"  The  author  says  nothing  about  it,  since  he  regards  the  matter  as
obvious;  but  what  his  thoughts  on  the  subject  are  is  quite  clear
from  v.  1-3,  the  continuation  of  the  account  of  creation  in  P:
God  created  Adam  in  his  own  likeness;  Adam  begat  Seth  in  his
own  likeness.  The  second  sentence  is  clear  beyond  doubt:  the  son
looks  like  his  father,  he  is  like  him  in  form  and  appearance.  Ac-
cordingly the  first  sentence  should  be  interpreted  to  mean:  the  first
man  was  like  God  in  form  and  appearance.  That  the  likeness  to
God  was  so  understood  by  P  is  shown  ix.  6 :  Whoso  sheddeth
man's  blood,  attacks  in  man  the  image  of  God.  Accordingly,  this
likeness  to  God  refers  in  the  first  instance  to  the  body,  although
the  mind  is  by  no  means  ignored."118  I  think  that  Gunkel  will
assent  to  the  following  restatement.  Back  of  the  thought  that  man
was  created  in  the  image  of  celestial  beings  there  is  undoubtedly  an
ancient  mythological  conception;  that  the  gross  anthropomorphism
which  it  implies  could  not  have  been  shared  by  the  writer  of  the
chapter  is  quite  clear  from  the  fact  that  "  P  in  particular  avoids
anthropomorphisms   as   much   as   possible."     Furthermore,   v.    1-3,

117  Genesis,  98.
118  See  the  references  to  Greek  and  Babylonian  conceptions ;  to  the  anthro-
pomorphisms in  the  Old  Testament:  "the  thought  of  the  incorporeity  of
God  transcends  the  horizon  of  the  Old  Testament  writers."  But  by  the  side
of  the  anthropomorphic  conceptions  there  is  noticeable  in  Israel  "  already  in
ancient  times  another  current."  Gunkel  adduces  the  evidences  for  the  as-
cendancy of  transcendental  conceptions  and  quotes  Holzinger,  Hexateuch,  380,
to  the  effect  that  P  in  particular  avoids  anthropomorphisms  as  much  as
possible.
