably dates from the ninth century B.C., and it preserves the

13 Quoted in Clines (1968), pp. 83ff and see discussion in Schmidt (1967), pp.
137ff and Wildberger (1965), pp. 484-491.
14 ANET 417b.
15 Schmidt (1967), pp. 139, 143.
16 Wildberger (1965), p. 489.
17 Jonsson (1988), pp. 135-144.
18 Clines (1968), pp. 93ff.
 182 THE IMAGE OF GOD

oldest Aramaic composition which we know. The statue is of Hadad-

yis'i's, a local governor referred to as a king, who is also described by
Aramaic words with the Hebrew cognates: 1110' and Cl'~.19 Such a
close parallel suggests that the image of Gen. 1 may be understood in
a similarly representational way.
In both Egypt and, it would seem in the light of our discussion of
Cl'~, Israel, the image represents God on earth. W.H. Schmidt ob-
serves,
If the phrase means that the king is the living image or representative of
God on earth, then wherever the king appears, the divinity appears. So
in the Old Testament, wherever a human being is, God is proclaimed.
The person represents, attests God on earth. So the person as such,
created by God is God's witness ... it is of the nature of an image to
allow what it represents to appear; so where the person appears, God
also appears.20
Israel could never erect a statue of wood, stone or metal. There is
only one legitimate representative of God: man. 21
Westermann has raised objections to this line of argument. First,
he argues that where the king represents God on earth, the concern
is with the representation of an individual in relation to the commu-
nity. This cannot be so for man since he is a species not an indi-
vidual. Mankind does not represent God before creation.
Secondly, such thinking is out of place in the context of the
Priestly source. "Wherever a human being is, God is proclaimed", is
foreign to P since his theology is dominated by the thought of God's
holiness and the revelation of himself at the holy place. P is con-
cerned for the manifestation of God in his "JJ; that takes place
before man, not in man. P could only think of the manifestation of
God as a holy event outside the range of the ordinary.
Thirdly, we should look for texts which are concerned with the
creation of humanity in God's image. Westermann argues that the
concept of the image is not about the nature of man but about the act
of creating humanity, which makes man different. Wildberger and
Schmidt are concerned with the idea of the image, not with creation
in the image of God. 22

19 AR. Millard and P. Bordreuil, "A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Ara-
maic Inscriptions", BA45 (1982), pp. 135-141 and A Abu Assaf, P. Bordreuil and
AR. Millard, La Statue de Tell Felrherye et son Inscription Bilingue Assyro-Aramienne (Paris,
1982). See also A Angerstorfer, "Hebraisch dmwt und aramaisch dmwt. Ein
Sprachproblem der Imago-Dei-Lehre", BN24 (1984), pp. 30-43.
20 Quoted in Westermann (1984), p. 153 from Schmidt (1967), pp. 144ff.
21 Wildberger (1965), p. 495.
22 Westermann (1974), pp. 211ff::: (1984), pp. 153ff.
 183

Undoubtedly extra-Biblical parallels should be used with care, but

Westermann's objections are less than convincing. Wenham has
pointed out that he has misunderstood Biblical symbolism. Fre-
quently in P a class of objects can represent individuals. Of course
man cannot be equated with God too easily, but his mediatory posi-
tion between God and creation is consistent with the thought of other
parts of the Old Testament; the High Priest represents God to Israel
and Israel to God. The ritual system of the Old Testament is con-
cerned to bridge the gulf between God and man. 23 The fact that man
does have dominion conferred on him by God means that he repre-
sents God in the world. Further, just because in the cult God is
manifested in his "~:l, does not mean that he cannot be represented
outside the cultic realm. As for Westermann's last point, the image is
part of man's essence, not of his creation, since the context of Gen.
9:6 would seem to suggest that the image has abiding significance,
rather than being tied to the creation in Gen. 1.

2. m~'
This understanding of!:J'?~ as a representation of something is further
specified in Gen. 1:26 by the term n'~'. The noun m~' occurs 25
times in the Old Testament and is derived from the verb i1~' which
means "be like". In 2 Kgs. 16: lO it means the replica of an altar; in
Isa.40: 18 m~' seems to have a concrete meaning, and the root is
used in the chapter to express the concept of the incomparability of
God. In Ezek. 23:15 the representations of the Babylonians (dis-
cussed above) are described as m~'. Ezekiel frequently used the term
for "something which is like" e.g. Ezek, I :26 "likeness as it were of a
human form".24
mr.n is an amplification and specification of!:J'?~. The term is not
a strengthening of!:J'?~, for how can the meaning 'image' be strength-
ened? Eichrodt wrote that !:J'?~ is both limited and weakened by
'JmD':l; it excludes the idea of copy and limits it to similarity. In
Ezek. I the term is used to emphasize the approximate nature of the
correspondence between his description and the reality. 25
There may well be some attempt to avoid any misunderstanding
of humans as an exact copy of God. If !:J'?~ is a reference to man as
the image of God, i.e. his concrete representation in the world, rather
than God's effigy, then a physical resemblance does not pose difficul-

23 Wenham (1987), p. 31.

24 Westermann (1974), pp. 204ff = (1984), pp. 146ff.
25 Eichrodt (1961), pp. 78ff = (1967), pp. 123fT.
184 THE IMAGE OF GOD

ties so long as that includes the spiritual dimension. Hence 'JmD';:' is

not so much a weakening as a specification of O'?~-it is a likeness
image, "representational not simply representative",26 an active like-
ness not just an effigy.
Those who deny any distinction between the two terms, such as
Schmidt, 27 are aware of the error made by some of ascribing the two
words to two different things. Ramban argued that O'?~ referred to a
man's body, mD' to his soul. 28 This error was helped by LXX
inserting 'and' between the two terms, which was followed in the
Vulgate-"ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram" (Gen. 1:26).29
As far as Genesis is concerned mD' refers entirely to O'?~, not to
different parts of man. Man is not just God's representative but he is
to express his Lord's character. Humanity's likeness to God is found
in the sense that an image is like the one that it images. 30
Why are the terms reversed in Gen. 5:3? Perhaps it was because P
was no longer talking of the divine image but of the likeness of Seth
to Adam. He probably also wanted to avoid hardening and systema-
tizing his language. 31 When he speaks of the divine likeness he reverts
to O?~ (9:6).

3. The Prepositions
There has been much discussion as to the nature of the prepositions
in Gen. 1:26ff, particularly as to whether :J should be rendered as
beth essentiae both here and in 9:6. Certainly the above discussion
leaves open the possibility of translating 'JD'?~:J as "as our image",
since if man is God's representation that could mean that he has a
functional role. :J could be beth of essence meaning 'as', "in the
capacity of".32 Instead of being made according to the image of God
(i.e. the image being a standard ofmeasurement33 or of comparison 34

26 Clines (1968), pp. 9 Iff. Further the concrete use of the term ~mr.:l1 in the
inscription of Tell Fekheriye weighs against the view that m01 in Gen. 1 is a
qualification of the more concrete O,~, since it is used with the same concrete
meaning as ~O'~. Man is a living image and likeness and not a statue. D.M. Gropp
and T J. Lewis, "Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic Text of the Hadd-Yith
Bilingua", BASOR 259 (1985), pp. 45-61, p. 47.
27 Schmidt (1967), p. 143.
28 Zlotovitz (1980), p. 70.
29 See Westermann (1974), p. 205 = (1984), pp. 148fT.
30 Clines (1968), pp. 91ff.
31 Barr (1968), pp. 24fT.
32 GK 119i.
33 BDB p. 90.
34 GK 119h
 THE PREPOSITIONS 185

i.e. beth as the origin of a mould), he is created to be the image of

God. If beth essentiae is to be understood, man is created not as an
imitation of the divine image but as the image of God. A good
example is found in Exod. 6:3 (P).
',rli ?~~ ~.,~,

"I appeared as EI Shaddai" i.e. in the capacity of EI Shaddai. There

are other possible uses of this construction in P: Num. 18:26, 26:53,
34:2, 36:2, and possibly Lev. 17:11, 14. It is found elsewhere in the
Pentateuch: Exod. 18:4, Deut.1:13, 10:22, 26:14, 28:62, 33:26, as
well as in Ezekiel: 20:41, 45:1, 46:16, 47:14,22. 35 Often the construc-
tion follows the pattern of verb + noun + ~ + noun as in Gen. 1 (e.g.
Ezek. 45: 1).
The number of occurrences would at least seem to allow for the
possibility of beth essentiae in Gen. 1. A number of objections could
be raised but as we shall see, they are by no means conclusive.
First, it is pointed out that in other examples ofiT~.ti + ~ + noun,
the noun prefixed by ~ is the standard according to which something
is constructed. There are two occurrences of this in P: Exod. 25:40
"And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is
being shown you on the mountain" On'j~n~; Exod. 30:32 "You shall
make no other like it in composition" 'm:Jno~ (RSV). 36
Mettinger, for example, argues from this that God created man
according to his O'?~, according to his mo, as the prepositions are
interchangeable. Both man and the tabernacle are made according
to the heavenly pattern; man is created according to a divine proto-
type. The similarity between humanity and the divine beings lies in
offering praise to God. For P, the two great events are the creation of
man and the erecting of the tabernacle. 37 Man is created to resemble
both God and the angels.
Barth, whilst not seeing man as created in the image of the angels,
has a similar interpretation, "Man is not created to be the image of
God, .,. he is created in correspondence with the image of God".
God creates a being to correspond to his own self; ~ indicates the
origin of the mould. 38
Yet, as Clines points out, the meaning of~ in such phrases as Gen.
1:26 or Exod. 25:40 depends on the meaning of the noun and con-

35 BDB p. 88£[
36 Wenham (1987), p. 29.
37 T.N.D. Mettinger, "Abbi1d oder Urbild »Imago Dei« in
traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht", ZAW 86 (1974), pp. 403-424, esp. pp. 406-411.
38 K. Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik Ill/ I Die Lehre von SchOpfong, (Zurich, 1945), p.
222 = Church Dogmatics III/I, The Doctrine oj Creation (Edinburgh, 1958), p. 197.
186 THE IMAGE OF GOD

text. There is nothing in the phrase i1iDlJ + accusative + :J which fixes

the translation of the preposition. Judg. 21: 15 provides an example of
i1iDlJ + accusative + :J but the preposition has its usual meaning of
'in'. "And the people had compassion on Benjamin because the Lord
had made a breach in the tribes of Israel" (RSV).
Admittedly there are no examples ofi1iDlJ + noun + beth essentiae
in the Old Testament. The usual construction is either two
accusatives after i1iDlJ or one accusative followed by? (see Gen. 27:9,
Judg. 8:27). Yet both of these contain the idea of making an already
existing object into something else. 1JO?:~b l:l1~ i1iDlJJ would suggest
that man already existed in some form. The construction used in
1:26 is the most suitable for its purpose.
There are however examples of beth essentiae with similar verbs:
Num. 18:26 "When you take from the people of Israel the tithe
which I have given you from them for your inheritance" 'nm
l:l::ln?m:J l:ln~o l:l::l?; Deut. 1: 13 "I will appoint them as your heads"
(RSV) l:l::l'iV~':J l:lO'iD~1 (compare also Ps. 78:55).39 Furthermore
there is also the idea of purpose; the men are appointed for a func-
tion, just as the image in 1:26 is for the purpose of dominion.
A further objection to Mettinger's theory is that in Exod. 25 the
model is revealed, but this is not so with the creation of man in Gen.
1. Indeed P knows nothing of heavenly beings. 4o
The second objection to beth essentiae in Gen. 1:26 is that it is
followed by 1Jm01::l which means "like us" and would not be strictly
equivalent to 'JO?~::l if::l is rendered by 'as'. ::l is comparative and it
is claimed that ::l must bear a similar meaning. But as Clines replies,
there is no reason why 1JO?~:J and 1Jm01::l should be equivalent. It is
perfectly satisfactory to take 1JO?~::l as "to be our image" and 1Jm01::l
not as synonymous but as explicatory; it is an image made "accord-
ing to our likeness".41
A third objection is that no real difference can be established
between :J and ::l in the late Hebrew of P. There is, it seems, consid-
erable freedom of expression in the use of such terms in P:
1:26 'Jma,;, 'Ja'~J
27: Cl'i1?~ Cl?~J ,a?~J
5: 1 Cl'i1?~ ma'J
3 ,a?~;, ,ma'J
9:6 Cl'i1?~ Cl?~J

39 Clines (1968), pp. 76-77.

40 Zenger (1983), pp. 85ff.
41 Clines (1968), p. 77.
 THE PREPOSITIONS 187

From which it is argued by some, including Schmidt, that it is impos-

sible to draw any conclusions from these prepositions. 42
Certainly there is some overlap of usage but, as Clines observes,
just because the meanings of the two words overlap does not mean
that they are synonymous and that differences of meaning cannot be
analyzed. Gen. 5: Iff does not talk of the transmission of God's image,
since it belongs to humanity as such and cannot be transmitted. It is
Seth's likeness to Adam which is discussed here. Seth is not Adam's
image but only has a shape like his father's; 5:3 has '~'?~:J not '~'?~::l.
When the text speaks of the image of God, the preposition with t:J'?~
is always ::l.
Clines follows V riezen in tentatively suggesting that the kaph of
1:26 could be kaph essentiae: Gen.2: 18, Job 10:9, Isa. 40:23, Ps.
104:2.43 A similar use is found in what could be called the kaph
veritatis. "Sometimes :J is used in partic. to compare an object with
the class to which it belongs, and express its correspondence with the
idea which it ought to realize".44 G.K. l18x notes that:J is not always
used to indicate a similarity, but simply to introduce the predicate
(e.g. Neh. 7:2 i.e. in the nature of a faithful man). If this is correct,
man is to be the likeness of God. But this use of:J is less well attested
than beth essentiae and is harder to prove in Gen. 1:26.
Further, the date of P and the material in it are open to some
question. Gen. 9:6 might be ancient legal terminology, and we must
be cautious about saying that it is late i.e. exilic Hebrew. 45
The final objection to beth essentiae comes from Babylonian par-
allels where man is created according to the image of God. For
example, Enuma Elish reads:
Yea, Anshar's first born, Anu, was his equal.
Anu begot in his image Nudimmud. 46
Yet this is the creation of a god not man, and other extra-Biblical
parallels show that the King is made as the image of God, not ac-
cording to the image of GodY
The translation of 'J~'?~::l as "as our image" remains a possibility;
it cannot be proved, but there is no cause to rule out beth essentiae.

42 Schmidt (1967), p. 133.

43 Clines (1968), pp. 78fT; T.C. Vriezen, "La Creation de L'Homme d'apres
L'!mage de Dieu", OTS 2 (1943), pp. 87-105, pp. 91ff. See also Schoors (1981), p.
247. He cites Isa. 29:2 and Lam. 1:20 as examples.
44 BDB p. 454.
45 See von Rad (1958), p. 109 = (1963), p. 128.
46 ANET 61 a.
47 W. Gross, "Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen 1m Kontext der
Priesterschrift", TQ 161 (1981), pp. 244-264, pp. 247-250.
188 THE IMAGE OF GOD

If this is correct, man is not made in the image of God, nor does he
have the image, but he is himself the image of God. 48 Man is made
to be God's representation. We shall be developing a functional no-
tion of the imago Dei, and this would seem to make the use of beth
essentiae more likely in Gen. I :26. It is man's role in creation which
is significant; he is created to be something - God's vice-gerent.
We shall now proceed to analyse the imago Dei in Gen. 6-9.

4. Is the Image a Corporeal Resemblance to God?

Given the above discussion, it might be suggested that man bears a
physical resemblance to God. Gunkel wrote, "This being made in the
image of God refers in the first place to the body of man, without
indeed excluding the spiritual". He points to Gen. 5: 1ff in support of
his case; the image is continued by physical reproduction. 49
After a linguistic study of the words Cl'?~ and n1r.l" L. Koehler
developed Gunkel's position by arguing that man's likeness to God
lay in his ability to walk upright. He renders Cl'?~ as 'Gestalt' in Gen.
1-9. God does have an observable, outward form, as can be seen
from such texts as Exod. 33:23, Isa. 6 and Ezek. 1:26ff. Man is made
after the upright posture of God. The term n1r.l, weakens the resem-
blance; man and God are not precisely the same. 50
Yet there is nothing in the account of the deluge nor Gen. 1 which
suggests that this could be an accurate interpretation of the divine
image. Gen. 6-9 offers no suggestion of a bare corporeal resemblance
between God and man. But does God have a body? The Old Testa-
ment frequently speaks of God in anthropomorphic terms; he has
eyes and hands, he can feel emotion and perform physical actions
such as smelling. Other Ancient Near Eastern religions may have
taken such statements about their gods quite literally, (though this is
a moot point) but as far as Israel was concerned, Yahweh is por-
trayed in human terms, not because he has a body, but because he is
a person and is thought of in terms of personality (see Chapter 3).
The Old Testament gives us some statements about the form of
God (Deut. 4: 12, Isa. 40: 18) but it is reluctant to describe God's
appearance. Ezek. 1:26-28 is elusive about God's likeness: "likeness
as it were of a human form", "the appearance of the likeness of the
glory of the LORD" (RSV). Even Num. 12:8 and Ps. 17:15 which
speak of the m'r.ln of God show reluctance to describe him. When

48 Clines (1968), p. 80.

49 Quoted in Clines, (1968), p. 58, from Gunkel (1910), p. 112.
50 Koehler (1948), pp. 16-22.
 IS THE IMAGE A CORPOREAL RESEMBLANCE TO GOD? 189

God does appear in human form (e.g. Gen. 18) it is clear that this is
a form assumed for a temporary manifestation. When God does
appear the human form is the natural one for him to assume. Just
because God appears in human form, this does not mean thai: man
shares the same shape as God. 5l Further, the prohibition of images
must have exerted a powerful influence in encouraging a non-physi-
cal view of God. As God is formless, no images can be made (Deut.
4: 15-18).
If God has no physical form and no image may be made of him,
it is hard to see how any Biblical writer, least of all the Priestly
author, would have understood the O'i1';~ O';~ as representing a
corporeal resemblance to God. P plays down anthropomorphism in
his theophanies, and he excludes mediatory beings such as angels.
Furthermore he veils the manifestations of God by the concept of the
"::J::l. 52
Consequently, it is highly unlikely that the image of God in Gen.
1 is intended as a corporeal likeness i.e. man's appearance is the same
as God's. There is only one way that God is imaged in the Old
Testament and that is through man. God is not imaged in a fixed
object but in living persons; images which God has himself made. 53
In contrast to Gunkel, H.H. Rowley puts forward a completely
different understanding of the image. He writes, "In the teaching of
the Old Testament God is nowhere conceived of as essentially of
human form. Rather he is conceived of as pure spirit, able to assume
a form rather than as having in himself a physical form". 54 Perhaps
the notion of "pure spirit" is difficult to read out of the Old Testa-
ment, but he is right to see that the Old Testament does not view
God as having a human form.
Rowley continues his discussion by interpreting the divine image
as humanity's spiritual nature; that is what distinguishes it from the
lower creation. The animals do not share in a kinship with God. 55
Yet Rowley's alternative is not entirely satisfactory since the argu-
ment for either spiritual or physical interpretations should not be
pushed too far in either direction, whether one sides with Gunkel or
Rowley. The whole person-mind, body, soul and spirit-is in the
image. Man is not an animated body, a soul enclosed in a shell, as
found in some Greek thought. In Hebrew thought, man is a psycho-

51 J. Barr, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism", in G.W. Anderson et alii,

Cowess Volume, SVT 7 (Leiden, 1960), pp. 31-38, p. 38.
5 Eichrodt (1959), p. 274 = (1961), p. 408; (1961), p. 79 = (1967), p. 124.
53 Brueggemann (1982), pp. 31ff.
54 Rowley (1956), pp. 75ff.
55 Rowley (1956), pp. 78ff.
190 THE IMAGE OF GOD

somatic unity, a totality of which mind, body, soul and spirit are
different aspects. The body is the living form of the self, the expres-
sion of our existence and medium of our spiritual and personallife. 56
The whole man is in the image, mind, body, soul andspirit. 57 A far
higher value is set on the body in Hebrew than in Greek thought.
God's representative in the world is a unity of both spiritual and
physical aspects of humanity.
As it would seem unlikely that the human body is a direct likeness
to God, it is probable that the image consists in man's function.
There are, however, other interpretations of the imago Dei which
seem to fit awkwardly with Gen. 6-9.
First, the suggestion of S.R. Driver that the image of God is found
in humanity's intellectual powers, in particular self conscious rea-
son,58 is plausible in view of Noah's construction of the ark. How-
ever, as we noted, the image includes the whole of man not just his
mind.
Secondly, the claim that the image consists in moral likeness is also
open to doubt,59 even though the emphasis in Gen. 6-9 on the con-
trast between human sin and the righteousness of Noah might sug-
gest an ethical interpretation of the image.
The chief problem with this is that the entry of sin into the world
does not seem to annul the image. Sinful man is as much in the
image as those created in Gen. I. Gen. 9:6 envisages no loss, and
moreover it is mentioned in the context of a story about the total
corruption of creation. Gen. 1-9 sees the whole human race in the
divine image. Cl'~ refers to the species not just to the first pair. The
image is something possessed by all mankind, not just the chosen
people who are called to be God's holy race. We should agree that
correct moral behaviour is a part of the image; man is to exercise
dominion in accord with God's law, (this he had failed to do before
the deluge (Gen. 6: 11-13)), but it would appear that the essence of
the image is to be found elsewhere.
Thirdly, cultic interpretations also seem unlikely. Given the im-
portance of holiness in P, is the imago Dei to be found in the cultic
sphere? Mettinger writes, "The similarity between man and his pro-
totype must lie in the common function of offering songs of praise to
the Creator in the earthly and heavenly Temple".60 Like man, angels

56 Eichrodt (1961), p. 98 = (1967), p. 149.

57 Von Rad (1958), p. 45 = (1963), p. 56. See also Vriezen (1943), p. 99.
58 Driver (1926), pp. I5ff.
59 A. Dillmann, Die Genesis (Leipzig, 1892), p. 32 is similar to Driver but he
ar~es that part of the image consisted in man's capacity for the good and the true.
a Mettinger (1974), p. 411 as translated by Jonsson (1988), p. 155.
 IS THE IMAGE A CORPOREAL RESEMBLANCE TO GOD? 191

are depicted as ruling over creation (Deut. 32:8), and man is made
for communion with God.
Mettinger's analysis is not without difficulty. W. Gross describes
the parallel between the creation of man and the sanctuary as a
modern abstraction foreign to P. Moreover P does not use the word
r1':l:m in Gen.l, as he does in Exod. 25,61 which one would expect if
a link is being made between the two passages. The context of Gen.
1 is universal whereas the cult was a specifically Israelite phenom-
enon. As far as P is concerned there is no cult in the period between
Adam and Sinai; the cult is for Israel not all mankind. The key to the
image is not to be found in the cultic sphere. 62 Worship is only
possible through the revelation of God at Sinai, where cult with all its
trappings begins. For P there is no cultic activity between God and
Noah. There are of course cultic aspects to P in Gen. 1-11 (1: 14, 2: 1-
3, 9:4), but these are not developed until Sinai. There is no cult
before Sinai in P. Furthermore, there are no appearances of angels in
P. Whilst cultic activity between God and Israel may be a part of the
image, we should suggest that it is not the most significant factor.
A fourth possibility which has commanded attention in recent
times is that the image is found in man's personal relationship with
God. It might be suggested that this is true for P in the flood; Noah
is God's counterpart in dialogue. Of all the creatures in the story it is
only man with whom God communicates face to face. Noah receives
his instructions direcdy from God and it is through him that the
covenant of Gen. 9 is set up. Man receives specific moral commands,
and, of all the creatures which are made in Gen. 1, he is the only one
who is addressed direcdy by God (1 :28) "And God blessed them and
God said to them ... ". In 1:22 God blesses the birds and aquatic
animals, but he does not speak to them direcdy. The blessing is part
of the statement, not a direct address. In 1:28-30 the animals are
referred to in the third person plural. In 1:28ff man is summoned to
a special relationship with God, which the non-human world does
not share.
There have been many who have argued that the essence of the
divine image is to be found in a personal relationship with God, not
in any human quality. Procksch stated that the divine image con-
sisted in the personality of man and his unique ability to comprehend
the person of God: both God and man share personhood as a char-
acter trait. 63 It is Barth who has had such a major emphasis with this

61 Gross (1981), p. 254.

62 Gross (1981), pp. 256ff.
63 O. Procksch, Die Genesis iibersetz und eklart (Leipzig, 1924), p. 449 andJ6nsson
(1988), p. 31.
192 THE IMAGE OF GOD

interpretation. Man is created to correspond to God, to stand before

him in the relationship of an I-Thou. 54
With such a body of opinion backing this interpretation, it might
seem attractive. But there are problems. Gross has argued that it is
not in accord with the intentions of the Priestly writer in his ancient
context. He rejects the idea that the image is man's ability to answer
God, since in P men do not speak to God before Gen. 17:18. It is
when God reveals his name that people respond: 17:1, 35:11, Exod.
6:2. 65 Indeed Noah never speaks!
Barth is right to say that the image is found in male and female,
but whether the relationship between male and female is paralleled
in the I-Thou in God is more doubtful. We shall discuss this further
below.
Further, the word "JJ::J, used of the relationship between husband
and wife in 2: 18, 20, would have been suitable for Barth's interpreta-
tion of the image. But it is not the word used; "JJ::J means "what is in
front of", "corresponding to"66 and it is unlikely that this is the same
as Cl?~::l.67
It is true that covenant plays an important part in the story of the
flood. Could it be that man is created to be God's covenant partner?
Is it significant that after the making of the first covenant the term
"image of God" is not used? Before 9:8 the Bible talks of imago Dei,
after that, 'covenant' is the concept which is employed. Is it the case
that once man is in the covenant the term Cl'i1?~ Cl"~ is redundant?
The problem with this rather attractive idea is that the covenant
in Gen. 9 is made with all the created order and not just man. It
.cannot.be said that covenant is exclusively human in the way that the
Image IS.
Attractive though the above views are, they do not seem to be
quite in accord with P.

5. Man's Dominion Over Creation

Each of the above interpretations may reflect an aspect of the image
but none are free from difficulty in explaining its essence. The one
aspect of the divine-human, and human-animal relationship which is

64 Barth (1945), p. 219 = (1958), pp. 195ff. A similar position is adopted by F.

Horst, "Face to Face: the Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God", Interpretation 4
(1950), pp. 259-270, p. 264, Eichrodt (1961), pp. 79ff = (1967), pp. 125ff and
Westermann (1974), pp. 197-228 = (1984), pp. 142-165.
65 Gross (1981), p. 57.
66 BDB p. 617.
67 Sawyer (1974), p. 422.
 MAN'S DOMINION OVER CREATION 193

stated in the context of the image is the dominion over creation. This
is more closely associated with the image than anything else in the
Priestly document. Is humanity's authority over creation a conse-
quence of the image, as Barth and Horst68 have argued, or is it the
essence of the image?
Given the importance of dominion in Gen. 1:26ff, it is hardly
surprising that there have been those who have argued that the im-
age consists in human rule over creation. It does seem that "", in
I :26 has final force. There are two possible ways of taking the word.
First, there is the translation of W. Gross "so that they ... ", i.e. man
is created to rule. He argues that the functional meaning is the only
one known to P. Man is not God's image because of the possession of
a quality, but he is God's image in so far as he is empowered to rule
over the created order. In the era of creation and deluge the focus is
not on the divine-human relationship, but on man's relation to the
animal kingdom. The phrase "image of God" is functional. 69
Secondly, "", could also be a jussive with a final force: "Let
them rule". Clines argues that dominion is so immediate that it is
almost a constitutive part of the image. He renders Gen. I :26 as "Let
us make man as our image ... so that they may rule" (waw joining
two jussives with final force for the second).70 The discussion of do-
minion in the context of blessing in I :28 does not mean that domin-
ion is merely consequential. Similarly in 1:6 "Let there be a firma-
ment in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from
the waters" (RSV) (two coordinating jussives and a single waw).
There are two commandments but not two acts of creation. The
firmament in being a firmament is already separating the waters. The
second part of 1:6 is not just a consequence of 1:6a but draws out its
permanent significance. Compare 1: 16ff "And God made the two
great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to
rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the
firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over
the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the dark-
ness" (RSV). We do not have here an initial act and its conse-
quences, as though the making preceded the setting. The act of crea-
tion of the sun and the moon includes within it the purpose which
they are to serve. Their function in giving light is not the same as
their creation and placing them in the heavens, but they cannot be

68 Horst (1950), pp. 262ff; Barth (1945), p. 210 = (1958), pp. 187ff; von Rad
(1958), p. 46 = (1963), p. 57.
69 Gross (1981), pp. 259ff.
70 Clines (1968), p. 96; see also Schmidt (1967), p. 142.
194 THE IMAGE OF GOD

defined without their role as lights. No definition of the Image IS

complete without rulershipJI
Both Gross' and Clines' interpretations are possible, and it is hard
to know which is more likely. Perhaps it does not matter which one
we choose so long as we retain a final force for ""l
Man is created
as the image so that he may rule. The text of both creation and flood
focuses on human dominion, and as far as P is concerned this is the
most significant factor of humanity as the image of God.
As above, it is highly likely that the Ancient Near Eastern descrip-
tion of the king is in the background. As 1. Engnell has argued, in line
with his interest in sacral kingship, man is enthroned as ruler of the
cosmos in Gen. 1.12 The king for Israel was Yahweh's representative,
through whom blessing was mediated to the people (Ps. 72:1-4). The
title 'God' was even used for the king (Isa.9:5(6)) - a functional not
ontological idea, which reflected man as God's representative. Man,
like the king, is entrusted with God's authority.73 There are clear
parallels between man's rule and that of the king. Man only has
dominion because he is in the image and being in the image means
he is ruler. In both flood and creation God is presented as the sover-
eign creator and Lord of all that exists, but he establishes man as his
vice-gerent, his representative. Man is king of the earth.
This differs enormously from other Ancient Near Eastern
cosmologies in which man is created to be a servant of the gods to do
their work. The Atrahasis Epic puts it like this:
Create a human to bear the yoke.
Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil,
Let man carry the load of the gods. 74
In Genesis, on the other hand, man is created to be God's image, as
Clines writes:
to deputise in the created world for the transcendent God who remains
outside the world order. That man is God's image means that he is the
visible corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God; he is repre-
sentative rather than representation, since the idea of portrayal is second-
ary in the significance of the image. . .. The image is to be understood
not so much ontologically as existentially: it comes to expression not in

71 Clines (1968), pp. 96ff.

72 I. Engnell, "'Knowledge' and 'Life' in the Creation Story", in M. Noth and D.
Winton Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient NeaT East SVT 3 (Leiden, 1955),
pp. 103-119 esp. p. 112. See also Jonsson (1988), pp. 126-131.
73 Wildberger (1965), pp. 256fI
74 Quoted in Clines (1968), pp. 99.
 MAN'S DOMINION OVER CREATION 195

the nature of man so much as in his activity and function. This function
is to represent God's lordship to the lower orders of creation. 75
There is a tension between God's immanence in the world and his
transcendence. God stands over and above the world, which he has
brought into existence. He manifests his presence in the world
through man who is his image. God's immanence and transcendence
are held together without divinizing man. Man is the continuity be-
tween God and his world. 76 Man the image, images the creator's use
of power.
The nature of human rule over creation can be seen in the two
verbs n" and tD:J:J. The expressions are strong: n" can mean
'tread', tD:J:J 'stamp'. In 1 Kgs. 9:23 n" is used offorced labour; in
Joel 4: 13 it is employed for the treading of a winepress. In Lev. 26: 17
and Num. 24: 19 the verb means 'subdue', and is used of the king's
dominion in 1 Kgs. 5:4, Ps. 72:8, 110:2 and Ezek. 34:4. Man's rule
over the animals reflects Israel's theology of kingship.77
The verb tD:J:J also belongs to this area of subordination and domi-
nation. It is used of the subjection of slaves (Ter. 34: 11, 16, Neh.5:5),
and ofland brought under subjugation (Num. 32:22, 29,Josh. 18:1).
Despite these uses of the verb in such harsh contexts, there is no
hint of humanity exploiting the natural world. Man is created to rule
over creation justly. Though it can be used for exploitation, the pri-
mary meaning of the word n" is 'govern'. Its connection in Ps. 72:8
with the king is clearly not a licence to exploit. The word describes
the relation of a lord or ruler to those under him. The term is not just
used for kings, and it can be used of a master and his slave (e.g. Lev.
25:43). Used on its own the verb n" need have no violent connota-
tion. If the writer means a violent or harsh rule, he qualifies the verb
with a term such as l'E):J (e.g. Lev. 25:43, 46, 53).78 In Gen. 1 n"
means 'govern' or 'rule'. There is no permission for cruelty or exploi-
tation. tD:J:J is a stronger term, but it is used of the earth in Gen. I not
of the animals. The idea is of agriculture and settlement. 79
Further, concern for animals is found in many parts of the Bible:
Deut. 25:4, Isa. 11, Hos. 2: 18ff, Jonah 4: 11, Ps. 36:7 (6) and Provo
12:10; man is to appreciate nature which is inherently good, and

75 Clines (1968), p. 1Ol.

76 Clines (1968), p. 88.
n Wildberger (1965), p. 259.
78 See Riltersworden (1993), especially pp. 81-102. Riitersworden seeks to inter-
pret human dominion in its ancient near eastern context.
79 J. Barr, "Man and Nature: the Ecological Controversy and the Old Testa-
ment", BJRL 55 (1972), pp. 9-32, pp. 21ff and Houston (1993), pp. 254fI For
discussions of the link between Gen. 1 and ecology seeJ6nsson (1988), pp. 178-191
and B.W. Anderson, "Creation and Ecology", in Anderson, (1984), pp. 152-17l.
196 THE IMAGE OF GOD

humans are to partake of God's ongoing work. It must be remem-

bered that man is vegetarian in Gen. 1 (we discussed this in Chapter
6), and permission to eat meat is given later in 9:2ff. In the world of
Genesis 1 there is to be no taking of life or exploitation. Humanity is
to rule in peace over a harmonious world; this only changes in 9:2ff.
Given humanity's rule over creation, it is not surprising that
judgement is depicted in terms of the letting loose of animals against
man hence undermining his authority (Lev. 26:21ffcf Deut.7:22, 2
Kgs. 17:25, Isa. 34:11, Ezek. 14:15). Human sin frequently leads to
the disruption of human dominion in creation. As humanity in Gen.
6 becomes corrupted by violence, so it loses its rightful dominion as it
is engulfed in the waters of the flood. In Num. 13:32 the relationship
of humanity to the earth is turned on its head, as the land devours its
inhabitants. 8o In Deut. 28:26 human bodies are given to beasts for
food,81 and in Hos. 4: 1-3 human sin leads to devastation in the
natural world. 82 Such concepts show humanity's close relationship
with the created order.
The theme of dominion is picked up in Ps. 8 which seems to offer
a commentary on Gen. 1. The term Cm?tI; t:J?~ is not used and it is
hard to tell which is the earlier text. The idea of dominion is clear:
"Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him
with glory and honour. Thou hast given him dominion over the
works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep
and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the
fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea" (RSV).
Opinion is divided over whether this is an earlier or later stage in the
tradition: Barr thinks that Ps. 8 is earlier but Snaith believes it is a
commentary on Gen. l.83 It is impossible to tell who is right but it is
important to notice the exalted status of humanity in relation to the
power and splendour of God. Man is God's vice-gerent who rules
over creation.
At a much later stage this theme is taken up in Ecclus. 17: 1-14.
Again man's authority in creation is given special emphasis 17:2. "He
gave to men few days, a limited time, but granted them authority
over the things upon the earth" (RSV). But under Hellenistic tenden-
cies he develops the idea beyond that found in Genesis. 17: 7 "He
filled them with knowledge and understanding, and showed them
good and evil" (RSV)-somewhat different from Gen. 3!

80 Riiterswbrden (1993), pp. 1-9.

81 Riitersworden (1993), pp. 721T.
82 Riitersworden (1993), pp. 56-67.
83 Barr (1968), p. 12; N.H. Snaith, "The Image of God", ET91 (1979-1980), p. 20
 MAN'S DOMINION OVER CREATION 197

In short P sees human dominion over creation as the most impor-

tant aspect of the image of God in man. All humanity partakes of it.
Man is God's vice-gerent on earth. Given this functional interpreta-
tion, it seems that :J in Gen. 1:26 is likely to be beth essentiae. The
concept of the image appears to be describing man's role, what he is
created to be and do. Man is made as the image of God rather than
in the image.
This interpretation of the imago Dei seems to be supported by the
story of the flood. We have noted that authority over life and man's
proper place in the world is a theme in these chapters. Gen. 1:26
defines the appropriate nature of humanity in the world. Gen. 6-9
demonstrates misuse of the rule which the image confers on man. In
6: 12 all flesh had corrupted their way by violence; they had abused
the dominion which was entrusted in 1:26ff. Man had overstepped
the boundaries which had been set by God, and the cause of the
flood is a corruption of the image. The theme of creation, uncreation
and re-creation testifies to God's authority over life, which is his
alone, and is not to be seized by man. The image confers authority
but not total authority. In the post-diluvian world man's dominion is
specified still further by defining his authority over life; he may eat
meat but not the blood, and the killing of humans is outlawed except
as punishment for murder. Consequently humanity's powers as vice-
gerent and image are strengthened. In the context of the flood where
dominion is so important it is not surprising that the imago Dei is
introduced, since that is the classic expression of man's rule in crea-
tion. If the image is in essence man's rule over creation, it is right for
it to be placed as the basis for the prohibition of murder and the
authority which is conferred by God to execute the manslayer, since
the power to take the life of one's fellows is not entrusted to man.
Further Noah, the righteous man, provides an excellent example of
right dominion by his taking of the animals into the ark, and his
refusal to partake of oppression.
Whilst human reproduction continues the species, it would be
unwise to see the image as being handed down physically. Gunkel
interpreted it this way on the basis of 5:lff. 84 There is, though, a
difference between creation by God and begetting by Adam. Seth is
born in Adam's likeness not God's. Rather it is the whole of human-
ity which partakes of the divine image; it is not something handed
down. Man as man is the image. 85

84 Gunkel (1910), p. 112.

85 Horst (1950), p. 263 after Barth (1945), pp. 216, 222ff = (1958), p. 193, 198;
contrast G. von Rad, "Et1CcOV", 1WNT2, (1935), pp. 388ff = 1DNT 2 (1964), p.
391.
198 THE IMAGE OF GOD

Finally, Gen. 6-9 still envisage the whole of humanity, male and
female, as being in the image of God. In the flood it is not just Noah
who is saved but his family, wives as well as husbands. The deliver-
ance through the flood is worked out not just through Noah but
through his whole family (6: 18). Humanity's existence is grounded in
mankind as male and female in both creation and flood. The term
t:l,~ 'man', 'mankind' in 9:6 is generic and is never used in the plural.
The significance of the image is worked out through both sexes.
The plural verbs "", and i1iD~:l' 1:26, 28 show that it is not just
one man but the whole human race, male and female, which is
included in the image and its dominion. There can be no question of
an androgynous being: the duality of male and female is there from
the start, in harmony not antithesis. There does not appear to be any
sense of subordination of women and any possible difference in roles
is not explored, as it is in chapter 2.86
On the other hand the text does not speak of sexuality in God.
The Old Testament and especially the accounts of creation and flood
(see Chapter 4) portray God as different in kind from his creation
and the beings whom he has made. God is not mortal, and he does
not reproduce in the way that humans do. Whilst terms such as
Father and King are common designations for God, this does not
mean that he is thought of as an exclusively male deity. Indeed the
Old Testament can at times employ female metaphors for God: e.g.
Deut. 32:18, Isa. 42:14 and Ps. 123:2. 87 The image of God is found
in both men and women.

6. Does Gen. 6-9 Help us to Understand the Divine Plural in Gen. 1:26?
There have been several explanations of the unusual plural i1tD.!1J in
Gen. 1:26.
First, it has been suggested that there is here a fragment of myth.
The text could be read as the address of one god to another. An
Assyrian text runs:
What (else) shall we do?
What (else) shall we create?

86 For discussions from a feminist perspective see P.A. Bird, "Male and Female
He Created Them: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priesdy Account of Creation",
HTR 74 (1981), pp. 129-159; P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric r!fSexuali!'J (Philadelphia,
1978), and M.C. Horowitz, "The Image of God: is Woman Included?", HTR 72
(1979), pp. 175-206.
87 Trible (1978), esp. pp. 22ff.
 DOES GEN. 6-9 HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE DIVINE PLURAL 199

Let us slay (two) Lamga gods,

With their blood let us create mankind. 88
Yet this is an unsatisfactory interpretation for Gen. 1; all other traces
of polytheism are removed, and the passage places a great emphasis
on the sovereignty of God alone in creation. Similarly in the account
of the deluge there is the one sovereign God who rules unaided (see
Chapter 4). Surely in view of the monolatry ofIsrael the writer knew
that he was using the plural? This is not a piece of discarded mythol-
ogy;89 God's sovereignty rules out lesser deities.
Secondly, there have been some, such as Maimonides, who have
argued that God is addressing the earth so that it would bring forth
man out of the dust. Naturally this would form a good parallel to
Gen. 2, but it is awkward for Gen. 1. The earth is spoken of in the
third person in 1:24, and in I :27 God alone is the creator. 90
A third possibility is that Gen. 1:26 has a plural of majesty. Driver
opts for this interpretation as the idea is to convey a solemn occa-
sion. 91 Yet there are no certain examples. Gen. 11: 7 "Come, let us go
down, and there confuse their language" (RSV) is a possibility, but it
could be ironic mockery of 11:4 "Come, let us build ourselves a city"
(RSV). The plural in Is. 6 probably refers to the heavenly court.
Some see a plural of majesty in Ezra 4: 18, "the letter which you sent
to us has been plainly read before me" (RSV) , but 'us' probably
refers to the court and 'me' means me personally. Sometimes Cl'i1'?toI:
takes a plural verb. Gen. 20: 13 "God caused me to wander" 'l)r1i1,
but this could be out of deference to Abimelech's polytheistic views.
The lack of parallels makes a plural of majesty unlikely.92
A fourth interpretation is to see I :26 as an address to the divine
beings in the heavenly court as found in Isa. 6 and 1 Kgs. 22: 19fT.
Von Rad argues that the plural prevents too close an identification
between the image and God, since there is likeness to the angels as
well. 93
Sawyer notes that a reference to angels would not be out of place
in a fifth century document. He renders 1:27 as "So God created
man with a resemblance to himself; with a resemblance to divine
beings He created him".94

88 Heidel (1963), pp. 69£f.

89 Clines (1968), p. 64.
90 Clines (1968), pp. 64ff.
91 Driver (1926), p. 14. See GK124 g-l.
92 Clines (1968), pp. 65ff.
93 Von Rad (1958), pp. 45ff = (1963), p. 57.
94 Sawyer (1974), p. 423.
200 THE IMAGE OF GOD

Yet this interpretation seems unlikely. Man would be made in the

image of the angels and he would have been created by them-
something which the singular verb of 1:27a rejects. There has been
no reference to the heavenly court in the chapter, 'and there is no
other part of P where either it or angels are mentioned. 95
The Old Testament consistently portrays creation as an act of
God. The sequence of creation, uncreation and re-creation in the
story of the flood shows that it is God alone who is the sovereign
creator. There are no intermediary beings of any sort in 6:5-9: 19.
Gen. 9:6 uses a singular verb; God made man in his own image. In
1:26 those addressed are summoned to act and create, but they are
not angels. Even if Ps. 8 does refer to a heavenly court, this does not
mean there has to be one in Gen. 1.96 It is unlikely that angels are
involved in Gen. 1:26.
There is a fifth interpretation which is possible, but hardly free
from problems: duality in the Godhead. Barth has given a classic
interpretation along these lines which is not far removed from a
Trinitarian interpretation. He writes, "An approximation to the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity '" is both nearer to the text and
does it more justice than the alternative suggested by modern ex-
egesis in its arrogant rejection of the exegesis of the early church". 97
Between the persons in the Deity there is an I-Thou relationship
which corresponds to the I-thou between man and woman. "It is not
palpable that we have to do with a clear and simple correspondence,
an analogia relationis, between this mark of the divine being, namely
that it includes an I and a Thou, and the being of man male and
female".98
Barth's interpretation is, as Stamm has pointed out, out of step
with the Old Testament. He is reading back Trinitarian beliefs. 99
A more plausible suggestion is that of Clines who argues that God
is addressing his Spirit. The Spirit is at work in 1:2 (and in other
passages which speak of creation such as Ps. 104:30 and Job 33:4) as
an agent of creation. The Spirit is sometimes depicted as separate
from Yahweh (e.g. the Spirit of the Lord in Judges), but is not the
personal Spirit of the New Testament. The Spirit is also God and this
is why there is a transition from a singular to plural in 1:26ff. 100

95 Schmidt (1967), p. 129; Clines (1968), p. 66.

96 Clines (1968), pp. 66ff. .
97 Barth (1945), p. 216 = (1958), p. 192.
98 Barth (1945), p. 220 = (1958), p. 196.
99 JJ. Stamm, "Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft", in E. Wolff (ed), Anlwort Festscluifl K.Barth (Zurich, 1956), pp. 84-98, p. 93.
100 Clines (1968), p. 69.
 GOD, MAN AND THE ANIMALS 201

This interpretation is open to the same criticism as that of Barth's,

but it is also undermined if n'i in 1:2 is rendered 'wind', which suits
the parallel with 8: l.lOl
A sixth interpretation is that God is addressing himself-a self
deliberation. In English we have a first person plural 'Let us go' .102
jouon 114e gives several examples including Gen. 11 :7, 37: 17, Deut.
13:2 and Ps.2:3. Westermann compares the oscillation between sin-
gular and plural in 2 Sam. 24: 14 "let us fall into the hand of the
LORD, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of
man" (RSV). He concludes that the plural of deliberation in the
cohortative is a sufficient explanation. I03 Clines compares Song of
Songs 1:9ff where the lover speaks in the first person plural "let us
make ornaments" .104 "Let us" in Gen. 1 is an idiomatic way of ex-
pressing self deliberation. Whilst it is not without problems (not least
because the examples cited by jouon, Westermann and Clines take
plural subjects), this option is to be preferred because it is compara-
tively free of disadvantages. We believe that the likely interpretation
of the plural is one of self deliberation, particularly in the light of the
various indications from the account of the flood. I05 This option is
not free from difficulty, but it has fewer problems than the others.
At best we can only be agnostic on this point. Nevertheless what-
ever option we choose, it does not alter our interpretation of the
image in terms of humanity's rule over creation. That is clear how-
ever the plural is interpreted.

7. God, Man and the Animals

Having offered a study of humanity's role as God's image in the
world, it is necessary to note that there are other comparisons be-
tween the properties of God, man and the animals in Gen. 1-9 which
help specifY the divine-human relationship, in particular man's part
in creation. Humanity is still different from God, despite the exalted
status of the image. Man dies but God does not; God creates and re-
creates, but humans do not. The word ~iJ is used of God alone, but
iltD.IJ is used of both humans and God. Man eats and reproduces (9:1-
7) but God does neither. Both God and man see, hear and speak.

101 Wenham (1987), p. 28.

102 Discussed by Koehler (1948), p. 22.
103 Westermann (1974), pp. 200ff = (1984), p. 145.
104 Clines (1968), p. 68 cf Schmidt (1967), p. 130.
105 See GK 108, 124g, p. 398 note 2.
202 THE IMAGE OF GOD

The primary area of similarity is in humanity's imaging of God in the

rule over creation. 106
Further, the flood makes a clear distinction between man and the
animals. His rule over them is seen in gathering them into the ark.
Man's technical ability is supreme; he responds to language and in-
struction, and he comprehends moral values (9: 1-7). It is through
man that the purposes of God are worked out in history; it is by
Noah that the world is delivered from disaster. 107 The role of human-
ity as the image makes a clear distinction between humans and ani-
mals.
Nevertheless it should be recalled that humanity is still rooted in
nature. Like the creatures he has sexual differentiation, he can repro-
duce himself, is herbivorous and has a body. Both have the breath of
life (7: 15) and man is created after the animals on the sixth day. In
view of these similarities are animals portrayed as sentient beings in
the Old Testament with a conscious purpose, as R. Bauckham has
suggested in the light of Gen. 3:1-5, Num. 22:28-30 andJob 39:16-
18? Writers even speak of animals as conscious of God: Job 38:41, Ps.
104:21, 27.108
Whilst we must be wary of reading back modern day rationalism,
the examples Bauckham takes are not all that clear. Gen. 3 and
Num. 22 are legendary and it would be unwise to deduce too much
from them about the consciousness of animals. The ostrich ofJob 39
does not partake of wisdom at all. The statements of Job 38:41, Ps.
104:21, 27 are made from the perspective of the writer who under-
stands God as the provider of all things necessary for life. Conse-
quently this is not necessarily conscious prayer as understood by hu-
mans. The writer may have observed animals crying for food and
likened it to prayer. There is also the distinctive way in which man is
created. The waters bring forth living creatures (1 :20), as does the
earth (1:24), but man alone is created from the divine realm.
It must also be recalled that, according to the flood, morality
seems to play a part in the animal world as well as in the human
(6: llfl): all flesh was corrupting its way before God. Moral restraint is
also expected from the beasts 9:5 "of every beast I will require it and
of man" (RSV)-compare Exod. 21:28-36. It is the image of God,
humanity's rule in creation, which distinguishes man from the ani-

106 Sawyer (1974), pp. 424ff and Wenham (1987), p. 32.

107 See a more general discussion in H.L. Creager, "The Divine Image", in
Bream (ed.), (1974), pp. 103-118.
108 R. Bauckham, "First Steps to a Theology of Nature", EQ,58 (1986), pp. 229-
244 esp. pp. 231ff.
 GENESIS 9:6 203

mals and not just moral responsibility; this makes moral interpreta-
tions of the image unlikely. As Jobling notes, "Gen. 1 and Ps 8 in
their present form present a dialectical tension between humanity's
supreme dignity over and radical oneness with the rest of crea-
tion". I09 By being in the image greater moral demands are placed on
man's rule over creation.

8. Genesis 9:6
It is the doctrine of the imago Dei which forms the basis of the
prohibition of murder in Gen. 9. J.M. Miller has asked what the
connection is between being made in the image and shedding blood.
He notes the assonance between ~, and ~,~. If m~' is substituted
for ~'?~, there is a further assonance to ~,. He argues that in the pre-
Priestly text there was an old saying which prohibited murder on the
grounds that man is made in the m~' of God. ~'?~ was later substi-
tuted for m~' and placed alongside rno, in Gen. 1. ~'?~ clarifies the
primary term m~'.
The reason for this, Miller argues, is to do with the similarity of~'
and m~'. According to the Mesopotamian view man was created
with divine blood. 110 There is only a slight change if n'~'J is
changed to '~'J or '~'J. The term ~'?~ was more useful because it
is a more concrete word than m~' and, as far as Gen. 9 is con-
cerned, it removed any hint of divine blood flowing in human veins.
The stages in the tradition were as follows:
1) There was an old legal saying which prohibited the shedding of hu-
man blood on the grounds that man is made in the likeness of God.
2) Second Isaiah and Ezekiel use the word me, with reference to God's
appearance.
3) The Priesdy account was markedly different from other Ancient Near
Eastern stories. Man is not derived from divine blood but from divine
likeness, which is passed from generation to generation. There is a
radical rejection of the idea that God made man with his own blood.
4) To avoid the confusion ofc, and mr.n, the term c?~ was introduced
and added to Gen. 9. 111
Miller's suggestion is hypothetical. No doubt P wished to eschew any
idea that man was made with God's blood, but there is no real
evidence to suggest that n'~' was prior to ~'?~. Both ~'?~ and m~'

109 D. Jobling, "Dominion Over Creation", IDBS pp. 247-8, p. 248.

110 See W.G. Lambert, "A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis",
]TSNS 16 (1965), pp. 285-300.
III Miller (1972), pp. 299-304. See also S. Abir, "Denn im Bilde Gottes machte er
den Menschen (Gen. 9:6 P)", TG 2 (1982), pp. 79-88.
204 THE IMAGE OF GOD

could have been used simultaneously, and this is all the more likely in
view of the fact which we noted earlier that the latter word clarifies
the former in 1:26. Moreover we are bound to interpret the text as it
now stands, rather than on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis. As
we have seen, if man is to be God's representative in the world, it is
Cl'?~ rather than mOi which is the more significant term; mOi speci-
fies Cl'?~, not the other way round. Hence it appears unlikely that
mOi was original to Gen. 9:6.
The prohibition of murder is grounded in the fact that God made
man in his own image. It declares that God has sovereign control
over human life and it is because of this sovereignty that the issue is
raised in the story of the flood. By murder, man affronts the authority
of God and grasps at what is not his to take. Man does not have the
right to take the life of his fellows; that belongs to God alone. Homi-
cide reverses the Creator's will for the continuation of life on earth
(9: 1, 7). The image of God is the living, personal representative of the
true and living God. It is in life, not death, that the image is manifest
and that God is presented to the world. God cannot be represented
in a lifeless object (Exod. 20:4, 34: 17), but only in a living human
being. To kill is to destroy the image which God has set up.
It is here that we come to the crucial point. The story of the
deluge does not teach that human life is valuable in and of itself.
Rather the value of human life is found in its relation to God through
the image. Human existence is much more than bare life; it is the
representation of God in the world and interaction with other people.
It is because man is made as the image of God that life is never to be
taken; it is people who are sacred not life itself. I 12 The relationship
between God and man must not be broken. It is the image of God
which is to be preserved; this can only be done through a living
person.
Many of the suggestions concerning the image contained elements
of truth. If man is killed, he is unable to have a relationship in
dialogue with his maker. Nor is he able to have spiritual communion
or respond in cultic or ethical obedience. If man dies, he loses his
relationship with God. But, as we saw above, it is the notion of
dominion which is central to the Priestly writer's thought. If man is
killed, the proper government of creation is jeopardized. Creation
can only be governed by living humans.
con is the infringement of the dignity of others-violence against
people rather than property. The imago Dei confers on man dignity

112 For a discussion of the ethical implications of this see C. Berry, The Rites ifLifi:
Christians and Bio-Medical Decision Making (London, 1987), p. 146.
 READING J AND P TOGETHER 205

and authority which is not given to the rest of the created order.
Murder is an attack on the dignity of the Cl'i1'?~ Cl'?~-or.:ln is an
affront to the image of God, not just to human life.

9. Reading] and P Together

Is our understanding of the imago Dei altered at all by reading both
the sources of Gen. 1-11 as a unity?
First, the notion of dominion is put in a particular light with Noah
sending forth the raven and the dove (8:6-12). The call to subdue the
earth is emphasized by the mention of seedtime and harvest in 8:22.
The rest of Gen. 1-11 also develops this theme. Gen. 2 shows man
naming the animals and fulfilling his duties of tilling and keeping the
garden (2: 15, 20).ll3 Technological advance and mastery can be seen
in tilling the soil, keeping the sheep (4:2), Enoch's building a city
(4:17), in tent making, cattle rearing (4:20), music making (4:21), the
forging of bronze and iron (4:22), Noah's building ofthe ark (6:14-22)
and wine making (9:18-27). Conversely there is also the attempt of
humanity to grasp too much power to itself as it tries to go beyond
the bounds allotted by God: Cain and Lamech kill; Noah becomes
inebriated, and those at Babel try to build a tower to the heavens for
their own self glorification. The whole narrative, both] and P, works
out the significance of how man is to function in the world.
Secondly, the complete text gives more support to the interpreta-
tions of Barth, Horst and Westermann, concerning the nature of the
imago Dei as the relationship between God and humanity. Not only
does God address man but man also replies. Gen. 3 contains a dia-
logue between God, Adam and Eve, and the following chapter
records a conversation between God and Cain. The use of ClnJ in
Gen. 6 (see Chapter 3) shows God reacting personally to the events of
the world. Further there is sacrificial and cultic activity with God
responding, whether positively or negatively, to the sacrifices of Cain,
Abel and Noah. On a joint reading this could have a bearing on our
understanding of the image. Both sources speak of Noah as in a
special relationship with God (6:8, 9) (see Chapter 2).
Whilst Barth's interpretation becomes a stronger possibility in a
holistic reading of the text, it still remains unlikely, and the dominant
theme remains the idea of dominion, since that is what is mentioned
in the specific context of Gen. 1:26ff, and which is developed in the
account of the flood. Further, even on a joint reading Noah never
speaks, which suggests that Barth's relational interpretation of the

113 See Rutersworden (1993), pp. 26-32.

206 THE IMAGE OF GOD

image is probably out of step with the context of the Old Testament.
As noted above "J:J:l is only used in the malelfemale relationship,
not that between God and man. Dominion is the most significant
factor in the divine image for the writer of Genesis. Man is to repre-
sent God and have authority in creation, and this is worked out in
the complete text, as much as in the Priestly source on its own.
Thirdly, Gen. 3:5 and 22 provide material of interest as they point
to an inappropriate likeness to God. "Behold, the man has become
like one of us, knowing good and evil" (RSV). God seeks to set limits
on humanity's similarity to himself. In rebellion the first couple have
reached out beyond the restrictions imposed by God to the divine
prerogatives of knowledge of good and evil and of eternal life. They
have disrupted their relationship both with God and with the envi-
ronment by trying to be like God in a way which is not permitted.
Like J, P also wishes to limit the likeness to God; dominion needs to
be exercised correctly. In both Gen. 1 and 2 there are restrictions on
man's likeness to God, which are abused thereafter. If read together,
the two texts show that there is a narrow gap between divine likeness
and human arrogance. The appropriate likeness of Gen. 1 is given by
God, that of Gen. 3 is grasped at by human pride. There is a bound-
ary beyond which man must not go.114
Gen. 11 is also an account of human arrogance, as man tries to
grasp at what is not meant to be his. Throughout Gen. 1-11 there is
the problem of the dividing line between the divine and human
worlds. P seeks to exalt as well as to limit man, as does J. When the
two are placed together the correct balance is put into clear focus.
There is a limit to the resemblance between God and humanity. Man
is like God but the nature of this likeness is determined by God. If the
sources are put together, it would seem that the image of God does
not consist in moral awareness of the difference between right and
wrong. Man is made as the image of God before he knows the
difference between good and evil (3:22), but even when he does be-
come like God in this respect he still retains the image (9:6). On a
joint reading it is unlikely that the image consists in man's ability to
distinguish between right and wrong.
Thisis further clarified by the juxtaposition of9:6 and 8:2l. As we
have seen, 8:21 states that man's basic inclination is for evil, yet this
does not seem to alter humanity's status as the image of God. In P
there is no description of what has later come to be called "the fall"
(Gen. 3), but by the time of the deluge, in both accounts, man has

114 Miller (1978), pp. 20-22.

 READING J AND P TOGETHER 207

failed to live up to the demands which were placed upon him in the
creation, whether in Eden or in 1:26ff. Despite human failure, the
image seems to remain intact (9:6). If man remains as God's image
whilst being evil, it is unlikely that the image is to be found in either
man's spiritual or moral likeness to God. Nor can it be said that
knowledge of good and evil is the basis of the image, even though
3:22 speaks of likeness to God, since humans have the image before
and after Gen. 3. The image is positive but the knowledge of good
and evil is negative. Human dominion, which seems to be the basis of
the imago Dei, has to be exercised in a morally responsible way (as it
was not by the wicked generation of Gen. 6), so that there is no
exploitation and the taking of human life. Such righteous behaviour
is an outworking of the role of dominion rather than of the image
itself. Humans are capable of right moral conduct (see Chapter 2),
but this should characterize the way they function rather than be the
essence of the image. Finally, the fact that God still preserves human-
ity in the image, even after the terrible events of the flood and despite
man's evil nature, is a testimony to his mercy and enduring faithful-
ness. Even though man is wicked he is still granted a major part in
the ordering of the world.
When man tries to be too much like God his dominion goes badly
wrong. Fertility, a blessing freely bestowed in Gen. 1, now becomes a
painful process (3:16). Agriculture will be hard work and the ground
will not always respond favourably (3:17-19). The attempt to grasp at
unacceptable likeness to God ends with expulsion from his presence
(3:24). Finally the flood is God's response to humanity which has
ruined its own dominion.
Fourthly, a joint reading of the text means that we must qualifY
von Rad's belief that the imago Dei plays no important role in the
Old Testament and stands only at the margin of its message. I IS Von
Rad was working out his theology in the context of a confrontation
with Nazism and natural theology. He wished to disassociate himself
from any view which sees the image in terms of spiritual endow-
ments. 116 Of course, we must all be aware of our presuppositions,
and the church in England has never faced the kind of persecution
which Barth and von Rad confronted in Nazi Germany.
Another factor in von Rad's thinking is the historical point that P
is a document written late in Israel's history at the time of the Exile.
J antedates P. The imago Dei is of little significance because it came

115 Von Rad (1935), p. 388 = (1964), p. 390.

116 Jonsson (1988), p. 213.
208 THE IMAGE OF GOD

late in the religion of Israel. Read in historical perspective, the image

of God in Man stands at one end of Israel's history.
If one were to read the text as we now have it, in its canonical
form, the creation of man in the image of God is far from insignifi-
cant. The first mention of man in the Bible describes him as the
Cl'i1'?~ Cl'?~, and, if read canonically, the whole of the Old Testa-
ment's understanding of humanity can be seen in this light. The
fundamental characteristic of man is that he is made in the divine
image. Everything else which is said about humanity is read in this
light. In the final form of the text this doctrine is of enormous signifi-
cance. 117

10. Conclusion
To some extent the question of the image of God remains elusive. It
is impossible to be dogmatic as to the precise nature of the image of
God in man, but if our understanding of the story of the flood is
correct, it would seem that man is created as the image of God to
have dominion over creation. It is this rule over the world which is
the most important aspect of the doctrine of the image in the Old
Testament, not just in Gen. I, but also in the story of the flood.
Later Christian Theology has tended towards two contrasting
views of the image. One has argued that the image is something
within the substantial form of human nature-man is the image of
God-that is a being ontology. In contrast there have been those
who have rejected this in favour of a functional, relational interpreta-
tion. The image is humanity's position before God, rather like a
mirror reflecting something. There have also been attempts to syn-
thesize these two interpretations. 118
The Old Testament does not talk in terms of an analogi a entis or
analogia relationis, and the exegete needs to be able to distinguish
between the modern and ancient contexts. If our discussion is cor-
rect, the latter seems to be more in line with the Old Testament.
Man himself is the image of God, and he stands with God in a
relationship of shared dominion. Man relates to God by being his
representative in the world.
Finally, the image of God in humanity speaks of the dignity and
value of human life in its relation to God. God wills the divine-
human relationship to continue. Despite the punishment in the flood

117 For the image of God in the New Testament see Clines (1968), pp. 101-103,
Horst (1950), pp. 268ff.
liB P. Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (London, 1953), pp. 249-284.
 CONCLUSION 209

which was brought because man, by committing oan, had corrupted

the way laid down in 1:26-30, the account of the deluge reveals God
whose will is to maintain, encourage and prosper human life.
 CONCLUSION

As we noted at the beginning of our discussion, the story of the flood

in Genesis 6-9 contains a paradox. On the one hand God destroys
humanity, with the exception of one righteous man and his family;
on the other hand the account speaks of the value of human life in its
relation to God, and the prohibition of murder which ensues. Our
discussion has attempted to show how the Priestly source in particu-
lar is concerned with the question of life's value, and how this is
enhanced by reading the J material with P.
It has been shown that the combination of the two accounts results
in a product which is a new entity. Our study has focused on both J
and P before moving to a united reading of the text. Whilst historical
analysis has been helpful, it has been shown that remaining at the
level ofJ or P is inadequate, since new aspects of meaning, especially
with regard to the value of human life, have been demonstrated
when the text is read as a whole. Despite minor inconsistencies in the
narrative, it does make sense as a unity, and there are many aspects
which have been enhanced by reading the story in this way which
would have been ignored at the level of the postulated sources. Our
study has shown the need to move beyond analysis of sources to a
holistic reading of the text, which is sensitive to its literary, source
critical, theological and canonical aspects.
It has been argued in this book that the story of the flood puts the
question of the value of human life in a suggestive light. At the outset
the flood is caused by DOn, the infringement and oppression of oth-
ers, in particular by the taking of life. Those who are corrupt (nntV)
are destroyed (nntV); there is strict justice since God destroys what has
ruined itself. God's mercy results in the deliverance of one individual
who is righteous; what a man does is significant in the sight of God.
God wills a special relationship with humanity so that it may live in
accordance with his standards. God's judgement is fair; the wicked
are destroyed but the righteous are saved, which makes an intrinsic
link between life and righteousness. Human life is not only about
existence but about life in accordance with the fullness of God's
purpose. Judgement is not given in cold indifference; God's pain at
destruction shows how precious people are to him (6:6). The theme
of creation, uncreation and re-creation demonstrates that God is sov-
ereign over what he has created, as only he has the right to take life.
Whilst he pledges to uphold life by not sending another deluge (8:20-
212 CONCLUSION

22, 9:8-17), he increases his demands on man particularly with re-

gard to the safeguarding of life (9: 1-7). Throughout the story there is
the theme of dominion over life, and man's place as God's vice-
gerent and image in the world, which is in itself a statement of the
worth of humanity.
The story then becomes a parable of God's dominion, and hu-
manity's appropriate relation to God with regard to this. The value
of human life is affirmed, but its value is set in relation to God, rather
than in any aspect of human existence. This is where the specific
Judaeo-Christian understanding of the worth of human life finds its
basis. The story is not about the sacrosanctity of human life, but
about life's value. The story of the flood repudiates exploitation. God
is supreme over all, and humanity is placed under his authority. Man
may kill animals but not his fellows. The story underlines the vast
difference between human and animal life. The non-human world is
there for the benefit of man, and is not to receive as much respect as
humanity, though it is not to be exploited.
Yet this surely begs the question as to why God destroys so many,
if human life is of value to him. Does the destruction in the story
make its claims about life's value a nonsense? Can the command not
to kill have any credibility in the midst of all the loss of life? Such a
question is not easy to answer but three points should be noted from
the context of the story.
First, it must be remembered that the story of creation, uncreation
and re-creation in Gen. 1-11 shows that God is sovereign. He can
destroy what he has created, since creation is his to do with as he sees
fit: "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the
ground" 6:7 (RSV). God is Lord oflife and death in Gen. 1-11. This
is not something which he does arbitrarily; the righteous are deliv-
ered (6:8, 9, 7:1), but the wicked, who through sin have corrupted
(nntV) themselves, are destroyed (nniD). If man separates himself from
God by corrupting the way which was laid down in Gen.1 :26ff (6: 11-
13), he deserves to die. As humanity's value is set in terms of its
relation to God, particularly in terms of the imago Dei, then if man
breaks that relationship by wickedness and corruption, he merits only
death. There is no reason why man should live if he forsakes, God.
This does not cause God pleasure, and the choice to punish is taken
with great reluctance (6:6). Human life is utterly dependent on God
for its maintenance (8:20-22, 9:8-17).
Secondly, the world is corrupt and there is a need to coerce man.
If God did not exert his authority even to the extent of taking life,
then the notion of justice would appear meaningless. If God did not
take steps to rectify a world which was full of oan, then one would
 CONCLUSION 213

have to ask if he himself was just. As God is to uphold the value of life
by punishing those who oppress, so man is to take part in that role
after the flood (9:5£1). God demands that his law be obeyed; there is
a clear injunction to control the world by law which is backed up by
force. Fundamental to the story is the distinction between right and
wrong; the right will be compelled. Order, peace and justice are to be
upheld. If necessary, God will uphold his standards against a human-
ity which rejects its own moral responsibility. God's judgement is just.
Thirdly, the story does not end with judgement. In his mercy God
decides to act with long-suffering mercy and patience. There was one
occasion when God decided to respond to sin with a universal flood,
but that is a course of action which he now rejects. Mercy overrides
judgement. The story is not one of a God who takes delight in killing
(6:6), but of God who decides that mercy will be the basis for his
dealings with the world, even in the face of persistent wickedness. As
God decides to sustain life, humanity is of value to him. Man should
emulate God's reluctance to kill. Hence God's decision to destroy is
ultimately a sign of the value of human life in his eyes, since it shows
his rejection of oppression, and in the end it points to his mercy. The
deluge does not negate the statements of Gen. 9: 1-7.
Whilst this is not the place to go into the hermeneutical implica-
tions of this work, I what we have suggested does have considerable
importance for contemporary debate. Once we see life's value in
terms of its relation to God rather than in any intrinsic human prop-
erty, we enter the realm of personhood. Gen. 6-9 teaches the value of
human personhood in its relation to God and other people, rather
than insisting on the absolute sanctity of life.

1 See Zenger (1983), for a study of P which is sensitive to ecological concerns, For a
discussion of the flood and the nuclear issue see R. Bauckham, "The Genesis Flood
and the Nuclear Holocaust: a Hermeneutical Reflection", Churchman 99 (1985), pp.
146-155.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abir, S., "Denn im bilde Gottes machte er den Menschen (Gen. 9,6 P)", TG 2
(1982), pp. 79-88.
Abu-Assaf, A, Bordreuil, P., and Millard, A.R., La statue de Tell FekJurye et son inscrip-
tion bilingue assyro-arameerme (paris, 1982)
Ackroyd, P.R., Exile and Restoration: A Stutfy qf Hebrew Thought in the Sixth Century BC
(London, 1968)
-, "The Meaning of Hebrew " , Considered", JSS 13 (1968), pp. 3-10.
-, Studies in the Religious Tradition qf the Old Testament (London, 1987).
Aejmelaeus, A., "Function and Interpretation of':::l in Biblical Hebrew", JBL 105
(1986), pp. 193-209.
Alexander, T.D., "Lot's Hospitality: a Clue to His Righteousness", JBL 104 (1985),
pp. 289-291.
Alter, R., The Art qf Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981).
-, The Art qf Biblical Poetry (Edinburgh, 1990).
Anderson, B.W., "The Earth is the Lord's: an Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of
Creation", Interpretation 9 (1955), pp. 3-20.
- , "Creation", IDB 1, pp. 725-732.
- , "A Stylistic Study of the Priesdy Creation Story", in Coats and Long (1977), pp.
148-162.
- , "From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1-11", JBL 97
(1978), pp. 23-29.
-, Creation in the Old Testament (editor) (London, 1984).
, "Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith", in
Anderson (1984), pp. 1-24.
- , "Creation and Ecology" in Anderson (1984), pp. 152-171.
-, Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation qf Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (philadel-
phia, 1987).
Angerstorfer, A, "Hebraisch dmwt und aramrusch dmw(t): Ein Sprachproblem der
Imago-Dei-Lehre", BN24 (1984), pp. 30-43.
Ap-Thomas, D.R., "Some Aspects of the Root I;iNN in the Old Testament", JSS 2
(1957), pp. 128-148.
Asselin, T.D., "The Notion of Dominion in Gen 1-3", CBQ.16 (1954), pp. 277-294.
Barnard, AN., "Was Noah a Righteous Man?", Theology 74 (1971), pp. 311-314.
Barr,]., "The Meaning of Mythology in Relation to the Old Testament", VI' 9
(1959), pp. 1-10.
, "Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament", in G.W.
Anderson et alii, (eds.), Congress Volume Oxford 1959 , SVT 7 (Leiden, 1960), pp.
31-8.
-, The Semantics of Biblical lAnguage (Oxford, 1961).
-, "The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology", BJRL 51
(1968), pp. 11-26.
- , "Man and Nature: The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament", BJRL
55 (1972), pp. 9-32.
-, Fundamentalism (2nd edition, London, 1981).
- , "Ancient Biblical Laws and Modem Human Rights", in Knight, (ed.), (1989), pp.
21-33.
Barth, K, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik IIlIl Die Lehre von Schiipfung (Zurich, 1945) = Church
Dogmatics III/I The Doctn'ne of Creation (Edinburgh, 1958).
Barton,]., Reading the Old Testament· Method in Biblical Study (London, 1984).
Bassett, F.W., "Noah's Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: a Case of Incest?", VI'
21 (1971), pp. 232-237.
216 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauckham, R., "The Genesis F100d and the Nuclear Holocaust: a Hermeneutical
Reflection", Churchman 99 (1985), pp. 146-155.
- , "First Steps to a Theology of Nature", EQ,58 (1986), pp. 229-244.
Baumgartner,].M., "Some Problems of the Jubilees Calendar in Current Research",
IT 32 (1982), pp. 485-89.
Beauchamp, P., Creation et separation: etude exegetique du premier chapitre de la Genese (paris,
1969).
- , "Creation et fondation de la loi en Gen. I: 1-2:4a: Ie don de la nourriture
vegetale en Gen. 1:29s", in F. Blanquart, (ed.), La creation dans l'Orient ancien
(paris, 1987), pp. 139-182.
Berry, C., The Rites qf Lifo: Christians and Bio-Medical Decision MaJcing (London, 1987).
Bethune-Baker,].F., Introduction to the EarlY History qfChristian Doctrine (London, 1933).
Bird, P., "Male and Female He Created Them: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the
Priestly Account of Creation", HTR 74 (1981), pp. 129-159.
Blenkinsopp,]., "The Structure of P", CBQ,38 (1976), pp. 275-292.
-, PropheliJ and Canon: A Contribution to the Study qfJewish Origins (Notre Dame, 1977).
-, "Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom", JJS 33 (1982), pp. 119-132.
Blum, E., Die Komposition der Viitergeschichte, WMANT 57 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,1984).
-, Studien Zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (1990).
Boecker, HJ., RedeJormen des Rechtslebens im AT, WMANT 14 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1964).
Boer, P.A.H. de., "Quelques remarques sur l'arc dans la nuee Gen 9:8-17", in
Brekelmans, (ed.), (1974), pp. 105-114.
Bonhoeffer, D., ScIWpfong und Fall (Munich, 1933 reprinted 1989)= Creation and Fall' a
Theological Interpretation qfGenesis 1-3 (London, 1959).
Boss,]., Becoming Oursewes: Meanings in the Biblical Creation Story with a New Translation qf
Genesis 1-II.from the Original Hebrew (Stroud, 1993).
Botterweck, G.H. and Ringgren, H., (eds.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament
(Stuttgart, 1970-7) = Theological Dictionary qf the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
1974-1990).
Bream, H.N., Heim, R.D., and Moore, C.A., (eds.), A Light Unto A{y Path: Essays in
Honor qf].M.Myers (philadelphia, 1974).
Brekelmans, C. (ed.), Qyestions disputees d'Ancien Testament methode et thiologie (Leuven,
1974).
-, 'Jer. 18: 1-12 and its Redaction". in P. Bogaert (ed.), Le livre deJeremie. Le propmte
et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission (Leuven, 1981), pp. 343-350.
Brett, M.G., "Motives and Intentions in Genesis 1",JTS NS42 (1991), pp. 1-16.
Briggs, C.A. and E.G., The Book qf Psalms I and 2 (Edinburgh, 1906 and 1909).
Bright,]., "Has Archaeology Found Evidence of the F1ood?", BA 5 (1942), pp. 55-62.
-, Jeremiah (Garden City, 1965).
-, History qf Israel (3rd edition, London, 1981).
Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon qf the Old
Testament (Oxford, 1906).
Brown, W.P., Structure, Role and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts qfGenesis 1:1-2:3
(Atlanta, 1993).
Brownlee, W.H., Ezekiel 1-19 (Waco, 1986).
Brueggemann, w., "David and his Theologian", CBQ,30 (1968), pp. 156-181.
-, "Kingship and Chaos (A Study of Tenth Century Theology)", CBQ,33 (1971),
pp. 317- 332.
, "The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers", ZAW84 (1972), pp.397-414.
-, "Life and Death in 10th Century Israel", JAAR 40 (1972), pp. 96-109.
-, "From Dust to Kingship", ZAW84 (1972), pp. 1-18.
-, "Weariness, Exile and Chaos (A Motif in Royal Theology)", CBQ,34 (1972), pp.
19-38.
-, Genesis (Atlanta, 1982).
-, "2 Samuel 21-24 An Appendix of Deconstruction", CBQ,50 (1988), pp. 383-397.
Budd, PJ., Numbers (Waco, 1984).
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

Buis, P., "La Nouvelle Alliance", VT 18 (1968), pp. 1-15.

Buttrick, G.A. (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary qf the Bible (Nashville, 1962).
Caird, G.B., The Language and Imagery qfthe Bible (London, 1980).
Cairns, D., The Image qfGod in Man (London, 1973).
Carroll, M.P., "One More Time: Leviticus Reconsidered", in Lang (ed.), (1985), pp.
117- 126.
Carroll, R.P., Jeremiah (London, 1986).
Cassuto, u., A Commentary on the Book qf Genesis: Part 1 From Adam to Noah Genesis 1:1-
6:8 and Part 2 From Noah to Abraham Genesis 6:9-11:32 Gerusalem, 1961, 1964).
-, A Commentary on the Book qf Exodus Gerusalem, 1967).
- , Biblical and Oriental Studies Volume 1 Bible Gerusalem, 1973).
Charlesworth, RH., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha volumes I and 2 (London, 1983,
1985).
Childs, B.S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London, 1960).
, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London, 1962).
, Exodus: A Commentary (London, 1974).
-, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 1979).
-, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (London, 1985).
-, Biblical Theology qf the Old and Nw Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian
Bible (London, 1992).
Clark, W.M., "The Animal Series in the Primeval History", VT 18 (1968), pp. 433-
449.
- , "The Righteousness of Noah", VT21 (1971), pp. 261-280.
- , "The Hood and the Structure of Pre-Patriarchal History", ZAW83 (1971), pp.
184- 211.
Clements, R.E., Abraham and David: Gen XV and its Meaningfor Israelite Tradition (Lon-
don, 1967).
Clines, D., "The Image of God in Man", TB 19 (1968), pp. 53-103.
- , "Noah's Hood: the Theology of the Hood Narrative", Faith and Thought 100
(1972-3), pp. 128-142.
- , "The Etymology of Hebrew $elem",]NSL 3 (1974), pp. 19-25
-, The Theme qf the Pentateuch, ]SOTSS 10 (Sheffield,1978).
- , "The Significance of the Sons of God Episode (Gen. 6:1-4) in the Context of the
Primeval History (Genesis 1-11)", ]SOT 13 (1979), pp. 33-46.
-, "Yahweh and the God of Christian Theology", Theology 83 (1980), pp. 323-330.
-, What Does Eve do to Help? and Other Readerl;y Q!lestions to the Old Testament]SOTSS
94 (Sheffield,1990).
Clines, D., Fowl, S.E. and Porter, S.E. (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in
Celebration qf Forty Years qf Biblical Studies in the University qf Shdfield, ]SOTSS 87
(Sheffield,1990).
Coats, G.W., and Long, B.O., Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and
Theology (philadelphia, 1977).
Coats, G.W., "The God of Death: Power and Obedience in the Primeval History",
Interpretation 29 (1975), pp. 227-239.
-, Genesis with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Grand Rapids, 1983).
- , "Lot: As Foil in the Abraham Saga", in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad, and B.C.
Ollenburger, (eds.), Unclerstanding the Word· Essays in Honour qf B. W. Anclerson,
]SOTSS 37 (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 113-132.
Combs, E., "The Political Teaching ofGen 1-11 ", in E.A. Livingstone, Studia Biblica,
]SOTSS II (Sheffield,1978), pp. 105-110.
Cook, ].I.(ed), Grace Upon Grace: Essays in Honour qf LJ.K19Per (Grand Rapids, 1975).
- , "The Old Testament Concept of the Image of God", in Cook, (1975), pp. 85-
95.
Creager, H.L., "The Divine Image", in Bream (ed.), (1974), pp. 103-118.
Crim, K. (ed.), Interpreter's Dictionary qfthe Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville, 1976).
Cross, F.L., and Livingstone, E.A., The Oiford Dictionary qf the Christian Church (Lon-
don, 1974).
218 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cross, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion qf Israel
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973).
Cryer, F.H., "The Interrelationships ofGen 5:32, 11:10-11 and the Chronology of
the Hood (Gen 6-9)", Biblica 66 (1985), pp. 241-261.
Dantienne, E., "Creation et Separation", LeMuseon 74 (1961), pp. 441-451.
Daube, D., Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge, 1947).
Davidson, AB., Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh, 1902).
Davidson, R., 1he Courage to Doubt: Explming an Old Testament 1herne (London, 1983).
Davies, P.R., "Sons of Cain", in].D. Martin and P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season:
Essays in Honour qf W. McKane, JSOTSS 42 (Sheffield, 1980), pp. 35-56.
Day,]., Review of Tsumura (1989), ET 101 (1990), p. 211.
Delcor, M., "Les attaches litteraires, I'origine et la signification de I'expression
biblique 'Prendre a temoin Ie ciel et la terre"', VT 16 (1966), pp. 8-25.
Delitzsch, F., A New Commentary on Genesis volume 1 (Edinburgh, 1888).
Dequeker, L., "Noah and Israel: The Everlasting Divine Covenant with Mankind",
in Brekelmans (ed.), (1974), pp. 115-129.
- , "Green Herbage and Trees Bearing Fruit (Gen 1:28-30,9:1-3): Vegetarianism
or Predominance of Man Over the Animals", Bijdragen Tijdschrifi voor Philosophie en
1heologie 38 (1977), pp. 118-127.
Dewar, L,. "The Biblical Use of the Term Blood", JTS NS 4 (1953), pp. 204-208.
Dillmann, A, Die Genesis (6th edition, Leipzig, 1892).
Douglas, M., "The Abominations of Leviticus", in Lang (1985), pp. 100-116.
Driver, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature qf the Old Testament (9th edition, Edinburgh,
1913).
-, 1he Book qfGenesis (12th edition, London, 1926).
Dumbrell, W J., Covenant and Creation: an Old Testament Covenantal 1heology (Exeter,
1984).
Dundes, A., 1he Flood Myth (London, 1988).
Durham,].I., Exodus (Waco, 1987).
Dyke Parunak, H.Van, "A Semantic Survey ofNl;IM", Biblica 56 (1975), pp. 512-32.
Eichrodt, W., 1heologie des Alten Testaments I and II (Stuttgart and G6ttingen, 1959 &
1961) = 1heology qf the Old Testament 1 and 2 (London, 1961/ 6 7).
-, Der Prophet Hezelr:iel Kapitel 1-18 (G6ttingen, 1965) = Ezelr:iel A Commentary (Lon-
don, 1970.)
Eising, H., "i:Jr", TWAT 2 (1977), pp. 571-593 = mOT 4 (1980), pp. 64-82.
Eissfeldt, 0., Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschlujl der Apokryphen und
Pseudepigrapha (3rd edition, Tubingen, 1956) = 1he Old Testament: An Introduction
(Oxford, 1965).
Elliger, K., "Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzahlung", <:JK 49
(1952), pp. 121-143.
Emerton, ].A, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the
Hood Narrative in Genesis", VT37 (1987), pp. 401-420, 38 (1988), pp. 1-21.
- , "The Priestly Writer in Genesis", JTS NS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400.
- , "The Meaning of the Verb lulmasinJer. 13:22", in V. Fritz, K-F. Pohlmann and
H.F. Schmitt, Prophet und Propheten Buck: Festschriflfor Otto Kaiser, BZAW 185 (Ber-
lin, 1989), pp. 19-28.
- , Review of Whybray, (1987), in VT39 (1989), pp. 110-116.
Engnell, I., "'Knowledge' and 'Life' in the Creation Story", M. Noth and D. Winton
Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, SVT 3 (1955), pp. 103-
119.
Eppstien, v., "The Day of Yahweh in Jeremiah 4:23-28",JBL 87 (1968), pp. 93-97.
Ewald, H., Ausfohrliches Lehrbuch der hebriiischen Spache des Alten Bundes (G6ttingen,
1870).
Faur,j., "The Biblical Idea ofIdolatry",JQR NS 69 (1978), pp. 1-15.
Feinberg, C.F., Jeremiah A Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1982).
Firmage, E., "The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness" in]. Emerton
(ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch, SVT 41 (1990), pp. 177-208.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

Fishbane, M., 'Jeremiah 4:23-26 andJob 3:3-13: a Recovered Use of the Creation
Pattern", VT21 (1971), pp. 151-167.
-, Text and Texture: Close &adings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979).
Fisher, E., "Gilgamesh and Genesis: the Flood Story in Context", CBQ. 32 (1970),
pp. 392-402.
Fohrer, G., "Theologische Ziige des Menschenbildes im Alten Testament", in G.
Fohrer, Studien ;:.ur alttestamentlichen 1heologie und Geschichte (1949-1966), BZAW 115
(Berlin, 1969), pp. 176-194.
-, Einleitung in das Alten Testament (10th edition, Heidelberg, 1965) = Introduction to the
Old Testament (London,1970).
Fox, M.V., "The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly 'ot
Etiologies", RB 81 (1974), pp. 557-596.
Freedman, D.N. and]. Lundbom, ""''', 7WAT 2 (1977), pp. 181-194 = mOT 3
(1978), pp. 169-181.
-, "pn", 7WAT 3 (1982), pp. 23-41 = mOT 5 (1986), pp. 22-36.
Fretheim, T.E., Creation, Fall and Flood (Minneapolis, 1969).
-, 1he Suffering of God: an Old Testament Perspective (philadelphia, 1984).
- , "Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy and the Rejection of Saul's King-
ship", CBQ. 47 (1985), pp. 595-602.
Friedman, R.E., 1he Exile and Biblical Narrative: the F017TU1tion of the Deuteronomistic and
Priestl;y Works (Chico, 1981).
Friedman, R.E. and Williamson, H.G.M., 1he Future of Biblical Studies: the Hebrew
Scriptures (Atlanta, 1987).
Fritz, V., "»Solange die Erde steht« vom Sinn der jahwistischen Fluterziihlung
in Gen 6-8", ZAW94 (1982), pp. 599-614.
Frost, S.B., 1he Beginning of the Promise (London, 1960).
Frymer-Kensky, T., "The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for our Understanding
of Gen 1-9", BA 40 (1977), pp. 147-154.
- , "Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Biblical Israel", in C. Meyers and
M.A. O'Connor (eds.), 1he Word qjthe Lord Shall Go Forth: Essa;ys in Honor of D..N.
Freedman (Winona Lake, 1983), pp. 399-414.
Gaster, T.H., "Sacrifices and Offerings", IDB 4, pp. 147-159.
Gemser, B., "The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law", in E.
Hammershaimb (ed.), Congress Volume Copenhagen 1953 SVT I (Leiden,1953), pp.
50-66.
Gesenius, W. and Kautzsch, E., Hebriiische Grammatik (28th edition, Leipzig, 1909) =
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar As Edited and Enlarged fry the Late E. Kaut;:.sch (2nd edition,
Oxford, 1910).
Gilbert, M., "Soyez Feconds et Multipliez (Gen 1:28)", NRT96 (1974), pp. 729-742.
Goldingay,]., "The Bible and Sexuality", SJT39 (1986), pp. 175-188.
Good, E.M., Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield, 1981).
Gordon, C.H., '''In' of Predication or Equivalence",JBL 100 (1981), pp. 612-613.
Grabbe, L.L., Leviticus (Sheffield, 1993).
Greenberg, M., "The Biblical Concept of Asylum", JBL 78 (1959), pp. 125-132.
-, Ezekiel 1-20 (Garden City, 1983).
Gropp, D.M. and Lewis, TJ., "Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic Text of the
Hadd-Yith Bilingua", BASOR 259 (1985), pp. 45-61.
Gross, W., "Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der Priesterschrift", rrz 87
(1978), pp. 98-115.
- , "Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift", TQ.
161 (1981), pp. 244-264.
Gunkel, H., Genesis aberset und erkliirt (3rd edition, Gottingen, 1910).
-, Schiipfong und Chaos in Ur;:.eit und Erul.;:.eit ein religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung aber Gen.
1 und Ap Joh 12 (Gottingen, 1895).
- , "The Influence of Babylonian Mythology Upon the Biblical Creation Story", in
Anderson, (1984), pp. 25-52.
Gunn, D.M., "Deutero-Isaiah and the Flood", JBL 94 (1975), pp. 493-508.
 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY

-, The Fate if' King SauL' an Interpretation if' a Biblical Story, jSOTSS 14 (Sheffield,
1980).
- , "Reading Right: Reliable and Omniscient Narrator, Omniscient God, and
Foolproof Composition in the Hebrew Bible", in Clines (ed.) (1990), pp. 53-64.
Haag, H., "con", '7WAT 2 (1977), pp. 1050-1061 = mOT 4 (1980), pp. 478-87.
Habel, N., Literary Criticism if'the Old Testament (philadelphia, 1971).
-, The Book if'Job: A Commentary (London, 1985).
Haran, M.,"The Law-Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII and its Relation to the Priestly
School", HUCA 50 (1979), pp. 45-71.
- , "Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source",
JBL 100 (1981), pp. 321-333.
Harland, P J., "A Further Note on Genesis VI 13", VT 43 (1993), pp. 408-411.
Harrelson, W., The Ten Commandments and Modern Rights (philadelphia, 1986).
Heidel, A., The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (Chicago, 1946).
-, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story if' Creation (London, 1963).
Hendel, R.S., "Of Demigods and Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4",
JBL 106 (1987), pp. 13-26.
Hengel, M., "'Was ist der Mensch': Erwagungen zur biblischen Anthropo10gie
heute", in H.w. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theolo~ Festschri.ft von Rad (Munich,
1971), pp. 116-135.
Hepburn, R.W., "Contingency", in Richardson and Bowden, (1983), pp. 121-122.
Hildebrand, D.R., "A Summary of Recent Findings in Support of an Early Date for
the So-Called Priestly Material of the Pentateuch", JETS 29 (1986), pp. 129-138.
Hill, E., Being Human: A Biblical Perspective (London, 1984).
Hillers, P.R., Covenant: The History if' a Biblical Idea (Baltimore, 1969).
Holladay, W.L., A Commentary on the Book if'Jeremiah Chapters 1-25 Volume 1 (phila-
delphia, 1986), Volume 2 Chapters 26-52 (philadelphia, 1989).
Holloway, S.W., "What Ship goes There? The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh
Epic and Genesis Considered in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple
Ideology", ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 328-355.
Horowitz, M.C., "The Image of God in Man - Is Woman Included?", HTR 72
(1979), pp. 175-206.
Horst, F., "Face to Face: The Biblical Doctrine of the Image of God", Interpretation 4
(1950), pp. 259-270.
Houston, W., Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law,jSOTSS
140 (Sheffield, 1993).
Hulst, A.R., '''Kol basar' in der priester1ichen Fluterzahlung", OTS 12 (1958), pp. 28-
68.
Humbert, P., "Die literarische Zweiheit des Priester-Codex in der Genesis (kritische
Untersuchung der These von von Rad)", ZAW 58 (1940-41), pp. 30-57.
- , "Emp10i et portee bibliques du verbe r~ar et de ses derives substantifs", in O.
Eissfeldt, (ed.), Von Ugarit nach Qymran: Beitrage z;ur Alttestamentalichen und
Altorientalischen Forschung BZAW 77 (Berlin, 1958), pp. 82-88.
Hurvitz, A., "The Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code: a Linguistic
Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology", RB 81 (1974), pp. 24-56.
-, A Linguistic Study if'the Relationship Between the Priestfy Source and the Book if' Ez;ekieL' A
New Approach to an Old Problem (paris, 1982).
jackson,B.S., "Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law", J]S 24 (1973), pp. 8-38.
jackson,jJ. and Kessler, M. (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism: Esso;ys in Honor if'J. Muilenburg
(Pittsburgh, 1974).
jacob, B., Das Erste Buch der Tora (Berlin, 1934).
jacob, E., Thiolo~ de l'Ancien Testament (Neuchatel, 1968) = Theology if'the Old Testa-
ment (London, 1958).
Jaubert, A., "Le Calendrier des Jubiles et de la secte de Qwnran: ses origines
bibliques", VT 3 (1953), pp. 250-264.
jeansonne, S.P., "The Characterization ofLat in Genesis", BIB 18 (1988), pp. 123-
129.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 221

Jenni, E. and Westermann, C. (eds.), Theologische Hardworterbuch <:;um Alten Testament

(Munich and Zurich, 1971).
Jensen, P.P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priest~ Conception q/ the World JSOTSS 106
(Sheffield, 1992).
Jeremias,]., Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1975).
Jobling, D., "Dominion Over Creation", IDBS, pp. 247-248.
Johnson, A.R., The Vitaliry q/ the IndWidual in the 17wught q/ Ancient Israel (2nd edition,
Cardiff, 1964).
Jonsson, G.A., The Image q/ God: Gen 1:26-28 in a Century q/ Old Testament Research
(Lund, 1988).
Jotion, P., Grammaire de l'Hibreu Biblique (Rome, 1947).
Joyce, P., Divine Initiative and Human Response in E<:;ekieOSOTSS 51 (Sheffield,1989).
Jungel, E., Karl Barth Studien (Zurich, 1982) = Karl Barth: A Theological ugaq (philadel-
phia, 1986).
Kapelrud, A.S., "The Date of the Priesdy Code", AS113 (1964 ), pp. 58-64.
Kaufmann, Y., The Religion q/ Israel (London, 1961).
Kedar-Kopfstein, B. "0''', TWAT 2 (1977), pp. 248-266 = mOT 3 (1978), pp.
234-250.
Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F., Biblische Kommentar iiber das Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1861-
2) = Commentary on the Old Testament The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, 1980).
Keller, C.A., Das Wort OTH als «Oifongbarungs<:;eichen Gottes» eine philologisch--
theologische Begriffsuntersuchung <:;um Alten Testament (Basel, 1946).
Kessler, M., "The Rhetorical Criticism of Gen. 7", in Jackson and Kessler (1974),
pp. 1-17.
Kikawada, I.M. and Quinn, A, Bifore Abraham Was: The Uniry q/Genesis 1-11 (Nash-
ville, 1985).
Kilmer, AD., "The Mesopotamian Concept of Overpopulation and its Solution as
Reflected in the Mythology", Orientalia NS 41 (1972), pp. 160-177.
Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G. (eds.), Theologisches Wiirterbuch <:;um Neuen Testament (Stutt-
gart, 1933-73) = Theological Dictionary q/ the Nw Testament (Grand Rapids, 1964--
1974).
Klein, R.W., Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (philadelphia, 1979).
- , "The Message ofP", in L. Perlitt and]. Jeremias (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten
Festschriftfor Hans Walter Woljf<:;um 70 Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp.
57-66.
- , 1 Samuelrvvaco, 1983).
Kline, M.G., "Creation in the Image of the Glory Spirit", WI] 39 (1977), pp. 250-
272.
Kloos, CJ.L., "The F100d on Speaking Terms with God", ZAW94 (1982), pp. 639-
642.
Knight D.A. and Paris, P J., Justice and the Ho~: Essays in Honor q/ W. Harrelson
(Adanta, 1989).
Knight, D.A, "The Ethics of Human Life in the Hebrew Bible", in Knight and Paris
(ed.), (1989), pp. 65-88.
Knight, H., The Hebrw Prophetic Consciousness (London, 1947).
Koch, K. "P'~", THAT 2, pp. 507-530, "0r.lr1", THAT 2, pp. 1045-1051.
-, "1"", TWAT2 (1977), pp. 288-312 = mOT3 (1978), pp. 270-293.
- , "Die Eigenart der priesterschrifdichen Sinaigesetzgebung", ZTK55 (1958), pp.
36-51.
- , "Der Spruch 'sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt' und die israelitische Auffassung
vom vergossenen Blut", IT 12 (1962), pp. 396-416.
- , "P kein Redaktor: Erinnerung an Zwei Eckdaten Quellenscheidung", IT 37
(1987), pp. 446-467.
Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., Uxicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958).
Koehler, L., "Die Grundstelle der Imago-Dei Lehre, Genesis 1,26", TZ 4 (1948), pp.
16-22.
222 BmLIOGRAPHY

-, Theologie des Alien Testaments (fubingen 1936) = Old Testament Theology (2nd edi-
tion, London, 1957).
Kraeling, E.G., "The Significance and Origin of Gen. 6:1-4", JNES 6 (1947), pp.
193-208.
- , "The Earliest Hebrew Flood Story", JBL 66 (1947), pp. 279-293.
Kselman,].S., "A Note on Gen. 7:11", CBQ.35 (1973), pp. 491-493.
Kugel,].L., "The Adverbial Use of Ki rob", JBL 99 (1980), pp. 433-435.
Kutsch, E., "»Ich will euer Gott sein« berit in der Priesterschrift", ZJK71 (1974),
pp. 361-388.
Kuyper, Lj., "The Suffering and the Repentance of God", SJT22 (1969), pp.257-
277.
Lambert, W.G., "ll n'y aurajamais de deluge", NRT77 (1955), pp. 581-601, 693-
724.
- , "New Light on the Babylonian Flood",JSS 5 (1960), pp. 113-123.
- , "A New Look at The Babylonian Background ofGenesis",JTS 16 NS (1965),
pp. 285-300.
- , with A.R. Millard, Atrahasis: The Babylonian Story oj the Flood (Oxford, 1969).
Landes, G.M., "Creation Tradition in Provo 8:22-31 and Genesis 1", in Bream (ed.),
(1974), pp. 279-293.
Landy, F., "The Name of God and the Image of God and Man: a Response to D.
Clines", Theology 84 (1981), pp. 164-176.
Lang, B. (ed), Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (London, 1985).
Lapointe, R.L., "The Divine Monologue as a Channel of Revelation", CBQ. 32
(1970), pp. 161-181.
Larsson, G., "Chronological Parallels Between the Creation and the Flood", VT27
(1977), pp. 490-492.
- , "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: a Comparison ofMT and LXX",JBL 102
(1983), pp. 401-409.
Lemche, N.P., "The ChronoloN in the Flood Story", JSOT 18 (1980), pp. 52-62.
Levenson,].D., Sinai and Zion (New York, 1985).
- , "The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament and Historical Criticism", in Fried-
man, (1987), pp. 19-59.
- , "Why Jews are not Interested in Biblical Theology", in Neusner (1987), pp. 281-
307.
Levin, C., Die Verheijung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenho:ng
ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Gottingen, 1985).
Levine, B., In the Presence oj the Lord: A Study oj Cult and Some Cultic Terminology in Ancient
Israel (Leiden, 1974).
Levison,].R., Portraits oj Adam in Early Judaismfiom Sirach to 2 Baruch,]SPSS 1 (Shef-
field, 1988).
Lewis, ].P., A Stutly oj the Interpretation oj Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian
Literature (Leiden, 1968).
- , "Noah and the Flood in]ewish, Christian and Muslim Tradition", BA 47 (1984),
pp. 224-239.
Licht,]., Storytelling in the Bible Gerusalem, 1978).
Lisowsky, G., Konkordanz zum Hebriiischen Alien Testament (Stuttgart, 1981).
Loewe, R., 'Jerome's Treatment of an Anthropomorphism", VT2 (1952), pp. 261-
272.
Loewenstamm, S.E., Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literature
(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980).
- , "Die Wasser der biblische Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden",
VT 34 (1984), pp. 179-194.
Lofthouse, W.F., "/fen and /fesedin the Old Testament", ZAW51 (1933), pp.29-35.
Lohfink, N_, "Die Ursiinden in der priesterlichen Geschichsterzahlung", in G_
Bomkamm and K. Rahner (eds.), Die ZeitJesu (Freiburg, 1970), pp. 38-57.
- , "Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte", in]. Emerton et alii (eds.), Congress
Volume Gottingen 1977 SVT 29 (Leiden, 1978), pp. 189-225.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 223

, Unsere grosser Worter des Allen Testament zu 7hemen dieser Jahre (Freiburg, 1977) =
Great Themes flom the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1982).
- , "Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg", in N. Lohfink, (ed.), Gewalt und
Gewaltlosigkeit im Allen Testament (Freiburg, 1983), pp. 51-110.
- , "Die heilige Krieg und der Bann in der Bibel", I/lZ 18 (1989), pp. 104-112.
Long, B.D., The Problem oj Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament, BZAW 108 (Berlin,
1968).
Longacre, R.E., "The Discourse Structure of the Flood Narrative", JAARS 47
(1979), pp. 89-133.
Lossky, V., In the Image and likeness oj God (New York, 1974).
Luyster, R., "Wind and Water: Cosmogonic Symbolism in the Old Testament",
ZAW93 (1981), pp. 1-10.
McCarthy, D]., "Covenant in the Old Testament: the Present State of the Inquiry",
CBQ27 (1965), pp. 217-240.
- , "Creation Motives in Ancient Hebrew Poetry", in Anderson (ed.), (1984), pp.
74-89.
- , "The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice", JBL 88 (1969), pp. 166-176.
McEvenue, S.E., The Narrative Style oJthe Priestt;y Writer (Rome, 1971).
McKane, W., Jeremiah I-XXV (Edinburgh, 1986).
McKeating, H., "The Development of the Laws on Homicide in Ancient Israel", VT
25 (1975), pp. 46-68.
-, Ezekiel (Sheffield, 1993).
Macquarrie,]., God-Talk: an Examination oj the Language and Logic oj Theology (London,
1967).
Mallowan, M.E.L., "Noah's Flood Reconsidered", Iraq 26 (1964), pp. 62-82.
Mandelkem, S., Veteris Testamenti Concordontiae Hebraicae Atque Chaldaicae (Leipzig, 1896).
Manross, L.M., "Beth Essentiae", JBL 73 (1954) pp. 335-9.
Marrow, S., "I;IAMAS (violentia) inJer 20,8", VD 43 (1965), pp. 241-255.
May, H.G., "Some Cosmic Connotations ofMAYYIM RABBIM 'Many Waters"',
JBL 74 (1955), pp. 9-21.
Mettinger, T.N.D., "Abbild oder Urbild? »Imago Dei« in traditionsgeschicht-
licher Sicht", ZA W 86 (1974), pp. 403-424.
Michel, G.B., "A Note on the Hebrew Root t:lm", ET 44 (1932-3), p. 428.
Michel, 0., "lllIlVTIalCOllat", TWNT 4 (1942), pp. 678-687 = 1DNT 4 (1967), pp.
675-683.
Milgrom,]., "A Prolegomenon to Lev. 17:11", JBL 90 (1971), pp. 149-156.
-, Studies in Cultic TIzeology and Terminology (Leiden, 1983), pp. 104-118.
-, "Blood", "Bloodguilt", in C. Roth and Wigoder, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia Judaica
Gerusalem, 1971), pp. 1115, 1118-1119.
Millard, A.R., "A New Babylonian Genesis Story", TB 18 (1967), pp. 3-18.
- , with Bordreuil, P., "A Statue from Assyria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscrip-
tions", BA 45 (1982), pp. 135-141.
Miller,].M., "In the 'Image' and 'Likeness' ofGod",JBL91 (1972), pp.289-304.
Miller, P.D., "YELED in the Song of Lamech", JBL 85 (1966), pp. 477-478.
-, Genesis }-11: Studies in Structure and Theme, JSOTSS 8 (Sheffield, 1978).
Moberly, R.w.L., At the Mountain oj God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32- 4, JSOTSS
22 (Sheffield, 1983).
- , "Did the Serpent Get it Right?", JTS NS 39 (1988), pp. 1-27.
-, "The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah", VT38 (1988), pp. 302-323.
- , "Abraham's Righteousness", in Emerton,]. (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch SVT 41
(Leiden, 1990), pp. 103-130.
-, The Old Testament oj the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic r ahwism
(Minneapolis, 1992).
Moran, W.L., "Atrahasis: the Babylonian Story of the Flood", Biblica 52 (1971), pp.
51-61.
Morgenstern,]., "The Calendar of the Book ofJubilees: its Origin and its Charac-
ter", VT 5 (1955), pp. 34-76.
224 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Morris, L., "The Biblical Use of the Term 'Blood''',JTSNS 6 (1955), pp. 77-82.
Muilenberg,]., "The Linguistic and Rhetorical Uses of the Particle ':J in the Old
Testament", HUCA 32 (1961), pp. 135-160.
Miiller, H-P., "Das Motif fur die Sintflut: die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos
und seiner Analyse", ZAW97 (1985), pp. 295-316.
Muraoka, T., Emphoiic Wordr and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Leiden and Jerusalem, 1985).
Neuberg, Fj., "An Unrecognised Meaning of Hebrew DOR", JNES 9 (1950), pp.
215-217.
Neusner,]., Levine, B.A. and Frerichs, E.S. Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (phila-
delphia, 1987).
Nicholson, E.W., Preaching to the Exiles: A Study in the Prose Tradition in the Book 0/
Jeremiah (Oxford, 1970).
-, God and his People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1986).
Nickelsburg, G.W.E., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and
Literary Introduction (London, 1981).
Nielsen, E., Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction (London,
1954).
- , "Creation and the Fall of Man: A Cross Disciplinary Investigation", HUCA 43
(1972), pp. 1-22.
Noth, M., "Noah, Daniel und lob in Ezekiel XN", VT 1 (1951), pp. 251-266.
-, Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948) = A History 0/ Pentateuchal
Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, 1972).
-, Das dritte Buch Mose, Leviticus (Gottingen, 1962) = Leviticus (London, 1977).
Oberforcher, R., Die Flutprologe als Kompositionsschliissel do biblischen Urgeschichte: ein
Beitrag :;ur Redaktionskritik (Innsbruck, 1981).
Otzen, B., Gottlieb, H. and Jeppesen, K. Myths in the Old Testament (London, 1980).
Parrot, A., The Flood and Noah's Ark (London, 1955).
Patrick, D., "The Translation of Job XUI:6", VT26 (1976), pp. 369-371.
-, Old Testament Law (London, 1985).
Pedersen,]., Israel Its Life and Culture I-II (London, 1926).
Petersen, D.L., "The Yahwist on the Flood", VT26 (1976), pp. 438-446.
- , "Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos",JSOT 13 (1979), pp. 47-64.
Phillips, A, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford, 1970).
- , "Another Look at Murder", JSS 28 (1977), pp. 105-126.
- , "Uncovering the Father's Skirt", VT30 (1980), pp. 38-43.
Philo, "On the Unchangeableness of God", Volume 3 of The Loeb Classical Library
edition translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (London, 1930), pp. 3-
lOI.
Plaut, W.G., The Torah: a Modern Commentary (New York, 1981).
Pollard, T.E., "The Impassibility of God", SJT 8 (1955), pp. 353-364.
Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical 1jpology 0/ Biblical Hebrew Prose
(Missoula, 1976).
Porten, B. and Rappaport, u., "Poetic Structure in Gen. 9:7", VT 21 (1971), pp.
363-369.
Porteous, N., "Image of God", IDB 2, pp. 682-685.
Poulet, D., "The Moral Causes of the Flood", CBQ 4 (1942), pp. 293-303.
Preuss, H.D., "il01",TWAT 2 (1977), pp. 266-277 = TDOT 3 (1978), pp. 250-260.
Pritchard, ].B., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd edition,
Princeton, 1969).
Procksch, 0., Die Genesis iiberset:; und erklart (Leipzig, 1924).
Rad, G. von, Die Priesterschrifi im Hexateuch literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet,
BWANT 65 (Stuttgart, 1934).
-, "EtKc.lW", TWNT2, (1935), pp. 388ff = TDNT2 (1964), p. 390-392.
- , Dos erste Buch Mose (Gottingen, 1958) = Genesis a Commentary (2nd edition, Lon-
don, 1963).
-, Gesammelte Studien :;um Alten Testament (Munich, 1958) = The Problem 0/the Hexateuch
(London, 1965).
 BIBUOGRAPHY 225

, 7heologie des Alten Testaments 1 Die 7heologie der historischen Oberlieferungen Israels
(Munich, 1957), 2 Die 7heologie des prophetischen Oberlieferungen Israels (Munich,
1960) = Old Testament 7heology 1 7he 7heology qf Israel's Historical Traditions and 2
7he 7heology qf Israel's Prophetic Traditions (London, 1975).
- , "Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schopfungsglauben", in P.
Volz, F. Slummer and]. Hempel (eds.), Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments,
BZAW 66 (Berlin, 1936), pp. 136-147 = "The Theological Problem of the Old
Testament Doctrine of Creation", in Anderson (1984), pp. 53-64.
Raikes, R.L., "The Physical Evidence for Noah's F1ood", Iraq 28 (1966), pp. 52-63.
Ramm, B., 7he Christian Vtezv qf Science and Scripture (London, 1955). .
Ramsey, I., Religious Language: an Empirical Placing qf7heological Phrases (London, 1957).
Ramsey, P., Basic Christian Ethics (London, 1953).
Reed, W.L., "Some Implications of BEN for Old Testament Religion", ]BL 73
(1954), pp. 36-41.
Rendtorff, R., "Gen 8:21 und die Urgeschichte desJahwisten", KD 7 (1961), pp. 69-78.
- Das Uberliiferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147 (Berlin, 1977) = 7he
Problem qf the Process qf Transmission in the Pentateuch, JSOTSS 89 (Sheffield, 1990).
Revendow, H.G., "Sein Blut komme tiber sein Haupt", VT 10 (1960), pp. 311-327.
Richardson, A., Genesis 1-11 Introduction and Commentary (London, 1953).
Richardson, A. and Bowden,]., A New Dictionary qf Christian 7heology (London, 1983).
Robinson, G., "The Idea of Rest in the Old Testament and the Search for the Basic
Character of Sabbath", ZAW92 (1980), pp. 32-42.
Roche, M.de , "Zephaniah 1:2-3: the 'Sweeping' of Creation", VT 30 (1980), pp.
104-109.
- , "Contra Creation, Covenant and Conquest (Jer. viii:13)", VT 30 (1980), pp.
280-290.
- , "The Reversal of Creation in Hosea", VT31 (1981), pp. 400-409.
Rodd, C.S., "Shall not the Judge of All the Earth Do What IsJust (Gen. 18:25)?",
ET83 (1971), pp. 137-139.
Rogerson, ].W., Myth in Old Testament Interpretation BZAW 134 (Berlin, 1974).
- , "Myth", in R. Coggins and L. Houlden (eds.), A Dictionary qf Biblical Interpretation
(London, 1990), pp. 479-482.
-, Genesis 1-11 (Sheffield, 1991).
Rowley, H.H., 7he Faith qf Israel' Aspects qf Old Testament Thought (London, 1956).
Rubenstein, R.L. and Roth, ].K., Approaches to Auschwit;::.: 7he Legacy qf the Holocaust
(London, 1987).
Riitersworden, v., Dominium Tmae: Studien ;::.ur Genese einer alltestamentlichen Vorstellung,
BZAW 215 (Berlin, 1993).
Saebo, M., "Priestertheologie und Priesterschrift zur Eigenart der priesterlichen
Schicht im Pentateuch", in]. Emerton et alii (eds.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980,
SVT 32 (Leiden, 1981), pp. 357-374.
Sakenfeld, K.B., 7he Meaning qf lfESED in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (Missoula,
1978).
Sarna, N.M., Understanding Genesis (New York, 1970).
-, ]PS Torah Commentary, Genesis (New York,1989).
Sawyer,].F.A., "The Meaning of Cl'i1'?t4; Cl'?::l:::l ('In the Image of God') in Gen 1-11",
]TS NS 25 (1974), pp. 418-426.
Schapera, I., "The Sin Of Cain", in Lang (1985), pp. 26-42.
Scharbert,]., "iit4;", TWATI (1970), pp. 437-451 = mOTl (1974), pp. 405-418.
-, Genesis 1-11 (Stuttgart, 1980).
- , "»Berit« im Pentateuch", in M. Carrez,]. Dore and P. Grelot (eds.), De la
Torah au Messie Festschrift for H. Cazelles (paris, 1981), pp. 163-170.
Schlosser,]., "Les jours de Noe et de Lot: it propos de Luc xvn 26-30", RB 80
(1973), pp. 1-3-36.
Schmid, H.H., "Schopfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil", UK 70 (1973), pp. 1-9 =
"Creation, Righteousness and Salvation: 'Creation Theology' as the Broad Hori-
zon of Biblical Theology", in Anderson (1984), pp. 102-117.
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schmidt, W.H., Die Schopfongsgeschichte der Priesterschrift zur OberlieJerungsgeschichte der

Priesterschrift von Genesis 1,1-2, 4a und 2,4b-3,24, WMANT 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1967).
Schmitz, 0., "1tIlPlllCIlAECO", 1WNT5 (1954), pp. 771-798 = TDNT 5 (1967), pp.
773-799.
Schoors, A., "The Particle ':J", OTS 21 (1981), pp. 240-276.
Schottroff, W., 'Gedenken' im Alien Orient und im Alien Testament: Die Wurzel ZAKAR im
Semitischen Sprachlr:reis, WMANT 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967).
-, "i:Jr", THAT I, pp. 507-518.
Schwartz, H., "Humanity as God's Image in Evolutionary Perspective", TZ 34
(1978), pp. 334-344.
Seeligmann, I.L., "Zur Terminologie fur das Gerichtsverfahren im Wortschatz des
biblischen Hebraisch", in B. Hartman et alii (cds.), Hebriiische WortJorschung,
Festschrift W Baumgartner, svr 16 (Leiden,1967), pp. 251-278.
Seters, j. Van, Abraham in History and Tradition (London, 1975).
- , "The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King", Z4W 101 (1989), pp.
333-341.
-, Prologue to History: The r ahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, 1992).
Sherwin, B.L., "The Human Body and the Image of God", in D. Cohn-Sherbok
(cd.), A Traditional Qy,est: Essays in Honour qf L. Jacobs, JSOTSS 114 (Sheffield,
1991), pp. 75-85.
Ska, j.L., "Separation des eaux de la terre ferme dans Ie recit sacerdotale", NRT 113
(1981), pp. 512-23.
Skinner,j., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd edition, Edinburgh, 1930).
Smith, B.V., "Structure and Purpose in Genesis 1-11",JETS20 (1977), pp. 307-319.
Snaith, N.H., "The Meaning of the Paraclete", ET57 (1945-6), pp. 47-56.
- , "The Image of God", ET 86 (1974), p. 24.
- , "The Image of God", ET91 (1979), p. 20.
Soggin, j.A., Introduction to the Old Testament· From its Origins to the Closing qf the
Alexandrian Canon (3rd edition, London, 1989).
Soler, j., "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews", New r ork Review qf Books 14th
June 1979, pp. 24-30.
Sonsino, R. Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels
(Chico, 1980).
Soskice, j.M., Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford, 1985).
Speiser, E.A., Genesis (Garden City, 1964).
Stachowiak, L., "Der Sinn der sogenannten Noachitischen Gebote (Gen IX 1-7)", in
j. Emerton et alii (cds.), Congress Volume Vienna 1980, svr 32 (Leiden, 1981), pp.
395-404.
Stamm,JJ., "Sprachliche Erwagungen zum Gebot »Du sollst nicht toten«", TZ
I (1945), pp. 81-90.
- , "Die Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft", in
E. Wolff, (cd.), Antwort Festschriftfor K Barth (Ziirich, 1956), pp. 84-98.
Steck, O.H., Der Sclwpfongsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und
fiberlieJerungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Gen. l,l-2:4a (Gottingen, 1975).
- , "Gen 12:1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Yahwisten", in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme
biblischer Theologie Festschrift for G. von Rod (Munich, 1971), pp. 525-554.
Sternberg, M., The Poetics qf Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama qf
Reading (Bloomington, 1985).
Steunmueller,j.E., "Sacrificial Blood in the Bible", Biblica 40 (1959), pp. 556-567.
Stoebe, HJ., "con", "lJn", THAT I, pp. 583-7, 587-97, "OnJ", THAT 2, pp. 59-66.
Sutcliffe, E.F., "The Clouds as Water Carriers in Hebrew Thought", VT 3 (1953),
pp. 99-103.
Tengstrom, S., Die Toledoiformel und die literarische StruktuT deT PriesleTlichen Erweiterungs-
schicht im Pentateuch (Lund, 1981 ).
Thielicke, H., How the World BegaTL' Man in the First Chapters qf the Bible (philadelphia,
1961 ).
 BIBUOGRAPHY 227

Thomas, D.W., "A Note on the Hebrew Root em", ET 44 (1932-3), pp. 191-192.
Thompson,].A., The Book ofJeremiah (Grand Rapids, 1980).
Trible, P., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (philadelphia, 1978).
Tsumura, D.T., The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A linguistic Irwestigation,
]SOTSS 83 (Sheffield,1989).
Turner, L.A., "Lot as]ekyll and Hyde: A Reading of Genesis 18-19", in Clines, Fowl
and Porter (1990), pp. 85-101.
-, Announcements of Plot in Genesis,]SOTSS 96 (Sheffield, 1990).
-, "The Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant in Genesis IX:II-13", IT43 (1993),
pp. 119-24.
Valeton, ].P., "Bedeutung und Stellung des Wortes n'i::l im Priestercodex", ZA W 12
(1892), pp. 1-22.
Vaux, R. De, us institutions de L'Ancien Testament (paris, 1958, 1960) = Ancient Israel its
Life and Institutions (London, 1961).
Vawter, B.W., On Genesis: A New Reading (London, 1977).
Vetter, D., "nnw", THAT 2, pp. 891-894.
Vink,].G., "The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament", OTS
15 (1969), pp. 1-144.
Vischer, W., "Words and the Word: the Anthropomorphisms of the Biblical Revela-
tion", Interpretation 3 (1949), pp. 3-18.
Volz, P. and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erziihler: ein Imveg £fer Pentateuchkritik an £fer
Genesis erliiutert, BZAW 63 (Berlin, 1923).
Vriezen, T.C., "La creation de l'homme d'apres I'image de Dieu", OTS2 (1943), pp.
87- 105.
- , "Einige Notizen zur Ubersetzung des Bindeswortes let', in O. Eissfeldt, Von
Ugarit nach Qymran: Beitrage zur Alttestamentlichen und Altorientalischen Forschung, BZAW
77 (Berlin, 1958), pp. 266-273.
Wallace, H.N., "The Toledot of Adam", in]. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Pentateuch,
SVT 41 (1990), pp. 17-33.
Waltke, B.K. and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake, 1990).
Weevers, ].W., Ezekiel (London, 1969).
Weinfeld, M., Deuterono"!'Y and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972).
- "n'i::l", TWAT 1 (1970), pp. 781-808 = mOT 2 (1975), pp. 253-279.
Wellhausen, ]., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 1883) = Prolegomena to the
History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885).
Wenham, GJ., "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative", IT 28 (1978), pp. 336-
348.
-, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, 1979).
-, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, 1987).
- , "Method in Pentateuchal Criticism", IT 41 (1991), pp. 84-109.
Westbrook, R., Studies in Biblical and Cuneform Law (paris, 1988).
Westermann, C., Schopfong (Stuttgart-Berlin, 1971) =Creation (London, 1974).
-, Der Segen in £fer Bibel und im Handeln der Kirche (Munich, 1968) = Blessing in the Bible
and the Life of the Church (philadelphia, 1978).
, Genesis 1-11 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974) =Genesis 1-11 A Commentary (Lon-
don,1984).
-, Genesis 12-36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981) = Genesis 12-36 (London,1985).
- , With E. Jenni Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament I and 2 (Munich,
1971, 1976).
Whybray, R.N., The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSS 53 (Shef-
field, 1987).
Wildberger, H., "Das Abbild Gottes", TZ 21 (1965), pp. 245-259,481-501.
Wijngaert, Luc van den, "Die Siinde der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte", 1P 43
(1968), pp. 35- 50.
Wilson, S.G., "New Wine in Old Wineskins IX The Image of God", ET 85 (1973-
4), pp. 356-361.
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Winnett, F.V., "Re-Examining the Foundations", JBL 84 (1965), pp. 1-19.

Wolde, E. van, "The Story of Cain and Abel: A Narrative Study", JSOT52 (1991),
pp. 25-41.
Wolff, H.W., "The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch", Interpretation 26 (1972),
pp. 158-173.
-, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1973) = Anthropology of the Old Testament
(London, 1974).
-, "The Kerygma of the Yahwist", in W. Brueggemann and H.W. Wolff(eds.), 1he
Vitality of Old T~stament Traditions (2nd edition, Atlanta, 1982), pp. 41-66.
Woller, u., "Zur Ubersetzung von kfin Gen. 8:21 und 9:6", ZAW94 (1982), pp.
637-638.
Woollcombe, KJ., "The Pain of God", 8]T20 (1967), pp. 129-148.
Wright, C., Living as the People of God (Leicester, 1983).
Wright, G.E., God who Acts: Biblical1heology as Recital (London, 1952).
Zenger, E., Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchung zur Komposition und 1heologie der
priesterschrifilichen Urgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1983).
Zevit, Z., "Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date ofP", ZAW94 (1982),
pp. 481-511.
Zimmerli, W., "Sinaibund und Abrahambund: ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis der
Priesterschrift", TZ 16 (1960), pp. 268-280.
-, 1 Mose 1-11 (Zurich, 1967).
-, Ezekiel 1-24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,1969) = A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet
Ezekiel Chapters 1-24 (philadelphia, 1979), Ezekiel 25-48 (Neukirchen-Vluyn,
1969), = A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48 (Philadelphia,
1983).
- , "Der Mensch im Rahmen der Natur nach den Aussagen des ersten biblischen
Schopfungsberichtes", ZTK76 (1979); pp. 139-158.
-, GrundrifJ der Alttestamentliche 1heologie (Stuttgart, 1972) = Old Testament 1heology in
Outline (Edinburgh, 1978).
Zipor, M.A., "A Note on Genesis VI: 13", VT41 (1991), pp. 336-8.
Zlotovitz, M., Bereishis Genesis: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologised from
Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (New York, 1980).
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Abir, S., 203 Clines, D., 24, 30, 74, 82, 98-100,
Abu Assaf, A, 182 118, 149, 163, 170, 178-181,
Ackroyd, P.R., 13 184, 186-8, 193-5, 199-201
Aejmelaeus, A, 119-20 Coats, G.W., 49
Alexander, T.D., 49 Creager, R.L., 202
Alter, R., 18, 22fT, 33, 93, 107 Cross, F.L., 74
Anderson, B.W., 8, 16fT, 92, 94, Cross, F.M., 9, 10, 133
142, 195 Cryer, F.R., 8
Angerstorfer, A, 182
Ap-Thomas, D.R., 50 Davidson, AB., 158
Davisdon, R., 49, 79, 124
Barnard, AN., 54 Day,]., 94
Barr, ]., 3, 4, 77, 128, 167, 179, Dequeker, L., 140
184, 189, 195-6 Dillmann, A, 190
Barth, K., 185, 191-3, 197, 200, Driver, S.R., 6,24-5, 135, 190, 199
205,207 Dyke Parunak, R. van., 78
Barton,]., 19, 100
Bassett, F.W., 56-7 Eichrodt, W., 45, 58-9, 63, 75, 81-
Bauckham, R., 202-3,213 2, 90-1, 93, 105, 113-4, 140,
Beauchamp, P., 100 155, 157, 169, 183, 189-90, 192
Berry, C., 204 Eissfeldt, 0., 26, 146
Bird, P., 198 Elliger, K., 13
Blenkinsopp,]., 60 Emerton,]., 8-10, 41, 107
Blum, E., 9, 10 Engnell, I., 194
Boer, P.AR. de, 134, 138
BonhoefTer, D., 90 Feinberg, C.F., 79
Bordreuil, P., 182 Firmage, E., 156
Boss,]., 175 Fishbane, M., 13
Brekelmans, C., 80 Fisher, E., 6
Briggs, C.A., 178-9 Fohrer, G., 146
Bright,]., 3, 80 Fox, M.V., 130, 139
Brown, W.P., 150 Freedman, D.N., 50-1,64
Brueggemann, W., 11, 13,56, 122, Fretheim, T.E., 76, 81, 84, 86
138, 189 Friedman, R.E., 14, 110
Fritz, V., 122, 127
Caird, G.B., 75 Frost, S.B., 4
Cairns, D., 177 Frymer-Kensky, T., 39, 148, 167,
Carroll, R.P., 80-2 170, 172, 175
Cassuto, u., 7, 8, 14, 24-5, 32-3,
40,56-7,95, 116, 125, 138, 149, Gemser, B., 120, 162
156, 159, 164, 171, 173 Gilbert, M., 148
Charlesworth, R.R., 43 Good, E.M., 21
Childs, B.S., 4,6, 10,45,47-8, 105, Greenberg, M., 169
128, 140 Gropp, D.M., 184
Clark, W.M., 49,52, 103, 115, 117 Gross, W., 131,132,136,187,191-
Clements, R.E., 137 3
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Gunkel, H., 42, 83, 93ff, 97, 125, Lofthouse, W.F., 50

137fT, 151, 162, 188, 197 Lohfink, N., 9
Gunn, D.M., 12,81 Lundbom,]., 50, 51, 64
Haag, H., 32-6 McCarthy, Dj., 158
Haran, M., 12 McEvenue, S.E., 11, 39, 130, 153,
Harland, P j., 28 162
Harrelson, W., 164-6 McKane, W., 80
Heidel, A, 6,8,44,91,94, 199 McKeating, H., 160, 169
Hendel, R.S., 25 MacQuarrie,]., 4, 72
Hepburn, R.W., 91 Mal1owan, M.E.L., 3
Holladay, W.L., 80 Marrow, S., 36
Horowitz, M.C., 198 Mettinger, T.N.D., 185, 190
Horst, F., 192-3, 197,208 Milgrom,]., 125, 155-7
Houston, W., 31, 151, 156, 171, Millard, AR., 6, 44, 182
195 Miller, ].M., 180, 203, 206
Hulst, AR., 31 Miller, P.D., 22, 32, 43
Humbert, P., 26, 100, 131 Moberly, R.W.L., 18, 19, 47-8,
Hurvitz, A, 12 67ff, 78-9, 81, 90, 116-24
Moran, W.L., 6
jacob, B., 83, 138, 148, 156, 159, Muilenberg,]., 119-21
162 Miiller, H-P., 89
jeansonne, S.P., 49 Muraoka, T., 119
jensen, P.P., 101, 125
jeremias,]., 78,81 Nicholson, E.W., 80
job1ing, D., 191, 203 Nielsen, E., 8
jonsson, G.A, 177, 181, 191, 194- Noth, M., 155
5, 207
jOiion, P., 115, 119 Oberforcher, R., 14
joyce, P., 58-9, 61 Otzen, B., 4
jungel, E., 46
Pedersen,]., 128,173
Kaufmann, Y., 12 Petersen, D.L., 115, 123
Kedar-Kopfstein, B., 159 Phillips, A, 56-7, 158-9, 168-9
Kilmer, AD., 148 Plaut, W.G., 64
Klein, R.W., 14 Polzin, R., 12
Kloos, CJ.L., 134 Pou1et, D., 25
Knibb, M.A., 176 Procksch, 0., 125, 140, 191
Knight, D.A., 165, 176
Koch, K., 10, 11, 31, 39, 160 Rad, G. von., 14, 24, 27, 45-7, 49,
Kohler, L., 34, 75, 178, 188, 201 51,53,56,58,62, 77, 90, 92, 97,
Kutsch, E., 133, 135 100, 125, 129-30, 138, 140, 155-
7, 162, 168, 187, 190, 193, 197,
Lambert, W.G., 6, 44, 203 199,207
Lemche, N.P., 8 Raikes, R.L., 3
Levenson, ].D., 46, 89ff, 123 Ramm, B., 2, 3
Levine, B., 125 Ramsey, I., 71
Levison, ].R., 67, 97 Ramsey, P., 208
Lewis,j.P., 175 Rappaport, U., 147
Licht,]., 18, 53, 107 Rendtorff, R., 7,9, 11, 114-8
Livingstone, E.A, 74 Reventlow, H.G., 160
Loewenstamm, S.E., 101 Richardson, A, 5
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Roche, M. de, 13 Vink,j.G., 12

Rogerson, j.W., 4, 30 Volz, P., 9
Rowley, H.H., 74, 78, 189 Vriezen, T.C., 119, 120, 187, 190
Rubenstein, R.L., 46
Rutersworden, U., 138, 195-6, 205 Waltke, B.K., 95
Wellhausen, j., 133, 146
Sarna, N.M., 30 Wenham, GJ., 6, 8, 13fT, 19, 21,
Sawyer, j.F.A., 179, 192, 199, 202 23-6, 31,40, 56, 58, 84, 89, 91,
Schapera, 1., 174 101, 104- 5, 116, 125-6, 131-4,
Scharbert, j., 115 142, 147, 149, 151, 154, 169,
Schmid, H.H., 48 171,173,183,185,201,202
Schmidt, W.H., 178, 180-2, 184, Westbrook, R., 168
187, 193,200-1 Westermann, C., 6-7, 11, 19,21-7,
Schoors, A, 119-120, 187 31-2,41-2,49,52,54,56-7,64,
SchottrofT, W., 128-9, 136, 139, 83, 85-6, 91, 95, 99, 101, 104-5,
140 115-8, 125, 127, 131, 135-6,
Seeligmann, 1.L., 36-7 138, 140, 147, 153-4, 156, 158,
Seters,] van, 9, 11 163, 165, 173, 180, 182-4, 194,
Skinner, j., 25, 61fT, 83, 137, 158, 201
162 Whybray, R.N., 7, 107
Snaith, N.H., 77, 196 Wijngaert, L. van der, 35
Sonsino, R., 120, 162 Wildberger, H., 178, 181-2, 194-5
Soskice, j.Martin-, 72 Williamson, R., 63, 73
Speiser, E.A., 32 Winnett, F.V., 11
Stamm,]J., 200 Winton Thomas, D., 77
Sternberg, M., 18 Wolde, E. van, 21, 173
Stoebe, HJ., 32, 78 Wolff, H.W., 15, 26, 35-6,97, 155
Sutcliffe, E.F., 101 Woller, U., 119, 161
Wright, C., 168
Tengstrom, S., 9
Thielicke, H., 5 Zenger, E., 9, 30, 138, 149, 186,
Thompson, j.A, 80 213
Tigay, j.H., 6 Zevit, Z., 12
Trible, P., 198 Zimmerli, W., 9, 12,91, 136, 165,
Tsumura, D.T., 94, 96 168, 203
Turner, L.A, 49, 138, 175 Zipor, M.A. 28
Zlotovitz, M., 63-4, 116, 125, 127,
Vaux, R. de, 169 135, 137-8, 148-9, 154, 160,
Vawter, B.W., 23-4, 32, 51, 129 164,173,184
Vetter, D., 29
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Genesis
1-11. 4-6, 15, 40, 43, 118, 151-2, 2:2-3 130
157, 172, 175 2:3 103-4
1-9 90 2:4 9, 95, 148
1-5 40 2:5 11, 121
1-2 11, 15,41,89, 109 2:6 16, 96
1:1-2:4 146 2:7 11,26,43,97-8, 108-9
1 24, 31, 60, 95,107, 191, 194, 2:9 98
196, 199, 203 2:10ff 96
1:1-23 15 2:15 98, 109, 205
1:2 93-5, 104, 200-1 2:16-17 146, 153
1:3 91, 109 2:17 97,9
1:4 52, 100-1 2:18 98, 187, 192
1:6 101, 193 2:18ff 98
1:6-8 138 2:18-25 108
1:6-10 100 2:20 192, 205
1:7 92-3, 101 2:23 121
1:11 96, 100 3 41,99, 116-7, 196, 202, 205
1:11ff 102, 10 3-4 109
1:14 100-1, 104, 109, 191 3-6 27
1:16 193 3:1-5 202
1:18 101 3:5 42, 121,206
1:20 107, 202 3:8 74
1:21 100, 102-3 3:14 121
1:22 103-4, 151, 191 3:14-24 109
1:24 100, 102ff, 107-8, 199, 202 3:16 175, 207
1:25 43, 103 3:17 43, 116-7, 121
1:26-30 136 3:17-19 115,207
1:26ff 9, 31-2, 37, 40-2, 59-62, 3:19 97, 121
69, 84-5, 103, 106-9, 145, 149, 3:20 121
150, 157, 177-8, 180, 184, 193, 3:21 171
197,205,207,209,212 3:22 206-7
1:26 9, 10, 25, 107, 151, 176, 3:23 43
181, 183-8, 193, 197-200,204 3:24 207
1:27 103, 130, 199, 120, 186, 4 9, 42, 172, 174
199,200 4:1 175
1:28-2:4 133 4:2 171,173,205
1:28-30 191 4:4 171
1:28 13, 25, 85, 103-4, 147, 175, 4:7 40
191, 193, 198 4:8-16 21
1:29 102, 147, 150-1 4:9 22
1:30 150 4:9ff 159
1:31 21,85, 106, 147 4:10 42
2 91,97, 108-9, 152, 199 4:11 173
2:1-3 105, 114, 191 4:11ff 22
234 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

4:12 43, 109 6:14-16 108

4:14 99, 173 6:14-21 38
4:15ff 22 6: 14-22 8, 28, 38, 205
4:17 205 6:15 131
4:17-22 42, 98, 108 6:15-22 7
4:17-26 11, 25, 40, 175 6:17 3,28,31,66, 107-8
4:20-22 98 6:18 127-130, 135, 142, 198
4:20, 21, 22 205 6:18-20 7
4:23ff 21-3 6:19 8, 31, 102
4:23 23 6:22 8, 53, 60, 65-6
4:24 23 7:1-4 8, 97
5 26 7:1-5 7, 8, 40
5:1-32 42, 175 7:1 45,48-9,51-5,64-6, 75, 108,
5:1ff 187-8, 197 212
5:1 9, 131, 148, 186 7:2 170
5:2 104 7:4 3, 8, 27, 43, 53, 66, 97, 107
5:3 178, 184, 186-7 7:5 65
5:22,24 65 7:6 6, 10, 100
5:29 51, 55, 117 7:7 107, 108
5:32 10 7:7-9 40, 53, 65-6, 97
6 32,43, 65, 106, 109, 131, 174, 7:7-10 97
205,207 7:8 170
6:1-4 23-6 7:10 7, 107
6:1 24-5 7:11 6, 7, 10, 92-4, 96, 100-1,
6:2 24, 52 107, 109-11
6:3 25 7:12 8,97, 109
6:5-7 49, 65, 73, 79 7:13 108
6:5-8 8, 10, 15, 21, 26ff, 40, 57, 7:13-16 6, 11,66
63,83, 126 7:14-16 65, 102, 130
6:5 10, 26ff, 41, 57, 83, 90, 117, 7:15 31, 108, 202
119, 122, 136 7:16 7,31,53
6:6 1, 7, 26ff, 69, 71-87, 109-111, 7:17 6, 7,97, 108
211-12 7:17-24 107
6:7 26ff,43,83,90, 107, 110, 121, 7:18 7, 100
212 7:19, 20 100, 102
6:8 26ff, 45, 49, 51-5, 66, 85, 205, 7:18-21 6, 11, 108
212 7:21 3, 100, 102, 108
6:8-10 45 7:22 97-8, 108
6:9 48, 57-8, 61, 63-4, 66-7, 69, 7:23 3,27,31,43,97-8, 100, 107-
75, 148,205,212 8
6:9ff 10, 28, 45 7:24 6, 7, 100
6-9 1,2,4, 13, 16, 18,48,54,61, 8 108, 118, 126, 128
64,98, 107, 123, 130, 146, 188, 8:1 6-8, 75, 77, 85, 106, 127-130,
190, 197-8, 211 142, 147, 169,201
6:9-22 6,40 8:2 6-8, 10 1, 106
6:11-12 41 8:3 7,8,99
6:11-13 9, 10, 28-42, 65, 69, 106, 8:3-5 6, 7, 11
109, Ill, 136-7, 146, 148-151, 8:4 100
153, 157-8, 161, 190,202,212 8:5 100
6:11 9,28, 136, 152-3, 157 8:6ff 99
6:12 26,37,59,69, 150, 197 8:6-12 7, 205
6:13 90, 107, 142, 152-3 8:10 6
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 235

8:11 99,108 9:13-16 132

8:12 6 9:14 130-1, 139
8:13 6, 7 100 9:15 28,31, 107, 130-1, 139
8:14 7, 100 9:16 31, 130-2, 139
8:14-17 7 9:17 31, 130-2, 169
8:14-19 6, 11 9:18-19 55
8:16 53, 108 9:18-27 205
8:16-19 65 9:20-27 55-7, 65, 67, 117
8:17 31, 151 9:25 117
8:15-17 142 9:28-29 65
8:18 108 9:29 55
8:20 65, 109, 170-1 10-11 175
8:20-22 7, 11, 41, 57, 84, 114- 10:1 148
127, 141-2, 169-170,211-12 11 27, 118, 206
8:21 3,45, 54-5, 66-7, 69, 90, 98, 11:4 199
107, 110, 113-124, 126, 136, 11:7 199,201
141-2, 170-1,206 11:10 148
8:21ff 98 12:1 118
8:22 99, 108-9, 126-7, 141, 170, 12:1-3 27, 47
205 12:1-2 148
9 9, 38, 130, 133-4, 137-41, 146- 12:3 104, 115
8, 150-1, 154, 157-9, 164, 169, 12:4 53
172, 175-7 12:10-20 24
9:1 13, 104, 135, 141, 147ff, 151- 13:14-16 148
3, 169-70, 175, 204 14:19 95
9:1-7 15,38-9,66, 107, 109-110, 15 68
136-7,142,145-176,201-2,212- 15:1-6 47
13 15:6 48, 61, 68
9:1-17 6,40,110,141,169 16:10 148
9:2,3 149-152, 158, 170-171, 196 17 9, 10, 133, 135-6, 140ff, 146
9:3 152-3, 171 17:1 62, 192
9:4 154-9, 171, 191 17:1-8 47
9:4-6 152-4, 170 17:2 135, 147
9:5 31, 130, 133, 137, 153, 158- 17:5 121
60, 162-3, 202 17:6-7 147
9:5-6 1, 23, 85, 136, 212 17:7 135
9:6 9, 106, 152ff, 161-7, 169, 173, 17:8 141
177-8, 180, 184, 186-7, 190, 17:16 104, 147
198, 200, 203-7 17:18 192
9:7 13, 135, 141, 147ff, 151-3, 17:20 104, 149, 150
169, 170, 175, 204 17:23 60
9:8-17 7, 31, 114, 130-141, 152, 18 53-4, 76, 124, 189
212 18-19 10, 49, 129
9:8 192 18:22-23 49
9:9 130-1, 136, 169 18:23ff 49
9:9-11 132 18:28 28,49
9:10 130-1 18:31ff 29
9:11 28, 30-1, 107, 130-2, 141, 19 56
170 19:13, 14 29
9:12 130-2 19:19 29,49
9:12-17 131 19:29 128-9
9: 13 130-2, 138 20:5,6 62
 INDEX OF BIBUCAL PASSAGES

20:13 199 35:11 148, 192

21:4 60 35:11-12 147
22 47-8, 54, 66, 68, 126 35:22 56
22:16fJ 47 35:29 108
23:11 149-50 36:1,9 148
23:17-20 130 37:2 148
25:8, 17 108 37:17 201
25:19 148 37:33 149
25:27 62 37:35 77
26:3 133 41:52 104, 148
27:9 186 41:55 42
28:3 104 41:57 3
28:3-4 147 42:22 159
29:31 26 47:27 147
30:22 128 48:4 104
30:27 50 48:4-5 147-8
32:24fJ 74 49:3-4 56
32:33 146 49:5 35
34:7 84 49:29fJ 130

Exodus
1:6 64 21:12 168
1:7 148 21:12-25 153
2:24 139 21:15 57
4:21 82 21:23fJ 23, 168
4:24 74 21:28fJ 158, 167-8, 202
6:2 192 21:30 168
6:3 185 22:22 42
6:4 135 23 105
6:5 139 23:6 166
7:3 139 25 39, 186, 191
7:6,10,20 60 25-31 146
8:20 29 25:40 185
12 146 30:32 185
12:28 60 31:6 149
13:17 79 31:13-17 133
13:10 105 31:17 74, 77
16 39 32 30, 124
17 140-141 32-34 48,51, 76, 118-19, 123-4
18:4 185 32:1-6 38
18:11fJ 126ff 32:7 28
20:8-11 162 32:8 31
20 93, 164 32:9 119, 121
20:3-6 120 32:11-14 79
20:4 92,204 32:28 118
20:8-11 162 33:3 119, 121
20:10 31 33:4 118
20:11' 105 33:5 119, 121
20:13 165 33:19 50
20:26 56 33:23 188
21 162 34 137
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 237

34:6 50-1 34:17-26 38

34:6ff 123 34:17 38
34:9 118-124 34:18 105
34: 17 38, 204 35-40 146

Leviticus
1 125 20:9, 11ft', 159
1:1 105 20:16, 27 159
1:3, 10 62 20:26 101
1:4 126 21:17ff 62
3:17 154 22:17-19 125
6:10 149 23 105
7:26-27 154 23:15 62
8:4 60 24:16 150
9:7 126 24:17ft' 168
10:10 101 24:19-20 153
11:40 151 25:23 168
11:44 162 25:43 195
11 :44-45 151 25:46, 53 195
14:20 126 26:1 134
16:24 126 26:3 59, 137
17 42 26:6 151
17:10 151 26:9 135, 137, 148
17:11 155, 157, 185 26:14ff 59
17:14 185 26:17 195
18 56 26:21ff 196
18:4 59 26:22 151
18:24-30 167 26:40-42 139
19:2 162 26:40-45 129, 141
19:19 24 26:42 139
19:26 154 26:44 139-40
19:29 28 26:44,45 139

Numbers
7:17 131 24:19 195
10:10 105 26:53 185
11:11, 15 51 30:14 133
12:8 188 32:13 64
13:32 196 32:22, 29 195
13:33 25 33:52 178, 180
15:24 126 34:2 185
15:39ft' 128 35:9-34 168-9
18:8,21 149 35:25, 28 169
18:26 185-6 35:30-34 38
19:2 57 35:29-34 35
22:28-30 202 35:33ff 158, 168
23:19 77, 80-1 36:2 185
23:20-24 81
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Deuteronomy
1 61 21:8 160
1:13 185-6 21:17 166
1:21 149 21:22ff 168
1:35 64 22:9-11 24
1:35-40 64 22:24,27 42
2:14 64 23:1 56
3:26 116 24:13 48
4:12 179, 188 24:16 59
4:15 179 24:17 166
4:15-18 189 25:4 195
4:16 29, 179 25:5ff 174
4:25,26 29 26:14 185
6:25 48 27:18-26 57
7:22 196 27:25 159
8:6ff 31 28:1-14 48
9:5 133 28:15, 45 115
10:22 185 28:26 196
11:25 149 28:62 185
12:16-25 154 30:19-20 176
12:20ff 155 31:8 149
13:2 201 31:21 26
14:21 151 31:29 29
15:7-11 120 32:4 62
18:13 62 32:10 95
19 169 32:18 198
19:16, 18ff 36 32:20 64
19:21 153, 168 32:24 149
20:19 29 32:29 110, 158
21:1ff 169 32:36 77
21:7ff 38 33:26 185

Joshua
2:19 159-60 18:1 195
7 168 20 169
8:14 105 24:14 62
8:31 125

Judges
4:3 42 9:24 35, 160
5:11 47 16:28 128
5:27 37 21:6 79
8:27 186 21:15 79, 186
9 174
9:22ff 160

1 Samuel
2:17,30 79 6:5, 11 178-9
5:11 73 12:7 47
 INDEX OF BIBUCAL PASSAGES 239

12:21 95 15:29 81
13:12 125 16-17 41
14:32-34 154 16:1 52
15:11 77, 79 16:12 53
15:23,26 79 20:34 84

2 Samuel
4:11 159 16:8 159-60
7:25 133 16:22 56
10:15 29 17:14 82
11 24 19:3 84
11:1 29 20:15,20 29
12:22 50-1 22 93
13-14 174 22:31 62
13:34-14:24 173 24:1 82
14:5-7 174 24:14 201
16:4 50 24:16 79
16:5, 7 115 24:22-24 125
16:7ff 173 24:25 126

1 Kmgs
2:5, 31ff 160 9:23 195
2:13-25 174 11:43 174
2:28-34 160 13:24 149
2:31,32,37 160 14:24 149, 167
2:33 159-60 18:10 3
5:4 195 22:19ff 199
8:33,47 51

2 Kings
7:2, 19 101 16:10 183
8:13 52 17:25 196
8:19 29 21:2 167
11:18 178 21:13 27
16:3 167

1 Chronicles
12:18 36

2 Chronicles
6:42 129 23:17178
21 174 24:22 158

Ezra
4:18 199
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Nehemiah
5:5 195 7:2 187
5:19 129

Job
1-2 90 19:8-12 35
1:2 10 20:8 36
1:5 126 26:11 92
1:6 24 33:4 176, 200
6:8 95 34:14ff 97, 108
9:6 92 34:24ff 110
10:8-12 114 37:18 92
10:9 187 38-42 89
12:4 57 38:6 92
12:24 95 38:41 202
16:18 159 39:16-18 202
16:17 35,38 41:16 33
19 32 42:6 79
19:7 35,36 42:13 10

Psalms
2:3 201 39:7 178,180
2:7 73 41:5 51
7:17 35 44 81
8 130, 196,200,203 45 181
8:5-8 85, 129 44:26 81
8:5 III 46:4 93
9:13 129, 158 51:1 51
11 32 53 32
12:6 37 58:2ff 36
15:2 62 58:3 33
17:15 188 65:5-8 101
18 93 65:9-13 113
18:7-15 92 69:1 101
18:17 101 72:1ff 48
18:49 32 72:1-4 194
19:18 62 72:8 195
23:4 119 72:14 159
24:3ff 36 73 180
25:16 51 73:20 178
26:11 51 74:12-17 92
29:1 24 78:23 101
29:1-4, 10 92 78:55 186
30:10 103 86:2ff 51
35:11 36 88:6 129
36:7 195 89 81
36:9 176 89:49 81
37:18ff 62 93:1-4 92
39 180 93:3ff 101
 INDEX OF BmUCAL PASSAGES

94:21 159 107:35ff 113

103:6 47,94 110:2 195
104 95 110:4 82
104:2 187 112:4 50-1
104:5 92 119:29 51
104:5-9 92,102 119:52 77
104:6ff 93 121:4 77
104:6-9 94 123:2 198
104:8 102 127,128 10
104:9 92, 102 136:4-9 114
104:14 92 136:6 93
104:21 202 139:13ff 114
104:27 92,202 140:1ff 34
104:29 92,97,108,110 140:2 32-4
104:30 200 140:5 33
106:9 94 140:12 32
106:23 29 146:4 98
106:31 68 147:1 103
106:38 35 147:15ff 113

Proverbs
3:4,24 51 15:22 152
3:31 37 21:17 56
4:17 33 22:9, 17-18 152
6:32 29 22:22-23 152
8:22-31 89 22:11 50
8:27 95 23:6-8 152
10:6 32 23:20-21 56
11:5 57 23:29-35 56
11:22 57,152 25:6-17 152
12:1 152 26:6 37
12:10 195 26:14 152
13:2 32 26:25 50
13:12 152 28:23 51
13:15 50 29:1 119

Ecclesiastes
12:3 101

Song of Solomon
1:9ff 201

Isaiah
1:4 30 2:6-11 34
1:15 35,119,159 2:12-14 34
1:24 77 5:22 56
2:1-5 103 6 188,199
 INDEX OF BmLICAL PASSAGES

6:10 82 42:14 74, 198

7 103 42:25 155
9 181 43:22 120
9:5 194 45:8 47
11 48,195 45:18 96
11:6-9 151 46:13 47
13:6 37 49:13, 15 77
14:20 29 51:9ff 95
15:1 37 53:8 64
19:5 100 53:9 32
22:4 37 54:1-3 148
24:10 95 54:6 84
24:18 101 54:9 12,135
29:16 26 54:10 119
29:21 95 59:2 35,99
33:20 105 59:3 31,35, 159
34:11 95, 196 59:4 35
37:11ff 29 59:6 32-3,35
40-43 76 59:7 37
40:1 77 59:8 32,35
40:7 92 60:8 101
40:17 95 61:8 73
40:18 183, 188 63:1 74
40:22 92 63:13 94
40:23 95, 187 65:25 151

Jeremiah
1:8 121 18:4 29
2:6ff 39 18:7-10 79-80, 82
2:7 167 18:8 77, 78
2:13 72, 176 18:12 80
2:30 29 19:4 35
2:31 64 20:8 36
3:16 148 23:3-4 148
4:19-27 12 25:31 31
4:20 37 26:2-6 80
4:28 79,82 26:18-19 79
5:22 93 29:5-6 148
6:7 37 30:17 120
7:29 64 30:24 133
8:6 79 31:15 77
13:7 28 31:19 79
14:10 128-9 32:7,8 166
14:12 119 34:11 195
14:21 103 38:16 158
15:15 128 48:18 29
17:1 80 50:39-40 149
17:21 105 51:35 35
18 79-80,83
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES 243

Lamentations
1:2 77 3:19 129

Ezekiel
1:22 138 18:32 69
1:26 183 20:17 28
1:26ff 138, 188 20:22ff 105
1:28 138 20:41 185
3:18, 20 159 20:44 28-9
5:1-12 29 22:26ff 35
5:13-17 29 23:11 29
5:13 77 23:14 178
5:16 29 23:15 183
7:20 178 23:22-35 29
7:23 35-6, 58 24:7 159
8:17 35 26:8 134
14:14, 20 61 28:15 62
14:15 196 28:16 35
16:17 178 28:17 29
16:60 134 33:6 158
18 58-61,67,69 33:13, 16 129
18:4 60,69 33:25-26 155
18:5 47 34:4 195
18:6-9 59 34:23, 29 134
18:9 60,69 34:25 151
18:13 60,69, 164 35:6 159
18:18 60 36:11 148
18:19 59 36:18 39
18:20 59,69 37:9 97
18:21ff 67 45:1 185
18:22-24 60 45:9 37
18:24ff 67 45:15,17 126
18:26-28 60 46:16 185
18:30-32 60 47:14, 22 185
18:30 47

Daniel
9:3 50 9:17-19 50
9:9 120

Hosea
1:4 121 6:8 167
2:18ff 195 7:2 129
4:1-3 12, 48, 196 7:14 120
4:2 156 13:3 101
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL PASSAGES

Joel
4:13 195 4:19 35

Amos
3:10 36-7 7:1-6 79
5:15 51 7:3 77
5:26 178 7:17 167

Obadiah
5 37

Jonah
3:7-10 79 3:10 78
3:8 33 4:11 195
3:9 79

Micah
2:4 37 6:11ff 36
6:5 47

Nahum
1:4 92

Habakkuk
1:2,3 34 2:8 34-5
1:3 36-7 2:15 56
1:9 34 2:17 34-5
2:6-11 34 2:12-14 34

Zephaniah
1:2-3 12

Malachi
1:9 51 3:6 82
2:16 38 3:10 101
 INDEX OF BIBUCAL PASSAGES 245

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Wzsdom 15:8, 11 97
10:4 42

Ecclesiasticus
15:14 67 17:2,7 196
17:1-14 196

2 Maccabees
7:28 91

Sibylline Oracles
1:109-119, 154-6 43

Jubilees
7:20-24 43
 SUPPLEMENTS TO VETUS TESTAMENTUM
2. POPE, M.H. El in the Ugaritic texts. 1955. ISBN 90 04 04000 5
3. Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Harold Henry Rowley by
the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum in celebration of his 65th birthday,
24 March 1955. Edited by M. NOTH and D. WINTON THOMAS. 2nd reprint of the
first (1955) ed. 1969. ISBN 90 04 02326 7
4. Volume du Congres [International pour I'etude de l'Ancien Testament]. Strasbourg
1956. 1957. ISBN 90 04 023275
8. BERNHARDT, K.-H. Das Problem tier alt-orientalischen Konigsideologie imAlten Testament.
Unter besonderer Beliicksichtigung der Geschichte der Psalmenexegese darge-
stellt und kritisch gewiirdigt. 1961. ISBN 90 04 02331 3
9. Congress Volume, Bonn 1962. 1963. ISBN 900402332 1
11. DONNER, H. Israel unter den Volkern. Die Stellung der klassischen Propheten des 8.
Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zur Aussenpolitik der Konige von Israel undJuda. 1964.
ISBN 90 04 02334 8
12. REIDER,]. An Index to Aquila. Completed and revised by N. Turner. 1966..
ISBN 90 04 02335 6
13. ROTH, W.M.W. Numerical sayings in the Old Testament. A form-critical study. 1965.
ISBN 90 04 02336 4
14. ORLINSKY, H.M. Studies on the second part of the Book of Isaiah. - The so-called
'Servant of the Lord' and 'Suffering Servant' in Second Isaiah. - Snaith, N.H.
Isaiah 40-66. A study of the teaching of the Second Isaiah and its consequences.
Repr. with additions and corrections. 1977. ISBN 90 04 05437 5
15. Volume du Congres [International pour l'etude de l'Ancien Testament]. Geneve
1965. 1966. ISBN 90 04 023372
17. Congress Volume, Rome 1968. 1969. ISBN 9004023399
19. THOMPSON, RJ. Moses and the Law in a century of criticism since Graf. 1970.
ISBN 90 04 02341 0
20. REoFORD, D.B. A stut!Y of the biblical story ofJoseph. 1970. ISBN 90 04 023429
21. AHLsTROM, G.W.Joel and the temple cult ofJerusalem. 1971. ISBN 90 04 026207
22. Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971. 1972. ISBN 90 04 035214
23. Studies in the religion ofancient Israel. 1972. ISBN 90 04 03525 7
24. SCHOORS, A I am Godyour Saviour. A form-critical study of the main genres in Is.
xl-Iv. 1973. ISBN 90 04 037922
25. Au.EN, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. The relation of the Septuagint I and II Chroni-
cles to the Massoretic text. Part 1. The translator's craft. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03913 9
26. Studies on prophecy. A collection of twelve papers. 1974. ISBN 90 04 03877 9
27. Au.EN, L.C. The Greek Chronicles. Part 2. Textual criticism. 1974.
ISBN 90 04 03933 3
28. Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974. 1975. ISBN 900404321 7
29. Congress Volume, Gottingen 1977. 1978. ISBN 90 04 058354
30. EMERTON,].A. (ed.). Studies in the historical books of the Old Testament. 1979.
ISBN 90 04 06017 0
31. MEREDINO, R.P. Der Erste und der Let;;,te. Eine Untersuchung vonJes 40-48. 1981.
ISBN 90 04 061991
32. EMERTON,].A. (ed.). Congress Vienna 1980. 1981. ISBN 9004065148
33. KOENIG,]. L'hermtneutique analogique du Judafsnu antique d'apres les thnoins textuels
d'Isafe. 1982. ISBN 90 04 06762 0
34. BARSTAD, H.M. The religioU5 polemics qfAmos. Studies in the preachings of Amos ii
7B-8, iv 1-13, v 1-27, vi 4-7, viii 14. 1984. ISBN 90 04 070176
35. KRASoVEC,]. Antithetic structure in Biblical Hebrew poetry. 1984.
ISBN 90 04 07244 6
36. EMERTON,].A (ed.). Congress Volume, Salamanca 1983. 1985. ISBN 90 04 072810
37. LEMCHE, N.P. EarlY Israel. Anthropological and historical studies on the Israelite
society before the monarchy. 1985. ISBN 90 04 078533
38. NIELSEN, K. Incense in Ancient Israel. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07702 2
39. PARDEE, D. Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic parallelism. A trial cut. 1988.
ISBN 90 04 08368 5
40. EMERTON,].A (ed.). Congress Volume,Jerusaiem 1986. 1988. ISBN 90 04 08499
41. EMERTON,].A. (ed.). Studies in the Pentateuch. 1990. ISBN 90 04 091955
42. McKENzIE, S.L. The trouble with Kings. The composition of the Book of Kings in
the Deuteronomistic History. 1991. ISBN 9004094024
43. EMERTON,JA (ed.). Congress Volume, Leuven 1989. 1991. ISBN 90 04 093982
44. HAAK, R.D. Habakkuk. 1992. ISBN 9004095063
45. BEYERLIN, W. 1m Licht der Traditionen. Psalm LXVn und CXV. Ein Entwicklungs-
zusammenhang. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09635 3
46. MEIER, SA Speaking qf Speaking. Marking direct discourse in the Hebrew Bible.
1992. ISBN 90 04 09602 7
47. KESSLER, R. Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen]uda. Yom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum
Exil. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09646 9
48. AUFFRET, P. Vo/ez de vosyeux. Etude structurelle de vingt psaumes, dont Ie psaume
119. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09707 4
49. GARCiA MARTINEZ, F., A HILHORSTAND CJ. LABUSCHAGNE (eds.). The Scriptures
and the Scrolls. Studies in honour of AS. van der Woude on the occasion of his
65th birthday. 1992. ISBN 9004097465
50. LEMAIRE, A AND B. OTZEN (eds.). History and Traditions qf EarlY Israel. Studies
presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th, 1993. 1993. ISBN 90 04 09851 8
51. GORDON, R.P. Studies in the Targum to the Twelve Prophets. From Nahum to Malachi.
1994. ISBN 90 04 09987 5
52. HUGENBERGER, G.P. Marriage as a Covenant. A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics
Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. 1994.
ISBN 90 04 09977 8
53. GARCiA MARJiNEz, F., A HILHORST, ].TAG.M. VAN RUITEN, AS. VAN DER
WOUDE. Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of CJ. Labuschagne on the Occasion
of His 65th Birthday. 1994. ISBN 90 04100520
54. FERNANDEZ MARcos, N. Septuagint and Old Latin in the Book qf Kings. 1994.
ISBN 9004 10043 1
55. SMITH, M.S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Volume 1. Introduction with text, translation
and commentary ofKTU 1.1-1.2. 1994. ISBN 90 04 099956
56. DUGUID, I.M. Ezekiel and the uaders qf Israel. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10074 1
57. MARx, A us qffrandes vegetales dans l'Ancien Testament. Du tribut d'hommage au
repas eschatologique. 1994. ISBN 90 04101365
58. SCHAFER-LicHTENBERGER, C. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autoritat und
Legitimitat des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. 1995. ISBN 90 04 100644
59. LAsSERRE, G. Synopse des lois du Pentateuque. 1994. ISBN 90 04102027
60. DOGNIEZ, C. Bibliography qf the Septuagint - Bibliographie de La Septante (1970-1993).
Avec une preface de Pierre-Maurice Bogaert. 1995. ISBN 90 04101926
61. EMERTON,].A (ed.). Congress Volume, Paris 1992. 1995. ISBN 90 04102590
62. SMITH, P.A. Rhetoric and Redacti()TI in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and
Authorship ofIsaiah 56-66. 1995. ISBN 90 04103066
63. O'CONNElL, R.H. The Rhetoric of the Book ofJudges. 1996. ISBN 90 04101047
64. HARLAND, P.]. The Value ofHuman Lift· A Study of the Story of the Hood (Genesis
6-9). 1996. ISBN 90 04 10534 4