The rainbow in the cloud: An anger-management device

Journal of Religion

Volumn 89, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 498-540

  Lorberbaum, Yair ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 74249093206     PISSN: 00224189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/600875     Document Type: Review

References (147)

1. See further, for example, "you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Exod. 20:5), "The Lord is a jealous God and avenging; the Lord is avenging and wrathful" (Nah. 1:2), and many other like quotations. While the Torah also seemingly describes God as "a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love" (Exod. 34:6), a closer reading of these verses clearly reveals that they are not a description of God's characteristics but rather a prayer (of a quasi-magical, manipulative nature) whose purpose is to dispel God's anger and to calm Him at a time of wrath. On this entire subject, see Y. Muffs, "Who Will Stand in the Breach? A Study of Prophetic Intercession," in his Love and Joy: Law, Language and Religion in Ancient Israel (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1995), 9-48
2. Thus, for example, see Ps. 111:9; cf. Exod. 5:3; Amos 5:8, 9:6; Jer. 33:2. Note also the idiom "the Lord of Hosts is His Name" that appears frequently among the prophets. See, e.g., Isa. 47:4, 48:2; Jer. 10:16, 31:34, 32:18, 46:18
3. Among the striking sources concerning outbursts of anger on the part of God found in the Pentateuch are: Abraham and Sodom (Genesis 18-19), the story of the death of the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10), the limitations placed at Mt. Sinai ("lest He break out against them": Exod. 19:24), the incident of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32-34), the incident of Kibrothhatta'avah (Numbers 11), the Spies (Numbers 14), Korah (Numbers 16-17), and the story of Phineas's zeal (Numbers 25). For warnings related to this matter, see, for example, the law of the condemned city in Deut. 13:18, the chapter of curses or imprecations (Deut. 28, 29:10-28), and the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:16-35), which is a combination of narrative and warning. The other books of the Bible are also filled with this motif. Thus, for example, the motif of God's anger is central in the Book of Judges; see, for example, the structural exposition in Judges 2
4. On these terms, see E. Reuter, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (hereafter TDOT ), ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI, 2004), s.v. 53-58, and the bibliography cited there
5. In terms of literary scholars, God's jealousy in the Bible is a "type scene," containing repeated themes and including both fixed motifs and frequent keywords (leitwort). Regarding these terms in the biblical narrative, see R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981), 96-97. The various aspects of God's jealousy and His ways of dealing with it will become clear within these literary patterns
6. In the Bible, God's jealousy is not something that stands by itself but is derived from His love for His creatures; see Y. Muffs, The Personhood of God (Woodstock, VT, 2005), 13, 23-25, 30-33
7. Y. Liebes, "God's Love and His Jealousy" [in Hebrew], Dimuy 7 (1994): 30-36
8. The current article comprises the first chapters of a larger work that I am writing, to deal with this reading of the narratives of the Creation and the Flood
9. See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985), 374
10. Muffs, "Who Will Stand in the Breach?"
11. From the mid-nineteenth century until the mid-1970s, there was widespread agreement among critical biblical scholars regarding the principle of the Documentary Hypothesis. From the mid-1970s, the fundaments of this theory were attacked from a number of different directions until, toward the end of the twentieth century, this consensus almost ceased to exist. See E. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford, 1998)
12. In terms of our subject, notwithstanding this crisis, there continues to be agreement: most Bible scholars consider the opening chapters of Genesis (i.e., 1-11) to be composed of two sources, one Priestly and one non-Priestly. For convenience, I shall continue to refer to the non-Priestly source by its formerly widespread name, which is to a large extent still used today-J, or the Jahwist document. There are some scholars who challenged this distinction and argued the literary unity of Genesis 6-9 (hence also 1-11). See, for example, B. W. Anderson, "From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1-11," Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 23-39
13. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Nashville, 1987), 148, and the works cited there
14. On the distinction between the two sources in Genesis 1-11, see C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion (Minneapolis, 1992), 18, and throughout his detailed commentary, as well as in every critical commentary on Genesis
15. On the distinction between J and P in the Flood story, see ibid., 395-98
16. cf. S. L. Loewenstamm, "The Flood" [in Hebrew], in Sefer N. H. Tur-Sinai, ed. M. Haran and B.-T. Lurya (Jerusalem, 1960), 3-26, at 24
17. and the bibliography in U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, trans. I. Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 31-34
18. Among those who see J as preceding P are, for example, M. Weinfeld, M. Haran, J. Milgrom, and A. Hurwitz. See the references to their work in Wenham, Genesis 1-15, xxxii. To contrast that, there are those who think that J is later than P and that it is also the editorial layer of the Book of Genesis (ibid., xxxvii-xlii)
19. There are numerous parallels in Mesopotamian and other mythologies to the story of the Creation, and even more so to the Flood narrative, that invite comparative study. On the Mesopotamian sources, see James B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959), 28-75
20. and W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atrahasis (Oxford, 1969)
21. For comparison between the Flood story and the myth of Atrahasis, see, for example, T. Frymer-Kenski, "The Atrahasis and Its Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9," Biblical Archeologist 40 (1977): 147-55
22. Westermann, Genesis, 399-405
23. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, xlvi-l, 159-69, and the bibliography there. So as not to complicate the following discussion or expand it beyond proportion, I have refrained from suggesting comparisons to these myths. This is not to say that they are not fruitful
24. See Y. Lorberbaum, Zcombining dot belowelem Elohim (Jerusalem, 2004), 27-82. In this work, I dealt extensively with the predominant tendencies in research vis-à-vis anthropomorphic expressions in classical Jewish literature, particularly Talmudic and Midrashic literature. I shall discuss in brief below the widespread research tendencies in relation to the anthropopathic expressions in that same literature, particularly in the Bible. On the distinction between them, see ibid., 56, and see also below
25. While Maimonides was not the first one to do so, he was the outstanding figure among them. He was preceded by Moses Ibn Ezra (see Gen. 6:6, s.v. vayinahcombining dot belowem), who was followed by Nahmanides, R. David Kimhi, and Gersonides. I do not intend to discuss below all the means of neutralizing the jealousy of the biblical God, but simply to exemplify several of the most important among them
26. This is one of the meanings of this expression in Maimonides. Another meaning is: "The Torah spoke [of God] in the language of human beings." This exegetical tendency truncates speech about God and every characterization of His personality relating to some other matter, and His numerous attributes never combine into one single, full, and complete image. Any reference to God is a kind of metaphor that stands in its own right
27. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, I.36, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, 1963), 82-85; see also 105
28. See Lorberbaum, Żelem Elohim, 56
29. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, introduction to Book I, 12
30. F. Rosenzweig, Naharayim: Mivḣar Ketavim, trans. Y. Amir (Jerusalem, 1978), 35-39
31. See Y. Kaufmann, Toldot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit (Jerusalem, 1960), 2:244. Simultaneously, Kaufmann negates from God matter or body
32. See E. L. Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism, " Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 187-206. It is important to note that it is incorrect to say that one who identifies God as Will (as opposed to Wisdom) necessarily adheres to an anthropomorphic approach
33. See B. Uffenheimer, "Myth and Reality in Ancient Israel," in The Origins and Diversity of Axial Ages Civilizations, ed. S. N. Eisenstadt (Albany, NY, 1986), 135-68, at 147
34. See R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational (New York, 1950). On our subject, see esp. 19-55, 87-97
35. See Cherbonnier, "The Logic of Biblical Anthropomorphism." The criticism has been lodged against the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic approaches that the God reflected therein is superficial, lacking in mystery, and exposed to the eyes of all. In the words of Augustine, "a God who is comprehensible is not God at all" (Sermons, CXVII, iii.v)
36. To contrast that, the God of the philosophers and of the mystics is distant, concealed, and mysterious (Deus Absconditus) and embodies all that is profound and substantive in the religious consciousness. Unlike the Augustinian approach, Cherbonnier asserts that the biblical method of preserving God's mystery is more successful than that of the mystics. Cherbonnier demonstrates that the biblical God is not superficial or transparent; on the contrary, precisely because of His humanity-and particularly His personality-He is complex and unexpected and therefore mysterious. Although the biblical God has other aspects as well (transhuman or nonhuman), Cherbonnier is correct in stating that His humanity does not nullify His mysterious dimensions but makes them more profound. See also Muffs, The Personhood of God, 55
37. In the final analysis, the decisive majority of those theological approaches that reject the corporealization of God in the Jewish-Christian world (and to a large extent also in the Muslim world) are one version or another of the Platonic and neo-Platonic views that derived therefrom. At times, as in Maimonides, Aristotelian elements are incorporated into this picture, but this does not suffice to change the central source of inspiration of these theological outlooks, which are the dominant understandings of God in the (Judeo-Christian) Western tradition
38. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 21
39. Gershom Scholem attributed this tendency to Maimonides, Shi'ur Qomah. See Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah (New York, 1991), 24-25
40. Muffs, The Personhood of God, 13, 23-25, 30-33
41. See Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 87. In this work, in which an entire gallery of biblical figures is discussed, there is not even one reference to the character of God
42. Another scholar whose studies of Bible and rabbinic literature tend toward a similar direction is Yehuda Liebes, to whom this work likewise owes a sincere debt. See, in particular, Liebes, "God's Love and His Jealousy," and "De Natura Dei: On the Jewish Myth and Its Transformation" [in Hebrew], in Masu'ot, ed. M. Oron and A. Goldreich (Tel Aviv, 1994), 243-97
43. Another book worth mentioning in this context is that of Harold Bloom, The Book of J (New York, 1991). Notwithstanding its numerous faults and its speculative elements (which create the definite impression that even the author does not relate to them seriously), this work contains new, provocative, and exciting insights. Bloom characterizes God in the J source as a Nietzschean personality, as Vitality lacking in inhibitions and limits. However, as Muffs shows and as we shall see below, the image of God in the Bible (including in J) is far more complex and includes a longing for connection with human beings and, as such, also for self-control
44. In this context I should mention also the book of Carl Jung, Answer to Job (London, 1984)
45. J. Miles's God: A Biography (New York: Knopf, 1995) is particularly disappointing in this respect. For matters discussed in this article, cf. 39-46. As a rule, Miles describes the God portrayed in the Priestly sources as calculating and rational
46. The only exegetes who tended toward the reading of the Flood story in Genesis to be suggested here, or at least certain aspects thereof, were the Sages of the Midrash and the Aggadah. This is not surprising, for no less than the Sages attributed an image to God, they examined His personality, which they portrayed in a complex and even intricate manner. The interpretation of the story of the Flood and, particularly, of the subject of the rainbow offered below, is implied in a number of brief homilies-odd or strange at face value-that appear in Genesis Rabbah 35.14 and 35.12 (Theodor-Albeck, 330 and 328), as well as in other Talmudic sources. I plan to analyze these Midrashic passages in a separate study
47. Some scholars argued that the edited version of the Flood narrative (composed of J and P) has a chiastic structure. See Cassuto, Commentary, 30
48. Anderson, "From Analysis to Synthesis," 23-39; cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 156-57, and additional bibliography there
49. But see the criticism of D. Wright, "The Fallacies of Chiasmus," Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 10 (2004): 143-68, esp. 160-61, and the bibliography he cites in n. 33
50. J. E. Emerton, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part I," Vetus Testamentum 37 (1987): 401-20
51. and "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis: Part II," Vetus Testamentum 38 (1988): 1-21. Even if Cassuto and Anderson are right, their thesis does not confute the argument that Genesis 1-11 were created from different documents
52. Chapter 4 is the genealogy of J, whereas chapter 5 is the genealogy of P
53. Genesis 9:18ff. On the genealogies in Genesis 1-11, see Westermann, Genesis, 6-19, 345-62
54. In the framework of these profound differences, we must also include the story of the Garden of Eden and the expulsion therefrom (Genesis 3-4), which is an integral part of the Creation story of J, as well as the story of Cain and Abel, which has no parallel in the Priestly source
55. In this respect, J differs from P in the opening chapters of Genesis. Together with that, the changes that take place in God in J are no less than those that occur there among human beings
56. This question also lies in the background of the new moral order that God establishes immediately after the Flood
57. The first and second possibilities are proposed by H. Gunkel and in a somewhat different way by A. Dillman, O. Proksch, J. Skinner, and G. von Rad; see also Book of Jubilees 6:1-2
58. The latter suggestion is made by Cassuto, Commentary, 121-23
59. See, e.g., Exod. 29:18, 29:25, 29:41; Lev. 1:9. As part of the tendency to exclude the corporeality of God, various commentators (Cassuto, Commentary, 124
60. Westermann, Genesis, 454; and many others) suggest that the idiom (the pleasing odor) is a formula indicating that the sacrifice was acceptable to God. While this may be the case in Leviticus, it is not so in Genesis. This term fits here within a broad spectrum of anthropomorphic references that are not at all formulaic
61. See G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. J. H. Marks and J. Bowden (London, 1972), 122; Wenham, Genesis, 189
62. God speaks "in His heart" (i.e., to Himself) and swears an oath after He smells the pleasing odor. But it was not the odor of the flesh alone that caused His change of heart; the sacrifice and its fragrance were intended to portray an atmosphere of reconciliation and intimacy but were insufficient reason for the promise (cf. Wenham, Genesis, 189-90)
63. See Rashi's commentary on Gen. 8:21, s.v. lo osif, in the wake of b. Shevu'ot, 37a
64. On the term kkek (to curse) and its relation to the phrase (to destroy), seeWestermann, Genesis, 455-56
65. Compare Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Torah, s.v. velo osif 'od
66. Commentators have noted that the motif of cursing of the earth here (Gen. 8:5) returns us to the cursing of the earth in 3:17. This claim is correct. However, as we have seen above, the central reference of Gen. 8:21, both in terms of contents and in the formal-linguistic sense, is first and foremost 6:5 and the punishment of the Flood that was decreed there. The curse here is the curse of the Flood, not the curse of the land due to the sin in the Garden of Eden. Nevertheless, it is possible that God implies here a certain regret for the earlier punishment (cf. Westermann, Genesis, 455-56)
67. See Rashi, s.v. mi-n'urav. The idiom yezcombining dot belower lev (imagination of the heart) is interpreted by Ibn Ezra as "the outcome which is created for him," that is, that the outcome of the heart of man is evil from its beginning (cf. Nahmanides' commentary on the Torah; Westermann, Genesis, 456)
68. See Ramban (Nahmanides), 'al ha-Torah; Cassuto, Commentary, 124-25; and many other commentators (cf. Ibn Ezra, s.v. el libo)
69. Compare H. Gunkel, Genesis, trans. M. E. Biddle (Macon, GA, 1997), 66
70. Compare Cassuto, Commentary, 124-25
71. Von Rad (Genesis, 122-23) here interprets the word to mean "even though . . ." ("I will never again curse . . . even though the imagination of man's heart," etc.) and then adds: "In its hard paradox this v. 21 is one of the most remarkable theological statements in the Old Testament
72. " According to von Rad, the epilogue of the Flood reflects "God's Grace and providence" (ibid.)
73. It is highly doubtful whether the preposition ki has such a meaning in biblical language; the only example he brings to support this reading is "Pardon my guilt, O Lord, even though it is great (Ps.25:11). See A. Even-Shoshan, Ha-Milon he-Hcombining dot belowadash (Jerusalem, 1967), III.1045
74. However, this verse also allows another interpretation; indeed, both exegetes and lexicographers differ as to the existence of such a meaning of the word hf in the Bible. See Y. Breuer, "ki Has Four Meanings" [in Hebrew], Tarbizcombining dot below 72 (2003): 503-22, at 507-8 and n. 11
75. It is important to note that Muffs' reading is canonical. Exodus 32 is probably part of J. See B. S. Childs, Exodus; A Commentary (London, 1974), 558-60
76. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (New York, 1998), 539-623
77. For a possible literary relation between man's sin following the Creation, leading to the Flood, and the sin of the Golden Calf, which followed immediately upon Mt. Sinai, see Wenham, Genesis, 191
78. see also R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God (Sheffield, 1983), 92-93
79. In the case of the sin of the Calf, God is evidently unable to completely forgo His anger in the immediate context, for immediately after He declares "in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them," Scripture goes on to state "and the Lord sent a plague upon the people, because they made the calf which Aaron made" (Exod. 32:34-35)-as if to say: nevertheless, in terms of the Divine emotion, it was impossible for Him to let them go scot-free. This may be an example of the "method of inoculation." See Muffs, The Personhood of God, 31
80. Muffs, "Who Will Stand in the Breach?" 14-21. For a discussion of the different stages of "the history of Israelite ethical feeling," see ibid., 15-16, and his notes
81. Hence, there is no need to assume that in the Flood story or in its concluding section, P is based on J. Compare F. M. Cross, "The Priestly Work," in his Cana'anite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA, 1973), 293-325, at 306
82. and T. Abusch, "Biblical Accounts of Prehistory: Their Meaning and Formation," in Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation; Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, ed. K. F. Kravitz and D. A. Sharon (Winona Lake, IN, 2007), 1-17
83. Prior to the Flood, after God instructs Noah to build an ark and informs him, "Behold, I will bring a flood," He adds, "But I will establish my covenant with you" (Gen. 6:18). Exegetes and scholars are in agreement that this does not refer to the covenant that He made with Noah and his sons after the Flood, but rather a covenant to save them from the approaching flood. See, for example, Ibn Ezra, Nahmanides, and Rashi; see also Westermann (Genesis, 422-23), who comments that this covenant is tantamount to promise
84. Compare Cassuto, (Commentary, 106-7), who thought that this was a covenant to ensure the continuity of humankind from Noah, in whom the blessing of fruitfulness given to Adam was fulfilled, but see Westermann's well-taken criticism of him on this point
85. See von Rad, Genesis, 134
86. Regarding unilateral covenants in Scripture and in the ancient Near East, see M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the OT and in the Ancient Near East," Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 184-203
87. For a similar unilateral covenant with Phineas, see Num. 25: 12; cf. Book of Jubilees 6:1-4, whose interpretation forcibly incorporates a bilateral covenant between God and Noah
88. Compare also J. Skinner, Genesis, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh, 1930)
89. Cross, Canaanite Myth, 273
90. The unilateral nature of the covenant with Noah is one of the reasons why researchers rejected Wellhausen's four-covenant theory. See Westermann, Genesis, 470-71
91. Compare Book of Jubilees 9:10-18. According to the Book of Jubilees, in contrast with the literal sense of the biblical text, one is speaking here of a bilateral covenant: Noah and his sons commit themselves by oath not to eat blood, and God commits Himself not to bring another flood upon the earth. According to the Book of Jubilees, Noah's oath and the covenant are an anticipation of the covenant made at Sinai
92. See C. Werman, "The Fashioning of the Events of the Generation of the Flood in the Book of Jubilees" [in Hebrew], Tarbiż 64 (1995): 183-202
93. See Rashi and Radak's commentary on the Torah. The language used by God here is: "I establish my covenant with you . . ." which is the opposite of His words prior to the Flood, "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth" (6:17)
94. The repetition in verse 11, "never again shall all flesh be cut off . . . and never again shall there be a flood," parallels a similar repetition in the J version: "I will never again curse the ground because of man . . . neither will I ever again destroy every living creature" (Gen. 8:21)
95. Thus, for example, the "parties" to the covenant are mentioned by God five times, in almost every verse, albeit with certain variations: "(12) . . . between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations. (13) . . . between me and the earth. (15) . . . between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. . . . (16) . . . between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. (17) . . . between me and all flesh that is upon the earth." The placing of the bow in the cloud, its seeing and being remembered, are mentioned here (at least) twice, again with certain variations: "(13) I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. (14) When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds. (15) I will remember my covenant. . . . (16) When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant." Regarding these repetitions, see the next comment and see below
96. Compare von Rad (Genesis, 133-34)
97. who thinks that this passage combines two separate versions that were present to the author of P; however, as Westermann notes (Genesis, 471-72), it is impossible to separate the duplications here into two different textual layers
98. The differences between them indicate that P had a theological goal in the designing of this passage. See ibid., 472; cf. Wenham, Genesis, 195
99. Compare the interpretation of R. Sa'adya Gaon, "'I have set my bow' That I already placed it in the cloud [from the six days of Creation], but it will be [from now on] a sign of the covenant." In his wake, see also Nahmanides, s.v. et kashti; Cassuto, Commentary, 142. The phrase "I have placed [natati]" may easily be understood as a continuous present tense, as in Gen. 23:13: (I will give the price of the field; accept it from me). It is important to note that external difficulties in the text, from the areas of physics or rationalist theology, which troubled the medieval commentators, are not the concern of the mythicetiological biblical text
100. Even if the phrase "my bow" is an echo of God's weapon of war that had already been used, its being placed in the cloud as a natural phenomenon, so that it could be seen before the coming of the Flood, is a new phenomenon that came about after the Flood. See also the next footnote
101. Nahmanides (s.v. et kashti natati) infers from the phrase "my bow" that "He had a bow from the beginning" (that is, Creation). Ibn Ezra, however, comments (s.v. et kashti), "I have now placed the bow."
102. See Cassuto (Commentary, 141-42), who thinks that the expression "my bow" here is connected to the motif of the god who wages war with bow and arrow, which is a widespread image in Mesopotamian (and other) mythology and in the early Israelite epic, which the Torah abandoned and contracted, leaving here only a weak echo. On this motif in the Scriptures, see, for example, Hab. 3:9-11; Ps. 38:3; and in the Torah, Num. 24:8; Deut. 32: 23, 42; and likewise many other biblical passages
103. See Nahmanides' commentary, s.v. zot ot ha-brit; cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 150
104. see also M. Weinfeld, "The Creator God in Genesis 1 and in Second Isaiah" [in Hebrew], Tarbizcombining dot below37 (1968): 105-32, at 120
105. TheMidrash was aware of the possessive suffix of this noun but interpreted it differently. See Genesis Rabbah 35.11 (Theodor-Albeck, 330)
106. See M. V. Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ôt Etiologies," Revue Biblique 81 (1974): 557-96, at 527-73. Fox emphasized this point, yet within a different context
107. In the final analysis, the rainbow, as known to us, generally speaking, appears in a cloud. Compare Cassuto, Commentary, 142-43; cf. Ezek. 1:28. It would be a mistake to see the passage of the rainbow as an etiology for this natural phenomenon, as it would then relate to the story of the Flood as a whole. Compare Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant," 573
108. Compare the interpretation of Nahmanides (s.v. ve-haya b'anani 'anan al ha-arezcombining dot below)
109. See Gunkel, Genesis, 150
110. It is worth taking note of the poetics of this verse. The root (to see), whose declension is passive in relation to God in verse 14, "and the bow is seen," is exchanged in verse 16 for an active form in relationship to Him, "And I shall see it," while the active language ascribed to God in verse 15, "and I shall remember," is exchanged in verse 16 for the neutral "to remember."
111. In terms of the style of these declensions, there may be added va-ani hineni (and behold I), et kashti natat i (I have placed My bow), and be-'anani (when I bring clouds), all of which emphasize God relating to Himself
112. From this point of view, the comparison between the passage on the bow and that of zcombining dot belowizcombining dot belowit is instructive. Regarding zcombining dot belowizcombining dot belowit, God commands the Israelites, "Bid them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations . . . to look upon and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all My commandments, and be holy to your Lord" (Num. 15:37-40). Like the rainbow, so too the zcombining dot belowizcombining dot belowit or tassels are a kind of mechanism for self-control; seeing them reminds one of one's obligations and serves as a barrier against following random inclinations. Here too the text emphasizes seeing and remembering. However, whereas the section on zcombining dot belowizcombining dot belowit refers to seeing and remembering on the part of Israel, that is, human beings, the chapter of the rainbow also speaks of seeing and remembering on the part of God. Compare Cassuto, Commentary, 143
113. See Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant," 578-80
114. On the relation between them, see Deut. 17:12
115. Scholars and commentators have deliberated on the meaning of the occurrence of "remembrance" in the middle of the Flood and have suggested various interpretations. The common denominator of all of them is the effort to remove the element of forgetfulness from the phrase "and God remembered" (va-yizkor elohim), and none of these commentaries seem to fit the simple meaning of Scripture. See Westermann, Genesis, 441
116. On remembrance in the Bible, see the entry (H. Eising) in TDOT, IV.64-82
117. Indeed, the semantic field of the term "remembrance" in the Bible is extensive. At times it means thinking about, attributing importance to, or an extending of graciousness (see, e.g., Gen. 19:29, 30:22; Jon. 4:11). In any event, in Genesis 9, in the matter of the rainbow ("and I shall remember my covenant")-and in the course of doing so also in Gen. 8:1, "but God remembered Noah"-remembrance follows forgetting (see Fox, "The Sign of the Covenant," 572)
118. In P, the phrase "and the waters prevailed" is used repeatedly: "the waters prevailed and increased greatly . . . and the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth . . . and the waters prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days" (Gen. 7:18-24)
119. This Divine emotion is described well in the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:22). God's emotional passion overwhelms any other feeling or consciousness. There is an explicit parallel here between the Divine emotion and the external destruction
120. God's remembering of Noah is interpreted thus in the section of "Remembrances" (Zikhronot) in the Musaf liturgy for Rosh Hashanah, which was evidently composed during the tannaitic period (and possibly even earlier); see the dispute between the Shammaites and Hillelites in t. Berakhot 3.13
121. See m. Rosh Hashanah 4.5-6
122. cf. J. Heinemann, "Malkhuyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot" [in Hebrew], in his 'Iyyunei Tefillah, ed. A. Shinan ( Jerusalem, 1981), 54-71, esp. 59
123. Cassuto, Commentary, 143 (s.v. vezakharti). Even though there are certain differences in details between Cassuto and other exegetes, they do not pertain to the points discussed here, which all agree are the essential points in the chapter of the rainbow. Regarding this matter, the fact that Cassuto rejects the Documentary Hypothesis altogether, including as it pertains to the chapter of the Flood in particular, is irrelevant. Regarding this exegetical direction, see von Rad, Genesis, 133-34
124. Miles, God: A Biography, 55-56
125. Among the classical exegetes, see R. Saadya Gaon (s.v. ur'itiha: "'And I shall see it.' A perpetual reminder for the surety of the world from God to every living creature"); Ibn Ezra, and in his wake, Kimhi (s.v. et kashti natati: "When human beings see it, they will remember that this is a sign of the covenant that God gave them, and they will not fear the Flood"). In this context, it is worth remembering that a more or less similar meaning is found in early flood epics, in which the motif of the rainbow appears at their end. See Westermann, Genesis, 405, and the bibliographical references there
126. See also Gunkel, Genesis, 150. Gunkel took note that, according to the language of Scripture, the rainbow is a reminder of the covenant for God, not for human beings-a point that is not fitting, in his opinion, to the Priestly source. He therefore concludes that one is speaking of an early tradition that P adopted and changed
127. In this connection, I wish to mention that this reading of the passage of the rainbow, as a sign for human beings alone, already appears in the Book of Jubilees (6:15-18)
128. See Childs, Exodus, 558-60
129. Propp, Exodus, 539-623
130. In the following analysis, I do not argue that one of the sources (P, J, or E) knows the other or is relying on him. Given the results of the discussion that follows, these possibilities should be studied in a separate inquiry
131. See Rashi on Exod. 32:10, s.v. haniḣah li
132. Although it is not stated explicitly in the section of the sin of the Golden Calf, it is clear that, alongside Moses' efforts, God is also called to engage in an effort of self-conquest. The inner strengthening of God is mentioned explicitly in the chapter of the Spies, in Num. 14: 17-20, whose close relation to the chapter of the Golden Calf is quite evident (both probably belong to J)
133. Compare the language of Ps. 78:38: "Yet He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them; He restrained His anger often, and did not stir up all His wrath." In this context, it is also worth mentioning that the story of the Golden Calf is interwoven with a variety of mechanisms for restraining God's jealousy over the sins of the people, all of which are used by God Himself during the course of His complex negotiation with Moses. Thus, for example, after God withdraws from His intention to destroy the people as a whole, He suffices with destroying the sinners alone and postponing the punishment of the people for the future, saying to the people: "But now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you; Behold, My angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them" (Exod. 32:34). God's distancing Himself from the people and the appointment of an angel in His place reappear further on (33:1-6) when God commands Moses: "Depart, go up hence, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I have swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," but then He emphasizes, "and I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites . . . but I will not go up among you, lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people." The people hear this and immediately, "they mourned" (verse 4), but God again emphasizes, "For the Lord had said to Moses, 'Say to the people of Israel, "you are stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you"'" (verse 5). God knows that people will again become corrupt and that He will be angry with them. He knows that a similar event will surely occur and is likely to be fatal; it is doubtful to Him whether He, or Moses, will then be able to halt His anger from destroying them at once. The solution offered (now that He is calm) is to distance Himself from the corruption and to send His angel in His place. In this context, I will note that in the Bible, generally speaking, the "angel of the Lord" is not an entity completely separate from God but is a kind of extension of Him. God's angel is, it is true, separate from God; however (like the "image of God"; see below), it entails a certain Divine presence. See, e.g., Exod. 23:20-21: "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way . . . give heed to him and hearken to his voice . . . for he will not pardon your transgression; for My Name is on him," where God notes His presence "inside" the angel. And indeed, in the next verse there is a deliberate mixture of the angel with God: "but if you hearken attentively to his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries," and similarly in many other verses. The exchange of God for the angel is a kind of a compromise; there is a separation from the people but also indirectly a kind of presence within them. Here too, God proposes a sort of instrument for self-restraint: to keep His distance and to send an angel in His place, as if to say, "I am only able to love you from afar; closeness between us is dangerous to Me, and even more so to you." If this is not a "divorce," it is certainly a kind of "living separately" (and indeed, immediately thereafter, Moses moves the Tent of Meeting outside of the camp; verses 7-11). One ought not to make light of the dramatic nature of this proposal, for according to the biblical narrative, God's greatest yearning is to dwell among the children of Israel; hence, His decision to remove Himself from them and to send an angel in His place is, from His viewpoint, a constitutive change and an expression of deep disappointment. And indeed, not surprisingly, in the end, Moses succeeds in persuading God not to realize His intention to send an angel in His place (at least according to Exod. 33:12-16; see esp. 14-15: "And He said, 'My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.' And he said to Him, 'If Thy presence will not go with me, do not carry us up from here'"; but compare also Exod. 23:20-23). The means God gives Moses to restrain His anger is, as is well known, the Thirteen Qualities of Mercy (Exod. 34:6-7)
134. "All the prophets prophesy, but only Ezekiel is able to bring to conscious expression of the process of prophetic confrontation with the divine emotions" (ibid., 32)
135. See, e.g., Jer. 7:16; Muffs, "Who Will Stand in the Breach?" 23-26; cf. Hab. 3:2
136. There may be a difference on this point. Typically, the prophet comes to warn the people before the Divine wrath becomes strong, attempting to convince them to change their behavior so as to prevent the anger growing to the point where it becomes uncontrollable. By contrast, the appearance of the rainbow is a sign of Divine jealousy that has already strengthened and is intended to rein it in
137. See Abusch, "Biblical Accounts of Prehistory," 5-11
138. See R. Akiva, in m. Avot 3.10
139. See Muffs, The Personhood of God, 50
140. Weinfeld, "The Creator God," 120
141. On the widespread approach to P, see, for example, A. Rofé, Mavo le-Sifrut ha-Miqra (Jerusalem, 2006), 43
142. For a different approach to P, seeWeinfeld, "The Creator God," 119-20. Yet Weinfeld also failed to note the full mythic significance of the Priestly Creation and Flood narratives. See, for example, his comments there concerning the rainbow
143. I do not claim by this that divine anger-management devices are unique to P. As we saw above (sect. IV), they also exist in J and in E (e.g., in Exodus 32)
144. This insight is evidently shared by all the ancient foundational myths that include any version of the Flood narrative. See Westermann, Genesis, 475, and his bibliographical references
145. On the wide variety of flood stories in ancient mythology throughout the ancient world, see his survey (ibid., 399-405)
146. See, for example, Westermann (Genesis, 399, 473)
147. who writes: "God's word, God's assurance guarantees the continuation of the world and every living creature, and takes precedence over every theology" (ibid., 471). A similar formulation appears among many other commentators (see his references therein)