322 JILL MIDDLEMAS beings who exercise rule or dominion on behalf of the deity 4. Less at- tention, especially in recent years, has focused on metaphorical or moral interpretations 5. A separate debate has arisen with respect to the question of the relationship of the first imago Dei passage to the prophetic literature. When the passage is perceived to contain a refer- ence to the actual form of the deity or even a divine body, the thought of Genesis 1 agrees well with how God is depicted in the Books of Isaiah (Isaiah 6) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1). Concomitantly, it is felt that the ideology has little in common with attitudes towards iconography found in the collection known as Second Isaiah, as evidenced by the incomparability and the “Polemic Against the Idol” passages (here- after PAI) 6 found therein. Close analysis of expressions of aniconism in the prophetic literature offers new evidence with which to reconsider the question of commonality and difference between the first imago Dei passage in Genesis and the prophetic literature 7. ality of God and Man: Genesis 1:26-27 as P’s Interpretation of the yahwistic Cre- ation Account”, Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. J.C. DE MOOR) (OTS 40; Leiden 1998) 112-125; M.S. SMITH, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the ugaritic Texts (Oxford 2001) 171; B.D. SOMMER The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge 2009) 69-70. 4 H. WILDBERGER “Das Abbild Gottes: Gen 1,26-30 (1. Teil)”, TZ 21 (1965) 246-252; G. VON RAD, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J.H. MARKS) (OTL; Philadelphia, PA 1972) 59-60; R. DAVIDSON, Genesis 1–11 (CBC; Cambridge 1973) 25; B. JACOB, The First Book of the Bible: Genesis (trans. and eds. E.I. JACOB – W. JACOB) (New york 1974) 10; B. VAWTER, On Genesis: A New Reading (New york 1977) 57-59; W. GROSS, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen im Kontext der Priesterschrift”, TQ 161 (1981) 244-264; N.M. SARNA, Genesis (JPS Torah Com- mentary; Philadelphia, PA 1989) 12-13; G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1–15 (WBC 1A; Dallas, Tx 1987) 153-154; W. GROSS, “Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen nach Gen 1,26.27 in der Diskussion des letzten Jahrzehnts”, BN 68 (1993) 35-48. 5 On pre-critical interpretation, see G.A. ROBBINS, Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis. Intrigue in the Garden (Lewiston, Ny 1988); S.L. JAKI, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (London 1992). See also C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11 (trans. J.J. SCuLLION) (Minneapolis, MN 1984) 142-161; P. TRIBLE, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia, PA 1978) 15-21; P. ALExANDER, “Reflections on Word Versus Image”, The Image and Its Prohibition in Jewish Antiquity (ed. S. PEARCE) (JJSSup 2; Oxford 2013) 1-27. 6 J. MIDDLEMAS, The Divine Image. Prophetic Aniconic Rhetoric and Its Con- tribution to the Aniconism Debate (fAT 2/74; Tübingen 2014) 22. I refer to the lengthier anti-idol passages with the abbreviation PAI because I contend that they share a commonality in wording, theme, and function that sets them apart as a group, much like the Oracles against the Nations passages that are often grouped together in research and referred to as OAN. 7 J. MIDDLEMAS, “Divine Presence in Absence: Aniconism and Multiple Im-