The Mythological Background of The - Ed in Gen 2 - 6 - Chaoskampf, The Garden of Eden, and The Mountains of Lebanon Religion and Literature of Ancient Palestine

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...
http://www.religionofancientpalestine.com/?page_id=592
The meaning of the mysterious d that comes up to water the ground in

Gen 2:6 has long been a point of scholarly discussion and debate, for
three basic reasons: 1) the word does not appear to be Semitic and its
etymological origin is uncertain; 2) the yiqtol and weqatal verbal forms
in v. 6 indicate that the d was continual watering the ground in the
past, but this stands in tension with the claim in v. 5 that the land was
dry and without rain or vegetation; and 3) the d seems to arise from
the earth of its own volition, without the intervention of deity, yet it
clearly plays a pivotal role in the narrative as it represents the first
concrete action described after the when not yet constructions of vv.
1 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
4b-5 and functions as the catalyst that leads to the creation of humans
and the garden of Eden.
What is the significance of this d? Why does it appear at this point in

the narrative and why is it described so obliquely?[i] In the following
study I would like to explore the meaning and function of the d and
show how a proper understanding of its mythological background sheds
crucial light on the context and development of the Eden story.
Meaning and Etymology
Gen 2:6 reads, But an d was coming up from the earth and watered
the whole face of the ground. From the context the d appears to be a
water source that is subterranean, such as a fountain or spring. The verb
lh is elsewhere used to describe water that comes up from a well (Num
21: 17), and the following verb qh indicates that the water drenches the
land so as to irrigate it (cf. Deut 11:10; Ps 36:8; 104:13; Ecc 2:6; Isa 27:3;
Eze 17:7-8; 32:6; Joel 4:18). In addition, the volume of water from the
d is apparently substantial, since the narrative reports that the whole
face of the ground was watered. The word Eden itself means a well
watered place, or place abounding in water supply (cf. Millard 1984;
Hess 1991; Tsumura 2005: 116-125). Presumably, the d is the source of
the river that flows out of Eden in v. 10, A river flows out of Eden to
water (qh) the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four
branches. The repetition of the verb qh here suggests a kind of
resumption of the motif of watering from v. 6.
Aside from Gen 2:6 the noun d is attested in Hebrew only in Job 36:27,
spelled d with a long final vowel. Yet here the d has nothing to do
with a subterranean source and is rather associated with meteorological
phenomena, for he withdraws drops of water and distills rain to/from
2 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
the d, which the clouds drop down and pour on the ground in
showers (vv. 27-28).
Not surprisingly in view of the contrasting literary depictions, the

ancient versions are largely divided in their interpretation of the
meaning of d/d. On the one hand, the LXX, Aquila, Vulgate, and
Peshitta seem to have understood d in Gen 2:6 to refer to a
spring/fountain (; ; fons; ), which fits the literary
context decribed above. On the other hand, the LXX and Targumim
interpreted d in Job 36:27 to mean cloud (; ), which in
turn led Rabbinic tradition to explain the d in Gen 2:6 in the same
manner (cf. Barr 1987: 422; Hasel and Hasel 2000: 321-322; Tsumura
2005: 86; Rogland 2010). Uniquely, the Vulgate associated the d in
Job 36:27 with floods (gurgitum; cf. also inundatio flood for d in
Job 21:17).
As I mentioned above, the word d does not appear to be Semitic in

origin, since it has no close parallel in any known Semitic language.
Semitic etymologies have on occasion been attempted, including
Dahoods suggestion to connect d to -du rain cloud in Eblaite and
wd in Arabic (1981), or that it represents a Canaanite word meaning
mist, dew preserved only in Egyptian id.t (Grg 1986; 1989; Hasel and
Hasel 2000). However, both of these proposals rest on weak philological
foundations (cf. Hasel and Hasel 2000: 329-331; Mankowski 2000:
26-27; Tsumura 2005: 86, n. 5), and even more importantly, the
translations cloud or mist/dew hardly fit the literary context.
According to Gen 2:6, the water comes up from the earth and waters the
face of the ground, suggesting a profusion of subterranean water with an
irrigational quality. This kind of watering is to be distinguished from an
evanescent cloud or light mist, which in any case would still raise the
question from where the water in the cloud or mist originated in the
context of the story.
Rogland has recently offered a literary argument for understanding d
3 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
4 de 58
to mean cloud, suggesting that Ps 135:7 and Jer 10:13 are intertextually
dependent on Gen 2:6 (2010: 386-388). But on closer inspection the
descriptions of meteorological phenomena in Ps 135:7 and Jer 10:13
have little in common with the subterranean d of Gen 2:6. YHWH is
said to cause clouds to arise from the ends [ ]of the earth, or in
other words, to cause storm clouds to build on the horizon (cf. 1 Kgs
18:44). The expressions are not in fact conceptually or rhetorically
parallel. The overlap in language is limited merely to the verb lh, which
is inadequate by itself to support a hypothesis of literary dependence.
Because of the lack of a plausible Semitic derivation, the general

tendency has been to seek an etymology from the Sumero-Akkadian
world. The three proposals favored in current scholarship include: 1)
loanword from Akkadian ed meaning flood, surging water, itself a
loan from Sumerian A.D.A (Speiser 1955; Ellenbogen 1962: 13; AHw;
HALOT; Mankowski 2000: 26-27; Tawil 2009: 6; Zevit 2013: 79-80); 2)
loanword directly from Sumerian A.D/e4-d high water (Tsumura
2005); and 3) loanword from Akkadian-Sumerian id meaning river or
River god (Albright 1939; Sb 1970; Westermann 1984: 200-201;
Wallace 1985: 73-74; Propp 1987: 18-19; McCarter 1999: 446).
Among these, the suggestion that d stems directly from Sumerian is

dubious on the face. In order to account for the variant spellings of d
and d in the Bible, Tsumura has proposed that d is derived from
Sumerian A.D/e4-d and d from Akkadian ed. But as explained by
B. Noonan, this makes too much out of the presence or absence of a
final waw in the two attested forms of found in Gen 2:6 ( )and Job
36:27 ( )It is highly unlikely that this term entered Hebrew twice as
Tsumura postulates, one time directly from Sumerian and another time
indirectly from Sumerian via Akkadian. Hebrew speakers would not
have borrowed this word directly from Sumerian, and both forms of
must reflect a single loan via Akkadian (2011: 151). As we will see below,
the shorter spelling of d in Gen 2:6 is best seen as a secondary
development internal to biblical Hebrew.
02/12/2016 15:46
5 de 58
Similarly, the proposal to relate Hebrew d to Akkadian-Sumerian id is

problematic in a number of respects. First, Tsumura has shown that the
Sumerian logogram D was generally read in Akkadian as nru river
and therefore is unlikely to have been adopted in Hebrew in the form id
(2005: 92-95). Second, the Sumerian word for river or River god is a
doubtful candidate for lexical borrowing. Hebrew already had a word for
river and in fact nhr appears just a few verses later in the same Eden
story (v. 10). So if the author had intended d to be understood as
river, we would rather expect him to have used the regular Hebrew
term. On the other hand, a subtle allusion to the Mesopotamian god of
the river ordeal is clearly out of place in the narrative. Third, the
description of the d rising from the earth is inconsistent with the
physical character of a river. As others have pointed out, rivers flow
down not up. Lastly, a derivation from id would also fail to account for
the longer spelling of d in Job 36:27.
As a consequence, I think the most plausible etymology of Hebrew

d/d is that it derives from Akkadian ed, whether directly or
through Aramaic as an intermediary. From a philological perspective,
the long form d is satisfactorily analyzed as a realization of Akkadian
ed in Hebrew. As noted by Mankowski, the final is the expected vowel
of the absolute form as seen in other loans of Akkadian words ending in
long vowels (2000: 26). The loss of the final vowel in the case of d in
Gen 2:6 would then be explained as a simple scribal mistake or
alteration that occurred at some point within the history of transmission
of Genesis. In the Aramaic script the waw and yod were graphically
similar, so the final waw on d could have been easily lost through
haplography with the following yod on .
Furthermore, the word ed flood provides a sense that fits well in the
literary context of Gen 2:6. Unlike a river or stream, a flood
indicates a profusion of water that is conceptually compatible with a
rising movement from a fountain, and it would also account for the
02/12/2016 15:46
6 de 58
volume of water needed to irrigate the whole face of the ground and to
produce a large river flowing out of the garden of Eden. In the past this
explanation of d has sometimes been rejected on the grounds that in
Akkadian an ed flood was typically violent or catastrophic (e.g. Sb
1970; Barr 1987). However, Tsumura has demonstrated that an ed was
not necessarily destructive and that it rather referred to a large and
powerful volume of water, which could be either beneficial or destructive
in nature (2005: 97-101). ed water also appears to be linked to the
subterranean Apsu in the Epic of Gilgamesh (101-102).
Finally, the notion of a flood presents the only viable meaning that
would accommodate both a subterranean and meteorological/heavenly
origin of water, consistent with the contrasting literary depictions of Gen
2:6 and Job 36:27. A variety of biblical and extra-biblical data suggest
that Canaanites including Israelites commonly believed that large
sources of water or floods existed both below and above the earth. For
example, in Ugaritic myth El is said to dwell amid the springs of the
rivers and channels of the double-deeps, or in other words, at the
meeting place of the upper and lower waters (de Moor 1987: 15, n. 81;
Stolz 1999a: 739; 1999b: 805). In Gen 1:6 Elohim separates the upper
and lower waters, and in Ps 33:7 YHWH creates the heavens and the sea
and puts the deeps in storehouses. In Ps 42:8 deep calls to deep near
the place of their meeting; and in the flood story the fountains of the
deep and windows of the heavens together produce the mbwl flood
(Gen 7:11; 8:2). The implication of the wording in Job 36:27-28 is
therefore that God withdraws water from the upper flood or ed and
pours it down in showers upon the ground. As first recognized by Pope,
What we have here in brief is the same idea as in the biblical flood story,
that the rain comes from the cosmic reservoirs, whether below or above
the earth, or both (1973: 273).
The Chaoskampf and the Primordial Waters
02/12/2016 15:46
Because d likely means flood, this raises the question of whether in

the context of the Eden story it has a cosmological significance or role. I
mentioned earlier that the presence of the d coming up from the earth
is the first creative event that occurs in the narrative and is the catalyst
that leads to the creation of humans and a habitable earth. The d
implicitly arises from the subterranean lower waters or tehom, and this
recalls the motif of the harnessing of the primordial waters in CanaaniteIsraelite mythological tradition.
From various biblical and comparative data, scholars have been able to
reconstruct that in the Canaanite-Israelite tradition that preceded the
development of the canonical biblical creation story cosmogonic creation
was inseparable linked to the theme of Chaoskampf, which centered
around divine combat with the Sea (cf. Wyatt 2005: 22-33, 106-108;
Batto 2013; Miller 2014b; Ayali-Darshan 2014; 2015; Ballentine 2015).
Ayali-Darshan has fittingly described the complex the cosmogonic
tradition of Zaphon. The basic components of the tradition are that in
illo tempore a god defeated the primordial Sea monster, constructing his
mountain throne Zaphon upon its corpse and establishing a habitable
earth in the process. The necessary outcome was that the victorious god
acquired control over the cosmic waters, not only setting a boundary to
the sea so that it would never again fully threaten the earth but also
harnessing fresh water from the primordial tehom to come forth from
mountains in the form of springs and rivers and also in clouds of
fructifying rain.
Although the myth is not preserved fully formed in any extant NWS text,
fragments or echoes of it are reflected in numerous biblical sources. For
example, YHWHs throne is associated with the powerful flood waters of
tehom: YHWH sits enthroned over the flood; YHWH sits enthroned as
king forever (Ps 29:10; Niehr 1990: 114-115; Koch 1993: 173-184; cf. also
Ps 24:1-2; 42:6-7; 48:1-8; 93:104; 104:3). Roaring and threatening
waters are contrasted with the fertilizing river of Elohim (Ps 46:1-5). A
stereotyped role of YHWH is to bestow the blessings of water from
heaven and tehom (Gen 49:25; Deut 33:13-16). Cosmogonic creation is
7 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
linked to control over the cosmic waters: By the word of YHWH the
heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth. He
gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle; he put the deeps in
storehouses (Ps 33:6-7); YHWH by wisdom founded the earth; by
understanding he established the heavens; by his knowledge the deeps
broke open, and the clouds drop down the dew (Prov 3:19-20).
For our purposes, what is most significant is that allusions to creation

through Chaoskampf are often followed by references to the
establishment of beneficial water sources:
By your strength you established the mountains; you are girded

with might. You silence the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their
waves You visit the earth and water it; the river of Elohim is full
of water; you provide the people with grain; for so you have
prepared it. You water its furrows abundantly, settling its ridges,
softening it with showers, and blessing its growth (Ps 65:7-11).
Yet Elohim my king is from of old, working salvation in the earth.

You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the
dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you
gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. You cut
openings for springs and torrents (Ps 74:12-15).
You cover the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the
mountains. At your rebuke they flee; at the sound of your thunder
they take to flight. They rose up to the mountains, ran down to the
valleys to the place that you appointed for them. You set a
boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again
cover the earth. You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they
flow between the hills, giving drink to every wild animal, the wild
asses quench their thirst. By the streams the birds of the air have
8 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
their habitation; they sing among the branches. From your lofty
abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit
of your work (Ps 104:6-13).
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a

circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to
the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his
command (Prov 8:27-29).
Following the reverse ordering of Job 26:7-13 reconstructed by

Ayali-Darshan (2014), after defeating the Sea/Rahab Elohim binds
up the waters in his thick clouds.
The defeat of the Sea is associated with divine provisioning of

water sources in Job 38:8-38.
With this mythological background in mind, it seems clear that the story
about the d arising from the earth in Gen 2:6 also derives from the
cosmogonic Zaphon tradition. The flood of the d is the natural product
of YHWH or El having defeated the Sea monster and taken control of the
cosmic reservoir tehom, resulting in managed distribution of its fresh
water resources from the location of his mountain abode. Only in this
case the myth has been truncated so that we meet it in medias res as it
were. The creator god has already triumphed over the forces of chaos
and established the dry earth upon tehom. But according to the narrative
no rain has yet fallen and the deity has only begun the process of
releasing fertilizing waters in order to allow for the establishment of a
well-ordered, habitable earth. The mention of the d therefore can only
have been intended to evoke the specific mythological background of
regulating the primordial waters for the benefit of humans.[ii]
9 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
The Development of the Eden story
An important implication of this understanding of the function of the d

in Gen 2 is that the narrative has likely undergone significant redactional
development. It is well known that many of the narratives of the Hebrew
Bible had a long history of transmission and evolution, providing many
opportunities for adjustments to be made to the text, some more
intrusive and consequential than others (van der Toorn 2007; Pakkala
2013). I mentioned earlier that in the present form of the narrative the
d seems to come up from the earth on its own volition, without the
intervention of deity: But an d was coming up from the earth and
watered the whole face of the ground. Only beginning in v. 7 is the name
YHWH-Elohim associated with concrete punctual action, as if to
disassociate him from the d. However, given the mythological
background of the cosmogonic tradition of Zaphon a self-automated
flood upwelling from the earth is highly unexpected and in fact
inappropriate. In the regular form of the myth a crucial role of deity was
to be the one who released the fructifying waters from tehom onto the
land.
In addition, the narrative exhibits several literary and syntactic

anomalies, with vv. 5-6 constructed so as to function as lengthy
circumstantial clauses following on v. 4b, such that v. 7 in which
YHWH-Elohim forms man from the dirt of the ground becomes the
effective apodosis: On the day that the YHWH-Elohim made the earth
and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no
herb of the field had yet sprung upfor YHWH-Elohim had not caused it
to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a
stream was rising from the earth, and watered the whole face of the
ground then YHWH-Elohim formed man from the dust of the
ground Although this formulation seems to have been intended to
draw attention to the formation of man as the first act of YHWHs
creation, it is overly long and syntactically awkward, and it also creates
10 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
the problem that the land is simultaneously dry and without vegetation
and irrigated by a substantial subterranean flood.
As a consequence, I think it is reasonable to assume that the narrative

beginning of the Eden account has experienced a redactional
intervention. Because real action in the pericope only begins to take
place in v. 6 with the upwelling of the d, this must have functioned as
the original apodosis to v. 4b-5, and instead of a disjunctive waw the
construction would have consisted of a wayyiqtol (Hiphil) + d (direct
object): he caused a flood to rise from the earth and it watered the
whole face of the ground. As an apodosis, a reference to deity beginning
the process of establishing a habitable earth would have first occurred
here. This reconstruction reduces the distance between the
circumstantial clause and the apodosis, resolves the problems of the
self-automating flood and the tension between the wet and dry lands of
vv. 5 and 6, and makes more literary and contextual sense, since a
reference to a lack of vegetation is followed by an act of creation that
makes vegetation possible. At some point a scribe apparently altered the
syntax in order to bring the creation of man by YHWH-Elohim into
greater prominence.
YHWH or El?
The Eden storys mythological background in the cosmogonic Zaphon

tradition also points to other aspects of the narrative that may have
undergone redactional development. In the current form of the narrative
the divine protagonist is a deity named YHWH-Elohim. Yet a number of
scholars have observed that the garden of Eden motif and the biblical
Eden story itself likely derive from traditions associated with Canaanite
El (Clifford 1972: 98-103, 159; Cross 1997: 37-38; Mullen 1980: 153-154;
Day 2002: 26-32; 2013: 29; Steiner 2013: 103-107; Korpel and de Moor
2015: 29, 126-137). In Ezekiel the garden of Eden is repeatedly
11 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
designated Garden of Elohim [i.e. El] (28:13; 31:8, 9), and located on
the mountain of Elohim (28:14, 16), or the mount of divine assembly.
In Gen 13:10 the name of the garden is garden of YHWH, but in the
LXX the garden of God, reflecting Garden of
Elohim. In Job 15:7-8 a tradition about the first man of the human race
acquiring wisdom in the council of Eloah [i.e. El] is briefly alluded to.
Consistent with this picture, the Garden of Eden in Gen 2-3 is implied to
take place on a mountain, because great rivers flow from it to encompass
the four quarters of the earth (Mettinger 2007: 15-16; Blenkinsopp 2011:
61), including the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, and the Pishon around Arabia
(Noort 1999: 29-30; Day 2013: 29-30). The place is also near the home
of the gods; divine wisdom and immortality is available in Eden and
references to the divine assembly occur in 3:5, 22: you will be like the
gods, knowing good and evil; See, the man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil.
In addition, the profile of YHWH-Elohim is highly suggestive of El as

known from the mythological texts of Ugarit. As a potter-like creator, he
forms the first man from earthen clay, reminiscent of Els sculpting of a
female Remover of Illness in the Kirta Epic (KTU 1.16 V 25-30). His
role as creator of humankind also recalls the divine epithet ab adm
father of man preserved in the same text (Rahmouni 2008: 8-10).
YHWH-Elohim is a god of superhuman wisdom, who builds and orders
the habitable earth and has access to the tree of knowledge of good and
evil (2:17). He is a god of judgement who issues authoritative decrees
(2:17; 3:14-19), inaugurates and governs human sexual reproduction
(2:18; 3:16), presides over the divine assembly (3:22), and has charge
over guardian servants (3:24). In short, YHWH-Elohim is for all
practical purposes El.
We saw above that the Eden story is connected to the cosmogonic

Zaphon tradition by virtue of the creation setting and the upwelling of
the subterranean waters on the cosmic mountain. In this regard, we also
have evidence that the original protagonist of the primordial
Chaoskampf in the Canaanite-Israelite world was El, thus further
12 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
13 de 58
confirming the secondary nature of the attribution of creation to

YHWH-Elohim.
First, in Ugaritic literature El is said to live on a mountain at the springs

of the rivers, at the channels/meeting place of the two deeps (KTU 1.2
III 4; 1.3 V 6; 1.4 IV 20-22; 1.17 V 47-48; 1.100.3), suggesting that it was
he who had originally defeated the Sea monster and taken control of the
waters of tehom in primordial time.[iii] This aspect of Els character is
not otherwise apparent in the available texts from Ugarit and in fact the
Chaoskampf role has been largely siphoned off to Baal Haddu, who has
become king of Zaphon, the warrior who struggles against the Sea, and
dispenser of fructifying rain (Wyatt 2005: 22-33; Ballentine 2015:
48-63). But importantly Baal seems to fulfill this role only in the
mythological present and is never portrayed as having accomplished the
Chaoskampf in the cosmological past. In addition, while Zaphon is
strictly associated with Baal and Els home is apparently located far away
in Anatolia (Niehr 2004: 327-330; Lipiski 1971: 41-58), we will see later
that this presentation of Els relationship to Zaphon is unlikely to be
primitive, despite occurring at this early date. Even at Ugarit there are
hints that El and Baals mountains were somehow related, for both El
and Baal employ the same oracular formula to invite others to journey to
their domicile, identifying these places as unique loci of divine revelation
where the heavens and tehom intersect: For a message I have, and I will
tell you, a word, and I will recite to you: The word of tree and the
whisper of stone, the converse of Heaven to Hell, of Deeps to Stars
(KTU 1.1 IV 13-14; 1.3 III 22-25). The fact that only El can authorize the
building of Baals palace on Zaphon and that after Baal dies El and
Asherah select a successor to ascend to his throne suggests that El
retains a degree of authority over Zaphon.
Second, that El was chief of the Canaanite pantheon, father of the gods,
and bore the cosmically-oriented epithet qny r Owner of the earth[iv]
all lend support to the idea that his supremacy was established already
in primordial times through Chaoskampf. In ancient Near Eastern
polytheism preeminence among the gods was not simply a given, but
02/12/2016 15:46
was necessarily earned through agonistic conflict so as to be worthy of

the honor. As Miller has noted, the assumption that El was in no way a
warlike deity leaves some questions unanswered. One of these is the
question as to how El could ever have been king and ruler of the gods
without some manifestation of his warrior might. In the human realm it
was leadership in war that led to kingship or helped to establish it. So in
the divine world one would expect such leadership particularly within
the sphere of Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology (1967: 412-413).
Without a role in cosmogonic Chaoskampf, it is difficult to see how El
could have achieved his unique status in Canaanite myth. El belonged to
the primary generation of the gods and so was inextricably tied to
beginnings. He was ruler among the gods and Owner of the earth
because in fact he had brought the ordered cosmos into being through
defeating the forces of chaos.
Third, El is directly connected to the cosmogonic Zaphon tradition in a

number of texts. In the Job-stele from the Bashan dating to the time of
Ramses II (1279-1212 BCE) El is given the epithet qny pn Owner of
Zaphon (de Moor 1997: 148-149; Kottsieper 2013). In Isa 14:13-14 Els
throne and the divine council is located on Zaphon and in Job 26:7-13
the defeat of the Sea monster and construction of Zaphon is credited to
El. In Amherst Papyrus 63 the god Mar/Bethel, who is probably a
northern Canaanite/Aramaean form of El, is linked to Zaphon as well as
control over beneficial waters sources (Kottsieper 1997: 406-416).
According to the translation of Steiner (2003), he is the god who causes
the sea to rise generation after generation all the clouds of moisture,
offspring of the primeval mist []?, and who sends rain. Later the
speaker prays to Mar within a cosmogonic setting, You stretched out
the heavens, Mar, you set the stars in place Let canal (and) pool rise
through its waves. Let canal (and) pool rise through its waves. The river
is poor in floodwater. The river will die and be bitter (IX.1-13).
Lastly, names and attributes of El appear conspicuously in biblical

passages alluding to or building upon the Chaoskampf tradition:
Elohim (Gen 1); Most High (Ps 18:14); children of Elohim and
14 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
15 de 58
king (Ps 29:1, 10); mountains of El (Ps 36:6); river of Elohim (Ps
65:1, 9); Elohim and king (Ps 74:12); king (Ps 93:1); El (Ps
104:21); El (Ezek 28:2); Eloah and Holy One (Hab 3:3); El (Job
26:6); children of Elohim (Job 38:7). The description of YHWH
rebuking the Sea and drying up the rivers in Nah 1:4 is combined with a
reference to him causing the mountains to quake and melt, which
immediately recalls the theophanic description of El in the plaster wall
inscription 4.2 from Kuntillet Ajrud (cf. Aituv 2012: 110-114; Mastin
2009: 110-113).
Taken together, the above considerations strongly suggest that the Eden
story should be tradition-historically associated with El. The
mythological background is polytheistic, fundamentally rooted in motifs
such as the Chaoskampf and the divine assembly on the mountain of El.
Accordingly, this raises the question of whether the identification of
deity as YHWH-Elohim in the narrative is a result of redactional shaping
as well.
The significance of the compound divine name YHWH-Elohim has been

extensively discussed (cf. Westermann 1984: 198; Witte 1998: 57-61,
232-237; Titus 2010; Bhrer 2014: 181-187). Because the name occurs
only in the Eden story in the Pentateuch (apart from Ex 9:30) and is
sandwiched between a priestly narrative that exclusively employs
Elohim as the divine name (Gen 1:1-3) and non-P material that favors
YHWH (e.g. Gen 4:1-26), it has the appearance of being an ad hoc
construction intended to bridge the priestly and non-priestly narratives:
Elohim > YHWH-Elohim > YHWH. The name is certainly unlikely to be
original to the narrative, since it is lacking from the continuation to
non-P in Genesis, is not attested in extra-biblical inscriptions, appears
sporadically in the Bible and almost solely in late or redactional contexts
(cf. Witte 1998: 288-290; Harvey 2011: 100-132), and even in Gen 2-3 is
not used consistently (cf. 3:1-5). The name Elohim is used as a proper
name in Gen 1 and YHWH is clearly a proper name, so in context
YHWH-Elohim must function as a double divine name (Witte 1998: 57).
Comparable to other double divine names attested in NWS (e.g.
02/12/2016 15:46
16 de 58
Eshmun-Melqart), the distinct names Elohim and YHWH are blended

into one. Yet if the expanded name YHWH-Elohim is a product of
redactional and theological concerns, what was the literary process by
which it developed? Which of the divine names is more primitive to the
narrative and why is the phenomenon of YHWH-Elohim restricted only
to Gen 2-3?
Throughout the last century of scholarship the dominant critical

explanation has been to assume that in accordance with traditional
documentary theory YHWH was the original god of the Eden story and
that when combining the priestly and non-priestly (i.e. YHWHist)
sources a scribe added Elohim to the name YHWH in order to make
clear that they were the same deity (e.g. Driver 1905: 37; von Rad 1972:
77; Westermann 1984: 198-199; Witte 1998; Day 2013: 25). However,
the use of the divine name YHWH in subsequent non-P material is
problematic as a criterion for reconstructing the narrative of Gen 2-3,
since it is not used consistently and in fact there is significant instability
surrounding the identity of the Israelite god in Genesis, with frequent
variation between YHWH and El names both within and among textual
units (Carr 1996: 147, 200-202; 2011: 106-107; Rmer 2015: 78-82). In
addition, this hypothesis about YHWH-Elohim fails to explain why in
the dialogue between the snake and the woman only Elohim appears,
and even more importantly why the relevant redaction should end
precisely at 3:24: it could have extended to the next priestly text and
therefore found expression in the brother murder narrative of Gen 4,
which clearly represents the continuation to Gen 2-3, or even included
merely Gen 2 to balance out both creation narratives (Bhrer 2014:
183).
The alternative is that Elohim or El was primary to the narrative, to

which YHWH has been secondarily identified. Although this possibility
has only rarely been considered in previous research (cf. Eerdmans
1908: 78-79; Procksch 1924: 19; Simpson 1948: 60; Levin 1993: 82-83),
several lines of evidence converge to lend it support.
02/12/2016 15:46
First, we have already seen that the Eden story itself likely derives from
an El background. Thus from a tradition-historical perspective, an El
name such as Elohim is to be preferred over YHWH.
Second, as reflected in their artificial construction, compound divine

names were typically used to identify one deity with another, leveraging
the authority and status of a deity (or deities) already established within
a community to introduce a new form of deity and facilitate innovation
in the cult. However, in this case the leveraging of authority would have
almost certainly moved in the direction from Elohim to YHWH (Propp
1990: 191). As Elohim was used in Hebrew as the basic term for God,
that is El, there was no need to legitimate his authority and status by
linking him to YHWH. If Elohim is understood as a proper name, it can
only signify the supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon, meaning that
YHWH would necessarily represent the implicit upstart member of the
pair, the biblical author asserting his identification with El.
Third, the priestly narrative in Gen 1 identifies the creator god as

Elohim, so we would expect the creator god of Gen 2-3 to be Elohim as
well. If we accept priestly tradition that the god YHWH was earlier
known in Israel-Judah as El as retaining accurate historical memory (Ex
6:2-3), then it seems that it is the name YHWH rather than Elohim that
is out of place in the primeval story and that the narrative in its current
form reflects a YHWHizing ideology. Similar to the priestly narrative,
the non-P narrative offers its own explanation of how Elohim
transformed into YHWH, with the immediate literary context showing a
tendentious interest to introduce the worship of YHWH at the very
beginning of the story of Israel rather than later at Sinai: At that time
the people began to invoke the name of YHWH (Gen 4:26).
Fourth, only Elohim appears in the dialogue between the snake and the
woman (3:1-5), hinting at the priority of El as a divine designation in an
17 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
18 de 58
earlier form of the narrative. It has long been recognized that it is

unlikely to be coincidence that Elohim occurs in Gen 2-4 only in first
person speech. This includes not only the exchange between the snake
and the woman in 3:1-5 (Did Elohim say [v. 1]; But Elohim said
[v. 3]; For Elohim knows [v. 5]), but also the statements made by Eve
in 4:1 if we read with the LXX: I have borne a man with the help of
Elohim and then again in Gen 4:25: Elohim has appointed for me
another child As a shorter designation for deity, Elohim is to be
preferred as primary in the tradition to YHWH-Elohim. In addition,
according to 4:26 the name YHWH (or YHWH-Elohim with the LXX)
only began to be invoked in the generations following Adam and Eve: At
that time people began to invoke the name of YHWH, which occurs in
the first person speech of Lamech in 5:29: Out of the ground YHWH
has cursed, this one will bring us relief From a narratological
perspective, the name YHWH was as yet unknown to Adam and Eve.
Thus, the repeated use of Elohim in first person speech in the context of
a broader emphasis on YHWH-Elohim or YHWH in third person
narration suggests the conservation of an archaic textual feature,
dictated simply by discourse setting. Because the purpose of the
narrative in its present form was intended to identify YHWH with
Elohim, that is, El is the base deity and YHWH the add-on, when it came
to first person speech where the name YHWH or YHWH-Elohim was
inadmissible, the scribe responsible for conflating the priestly and
non-priestly narratives defaulted to the original Elohim.
Fifth, an El name works better in the context of the reference to the

divine assembly in Gen 3:22: See, the man has become like one of us.
Here El God speaks to the other elohim gods that the man and
woman have become like them, that is, like elohim (3:5). By
presupposing YHWH as the original divine name the playful allusion to
the elohim status shared between El and the other gods is obscured.
Later in Gen 6:2 we hear mention of the sons of Elohim, not the sons
of YHWH.
Finally, it is possible that the LXX provides text-critical evidence that
02/12/2016 15:46
19 de 58
Elohim was original to YHWH. The Greek preserves a form of Gen 2-4
that reads , i.e. Elohim, instead of YHWH-Elohim in 2:4, 5, 7, 9,
19, 21; 3:13, 22 or YHWH in 4:1, 4, 9, 10, 16 and , i.e.
YHWH-Elohim, instead of YHWH in 4:6, 15 (2x), 26. If the LXX
accurately reproduces its Hebrew vorlage, then this would point to the
existence of a Hebrew tradition in which Elohim as the divine name was
featured much more prominently in the primeval narrative than the MT
as it currently stands.
So the question arises, does the usage of divine names in the LXX
represent an early tradition with respect to the MT, or is it secondary
and interpretive? Among scholars who have analyzed this question, the
general tendency has been to conclude that the LXX was secondarily
developed from the MT, whether in a Hebrew vorlage or Greek
translation (Rsel 1991; Hendel 1998; Witte 1998; Bhrer 2014). For
example, some have argued that the Greek translator varied the divine
name based on theological concerns. According to Rsel, the translator
used when God was angry, punished wrong-doing, manifested his
power, functioned as creator, or related to foreigners, in contexts
involving the relationship of God to his people, and in
more universal contexts (1991: 370-371). Similarly, Witte characterized
the variation in divine names as conditioned by particular content. He
suggested that in Gen 1-11 was used in the context of speech about
God the creator and when God is described interacting
more directly with his creation (1998: 288-290). However, even a fairly
quick glance shows that neither of these criteria for understanding the
variation in divine names holds consistent over the entirety of Gen 1-11
(cf. Witte 1998: 289, n. 12). Rsels multiplication of contexts that
stimulated the use of already makes it suspect as an explanation,
and there is little evidence to justify distinguishing the usage of
from or on the basis of theological attribute or
action. Rather, and the other divine designations in the primeval
narrative appear to be used interchangeably (e.g. Gen 2:7-8; 10:9).
By contrast, Hendel has proposed that the variation in divine names was
02/12/2016 15:46
20 de 58
a feature of the Hebrew vorlage of the LXX and that its stimulus was
primarily literary in origin. Uncomfortable with the abrupt transition
from Elohim in Gen 1 to YHWH-Elohim in Gen 2-3 and then to YHWH
or Elohim in Gen 4-11, a scribe or set of scribes in the proto-LXX
tradition attempted to harmonize or correlate each narrative sections
use of divine names with the previous section, meaning that Elohim was
carried forward into Gen 2-3 and then Elohim and YHWH-Elohim into
Gen 4-11 (1998: 35-39). Yet if scribal harmonization was the goal, it is
difficult to understand why a scribe would have produced a text that
haphazardly alternates its usage of the divine name, without any
apparent pattern. The impetus of harmonization is generally to reduce
complexity, to streamline and integrate. But in this case it appears that
the pattern of nomenclature applied to the Israelite deity has actually
been made more complex and variegated, alternating back and forth
between Elohim and YHWH-Elohim with an occasional YHWH or
cluster of YHWHs.
On closer inspection, the pattern or distribution of divine names in the

MT and LXX in Gen 1-11 seem to represent two distinct approaches to
introducing the divine name YHWH. On the one hand, the MT
constructs a metamorphosis of Elohim to YHWH that occurs rapidly
within the space of a few chapters. Elohim is introduced as the name of
God in Gen 1-2:4a. Then abruptly the name transitions to
YHWH-Elohim in Gen 2:4b-3:23 with the exception of 3:1-5 where
Elohim briefly reappears. Lastly, in chap 4 YHWH-Elohim transforms
into YHWH, which is used exclusively throughout apart from v. 25
where Elohim appears in first person speech. In general, the movement
from one divine name to the other is monolithic and uniform: Elohim
(1-2:4a) > YHWH-Elohim (2:4-3:23) > YHWH (4:1-26).
On the other hand, in the LXX the introduction of the name YHWH
occurs more fitfully and gradually. Elohim is used strictly in Gen 1-2:7
and then YHWH-Elohim is introduced at 2:8, at which point these
names alternate back and forth until Gen 4:1. With chap 4 YHWH is
brought into the mix of divine names in v. 3 and v. 13, though the
02/12/2016 15:46
dominant usage still fluctuates between Elohim and YHWH-Elohim.

Chap 5 returns to exclusive use of Elohim until v. 29 with
YHWH-Elohim. From chap 6 on Elohim and YHWH-Elohim alternate
fairly consistently until 9:26 with a single occurrence of YHWH. At this
point simple YHWH begins to be used more frequently, alternating with
a more rare YHWH-Elohim, whose final occurrence is in 11:9. The
transition from Elohim to YHWH in the LXX is therefore more
hesitating and complex than in the MT.
When considered by themselves, each account of the transition from

Elohim to YHWH is coherent and effective as gauged by the
methodology adopted, the first moving in a monolithic block pattern and
the second in a more irregular and elongated step-ladder fashion. More
indirect than the Priestly sources announcement in Ex 6:2-3 that
YHWH was formerly known as El, both versions of Gen 1-11 promote
YHWH as the historical telos of El and lead the reader to identify a new
form of deity with an older one.
I mentioned above that most scholars have tended to assume that the
MT is primary to the LXX, which is thought to represent a later
interpretive stage in the development of Genesis. However, several
considerations indicate that the LXX presentation of the divine names in
Gen 1-11 may actually be primitive to the MT.
First, LXX Gen 4:1 reads , reflecting Elohim rather than

YHWH. We saw earlier that this reading is likely to be primary in the
textual tradition because the context is first person speech and the name
of YHWH is not introduced in the narrative so as to be invoked by
characters until 4:26. That this understanding is correct is supported by
the peculiar use of Elohim in the MT in the first person speech at 4:25.
Second, the manner of identifying YHWH with El is much more
21 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
tentative in the LXX, repeatedly interchanging Elohim with

YHWH-Elohim in textual unit after unit all the way until 11:9 so as to
habituate the reader to their divine identity. It is as if the scribe
responsible for the narrative understood that the claim he was making
about YHWH in the context of the narrative was theologically risky and
fraught. Whereas the MT abruptly identifies Elohim with YHWH-Elohim
and then just as abruptly moves on to simple YHWH. In other words,
there is less hesitancy or ambivalence about the identity of these divine
names. He has a stronger preference for moving directly to YHWH as
the regular name of the Israelite god and so has reduced the space in
which YHWH-Elohim occurs in the narrative from Gen 2:8-11:9 to
merely 2:4b-3:23.
Third, the redactional intervention reflected in the MT that created

sequential blocks in the usage of divine names with Elohim (1-2:4a) >
YHWH-Elohim (2:4-3:23) > YHWH (4:1-26) has unintentionally
produced literary tension with chap 5s use of Elohim. After moving so
decisively from Elohim to YHWH and showing a strong preference for
YHWH in chap 4, the narrative rather awkwardly moves back to an
exclusive preference for Elohim in Gen 5:1-24. By contrast, the
distribution of divine names in LXX Gen 4 seems to anticipate and
prepare for the priestly preference for Elohim in chap 5.
Finally, in LXX Gen 13:10 the garden of Eden is referred to as

the garden of God instead of the MTs the
garden of YHWH. We saw earlier that there can be little doubt that the
former reflects an earlier stage of the tradition when Eden was
exclusively associated with El.
In sum, the original deity of the garden of Eden story was likely El rather
than YHWH-Elohim. The name YHWH-Elohim is a late artificial
construction that seeks to mediate between the literary and theological
pressure to recognize El as the Israelite ancestral creator god and the
need to introduce YHWH as his currently accepted proper name within
22 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
23 de 58
the authors community.
Eden in the East
One final element we can mention that may have been redactionally
altered in the narrative is the location of Eden. As the narrative stands,
YHWH-Elohim plants a garden in Eden in the east (2:8), suggesting a
location far to the east from the perspective of the narrator (Westermann
1984: 210-211; Noort 1999: 28, 33; Bhrer 2014: 212, n. 215; cf.
Stordalen 2000: 261-270). However, the problem with this claim is that
various lines of evidence indicate that in Canaanite-Israelite tradition
the garden of Eden was imagined to be found on the Lebanon, i.e. the
high mountain ranges to the north of Israel-Judah.
First, as is well known, Ezek 28 associates Eden with the mountain of

Elohim, which chap 31 identifies as the Lebanon where cedar trees grow
(Morgenstern 1941: 77; Stolz 1972; cf. Wallace 1985: 70-86; Stordalen
2000: 379-397). In Ps 80:11 cedar trees are called the cedars of El and
Ps 104:16 states that the trees of YHWH are watered abundantly, the
cedars of Lebanon that he planted, suggesting that the trees are near
the gods home and also recalling Gen 2:6s claim that YHWH-Elohim
planted the garden of Eden. In Num 24:5-7 Israel is metaphorically
depicted as an Eden-like garden planted by YHWH (identified as El in
vv. 4 and 8), featuring cedar trees and abundant water.
Second, Mesopotamian literary traditions related to Gilgamesh identify

the cedar mountain in Lebanon as the dwelling of the gods (George
2003: 602-603) and the secret abode of the Anunnaki (George 2003:
264-265). The mountain and its trees are guarded by the frightening
creature Humbaba appointed by Enlil, which is probably a distant
refraction of the Canaanite tradition that El had appointed a monster
02/12/2016 15:46
24 de 58
guardian of his garden home, identified as a cherub in biblical tradition

(Gen 3:24; Ezek 28:14, 16).
Third, the custom of obtaining cedar trees from Mount Lebanon to

construct temples is widely attested in Syro-Palestine (Smith and Pitard
2009: 610-612). In combination with efforts to decorate such temples
with motifs suggestive of the garden of Eden (Smith 2016: 34-36; Stager
1999), this speaks to a desire to transfer some of the sanctity and beauty
inhering to Els mountain to other locations. For example, in Amherst
Papyrus 63 the liturgy intones, The beams of your house, Bethel, are
from Lebanon; from Lebanon, your garden, are they (VIII.8-10). In
connection to the prophetic theme that in the restored Jerusalem the
wilderness will be turned to a garden of Eden (e.g. Isa 51:3), a number of
texts describe this event in terms of the translocation of Lebanon to
Jerusalem: The glory of Lebanon will be given to it, the majesty of
Carmel and Sharon (35:2); The glory of Lebanon will come to you, the
cypress, the plane, and the pine, to beautify the place of my sanctuary,
and I will glorify the place where my feet rest (60:13). In a 7th century
BCE Assyrian text the Akitu festival is said to be celebrated outside the
city at a temple in kir nui tamil Labnana the Garden of plenty, the
image of Lebanon (Lipiski 1973). As Stager has noted, The Garden of
Plenty (kir nui) is the semantic equivalent of the Garden of Eden
(gan den) (1999: 186).
Fourth, garden of Eden-like imagery is closely associated with the

Lebanon in various biblical texts (Stager 1999: 187-188; Stordalen 2000:
162-182; Mller 2001).[v] For example, the bride of the Song of Songs is
described as a garden of Lebanon, with trees, fragrant scents, and choice
fruits, also a garden fountain, a well of living water, and flowing streams
from Lebanon (4:15). In Hosea the restored Israel is compared to a
garden or vine of Lebanon that lives in YHWHs shadow (14:5-7). The
righteous are like a cedar of Lebanon planted in YHWHs temple garden
(Ps 92:12-14).
02/12/2016 15:46
25 de 58
Sixth, a text from Ugarit mentions a garden and palace belonging to El

on the Lebanon, from which wine is cultivated for feasting: The choice
blossom of Lebanon, must that El nurtured. In the banquet house on
the summit, in the heart of Lebanon (KTU 1.22 I 19-25; cf. Lewis 1997:
204; Niehr 2004: 339-340; Smith 2012: 236). The linkage of El to
gardens and mountains in this part of Canaan is also reflected in the
place name Carmel, which is a contraction of the Hebrew words krm + l
vineyard of El.
The association of Lebanon with garden of Eden traditions is for the

most part well recognized. Less well known is that the mountains of
Lebanon are also vitally linked to the cosmogonic Zaphon tradition, i.e.
the site of the primeval Chaoskampf with the Sea and the establishment
of Els abode.
First, a number of texts identify the mountains of Lebanon as the source

of the primordial waters. 1) As Day has observed, the language used to
describe Tyre in Ezek 28, I am El, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the
heart of the seas evokes Els home at the source of the cosmic waters in
Ugaritic myth (2002: 26-28). Yet the broader literary context leads the
reader to situate Els throne and the divine assembly on the mountain
of Elohim along with the garden of Elohim in the Lebanon (Ezek
28:14, 16; 31:3). The reason the author of Ezek refers to this
mythological complex in the context of an oracle against Tyre is because
the geographical milieu of the tradition is Phoenician. 2) Ezek 31:4-7
similarly identifies the Lebanon as having a unique connection to the
cosmic waters of tehom: the waters nourished [the cedar], tehom made
it grow tall, making its rivers flow around the place it was planted,
sending forth its streams to all the trees of the field for its roots went
down to abundant water. 3) In Isa 37:24-25 the Assyrian king claims to
have climbed Mount Lebanon and taken control of the source of the
cosmic waters: I dug wells and drank waters, I dried up with the sole of
my foot all the streams of Egypt. The mention of the streams of Egypt
is clearly a mythological allusion. While the idea that the rivers of Egypt
find their source in the Lebanon is geographically nonsensical, it is
02/12/2016 15:46
highly reminiscent of the claim that the garden of Eden is the source of
the Nile/Gihon in Gen 2:13. 4) In Ps 42:7-8 the supplicant remembers
YHWH from below Mount Hermon, near the meeting place of the upper
and lower waters, where tehom calls to tehom (Lipiski 1971: 40-41; Day
1985: 119). 5) When Enoch ascends to heaven from a mountain in the
vicinity of Dan, he sees the great rivers and cosmic storehouses, I saw
the mouth of all the rivers of the earth and the mouth of the abyss
(Enoch 17:5). 6) In the testament of Levi, Levi has a vision of himself
upon Mount Hermon where he sees the upper cosmic reservoir (2:7).
Second, Ps 29 alludes to Chaoskampf tradition when it speaks of

YHWHs power over the mym rbym mighty waters and that YHWH is
enthroned over the mbwl flood (e.g. Day 1985: 57-61; Niehr 1990:
114-115). As many have noted, the setting of the theophany is the
mountains of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon (e.g. Smith 2014: 48-50). For
this reason, the deity invoked in the hymn cannot originally have been
YHWH but is likely to have been native to Phoenicia and the Lebanon.
Because he is a storm god with features closely comparable to Baal
Haddu from Ugarit, he has generally been identified with Baal (Day
1985: 59). However, the epithet baal lord was used to identify
multiple deities in the broader Canaanite world and the Baal of Mount
Lebanon in particular seems to have been El (Lipiski 1971; Naccache
1996; Steiner 2009). As the supreme authority on Mount Lebanon, El
would also have had control over the cosmic upper and lower waters,
functioning as weather god in central and southern Canaan (e.g. Gen
2:5; Gen 49:25; Deut 33:13-16; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 18:14; Nahum 1:3-5).
Koch has insightfully observed that because of the meteorological
phenomena associated with high mountains, the gods who ruled over
them were necessarily weather gods (1993: 171). With regard to Ps 29
itself scholars have noted clues that the hymn was originally dedicated to
El: there is mention of the divine assembly (bny lym children of El); l
in the unique formulation l hkbwd the god of the glory; the occurrence
of the epithet lywn Most High in the related enthronement hymn of
Ps 97 (Stolz 1970: 152-155; 1972: 148; Day 1985: 60).
26 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
27 de 58
Third, various texts imply that Zaphon and the mount of divine assembly
are to be found in the Lebanon. 1) In Isa 14 the cedars and cypresses of
Lebanon rejoice that a foreign oppressor no longer comes up to cut them
down, which is continued with the image that the king who tried to
ascend the heights of Zaphon was himself cut down. In this instance, the
heights of Zaphon seem to correspond to the summit of Mount Lebanon.
2) In Isa 37:24 the top of Mount Lebanon is referred to as the heights of
the mountains, the far recesses [yrkty] of Lebanon, parallel to far
recesses [yrkty] of Zaphon in Isa 14:13. 3) The reference to il qny pn
El owner of Zaphon in the Job-stele seems to presume that Mount
Zaphon was located in the general vicinity of the Bashan. 4) In Ps
68:16-17 Mount Bashan, which in this context is probably inclusive of
Mount Hermon, is called mountain of Elohim and implied to be a
place of divine dwelling comparable to Mount Zion (Day 1985: 113-117;
cf. Curtis 1986; Niehr 1990: 112-113; de Moor 1997: 171-191; Wyatt 2005:
210; Emerton 2015: 296; Knohl 2012: 11-15). 5) In Amherst Papyrus 63
Raa, the homeland of the community responsible for the liturgy, is
invoked parallel to Lebanon and Zaphon (XI.1, 13). Zaphon is also
imagined to be the location of the divine assembly, since in the Aramaic
version of Ps 20 Mar or El is requested to send his emissary from
Zaphon for protection and blessing (XI.11-19).[vi] Kottsieper (1997:
406-416) has argued that the origin of this community was in south
Syria, which would fit well with an identification of Zaphon with the
summit of Mount Lebanon. 6) In Jewish apocalyptic literature, Mount
Hermon appears as the mountain conduit by which one ascends to or
descends from heaven, with meteorological features that recall Mount
Zaphon in Ugaritic myth (Bautch 2003: 62).
Fourth, in the Egyptian Tale of the Two Brothers Bata, the younger
brother, flees to a valley in the Lebanon cedar mountains, which is
described as a place highly reminiscent of the biblical garden of Eden:
the gods of the divine assembly freely walk about, they create a wife for
Bata so that he would not be alone, this involves in particular the
potter god Khnum forming the woman (Lichtheim 2003: 87). In this
regard, it is significant that the Sea figures as a prominent character in
the story. He is implied to be close at hand or everywhere present in the
02/12/2016 15:46
28 de 58
valley, surging and threatening to catch Batas wife. Ayali-Darshan has

proposed that elements of both the Tale of Two Brothers and Gen 2-3 go
back to earlier Canaanite tradition (2013).
Fifth, themes of death and judgment in Sheol are often connected to the
garden of Eden, Zaphon, and the mountains of Lebanon (e.g. Gen 2:17;
Isa 14: 9-21; Ezek 31:14-18; Enoch 21-22; Matt 16:18). That all are
associated in this regard seems to reflect the conception that while the
top of the mountain reached to heaven the bottom opened into the
underworld (Lipiski 1971: 35, 55; cf. Clifford 1972: 9-25). This is further
supported by the fact that the towns Ashtarot and Edrei below Mount
Hermon are linked to the underworld Rephaim in Ugaritic and biblical
tradition (Day 2002: 221-225; Del Olmo Lete 1999: 161-163).
Sixth, the motif of Eden-like abundance is associated with Zaphon in

Ugaritic myth. In the Baal Cycle Baal is said to dispense abundant water
from his home on Zaphon: So now may Baal fructify [dn] with his rain,
may he enrich richly [dn] with watering in a downpour, may he give
voice in the clouds, may he flash to the earth lightning bolts (KTU 1.4 V
6-9; Smith 2016: 32; Smith and Pitard 2009: 535, 537, 556-563). The
emphasis on abundant provisioning of water in this case is clear, so if El
had his abode on Mount Lebanon and controlled the cosmic waters from
there, it would make sense for Eden-like abundance to be dispensed
from this mountain as well.
Finally, traditions of Chaoskampf and theomachy are linked to the

mountains of Lebanon. A fragmentary text from Ugarit describes the
binding of the monster Tunnanu on the heights of Lebanon: The forked
tongue licks the heavens, the forked tail thrashes the sea. Tunnanu with
a muzzle (?) you set, you bind on the heights of Lebanon (cf. Parker
1997; Mazzini 2003; Smith 2009: 253-256; 2012: 237). In Psalm
89:12-15 the theme of Chaoskampf and cosmic lordship is connected to
Hermon as well as Zaphon (Koch 1993: 176-178). Habakkuk 2:17 alludes
to the violence done to Lebanon and the destruction of Behemot in
02/12/2016 15:46
an oracle, suggesting that the same judgment that YHWH once visited
on the Lebanon would be directed against a rapacious empire (cf.
Albright 1955: 8, n. 3; Haak 1992: 70-76). In the Phoenician History of
Philo of Byblos, although lacking a cosmogonic creation story because of
the euhemeristic scheme, Kronos (El) is said to have established his rule
through defeating Ouranos (Heaven), who was castrated on Mount
Lebanon and whose blood dripped into the waters of springs and rivers
(Attridge and Oden 1981: 54-55). The name Bashan itself likely stems
from NWS bn snake, denoting the mountainous remains of the
ancient sea monster (cf. Curtis 1986: 89-90; Charlesworth 2004:
354-356; Wyatt 2005: 210; Miller 2014a: 513; Korpel and de Moor 2015:
65).[vii]
If the high mountains of Lebanon were the source of the cosmic waters,
the ancient hallowed site of Els throne and abode, and the fossilized
remnant of Els battle with the chaos monster, it naturally follows that
these mountains were also the location of Mount Zaphon. We have seen
above that mythological notions related to Zaphon and the mountains of
Lebanon-Eden-garden of El are closely intertwined.
A major obstacle to this explanation of Lebanon as the site of Mount

Zaphon is that the consensus of modern scholarship holds that Zaphon
should be identified with Jebel al-Aqra or Hittite Mount Hazi near
Ugarit (Eissfeldt 1932; Albright 1950; Lipiski 2003: 436-437; Smith
1994: 122; Niehr 1999b; Day 2002: 107-108). The main considerations
that have led to this conclusion are that 1) this mountain is
geographically relevant as the most prominent landmark in north Syria
with associated weather phenomena matching the storm god profile of
Baal Haddu (Bordreuil and Pardee 2009: 16-17); 2) it has a long history
as a sacred mountain and site of mythological conflict (Gterbock 1951:
145); 3) in Ugaritic and Akkadian texts the name of the mountain is
alternatively designated Hazi or Zaphon (Astour 1975: 319-321). That
Jebel al-Aqra was identified as Zaphon in the cultural world of Ugarit
seems reasonably secure.
29 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
However, was Jebel al-Aqra the one and only Mount Zaphon in the
Canaanite-speaking world? Are the traditions about Mount Hazis
identification with Zaphon at Ugarit primary to other Canaanite
traditions about the location of Zaphon? Was Mount Hazi conceived as
the primordial site where the creator god defeated the Sea monster and
established his mountain throne?
On closer inspection, there are reasons to think that Mount Hazi is not
the original Zaphon but has been secondarily identified as such. First,
the primary name of Jebel al-Aqra in antiquity seems to have been
Hazi over Zaphon. Hazi is the earliest attested name, belonging to
Hurrian-Hittite tradition, and is still in use at Ugarit in Akkadian texts
(Niehr 1999b: 927-929; Koch 1993: 197-204). The name Zaphon comes
to the fore in ritual and mythological texts and the impression on the
basis of usage is that it represents a local name favored by the kingdom
of Ugarit for a mountain known as Hazi in the broader region of
southern Anatolia/north Syria (cf. Grave 1980: 225-226). If the common
assumption that the later Greek name Kasion derives from Hazi is
correct (e.g. Astour 1975: 320; Fauth 1990: 107-108; Lipiski 1995: 245;
Niehr 1999b: 928; cf. Wyatt 2005: 109), then it appears that the older
Hittite name outlasted Zaphon as the customary designation. Second,
while myths of Chaoskampf are associated with Hazi-Zaphon, I am
aware of no textual evidence that cosmogony or primordial Chaoskampf
was imagined to have occurred at this location as well. As we saw above,
the establishment of a deitys throne in the process of building a
mountain over the primordial waters was fundamental to the
cosmogonic Zaphon tradition. Third, the god associated with
Hazi-Zaphon is Baal Haddu or Hurrian Teshub, whereas traditionhistorically we would rather expect El to have been the owner of Mount
Zaphon. According to the reconstruction offered earlier, El is the creator
god who established his cosmic rulership and primacy in the Canaanite
pantheon by defeating the forces of chaos and taking control of the
cosmic waters. That in the Baal Cycle El has been situated far away in
Anatolia, leaving Mount Hazi-Zaphon to Baal Haddu, suggests that in
Ugaritic cult the connection of El to Zaphon has been disrupted and
30 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
31 de 58
restructured so as to give primacy to Baal Haddu as the supreme

weather god. El is unable to compete with Baal in this regard because he
does not dwell on Hazi-Zaphon. Lipiski has also convincingly argued
that the tradition that locates Els abode in Anatolia/Armenia is
secondary or younger to the tradition that his mountain home was in
Canaan (1971: 57-58; cf. Day 2013: 27-32; Korpel and de Moor 2015:
29-44).[viii]
On the other hand, we have already noted a variety of evidence that the
cosmogonic Zaphon tradition was closely connected to the mountains of
Lebanon. The main features of the tradition cluster here, including the
site of Els throne and abode, the divine assembly, Chaoskampf,
cosmogonic creation, the source of the cosmic waters, and Eden-like
abundance.
In addition, the name Zaphon may have originally designated a specific

mountain in the Lebanon. It is generally recognized that the use of
Zaphon as a name for a mountain in the north must have preceded the
use of this word in Hebrew to designate the corresponding direction: It
can hardly be doubted which of the two meanings is the primary one, the
concrete Mount Kasion [i.e. Zaphon] or the abstract northern
direction, which, on its part, could have again shifted to the concrete
meaning north region: the primary one would be the mountain name.
Since for the peoples under consideration it lay in the north and was for
them the characteristic landmark of that direction, its name became the
designation for it (Eissfeldt 1932: 16-17, quoted in Astour 1975: 320).
The question is what mountain to the north would have been so
prominent for Hebrew speakers as a landmark that it would have
developed into a word for that direction?
Perhaps a significant datum is that the word pn is not used to denote

north in Canaanite and Canaanite-related languages to the north of
Israel-judah, including Phoenician, Aramiac, and Ugaritic.[ix] After
noting this, Koch concluded, Paradoxically, therefore, only in Palestine
02/12/2016 15:46
was this extension of meaning carried through, that is, in a landscape

from which the ebel el-aqra is not at all visible. This can only have
happened through an association in which the north Syrian mountain
was known and holy (1993: 183-184). But it is difficult to conceive that
the religious status of a mountain over 500 kilometers from Jerusalem
would have been sufficient in itself to trigger the semantic development
of pn from concrete place to abstract direction. The defining element of
pn as a coordinate is not the sacred quality of the direction it
represents, but simply the generic concept north. In his comparative
study of ancient geographic nomenclature, Talshir observes that the
devisement of direction terms was relative to local geography and based
on the existence of conspicuous topographical landmarks (2003). We
would thus expect that the mountain from which the direction pwn
north derived would have been observable or at least accessible in the
general landscape. Parallel to ym sea and ngb desert, which are also
concrete entities used to denote directions in Hebrew, Mount Zaphon
would necessarily have been located in the border region of Israel-Judah
to the north, well known and easily identifiable for Hebrew speakers.
From this perspective, the most obvious candidate for Zaphon would be
a mountain or cluster of mountains in the Lebanon or Anti-Lebanon
ranges. These mountains were the most significant landmark to the
north of Israel-Judah, visible from throughout the countryside, and
functioned as a border region separating northern Canaan from central
and southern Canaan (Stordalen 2000: 162-163; Mulder 1995).
Furthermore, the implication of the phrase yrkty pwn
heights/recesses of Zaphon and the description of Isa 14:13 is that
Zaphon was an exceptionally high mountain, reaching into heaven and
the tops of the clouds. As the mountain ranges with the tallest peaks in
all of Syria-Palestine, the mountains of Lebanon certainly fit the profile
of Zaphon. Qurnat al-Sawda in Mount Lebanon reaches 3088 m. and
Mount Hermon in the Anti-Lebanon 2814 m. By contrast, Jebel
al-Aqra, the tallest mountain in northern Syria, reaches only 1770 m.
That this variation in elevation was recognized in antiquity is suggested
by the fact that the names Upper Aram or Upper Syria designated the
region of the mountains of Lebanon and anti-Lebanon in the south,
32 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
33 de 58
while Lower Aram or Lower Syria designated the coastal mountains to

the north, including Jebel al-Aqra (Talshir 2003: 274-276). In fact, it is
possible that it was the impressive height of Jebel al-Aqra relative to its
surroundings reminiscent of the high mountains of the Lebanon that
may have stimulated applying the name Zaphon to it, along with the
traditional mythological identity of Zaphon as a mountain of cosmic
authority.
Beyond these geographical considerations, there is other evidence that a

Mount Zaphon may have been located in the Lebanon. First, the god
Baal Zaphon is attested as a major Phoenician deity in inscriptions from
the 7-3rd centuries BCE. In the treaty of Esarhaddon with King Baal of
Tyre the god is invoked together with Baal Shamem and Baal Malage
(SAA 2 no. 5 iv: 10-13), perhaps different manifestations of the same
high god (Markoe 2000: 118-119) or distinct deities of similar function
(Allen 2011: 262-264), and described as having control over storm and
sea. Baal Zaphon is paired with Baal Hammon on an amulet from Tyre
(Bordreuil 1986) and appealed to as chief god of the Tyrian colony at
Daphne in a letter sent to Saqqara (KAI 50: 2-3). This Phoenician Baal
Zaphon has generally been identified with Baal Haddu of Mount
Hazi-Zaphon at Ugarit (Bordreuil 1986: 84-85; Lipiski 1995: 244-247;
Niehr 1999a: 153; Markoe 2000: 116-119; Peckham 2014: 295).
However, because he is a deity of superior rank in the Phoenician
pantheon it cannot automatically be assumed that the Mount Zaphon to
which he is attached is the same Mount Hazi-Zaphon known at Ugarit.
At this early date Phoenicians would have little reason to worship a god
bound to a mountain located so far from their own territory in northern
Syria.[x] Baal Zaphon literally means lord of Zaphon and so on analogy
with other Baal compound names (e.g. Baal Lebanon, Baal Hermon) it
would seem reasonable to assume that the name Zaphon had come to
designate a sacred mountain somewhere in the vicinity of Phoenicia.
Second, the toponym Mount Baal Zaphon appears in the annals of

Tiglath-pileser III in a context suggestive of a location in the Lebanon. In
a fragmentary text from Kalhu Tiglath-pileser gives a list of territory
02/12/2016 15:46
annexed from the kingdom of Hamath, including [Mount Saue], which

touches the Lebanon, Mount Baali-apuna as far as Mount Ammanana,
the boxwood mountain, all Mount Saue (cf. Tadmor 2007: 60-61;
RINAP 1, no. 13: 5-6). Ammanana corresponds to biblical Amana and
designates the northern part of the Anti-Lebanon (Cogan 1984; Baag
2006: 188-189). Baag has noted that Mount Saue is unknown outside of
the annals of Tiglath-pileser but because it is said to touch the
Lebanon mostly likely refers to Jebel Anariya (2006: 189). On the
assumption that the territory of Hamath is described in a north-south
fashion, Mount Baali-apuna has generally been identified with Jebel
al-Aqra, marking the northern limit to Hamaths territory (Cogan 1984:
257; Tadmor 2007: 61; van Soldt 2005: 158; Baag 2006: 188). However,
this understanding fits poorly with the immediate context, since the
clause Mount Baali-apuna as far as Mount Ammanana, the boxwood
mountain is syntactically dependent on the preceding clause [Mount
Saue], which touches the Lebanon and is resumed with the specification
all Mount Saue, suggesting that the borderline of Mount Saue is being
defined in relation to the Lebanon. It hardly makes sense to refer to the
southern limit of Mount Saue, to immediately backtrack to the northern
limit of Hamathian territory, and then to return to the southern limit but
with a reference to the Anti-Lebanon. Rather than a generalized
description of territory annexed from Hamath encompassing everything
between Hazi-Zaphon on the north and the mountains of Lebanon on
the south, it seems that this portion of the text was intended to define
only the southern limit of Hamathian territory on Jebel Anariya moving
west to east, Mount Baali-apuna marking the southern limit near the
coast and Mount Ammanana the same further inland. According to this
interpretation of the text, Mount Baali-apuna would have designated
the northern part of Mount Lebanon parallel to Mount Ammanana in
the Anti-Lebanon.
Third, Zaphon occurs in Ps 89:13 in what appears to be a list of sacred

mountains that demonstrate YHWHs creative work: Zaphon and ymyn
you shaped them, Tabor and Hermon joyously praise your name. In the
present form of the text Zaphon has apparently been interpreted to
mean north and ymyn south. But the notion that YHWH created the
34 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
35 de 58
cardinal points north and south is nowhere else paralleled in the

Bible and as Tabor and Hermon are obviously names of mountains, it
makes more sense to understand Zaphon and ymyn as mountains as
well (Eissfeldt 1932: 12-13; Niehr 1990: 110-111; Koch 1993: 176-178;
Saur 2004: 164-165; Ayali-Darshan 2014: 412; cf. Wyatt 2005: 113). The
general context is that of creation and we have seen that in the
cosmogonic Zaphon tradition mountains were among the first entities
created after the defeat of chaos. Scholars have typically identified
Zaphon with Mount Hazi-Zaphon in north Syria and ymyn either with
Mount Amanus, the Anti-Kassion, or Nanni/Namni (Pope and Rllig
1965: 258; Cross 1997: 161; Niehr 1990: 110-112; 1999b: 929; Lipiski
2003: 438; Ayali-Darshan 2014: 411-414). But this understanding of
ymyn meets with the difficulty that its spelling is only vaguely similar to
Amanus or Nanni/Namni (cf. Cogan 1984: 257; Roberts 2002: 318-319,
n. 37) and it fails to give a compelling rationale for why mountains in
distant northern Syria would be regarded as sacred to YHWH and
grouped together with Hermon and Tabor in the south. Mount Amana
and Mount Hermon are linked together in the Song of Songs (4:8), and
therefore a better solution is to emend ymyn to mnh (Seybold 1996:
352; Roberts 2002: 318-319, n. 37). This would place three out of the
four mountains in relatively close proximity to one another in central
Canaan: Amana, Hermon, and Tabor.
Furthermore, by identifying Zaphon with the northern part of Mount

Lebanon consistent with the inscription from Tiglath-pileser discussed
above this would create parallelism between Zaphon and Amana and
locate all four mountains within a central Canaanite milieu. Zaphon and
Amana would then represent a natural pair, facing each other from
across the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges. In fact,
considering that Amana and Hermon are each listed as the second
member of a pair of mountains, it is conceivable that in an early version
of the psalm the third mountain in the series was not Tabor but rather
Mount Lebanon. While Zaphon in north Lebanon works well as the
companion to Amana, Tabor, which is a small mountain to the south in
the Galilee, is not the logical pair to Hermon in the Anti-Lebanon.
02/12/2016 15:46
Identifying these mountains with the Lebanon has the additional

advantage that the attribution of Zaphon to YHWH can be explained
religio-historically. If Zaphon were Jebel al-Aqra and ymyn located
somewhere in the same vicinity, then this would mean that YHWH must
have adopted Baal Haddus mountains in northern Syria at some point
in the development of biblical tradition, or at least had their
ownership/creation attributed to him. Yet no biblical scholar to date has
offered a compelling explanation for how this strange state of affairs
could have come about (cf. Niehr 1990: 102-113). On the other hand, if
Zaphon were a great mountain in Lebanon of venerable religious status
it is understandable how it could have been transferred to YHWH in the
world of theology and myth. I mentioned earlier that the mountains of
Lebanon and the cosmogonic Zaphon tradition were deeply rooted in
traditions associated with Canaanite El. It is also well known that
biblical YHWH is a composite of YHWH and El (e.g. Smith 2001; Rmer
2015). Thus, as YHWH took on features of El it is not surprising that
eventually he adopted ownership of his ancient mountain abode to the
north and that Jerusalem itself could be metaphorically depicted as his
holy Mount Zaphon (Ps 48:2).
In sum, we have uncovered numerous clues that the original site of

Zaphon or the Canaanite Olympus was located in the mountains of
Lebanon. Based on the parallelism between Mount Zaphon and Mount
Amana noted above, Zaphon probably designated the north part of
Mount Lebanon, including Qurnat al-Sawda, the highest peak in SyriaPalestine.
Returning to the question of the location of the Garden of Eden in Gen

2-3, it now seems clear that the tradition about where creation began
and humankind initially lived with God has experienced radical
alteration and redaction. Tradition-historically, the setting of the Eden
story was inextricably bound to the mountains of Lebanon, where El had
his abode, his royal garden, and from where he dispensed the primordial
waters to the rest of the earth. Yet at some point in the development of
the narrative it appears that a scribe intentionally tried to obscure the
36 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
37 de 58
location of Eden, setting it somewhere far off on the eastern horizon:

And YHWH-Elohim planted a garden in Eden, in the east (Gen 2:8).[xi]
Other indications that the narrative has undergone redactional
development include the reference to Eden as a place name distinct from
the garden in v. 8 (a garden in Eden) and v. 10 (a river flows out of
Eden to water the garden). The earlier name of the garden is almost
certainly the garden of Eden mentioned in v. 15, meaning Garden of
Abundance, or simply Eden. In addition, there is a repetition of the
motif of YHWH-Elohim placing the first man in the garden in v. 8 and v.
15 as well as other literary tensions.
So what motivated the scribe to alter the location of Eden in this

manner? We have already seen strong theological interests at work in
the omission of a reference to deity causing the subterranean d to come
up from the ground and the description of the creator as YHWH-Elohim.
Considering the Canaanite polytheistic background to the Eden story,
the same may be the case with the translocation of Eden. The emerging
scholarly consensus is that the final form of the Pentateuch developed
among Second Temple period scribes who adopted a new form of YHWH
cult centered at Jerusalem that sought to differentiate itself from the
polytheistic and iconic cult of surrounding cultures, including
non-biblical Israelite-Judahite cultures (cf. Edelman 2009; Niehr 2010;
Kratz 2015; Rmer 2015). Thus, the placement of Eden in a nonspecific
mythic location to the east may have been intended to distinguish the
transcendent YHWH-Elohim of the Bible from Canaanite-Israelite El
and to make certain that the Lebanon, the preeminent mountain of
Canaanite myth and religion, did not overshadow the significance of
Mount Sinai.
Notes
[i]
Cf. the description in Landy 2014: 441-442: The river which waters
the garden supplements the enigmatic which moistens the whole face
of the ground in v. 6, and both prefigure rain that YHWH elohim has
not yet caused to fall upon the earth in v. 5. They are the first of the
02/12/2016 15:46
38 de 58
many stopgaps and improvisations that destabilize the narrative of Gen

2-3. But neither plays any further part in the storythe in fact
disappears until Job 36:27. The river may be different from the ,
compensating for its insufficiency for the garden, making it redundant,
or it may displace it, so that the retreats to the fringes of the Biblical
protocosmic imagination, whence Elihu will rescue it. In any case, we do
not know where they come from. The river may emerge from Eden, but
its origin is possibly subterranean (caverns measureless to man) and
beyond the divine or human purview. It would then come forth on its
own volition to water the garden, obedient to no divine program. It may
then be an autonomous source of life, connected to a freshwater body of
water equivalent to the tehom in Gen 1:2. The may be the cosmic
river, which only emerges at this point.
[ii]
Another allusion to the Chaoskampf tradition may include the role of
the serpent as a counter divine agent, which recalls the serpentine Chaos
monster (Mettinger 2007: 82).
[iii] In
the Hittite Elkunira myth El similarly dwells at the source of the
Mala, i.e. Euphrates, showing that the gods connection to cosmic water
resources was a basic element to his early Canaanite mythological
profile.
[iv]
For this translation, see Thomas 2017.
[v]
In later Jewish tradition Lebanon develops into a metaphor for the
temple (Vermes 1983; Japhet 2003), that is, the abode of God.
[vi]
In the biblical version of Ps 20 Zaphon is replaced with the
sanctuary. That the original mythologem of the psalm had to do with El

sending a mediating help/salvation from his mountain of assembly is
also reflected in Ps 121:1-2 (cf. Niehr 1990: 113).
[vii]
Interestingly, the tribe of Dan, whose district borders Mount
Hermon, is portrayed with serpentine imagery in Gen 49:17 and possibly

Deut 33:22 (Curtis 1986: 91; Miller 2014: 513, n. 53).
[viii]
The translocation of Canaanite El to Anatolia/Armenia may be
related to his identification with Kumarbi, Hurrian father of the gods

(Niehr 2004: 329).
02/12/2016 15:46
[ix]
Perhaps a-pa-ni-u in EA 147:10 is an exception if it is correctly
interpreted his north wind with Grave (1982; followed by Moran 1992;
Rainey and Schniedewind 2015). But this translation is uncertain
because it is the only instance outside of biblical Hebrew were Zaphon
apparently means north wind; elsewhere in the epigraphic record
Zaphon is consistently used as the name of a mountain. Even so, Tyre
lies substantially to the south of the northern part of Mount Lebanon, so
it is possible that by this time Zaphon had already come to be used as a
cardinal direction in southern Phoenician and through semantic
extension taken on the meaning north wind.
[x]
In the late tradition of Philo of Byblos Mount Kasios is identified as
one of four mountains holy to Phoenicians (Attridge and Oden 1981:

41-43).
[xi]
Cf. Noort 1999: 33-34: the narrator wants to offer a mystified
location for Paradise. Through geography he wants to demonstrate the

reality of Paradise. Well-known, famous rivers derive from the universal
river starting in Eden. Later versions and explanations go in the same
direction, now covering the whole known world of their day. On the
other hand, he does not want to locate paradise in an accessible and
locatable place. He transforms Paradise into reality by ending with the
well-known Mesopotamian rivers. But this paradise is inaccessible.
Regions, rivers and names appear which cannot be located except in a
very general way.
Aituv, S. and E. Eshel. 2012. The Inscriptions. Pp. 73-142 in Kuntillet

Ajrud (Horvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the
Judah-Sinai Border, ed. Z. Meshel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society.
Albright, W. F. 1939. The Babylonian Matter in the Predeuterononomic

Primeval History (JE) in Gen 1-11. Journal of Biblical Literature 58:
39 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
102-103.
. 1950. Baal-Zephon. Pp. 1-14 in Festschrift, Alfred Bertholet zum 80.

Geburtstag, ed. W. Baumgartner. Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
. 1969. Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom. Pp.

1-15 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth.
Leiden: Brill.
Allen, S. L. 2011. The Splintered Divine: A Study of Itar, Baal, and

Yahweh Divine Names and Divine Multiplicity in the Ancient Near East.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Astour, M. C. 1975. Place Names. Pp. 249-369 in Ras Shamra Parallels:

The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. E. Smith and S.
Rummel. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Ayali-Darshan, N. 2013. The Cedar Forests Traditions in the Egyptian

Tale of The Two Brothers and Genesis 23. Shnaton 22: 147-164.
. 2014. The Question of the Order of Job 26,7-13 and the Cosmogonic
Tradition of Zaphon. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
126: 402-417.
. 2015. The Other Version of the Story of the Storm-gods Combat with
the Sea in the Light of Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Hurro-Hittite Texts.
Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15: 20-51.
40 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
Attridge, H. W. and R. A. Oden, Jr. 1981. Philo of Byblos, The

Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes.
Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America.
Baag, A. M. 2006. Identifying Mountains in the levant according to

Neo-Assyrian and Biblical Sources: Some Case Studies. SAAB 15:
183-192.
Ballentine, D. S. 2015. The Conflict Myth and the Biblical Tradition.

Oxford: Oxford University.
Barr, J. 1987. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old

Testament: With Additions and Corrections. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Bautch, C. K. 2003. A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19. Leiden:

Brill.
Blenkinsopp, J. 2011. Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive

Commentary on Genesis 1-11. New York: T&T Clark.
Bordreuil, P. 1986. Attestations indites de Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal

Saphon Tyr. Pp. 77-86 in Studia Phoenicia IV. Religio Phoenicia, ed. C.
Bonnet, E. Lipiski, and P. Marchetti. Namur: Socit des tudes
Classiques.
Bordreuil, P. and Pardee. 2009. A Manual of Ugaritic. Winona Lake, IN:

Eisenbrauns.
41 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
42 de 58
Bhrer, W. 2014. Am Anfang Untersuchungen zur Textgenese und

zur relativ-chronologischen Einordnung von Gen 1-3. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Carr, D. M. 1996. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and

Literary Approaches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
. 2011. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction.

New York: Oxford University.
Charlesworth, J. H. 2004. Bashan, Symbology, Haplography, and

Theology in Psalm 68. Pp. 351-372 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies
in Honor of J J M Roberts, ed. B. F. Batto and K. L. Roberts. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Clifford, R. J. 1972. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old

Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Cogan, M. 1984. From the peak of Amanah. Israel Exploration

Journal 34: 255-259.
Cross, F. M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University. First Harvard University Press paperback edition.
Reprinted Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1997.
Curtis, J. B. 1986. Har-bn, the Mountain of God (Ps 68:16[25]).

Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies
02/12/2016 15:46
6: 85-95.
Dahood, M. 1981. Eblaite i-du and Hebrew d, Rain Cloud. Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 43: 534-38.
Day, J. 1985. Gods Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a
Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
. 2013. From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11. New York:

Bloomsbury Academic.
Del Olmo Lete, G. 1999. Pp. 161-163 in Dictionary of Deities and

Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der
Horst. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Brill/Eerdmans.
Driver, S. R. 1905. The Book of Genesis, with Introduction and Notes.

London: Methuen.
Eissfeldt, O. 1932. Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der
Israeliten durchs Meer. Halle: M. Niemeyer.
Edelman, D. 2009. God Rhetoric: Reconceptualizing Yahweh Sebaot as

Yahweh Elohim in the Hebrew Bible. Pp. 178-190 in A Palimpsest:
Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics and Language Relating to Persian Israel,
ed. E. B. Zvi, D. Edelman, and F. Polak. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.
Eerdmans, B. D. 1908. Die komposition der Genesis. Giessen: A.
43 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
44 de 58
Tpelmann
Ellenbogen, M. 1962. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin

and Etymology. London: Luzac.
Emerton, J. 2015. Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible:

Selected Works of J. A. Emerton, ed. G. Davies and R. Gordon. Leiden:
Brill.
Fauth, W. 1990. Das Kasion-Gebirge und Zeus Kasios. UgaritForschungen 22: 105-118.
George, A. R. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Tablet: Introduction,

Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford
University.
Gertz, J. C. 2004. Von Adam zu Enosch. berlegungen zur

Entstehungsgeschichte von Gen 2-4. Pp. 215-236 in Gott und Mensch im
Dialog, ed. M. Witte. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Grg, M. 1986. Eine heterogene berlieferung in Gen 2,6. Biblische

Notizen 31: 19-24.
. 1989. Noch einmal zu d (Gen 2,6). Biblische Notizen 50: 9-10.
Grave, C. 1980. The Etymology of Northwest Semitic apnu. UgaritForschungen 12: 221-229.
02/12/2016 15:46
45 de 58
. 1982. Northwest Semitic apnu in a Break-up of an Egyptian

Stereotype Phrase in EA 147. Orientalia 51: 161-182.
Gterbock, H. G. 1951. The Song of Ullikummi Revised Text of the

Hittite Version of a Hurrian Myth. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5:
135-161.
Haak, R. D. 1992. Habakkuk. Leiden: Brill.
Hamilton, V. 1990. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Eerdmans.
Harvey, B. J. 2011. YHWH Elohim: A Survey of Occurrences in the

Leningrad Codex and their Corresponding Septuagintal Renderings.
New York: T&T Clark.
Hasel, G. F. and M. G. Hasel. 2000. The Hebrew term ed in Gen 2,6 and
its connection in ancient Near Eastern literature. Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 112: 321-340.
Hendel, R. 1998. The text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical
Edition. New York: Oxford University.
Hess, R. 1991. A Well-watered Place. Bible Review 7: 28-33.
Holzinger, H. 1898. Die Genesis. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr.
02/12/2016 15:46
46 de 58
Japhet, S. 2003. Lebanon in the Transition from Derash to Peshat.

Sources, Etymology and Meaning (with Special Attention to the Song of
Songs). Pp. 707-24 in Emanuel. Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint
and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, ed. S. M. Paul, R. A.
Kraft, L. H. Schiffman, W. W. Fields. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill.
Kaiser, O. 1959. Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in gypten,

Ugarit und Israel. Berlin: A. Tpelmann.
Knohl, I. 2012. Psalm 68: Structure, Composition and Geography. The

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12: 1-21.
Koch, K. 1993. Hazzi-Safon-Kasion: Die Geschichte eines Berges und

seiner Gottheiten. Pp. 171-223 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen
zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament:
internationales Symposion Hamburg, 17.-21. Mrz 1990, ed. B.
Janowski, K. Koch, G. Wilhelm. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Korpel, M. C.A. and J. C. de Moor. 2015. Adam, Eve, and the Devil: A
New Beginning. Second enlarged ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.
Kottsieper, I. 1997. Anmerkungen zu Pap. Amherst 63. Teil II-V. UgaritForschungen 29: 385-434.
. 2013. El. Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet.

https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/de/stichwort/17172/. Accessed
9/25/16.
02/12/2016 15:46
47 de 58
Kratz, R. G. 2015. Historical and Biblical Israel: This History,

Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah. Trans. P. M. Kurtz. New
York: Oxford University.
Landy, F. 2014. Fluvial Fantasies. Pp. 437-455 in Thinking of Water in

the Early Second Temple Period, ed. E. B. Zvi and C. Levin. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Levin, C. 1993. Der Jahwist. FRlANT 157. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht.
Lewis, T. J. 1997. The Rapiuma. Pp. 196-205 in Ugaritic Narrative

Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. WAWSBL 9. Atlanta: Scholars.
Lichtheim, M. 2003. The Two Brothers. Pp. 85-89 in Context of

Scripture: Volume 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World,
W. W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
Lipiski, E. 1971. Els Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to Mount

Hermon and to the Mountains of Armenia. Orientalia Lovaniensa
Periodica 2: 13-69.
. 1973. Garden of Abundance, Image of Lebanon. Zeitschrift fr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 85: 358-359.
. 1995. Dieux et desses de lunivers phnicien et punique. Leuven:

Peeters.
02/12/2016 15:46
48 de 58
. 2003. . Pp. 435-443 in Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament, vol. 12, ed. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H. J. Fabry. Trans. D.
W. Stott. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans
Mankowski, P. V. 2000. Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Markoe, G. E. 2000. Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California.
Mastin, B. A. 2009. The Inscriptions Written on Plaster at Kuntillet

Ajrud. Vetus Testamentum
59: 99-115.
Mazzini, G. 2003. The Defeat of the Dragon in KTU 1.83,410: Ugaritic

BM and the South Arabian Root BM. Ugarit-Forschungen 35:
391-406.
McCarter, P. K. ID. P. 446 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the

Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Brill/Eerdmans.
Mettinger, T. N. D. 2007. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religiohistorical Study of Genesis 2-3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Millard, A. R. 1984. The Etymology of Eden. Vetus Testamentum 34:

103-106.
02/12/2016 15:46
49 de 58
Miller, P. D., Jr. 1967. El the Warrior. The Harvard Theological Review
60: 411-431.
Miller, R. D., II. 2014a. The Baals of Bashan. Revue Biblique 121: 506-15.
. 2014b. Tracking the Dragon across the Ancient Near East. Archiv
Orientln 82: 225-45.
De Moor, J. C. 1987. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit.

Leiden: Brill.
. 1997. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism.

Revised and enlarged ed. Leuven: Leuven University.
Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University.
Morgenstern, J. 1920. A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Cincinnati, OH: Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
. 1941. Psalm 48. Hebrew Union College Annual 16: 1-95.
Mulder, 1995. . Pp. 447-457 in Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament, vol. 7, ed. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, H. J. Fabry. Trans. D.
E. Green. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans.
02/12/2016 15:46
Mullen, E. T., Jr. 1980. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature. HSM 24. Chico, CA: Scholars.
Mller, H. P. 2001. Der Libanon in altorientalischen Quellen und im

Hohenlied: Paradigma einer poetischen Topographie. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 117: 116-128.
Naccache, A. 1996. Els Abode in his Land. Pp. 249-271 in Ugarit,

Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on
Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994: Essays presented
in honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson, ed. N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson,
and J. B. Lloyd. Mnster: Ugarit.
Niehr, H. 1999a. Baal-Zaphon. Pp. 152-154 in Dictionary of Deities and

Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der
Horst. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Brill/Eerdmans.
. 1999b. Zaphon. Pp. 927-929 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in

the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed.
. 2004. Die Wohnsitze des Gottes El nach den Mythen aus Ugarit. Pp.
325-360 in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte.
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck.
. 2010. Israelite Religion and Canaanite Religion. Pp. 23-36 in

Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah, ed. F. Stavrakopoulou
and J. Barton. New York: T&T Clark.
Noonan, B. 2011. Review of D. T. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A
Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Ashland
50 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
51 de 58
Theological Journal 43: 149-151.
Noort, E. 1999. Gan-Eden in the Context of the Mythology of the Hebrew

Bible. Pp. 21-36 in Paradise Interpreted: Representations of Biblical
Paradise in Judaism and Christianity, ed. G. P. Luttikhuizen. Leiden:
Brill.
Pakkala, J. 2013. Gods Word Omitted: Omissions in the Transmission

of the Hebrew Bible. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Parker, S. B. 1997. The Binding of a Monster. Pp. 192-193 in Ugaritic

Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker. WAWSBL 9. Atlanta: Scholars.
Peckham, B. 2014. Phoenicia: Episodes and Anecdotes from the Ancient

Mediterranean. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Pope, M. H. 1973. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor

Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Pope, M. H. and W. Rllig, 1965. Syrien. Die Mythologie der Ugariter

und Phnizier. Pp. 219-312 in Wrterbuch der Mythologie. Erste
Abteilung: Die Alten Kulturvlker, I. Gtter und Mythen im vorderen
Orient, ed. H. W. Haussig. Stuttgart: E. Klett.
Procksch, O. 1924. Die Genesis. Leipzig: A. Deichert.
Propp, W. H. 1987. Water in the Wilderness: A Biblical Motif and its

Mythological Background. Atlanta: Scholars.
02/12/2016 15:46
52 de 58
. 1990. Eden Sketches. Pp. 189-204 in The Hebrew Bible and its
Interpreters, ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, D. N. Freedman. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Rad, G. von. 1972. Genesis: A Commentary. Trans. J. H. Marks.

Philadelphia: Westminster.
Rahmouni, A. 2008. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts.

Trans. J. N. Ford, from Hebrew. HdO 93. Leiden: Brill.
Rainey, A. F. and W. M. Schniedewind. 2015. The El-Amarna

Correspondence: A New Edition of the Cuneiform Letters from the Site
of El-Amarna Based on Collations of All Extant Tablets. Leiden: Brill.
RINAP 1=
Tadmor, H. and S. Yamada. 2011. The Royal Inscriptions of TiglathPileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of
Assyria. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Roberts, J. J. M. 2002. The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected
Essays. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Rogland, M. 2010. Interpreting in Genesis 2.5-6: Neglected Rabbinic

and Intertextual Evidence. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
34: 379-393.
Rmer, T. C. 2015. The Invention of God. Trans. R. Guess, from French.
02/12/2016 15:46
53 de 58
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Rsel, M. 1991. Die bersetzung der Gottesnamen in der GenesisSeptuaginta. Pp. 357-377 in Ernten, was man st : Festschrift fr Klaus
Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M.
Rsel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
SAA 2=
Parpola, S. and K. Watanabe. 1988. State Archives of Assyria. Volume
II. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. Helsinki: Helsinki
University.
Sbo, M. 1970. Die hebrischen Nomina ed und d zwei sumerisch

akkadische Fremdwrter. ST 24 130-141.
Schmidt, W. H. 1967. Die Schpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: zur

berlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis I, 1-2, 4a und 2, 4b-3, 24.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Seybold, K. 1996. Die Psalmen. Tbingen: Mohr.
Simpson, C. A. 1948. The Early Traditions of Israel: A Critical Analysis

of the Pre- Deuteronomic Narrative of the Hexateuch. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Skinner, J. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis.

New York: Scribners.
02/12/2016 15:46
Smith, M. S. 1994. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 1, Introduction with

Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. Leiden: Brill.
. 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israels Polytheistic

Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University.
. 2012. The Problem of the God and His Manifestations: The Case of
the Baals at Ugarit, with Implications for Yahweh of Various Locales. Pp.
205-250 in Die Stadt im Zwlfprophetenbuch, ed. A. Schart and J.
Krispenz. BZAW 428. Berlin: de Gruyter.
. 2014. Canaanite Backgrounds to the Psalms. Pp. 43-56 in The Oxford

Handbook of the Psalms, ed. W. P. Brown. New York: Oxford University.
. 2016. Where the Gods are: Spatial Dimensions of

Anthropomorphism in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University.
Smith, M. S. and W. T. Pitard. 2009. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Volume

II: Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT
1.3-1.4. Leiden: Brill.
Speiser, E. A. 1955. ed in the Story of Creation. BASOR 140: 9-11.
Stager, L. E. 1999. Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden. Eretz-Israel 26:

183-194.
Steiner, B. 2013. Food of the Gods: Canaanite Myths of Divine Banquets

and Gardens in Connection with Isaiah 25:6. Pp. 99-115 in Formation
54 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
55 de 58
and Intertextuality in Isaiah 2427, ed. J. T. Hibbard and H. C. P. Kim.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Steiner, R. C. 2003. The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script. Pp. 309-327 in

The Context of Scripture, Vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the
Biblical World, ed. W. H. Hallo. Leiden: Brill.
. 2009. On the Rise and Fall of Canaanite Religion at Baalbek: A Tale

of Five Toponyms. Journal of Biblical Literature 128: 507-525.
Stolz, F. 1970. Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. Studien

zur altorientalischen, vor- und frhisraelitischen Religion. BZAW 118.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
. 1972. Die Bume des Gottesgartens auf dem Libanon. Zeitschrift fr

die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84: 141-56.
. 1999a. Sea. Pp. 737-42 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the

Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed.
. 1999b. Source. Pp. 805-806 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in

the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed.
Stordalen, T. 1992. Genesis 2,4: Restudying a Locus Classicus.

Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104: 163-177.
02/12/2016 15:46
. 2000. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden

Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Contributions to Biblical
Exegesis and Theology, 25. Leuven: Peeters.
Tadmor, H. 2007. The Inscriptions of Tilgath-Pileser III King of

Assyria. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Talshir, D. 2003. The Relativity of Geographic Terms: A Re-investigation

of the Problem of Upper and Lower Aram. Journal of Semitic Studies
48: 259-285.
Tawil, H. 2009. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew:

Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with supplement on
biblical Aramaic. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV.
Thomas, R. 2017. : Creator, Begetter, or Owner of the Earth?

Ugarit-Forschungen (in press).
Titus, P. J. 2010. The Second Story of Creation (Gen 2:4-3:24): A

Prologue to the Concept of Enneateuch? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Toorn, K. van der. 2007. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew
Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Tsumura, D. T. 2005. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the

Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
56 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
Van Soldt, W. 2005. The Topography of the City State of Ugarit.

Mnster: Ugarit.
Vermes, G. 1983. Lebanon: The Historical Development of an Exegetical

Tradition. Pp. 26-39 in Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Leiden:
Brill.
Wallace, H. N. 1985. The Eden Narrative. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Westermann, C. 1984. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Trans. J. J.

Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg.
Witte, M. 1998. Die biblische Urgeschichte: redaktions- und

theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1-11,26. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Wyatt, N. 2005. The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion

in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. London: Equinox.
Younger, L. K., Jr. 2016. A Political History of the Arameans: From

Their Origins to the End of Their Polities. Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature.
Zevit, Z. 2013. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? New

Haven: Yale University.
57 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46
58 de 58
02/12/2016 15:46

The Mythological Background of The - Ed in Gen 2 - 6 - Chaoskampf, The Garden of Eden, and The Mountains of Lebanon Religion and Literature of Ancient Palestine

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Mythological Background of The - Ed in Gen 2 - 6 - Chaoskampf, The Garden of Eden, and The Mountains of Lebanon Religion and Literature of Ancient Palestine

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

The meaning of the mysterious d that comes up to water the ground in

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

What is the significance of this d? Why does it appear at this point in

Meaning and Etymology

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Not surprisingly in view of the contrasting literary depictions, the

As I mentioned above, the word d does not appear to be Semitic in

Rogland has recently offered a literary argument for understanding d

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Because of the lack of a plausible Semitic derivation, the general

Among these, the suggestion that d stems directly from Sumerian is

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Similarly, the proposal to relate Hebrew d to Akkadian-Sumerian id is

As a consequence, I think the most plausible etymology of Hebrew

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

The Chaoskampf and the Primordial Waters

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Because d likely means flood, this raises the question of whether in

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

For our purposes, what is most significant is that allusions to creation

By your strength you established the mountains; you are girded

Yet Elohim my king is from of old, working salvation in the earth.

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a

Following the reverse ordering of Job 26:7-13 reconstructed by

The defeat of the Sea is associated with divine provisioning of

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

The Development of the Eden story

An important implication of this understanding of the function of the d

In addition, the narrative exhibits several literary and syntactic

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

As a consequence, I think it is reasonable to assume that the narrative

The Eden storys mythological background in the cosmogonic Zaphon

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

In addition, the profile of YHWH-Elohim is highly suggestive of El as

We saw above that the Eden story is connected to the cosmogonic

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

confirming the secondary nature of the attribution of creation to

First, in Ugaritic literature El is said to live on a mountain at the springs

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

was necessarily earned through agonistic conflict so as to be worthy of

Third, El is directly connected to the cosmogonic Zaphon tradition in a

Lastly, names and attributes of El appear conspicuously in biblical

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

The significance of the compound divine name YHWH-Elohim has been

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Eshmun-Melqart), the distinct names Elohim and YHWH are blended

Throughout the last century of scholarship the dominant critical

The alternative is that Elohim or El was primary to the narrative, to

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

Second, as reflected in their artificial construction, compound divine

Third, the priestly narrative in Gen 1 identifies the creator god as

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

earlier form of the narrative. It has long been recognized that it is

Fifth, an El name works better in the context of the reference to the

Finally, it is possible that the LXX provides text-critical evidence that

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

On closer inspection, the pattern or distribution of divine names in the

The Mythological Background of the d in Gen 2:6: Chaoskampf, the...

dominant usage still fluctuates between Elohim and YHWH-Elohim.

When considered by themselves, each account of the transition from