Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 38/2 (2012), pp.

1-22

Gerald A. Klingbeil (Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Mich.)

Martin G. Klingbeil (Southern Adventist University, Collegedale, Tenn.)
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE”: FINDING THE
INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE STATIC AND THE
DYNAMIC IN BIBLICAL RITUAL
1
AND ANE ICONOGRAPHY

ABSTRACT
Action is an important element in ritual and refers to the interplay of ritual
objects/participants in space and time which results in the performance of the ritual
itself (cf. G A Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible
[BBRSup 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007], 18). While both biblical ritual texts
and ANE iconography depicting religious/ritual activities describe a dynamic, action-
oriented reality, both are in fact static snapshots of an ancient reality or concept.
Within the thematic framework of this particular session of the Ritual in the Biblical
World consultation, this paper tries to look for an interface between ritual and
iconographic studies by focusing upon the interaction between the dynamic and the
static. The two key questions under discussion are: (1) How does a ritual text vis-à-vis
an iconographic image reflect the interaction between the static and the dynamic? (2)
Is there a hermeneutical overlap between the two fields that could mutually enhance
the interpretive process(es)? The raw data used to interact with these questions is
taken from the corpus of ritual texts in the Hebrew Bible and from ANE iconographic
objects where preference is given to the spatial and geographic context in which the
Hebrew Bible originated.

1. INTRODUCTION: STILL LIFE AND ACTION SHOTS

Ritual is a dynamic construct. Action – while not necessarily the ritual per
se (contra Gane 2007) – lies at the heart of ritual. Ritual action is a
publicly or (to a lesser degree) privately enacted symbol (Klingbeil
2007:181) and interacts consistently with other important elements of
ritual, such as objects, participants, space, and time. The levels of
interaction depend on the particular ritual as well as the larger cultural
and historical context. Ritual action requires time, ritual time, to pass.
Minutes, hours, days, or weeks need to pass in order for the ritual to
develop and become “effective.” Ritual action needs to develop in space

1 The following study is a revised version of a paper read in the Ritual in the
Biblical World consultation at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature, on November 25, 2008, in Boston, Massachusetts. We would like
to express our appreciation for the helpful discussion and interaction to the
participants of the session.

1
2 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

and involves movement. A ritual can transform space into sacred space.2
This ritual (or sacred) space can affect architecture (Wightman 2007;
Bergmann 2007; Fitzenreiter 2003 and 2004; Bloch-Smith 2002; Richter
1998; and Volp 1994), but can also be movable and relative (see the
mobile nature of the tabernacle as described in the Pentateuch; cf.
Klingbeil 2007:161) or may exist only conceptually (i.e., in the minds of
the ritual participants).3 Participants of a ritual can be either static or
dynamic in their interaction, i.e., they can move around, stand still, drop
out of sight, take a dominant position, and are generally effected by the
outcome of the ritual (e.g., the priests during the ordination ritual, or the
leper after the purification ritual, etc.).
All the above observations pertaining to ritual per se and biblical ritual
specifically are primarily based on texts which are generally a snapshot of
action, written either in a prescriptive or descriptive mode. Likewise,
pictorial depictions of ancient reality are also only a snapshot or, perhaps
using an even more appropriate metaphor, represent a carefully arranged
still life which requires the “reader” to decipher and interact with a reality
which is far removed from our present western worldview and reality.
Recognizing the important distinction between static and dynamic in
ritual and iconography, we would like to see if insights from both
disciplines will help us better understand this complex relationship. After
a short probing into recent literature dealing with both ritual and
iconography, we will look at the particular characteristics of biblical ritual
and iconography, including also their respective methodological
“handicaps,” when it comes to the data itself (texts, official art versus
private art, etc.). The next section will deal with existing links between
biblical ritual and ANE iconography, touching on the difficult issue of the
existence (or non-existence) of a continuum between the ANE and the
biblical world. Here we try to find some tentative answers to the second
research question, involving a possible hermeneutical overlap between
the two fields. We will then do a case study, looking at the altar
construction texts of Genesis (8:20; 12:7, 8; 13:18; 22:9-10; 26:25; 35:7)

2 The last decades have seen significant research published concerning

ritual/sacred space. Compare here Klingbeil (2007:159-68 and 1995), Smith
(2002:3-10), Bloch-Smith (2002), Wyatt (2001), Gorman (1990), and Cohn
(1981).
3 A good example of “conceptual space” is the important ‫“ ְּכבֹוד יְּ הוָ ה‬the glory of
YHWH” (for example, Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; Lev 9:32) which is movable,
can rest on particular places (Exod 24:16), but also fills the whole world (Num
14:21). Cf. Klingbeil (2007:163).
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 3

which contain in abbreviated form a significant ritual and will also

include here iconographical depictions of horned altars from
Palestine/Israel. While the Pentateuchal text does not specify which altar
type was to be constructed, the iconographic work will focus upon horned
altars due to their more common appearance in images from the ANE.
Finally, we will try to formulate concisely some hermeneutical principles
drawn from both disciplines that will (hopefully) help in the future
interpretation of ritual texts and iconographic images, especially in their
important interaction between the dynamic and the static.

2. ANCIENT RELIGION: THE INTERFACE OF RITUAL TEXTS

AND ICONOGRAPHY
As much as our understanding of ritual in the Hebrew Bible is beginning
to take shape,4 an interest in linking ritual and iconographic studies is
growing, especially from the perspective of the reconstruction of ANE
and, in particular, Israelite religion. Both rituals and images are means of
communication which are substantially visual, even though the way in
which they are captured and referenced in the Hebrew Bible is by means
of literary devices.5
Literature that deals with methodological issues on the relationship
between ritual and iconography is somewhere between scarce and non-
existent, although a growing number of publications since the beginning
of the 1990s have discussed iconographic aspects of ritual (or ritual
aspects of iconography for that matter).6 We will limit our interaction
with the relevant literature to four publications from the last decade that
can serve as case studies, demonstrating significant interaction between
ritual and iconography and alluding in their comments to methodological
issues.7

4 Klingbeil (2007) provides a helpful introduction to the theory and practice of

ritual studies in the larger context of biblical research.
5 Cf. below under Section 3 for a discussion on the question of what drives
ritual and iconography in the Hebrew Bible.
6 Cf. Bernett and Keel (1998), Carstens (1998), Collon (1999), and also Schroer
(2006).
7 A more dated volume discussing the relationship between ritual and
iconography is Brandon (1975). Brandon approaches the topic from an
anthropological angle and repeatedly observes that iconography and ritual
antecedes the texts as a religious expression (1975:339). He furthermore
criticizes the precedence of text over image in the interpretation of ancient
religious thought (1975:339–40) and comes to the conclusion that humanity
4 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

Angelika Berlejung’s Die Theologie der Bilder (1998) discusses the

making and dedication of Mesopotamian cult images and focuses on the
dedicatory mouth-washing and -opening ritual, before contrasting it to the
Hebrew Bible polemics against cult images. Of interest for the present
study is her definition of image (“Bild”) over against image (“Abbild”),
emphasizing the presence of the invisible reality in the image (“Bild”):
Im Unterschied zum Abbild will das Bild dem Urbild nicht also
einfach nur gleichen, sondern seinsmässig mit ihm
kommunizieren. Ein Bild ist daher nicht nur eine nachfolgende,
zusätzliche und entbehrliche Illustration; es lässt das, was es
darstellt, erst ganz sein, was es ist. Aus dieser
Ursprungsbeziehung zwischen Bild und Urbild folgt, dass das
Abgebildete im Bild real präsent ist (Berlejung 1998:7).
She defines rituals as “begangene Bilder” and underlines the performative
character of both image and ritual: “Das Ritual besteht demnach aus drei
Komponenten: Sprache, Bild und Handlung, die zudem aufeinander
bezogen warden” (Berlejung 1998:179).8 Thus iconography becomes an
important element in the interpretation of ritual and vice versa.
Bernd Janowski and Erich Zenger discuss temple rituals, more
specifically, the feasts and sacrifices in ancient Israel as recorded in the
Hebrew Psalter, and relate them to temple-iconography, focusing
particularly upon the holy mountain motif (Janowski & Zenger 2004; cf.

responds through ritual and iconography to three fundamental issues of all

human life, namely, death, birth and food supply (1975:340–41). Relevant to
the question of this study is his observation that the most primitive religious
expression humankind used was ritual action which was then reflected in the
iconography of ritual and later followed by religious literature. Thus,
iconography becomes the primary witness of and key to ritual: “We observed
at the outset of our quest that man had drawn and carved images of his gods
long before he could write about them. And we noted also that this
iconographic expression of his religious beliefs had been closely associated,
from the beginning of the archaeological record, with ritual action”
(1975:339). While Brandon’s discussions on the relationship between image
and text have been taken up in more recent publications on iconographic
method, he acknowledges the difficulty of interpreting ritual solely on the
basis of iconography without the evidence of literature (1975:340).
8 We would not follow her understanding of the image being a static
representation of reality (Berlejung 1998:180). Cf. our discussion of the static
and dynamic in ritual and iconography below.
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 5

earlier Janowski 2002 and Klingbeil 1999:247–249, figs. 79–80). Similar

to Berlejung they recognize the importance of the Bildwelten (image-
worlds) which underlie ritual action.
Die Tempelfest-Psalmen und die Tempelfrömmigkeits-Psalmen
bieten weder als Einzelpsalmen noch in ihrer Zusammenschau
eine umfassende Tempel- und Festtheologie. In der Regel
werden jeweils einzelne Elemente und Aspekte evoziert, die auf
das zugrundeliegende Symbolsystem Bezug nehmen, wobei
dieses System über die Jahrhunderte hinweg gewiss vielfältigen
Veränderungen unterworfen war (Janowski & Zenger 2004:82).
Othmar Keel in his monumental Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die
Entstehung des Monotheismus also points to the reciprocal relationship
and exchange between iconographic images and ritual texts. In discussing
the iconographic sources for rituals of vassal-treaties during the Neo-
Assyrian Empire, Keel makes some interesting methodological
observations that are of relevance for the present study: “Natürlich sind
Bilder nicht stets Abbilder von realen Vorgängen. Aber Bilder ... zeigen
Formen, in denen Zeremonien wie Bundesschlüsse stattgefunden haben
können und vorstellbar sind. In der Regel besteht kein unüberbrückbarer
Hiatus zw. der virtuellen Welt der Bilder und der Welt realer Zeremonien,
sondern findet ein lebhafter Austausch von Impulsen in beide Richtungen
statt” (Keel 2007:559).
Keel’s unofficial Festschrift9 is in a sense the description of the state-
of-the-art of ANE iconographic studies. While the studies focus mostly
on the cataloguing and analysis of iconographic objects, there are a few
contributions that touch on the interplay between ritual and iconography
(e.g., Zwickel 2007 and Sass 2007). Wolfgang Zwickel discusses the
horned altars found on cylinder- and stamp seals from Palestine/Israel,
dating to Iron Age II. He comes to the conclusion that the depiction of the
altar serves as an iconographic marker for the corresponding ritual: “Der
Altar steht gewissermaβen pars pro toto für den gesamten Kult und ist
somit ein Marker, der mehr erzählt, als er vordergründig zeigt” (Zwickel
2007:289). Thus the ritual is re-enacted by iconographic elements, though
in a condensed and often reduced form.
These few examples demonstrate that a comprehensive or even
introductory methodological discussion on the relationship between ritual

9 “This ‘special volume’ is not, officially a Festschrift since we know the

recipient’s reservations against this strained and sometimes tiring literary
genre” (Bickel 2007:xi).
6 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

and iconography is nowhere to be found in the recent literature and the

methodological deductions above have been mainly gleaned as spin-offs
from discussions and analysis of iconographic objects.

3. BETWEEN THE STATIC AND THE DYNAMIC: BIBLICAL

RITUAL AND ANE ICONOGRAPHY
3.1 Biblical Ritual
Since our knowledge of biblical ritual is basically limited to textual data,
the inherent limitations and uncertainties of textuality apply. Scholars
have argued that most of the biblical ritual texts are actually part of a
conscious theological effort to streamline and centralize cultic practices
during the Second Temple period and, thus, do not necessarily represent
actual performance (Davies 1996). Others, including ourselves, would
give the texts more historical credibility and suggest that the rituals
described in them represent actual practice (Klingbeil 2007:52-54).
Unlike current anthropological research depending on actual observation,
video footage, photography, and direct interaction with those enacting the
ritual, biblical scholars have little outside corroboration, even though
comparative data from the ANE does provide a helpful external
perspective. The ritual texts from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit),10 Tell
Meskene (Emar),11 Anatolia,12 all dating to the Late Bronze Age period,
are particularly relevant. Different levels of preservation of the tablets,
opaque terminology, difficult syntax and laconic style, and lack of
definite contexts are some of the limitations of these texts which are often
shared with biblical ritual texts.
A second relevant consideration that needs to be kept in mind when
dealing with the biblical (and extrabiblical) ritual texts concerns the
difference between prescriptive and descriptive ritual texts. This
differentiation was first observed by Baruch Levine (1963, 1965, and
1983) in his research of the Ugaritic ritual material, but is also apparent in
the Hebrew Bible. The differentiation between a prescriptive text, which
mandates a specific religious activity, and a descriptive text, which details
the execution of the prescription, is an important one. A good example of
these two important categories can be found in the ritual of priestly
ordination where Exod 29 is prescriptive while Lev 8 is descriptive. It

10 Cf. Wright (2001), Pardee (2000), Niehr (1999) and del Olmo Lete (1999).
11 Cf. Fleming (1992 and 2000), Klingbeil (1998) and Sigrist (1993).
12 Cf. Haroutunian (2003), McMahon (2003), Haas (2003), Fauth (1998), Collins
(1995) and Wright (1987).
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 7

should be noted that in many cases the prescriptive text is not always as
clearly distinguished from the descriptive text as in Exod 29/Lev 8.13
A third caveat of biblical ritual texts in our quest to understand the
relationship between the static and the dynamic concern the often
abbreviated nature of biblical ritual texts (Klingbeil 2007:57-61 and
2004:495-515). A good example of these abbreviated ritual texts are the
brief altar-construction texts found in the book of Genesis (Gen 8:20;
12:7, 8; 13:18; 22:9-10; 26:25; 35:7). Trying to understand these texts
without the knowledge of the larger religious context of the Hebrew Bible
would be like evaluating a movie with only an incomplete script in hand.
These texts clearly require prior knowledge of specifics, which are often
based on the larger cultural and religious universe of the particular
community. We will return to these short texts in our discussion of the
case study later in this study.
A final limitation that should be mentioned here is the immense
distance in time and space that a modern (and often western) reader of
biblical ritual faces when looking at ancient biblical ritual. Altars, blood,
purity concerns, collective actions, and strict societal order are not very
familiar to the western reader, even though they may be easily connected
to by readers of the two-thirds world whose value systems are more
oriented towards the east than towards the west.
While is it not always easy to overcome these challenges, being
conscious of their existence will help the researcher to approach the
subject more humbly. Understanding a dynamic event/ritual by reading a
static text or looking at a single action shot (i.e., the iconographic image)
is not always easy, but is important once we appreciate biblical ritual
texts not only as ideological constructs devoid of any reality, but rather
(and also considering the important extrabiblical data and the significant
parallels to biblical ritual) as a snapshot or a Momentaufnahme that
requires using all available data sources, but which is – notwithstanding –
a Momentaufnahme of a particular reality.14
3.2 ANE Iconography

13 Please note the observations later on in this study when looking at the altar
construction texts, and particularly the important altar-construction text of Gen
22.
14 Klingbeil (2006:22-45) has discussed the importance of the communal meal in
biblical ritual, arguing that they often are a Momentaufnahme of a bigger event
and should be taken seriously when trying to understand Israelite religion.
8 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

A similar tension between the static and dynamic is observable in ANE

iconography. The iconographic object itself on first impact appears to be
static and isolated from time: “Das Bild (im weitesten Sinn des Wortes) is
statisch; der Faktor Zeit tritt hier zurück” (Berlejung 1998:180).15
However, beyond the obvious, it communicates a dynamic reality and the
following observations serve to illustrate the relationship between the
static and dynamic.
First, while the action underlying the image is
mostly dynamic and imbedded in time, the
iconographic image freezes this action in a snapshot or
Momentaufnahme as mentioned in the previous section
with reference to ritual. However, the dynamic is
referenced and thus becomes active in the image. The
famous “Ba‘al au foudre” stela from Ras Shamra
(ancient Ugarit) portrays a seemingly frozen snapshot
of the god with the raised club ready to strike. It
nevertheless expresses and evokes the implied action
(although not depicted) of the god striking the head of Figure 1: Stela from
the enemy which is reminiscent of Egyptian royal Ras Shamra (Ugarit)
iconography. Though no action is taking place, the message of Ba‘al’s
absolute divine power is transmitted.16
As a second element, in ANE iconography the dynamic is often
reduced to the static and abbreviated. On the stela mentioned above, the
god has been isolated from any context (no object or enemy is visible)
and has thus been reduced to a symbolic gesture. Ba‘al in the menacing
position with a weapon raised above his head is usually depicted without
an enemy and this is even used as a criteria to differentiate him from
other gods or the pharaoh.17 Thus the dynamic is not only imbedded but
also furthermore abbreviated in the static.
Third, images as found on iconographic objects are not snapshots of
history. They rarely depict the historical event18 but rather the forms and

15 Berlejung reflects on the relationship between cult-image and ritual with

regard to its three main components: language, image, and action.
16 Cf. Cornelius (1994:255-56) who suggests that the gesture alone is sufficient
to transmit the message of power.
17 “As shown … the absence of an enemy can help in determining if a god or
pharaoh is involved” (Cornelius 1994:255).
18 The Black Obelisk of Shalmanasar III, which depicts Jehu of Israel paying
tribute to the Neo-Assyrian king, is a rare example of a historically-specific
image.
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 9

conventions in which the historical events took place. While iconography

can supply us with an illustration of the typical and institutional, it cannot
provide “historical photographs” on the basis of which history can be
reconstructed. However, the study of ANE iconography can be used to
reconstruct the religious concept world or Vorstellungswelt in which the
Hebrew Scriptures were written (Klingbeil 2008:630).19 Thus, while not
reporting on history, the constellations of iconographic elements found on
an image tell stories and become dynamic narratives contexts.
It is striking that very similar observations and limitations apply to the
tension between the static and dynamic in both ritual and iconography
which, however, should not overly surprise us since both are forms of
communication that depict visual realities. In the case of the Hebrew
Bible these visual realities might be communicated through literary
devices such as ritual texts or metaphorical imagery. Therefore it seems
promising to search for common hermeneutics within ritual and
iconography.

4. THE HERMENEUTICS OF RITUAL AND ICONOGRAPHY: THE

SEARCH FOR THE CONTINUUM
The past decades have seen a major thrust away from the mere discussion
of isolated data to the more important issues of hermeneutics (Herion
1992 and Schwartz 1996) and the necessity to look at the available data
from multiple angles. This multidisciplinary perspective that truly looks
beyond the limits of one’s own area of expertise is not simply the latest
fashion statement, but rather a necessity in a world that is awash in data
but often lacks a view of the larger picture (Klingbeil 2003, Adams 1996;
O’Connor 1997). The study of biblical ritual, in the larger context of
ritual studies, has benefitted from important methodological advances
over the past decades.20 In 2007, G. Klingbeil dedicated a significant
portion of his volume regarding biblical ritual texts to the larger issue of a
hermeneutics of ritual and identified nine important elements that need to
be considered if one is to understand these enigmatic texts.21 Beyond the

19 In this regard questions of comparative methodology become relevant and any

contrasts and parallels need to be informed by the two governing principles of
the comparative method, i.e., place and time or geography and chronology.
20 Cf. Watts (2007), Bergen (2005 and 2007), Gruenwald (2003), Prohl (2003),
Bell (1992 and 1997), Grimes (1982 and 1990), and Smith (1987).
21 These include required situation and context, structure of the ritual, form,
order and sequence, space, time, objects, actions, participants and their roles
and ritual sound and language (see Klingbeil 2007:127-46).
10 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

mere description of these elements, the hermeneutics of ritual also needs

to address the issue of function and meaning which moves the whole
enterprise into the interpretive realm.
Similarly, iconographic studies have matured significantly over the
past two decades. The results and advantages of an iconographic
approach to the biblical text have been demonstrated through a number of
publications associated with the Biblical Institute at the University of
Fribourg, Switzerland, so one can speak of the Fribourg-School of ANE
iconography. More recently the focus has shifted from exegetical issues
to the synthesizing and integration of iconographic evidence into an
overall picture of the religious belief of ancient Israel. Thus the attempt is
to contribute to the reconstruction of the religious conceptual world
(Vorstellungswelt) of ancient Israel through pictorial material. The most
ambitious and recent project has been the writing of a religious history of
the Palestine and Israel ANE based solely on pictorial evidence with a
deliberate avoidance of referring to the biblical text (Schroer & Keel
2005, Schroer 2008 and 2011). However, while it appears that in its
publication the Fribourg-School has moved progressively away from the
biblical text, most recently critique has been voiced from within, that this
22
lack of reference actually constitutes a methodological weakness.
The most promising approach to the hermeneutics of iconography has
been presented by de Hulster, based on his doctoral dissertation, defended
in 2008 at the University of Utrecht. He proposes a historical method for
iconographic exegesis in which the mental map (or, social memory) of a
culture provides the cognitive link between text and image. He
summarizes: “Thus, iconographic exegesis in the present study exists in
the explanation of (Hebrew) Bible texts with the help of pictorial material
which is thematically and culturally as close as possible to the text
studied” (de Hulster 2009:261).23 De Hulster also outlines the impact of
his approach to a specific literary device of biblical literature, i.e.,
metaphor, concluding that verbal images can be illuminated by material
images. Unfortunately, he does not make reference to ritual texts in the
Hebrew Scriptures but the proximity of image and ritual established

22 The most up-to-date summary of the development of iconographic studies

from the Fribourg School and beyond can be found in de Hulster (2008:21-
155). This chapter did unfortunately not make it into the publication of his
dissertation (cf. de Hulster 2009).
23 He suggests a seven-step method of iconographic exegesis (see de Hulster
2009:103).
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 11

above make his observations also relevant to the study of rituals in the
Hebrew Bible.
All these methodological advances emphasize the need for a particular
discipline to have a solid base, but may, in a sense, isolate disciplines
from each other (seeing that it is logical and coherent in itself). However,
the larger issue of the continuum between the biblical world and the wider
ANE world is especially relevant for the present research question. To put
it more directly: In our quest to understand the interaction between the
dynamic and the static in biblical ritual and ANE iconography, is it really
legitimate to assume a continuum between the thought world of the
biblical world and the larger ANE? Can images from Syria/Palestine,
Egypt or Mesopotamia in fact help us understand a biblical ritual text?
The answer to this issue is important and in a sense determines the
validity of our current research and involves questions concerning the
comparative method. We have both dealt with these questions in more
detail in our respective doctoral dissertations (Klingbeil 1998:325-40 and
Klingbeil 1999:268-81). Suffice to say that while we see that the biblical
world is part of the larger ANE historical stream and while we recognize
that ANE iconography is a field that stands on its own (and is thus not
necessarily to be understood as the handmaiden of biblical interpretation),
our particular interest in biblical ritual informs and guides our
comparison.24 We are not interested in establishing lines of influence
(e.g., Mesopotamia or Syria on biblical Israel or vice versa) and recognize
that one should not posit automatically a “theological” or “ideological”
continuum between the ANE and the biblical world. Rather, we are
interested in learning from both disciplines and see how these disciplines
deal with the inherent contradiction of a snapshot describing a dynamic,
action oriented reality.

5. BETWEEN DYNAMIC AND STATIC: ALTAR-CONSTRUCTIONS

TEXTS AND HORNED ALTARS ON SEALS FROM IRON AGE II
PALESTINE/ISRAEL AS CASE STUDIES
The descriptive altar-construction texts of Genesis (8:20; 12:7, 8; 13:18;
22:9-10; 26:25; 35:7) provide a good example of the abbreviated nature
of biblical ritual texts (Klingbeil 2007:57-61). The biblical author does
not indicate any information about how the altar was built, who precisely
was involved, what shape and design the altars had, how the altar was

24 That is one of the reasons why we have chosen the altar-construction texts and
altar scenes as our laboratory and data mine and not an esoteric iconographic
motif that has no link at all to the biblical text.
12 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

used (sacrifice or no sacrifice?), how long the process took, when exactly
it happened, and whether there was any spoken interaction as part of the
ritual. All this information is presupposed and needs to be “filled in” by
the reader (or audience, in the case of a public reading). What links all six
instances are references to journeys. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are
traveling as resident aliens, depending on the goodwill and protection of
the native population. Additionally, in all six instances there is a
theophany involved. In response to the divine manifestation, a cultic
response, such as the construction of an altar, is required, expressing
loyalty and devotion. Additionally – though not included in all passages –
we are told that the patriarch “called upon the name of YHWH” (Gen
12:8; 26:25). This much can be gleaned from the context. However, altars
had many different functions in the ANE. They were used in libation
offerings, blood sacrifices, or the burning of incense. Sacrifice played a
major role in biblical religion, since it provided a way of atonement
where a sacrificial animal took the place of a guilty offerer.25
While most altar-construction texts are brief and succinct, the altar-
construction ritual in Gen 22:9-10 is different, both in themes and
structure. It includes more specific instructions, dialogues, and a
reference to an earlier prescription (Gen 22:2). This is not the time and
place to revisit these differences. What is significant for our present study
is the fact that the dynamic event “sacrifice” is often purposefully
abbreviated while still involving a much larger and action-packed
sequence of events. This may have been done due to a particular audience
(e.g., ritual professionals who did not require the complete “sacrifice-for-
dummies” handbook, but were familiar with the basic building blocks of
altar rituals; or perhaps a more general audience who were familiar with
these ritual building blocks due to their general use). Since sacrifice in the
biblical context does not seem to be intended to feed deities (as in
Mesopotamian or other ANE cultures),26 but is rather designed to change
situations (e.g., the guilty is atoned for; the impure becomes ritually pure,
etc.) and has effects upon the religious, social and political standing of an
individual (or group), the snapshot quality of the Genesis altar-

25 The literature dealing with the meaning of sacrifice in biblical religion is huge.
See, for example, Scurlock (2006), Sklar (2005); Gane (2005), Janzen (2004),
Gilders (2004), Dahm (2003); Levine (2002), Eberhart (2002 and 2011); and
Stowers (1998).
26 See here, for example, Scurlock (2006), Lafont (1999), Bergquist (1993), and
earlier Katz (1990).
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 13

construction texts point to a more general reality, i.e., that static

depictions may indicate dynamic sequences.
Horned altars from ancient Palestine/Israel have been studied
repeatedly and their usage in the daily life of the inhabitants of this region
has been clearly established (Daviau 2007). These altars, providing an
important archaeological link to the ritual texts described above, are also
captured in the iconography of the period. Zwickel recently presented a
comprehensive study of depictions on seals of horned altars from Iron
Age II Palestine/Israel (Zwickel 2007). Because of its wide usage and
socio-religious importance in the daily life of the ANE, this important
media of mass-communication (i.e., seals) has repeatedly been consulted
for the reconstruction of the religious thought-world (Vorstellungswelt) in
ancient Israel.27 The first observation that Zwickel makes is that the altar
as depicted on the limited seal surface space serves as a marker for the
whole cult (Zwickel 2007:289). Furthermore, in the depiction a reduction
or abstraction is taking place which ultimately leads to a symbolization of
the altar. Nevertheless, the original cultic significance is still present and
imbedded in the constellations of iconographic elements on the image.28
The following table illustrates this and summarizes Zwickel’s
categorization of depictions of (horned) altars on Iron Age II seals.

Typology Identification Data and Image

Reference
Altars with Human figure Stamp-seal;
a flat (pharaoh?) enthroned Achsib; Iron
surface with uraeus; stylized Age IIB;
falcon on the right; altar Zwickel
with pedestal and flat (2007, fig. 4)
29
surface in center

27 For example, seals form the major part of evidence presented in the first
attempt at a religious history based on iconographic sources by the Fribourg-
School: “Siegelamulette stellen nicht nur quantitative alle anderen Bildträger-
gattungen und erst recht die inschriftlichen Funde weit in den Schatten. Sie
können, da sie in allen Perioden relativ gleichmässig belegt sind, geradezu als
eine Art Leitfossil für die Religionsgeschichte dienen, zumal sie aufgrund
ihres halb-öffentlichen Status besonders sensible Seismographen für religions-
geschichtliche Verschiebungen sind.” Cf. Keel and Uehlinger (1992:11).
28 Constellations of iconographic elements constitute the syntax of iconography.
Cf. Keel & Uehlinger (1992:13-14).
29 Keel & Uehlinger (1992:154, fig. 159a) identify it as an nfr sign.
14 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

Typology Identification Data and Image

Reference
Cult-stands Ishtar with stars on the Cylinder-seal;
right; worshipper on the Sichem; Iron
left (king?); cult-stand Age IIC;
with fire in the middle; Zwickel
Marduk-spade on the (2007, fig. 5)
left
Three- Two worshippers Stamp-seal;
legged around a three-legged unknown
cult-stands cult-stand (only two provenance;
legs visible); star and Iron Age II;
crescent above Zwickel
(2007, fig. 6)
Stands Nabu-stylus and Cylinder-seal;
with Marduk-spade on the Tell Dothan;
inserted left; crescent-emblem; Iron Age IIC;
vase two worshippers around Zwickel
stand with inserted (2007, fig. 7)
vase; king has twig or
ear of corn in hand;
libation scene
Stands God in boat between Scaraboid;
with stands (incense unknown
burning burner?) provenance;
incense Iron Age II;
Zwickel
(2007, fig. 8)
Triangular Enthroned person in Stamp-seal;
altars with front of altar with unknown
tip incense burner to the provenance;
pointing left; star and crescent Iron Age II;
downwards above altar Keel &
Uehlinger
(1992, fig.
305b)
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 15

Especially the last group is widely represented

and there are a number of different
constellations in which the altar appears: with
standing worshippers, musicians, sitting
worshippers, astral symbols,30 or with
mythological animals (Zwickel 2007:275-85).
Further developments of this last group into the
6th century also include the horns of the altar Figure 2: Seal with horned altar
(Figure 2).31 All these contexts point to the different aspects of the rituals
that have been abstracted and condensed in the pictorial depictions: “Die
Szenen, die mit dem Altar in Verbindung stehen, sind eindeutig kultisch:
Die Verehrung durch einen Beter, die vor dem Altar stattfindet, die im
Kult praktizierte Musik, die Verbindung des Altars mit mythologischen
Mischwesen und die Verbindung des Altars mit Astralsymbolen”
(Zwickel 2007:289). Thus, in a reduced space a number of dynamic
realities have been depicted which represent the cult as a whole.

6. WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

The following statement tries to synthesize the findings of this study:
both ritual and image are visual communication strategies and their
literary echoes in the Hebrew Scriptures conform to similar conventions:
they exhibit a reciprocal relationship between the static and dynamic;
they serve as markers to the broader cultic reality; and they have a
tendency to abbreviate or even reduce this reality to the level of the
symbol. All these characteristics are pragmatic in the sense that they
invite the reader/viewer to become involved in the communication
her/himself and appropriate its intended effects for her/himself.
When it comes to ritual texts, the Hebrew Bible serves as a mirror,
creating a seemingly static reflection of an ancient dynamic reality which
was (nearly) exclusively visual in its original manifestation. In this way,
the hermeneutics of ritual texts cannot and must not bypass the ancient

30 The constellation is completely reduced to symbols, usually the altar in

connection with the crescent, the Pleiades, or Ishtar-stars. Cf. Zwickel
(2007:281).
31 “Das Siegel zeigt eine sitzende Person mit zum Gebet erhobenen Armen,
dahinter ein stilisierter Baum. Vor dem Beter ein Altar, bestehend aus zwei
senkrechten Strichen und zwei Querstrichen. Das Oberteil des Altars ist nicht
als auf der Spitze stehendes Dreieck gestaltet, sondern als ein nach oben
offenes V, in das ein mit der Spitze nach oben weisendes weiteres V eingesetzt
ist.” Cf. Zwickel (2007:286-87, fig. 43).
16 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

iconographic data when seeking to decipher and understand the

underlying theological intentions of Israelite religion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, R M 1996. Epilogue, in: Cooper, J S & Schwartz, G M (eds) 1996, 405-411.
Averbeck, R, Weisberg, D B & Chavalas, M W (eds) 2003. Life and Culture in the
Ancient Near East. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Beckman, G, Beal, R & McMahon, G (eds) 2003. Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry J.
Hoffner Jr.: On the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Bell, C 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, C 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bergen, W J 2005. Reading Ritual. Leviticus in Postmodern Culture (JSOTSup 417).
London/New York: T & T Clark International.
Bergen, W J 2007. Studying Ancient Israelite Ritual: Methodological Considerations,
Religion Compass 2, 1-8.
Bergmann, S 2007. Theology in its Spatial Turn: Space, Place and Built Environments
Challenging and Changing the Images of God, Religion Compass 1(3), 353-379.
Bergquist, B 1993. Bronze Age Sacrificial Koine in the Eastern Mediterranean? A
Study of Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, in: Quaegebeur, J (ed.) 1993,
11-43.
Berlejung, A 1998. Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von
Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamtliche Bilderpolemik (OBO 162).
Fribourg: University Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bernett, M & Keel, O 1998. Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor. Die Stele von Betsaida
(et-Tell) (OBO 161). Fribourg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Bickel, S et al. (eds) 2007. Bilder als Quellen (Images as Sources): Studies on Ancient
Near Eastern Artifacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel (OBO
Special Volume). Fribourg: University Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Bloch-Smith, E 2002. Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space, in: Gittlen, B
M (ed.) 2002, 83-94
Brandon, S G F, 1975. Man and God in Art and Ritual: A Study of Iconography,
Architecture and Ritual Action as Primary Evidence of Religious Belief and
Practice. New York: Scribner.
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 17

Carstens, P 1998. Why Does The God Have A Cup In His Hand? An Examination of
the Ahiram Sarcophagus and the Drinking Vessels at the Table of Display in the
Hebrew Bible from a Ritualistic Point of View, SJOT 12, 214-232
Cohn, R L 1981. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies (AAR Studies in
Religion 23). Chico: Scholars Press.
Collins, B J 1995. Ritual Meals in the Hittite Cult, in: Meyer, M & Mirecki, P (eds)
1995, 77–92.
Collon, D 1999. Depictions of Priests and Priestesses in the Ancient Near East, in:
Watanabe, K (ed.) 1999, 17-46.
Cooper, J S & Schwartz, G M (eds.) 1996. The Study of the Ancient Near East in the
21st Century. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Cooper, J S & Schwartz, G M 1996. Prologue, in: Cooper, J S & Schwartz, G M
(eds.) 1996, 1-8.
Cornelius, I 1994. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late
Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (OBO 140). Fribourg: University Press/Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Dahm, U 2003. Opferkult und Priestertum in Alt-Israel. Ein kultur- und
religionswissenschaftlicher Beitrag (BZAW 327). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Daviau, P M M 2007. Stone Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Hirbet
el-Mudēyine, in: Bickel, S et al. (eds) 2007, 125-49.
Davies, P R 1996. Leviticus as a Cultic System in the Second Temple Period:
Remarks on the Paper by Hannah K. Harrington, in: Sawyer, J F A (ed.) 1996,
230-237.
De Hulster, I J 2008. Illuminating Images: An Iconographic Method of Old Testament
Exegesis with Three Case Studies from Third Isaiah. PhD dissertation, University
of Utrecht.
De Hulster, I J 2009. Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah (FAT II/36). Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.
Del Olmo Lete, G 1999. Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of
Ugarit. Trans. W G E Watson. Bethesda: CDL Press.
Dietrich, M, Kottsieper, I & Schaudig, H (eds) 1998. ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied
auf.’ Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift fur Oswald
Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden,
Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 250). Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
18 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

Eberhart, C 2002. Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die
Signifikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (WMANT
94). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Eberhart, C (ed.) 2011. Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible (SBL Resources
for Biblical Study 68). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Fauth, W 1998. Hethitische Beschwörungspriesterinnen – israelitische Propheten.
Differente Phänotypen magischer Religiosität in Vorderasien, in: Dietrich, M,
Kottsieper, I & Schaudig, H (eds) 1998, 289-318.
Fitzenreiter, M 2003. Richtungsbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlagen oder: Warum im
ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil I), SAK 31,
107-151
Fitzenreiter, M 2004. Richtungsbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlagen oder: Warum im
ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil II), SAK 32,
119-147
Fleming, D E 1992. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on
Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS 42). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Fleming, D E 2000. Time at Emar. The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the
Diviner’s Archive (Mesopotamian Civilizations 11). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Gane, R 2007. Review of Klingbeil, G A 2007. Paper SBL Annual Congress 2007.
Gane, R E 2005. Cult and Character. Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and
Theodicy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Gilders, W K 2004. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gittlen, B M (ed.) 2002. Sacred Time, Sacred Space. Archaeology and the Religion of
Israel. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,.
Gorman Jr., F H 1990. The Ideology of Ritual. Space, Time and Status in the Priestly
Theology (JSOTSup 91). Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Grimes, R L 1982. Beginnings in Ritual Studies. Lanham/New York/London:
University Press of America.
Grimes, R L 1990. Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in Its Practice, Essays on Its
Theory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Gruenwald, I 2003. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Brill Reference
Library of Judaism 10). Leiden/Boston: Brill.
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 19

Haas, V 2003. Betrachtungen zur Traditionsgeschichte hethitischer Rituale am

Beispiel des ‘Sündenbock’-Motivs, in: Beckman, G, Beal, R & McMahon, G
(eds) 2003, 131-141.
Hallo, W W, Jones, B W & Mattingly, G L 1990. The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform
Literature. Scripture in Context III (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8).
Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.
Haroutunian, H S 2003. The Hittite Ritual Against a Curse (CTH 429), in: Beckman,
G, Beal, R & McMahon, G (eds) 2003, 149-168.
Herion, G A 1992. Introduction, ABD 1, xxxvii–xxxviii.
Janowski, B & Zenger, E 2004. Jenseits des Alltags: Fest und Opfer als religiöse
Kontrapunkte zur Alltagswelt im alten Israel, in Das Fest: Jenseits des Alltags
(JBTh 18). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 82-89.
Janowski, B 2002, Die heilige Wohnung des Höchsten. Kosmologische Implikationen
der Jesusalemer Tempeltheologie, in: Keel, O & Zenger, E (eds) 2002, 24-68.
Janzen, D 2004. The Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. A Study of
Four Writings (BZAW 344). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Katz, M L 1990. Problems of Sacrifice in Ancient Cultures, in: Hallo, W W, Jones, B
W & Mattingly, G L 1990, 89–201.
Keel, O & Uehlinger, C 1992. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue
Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israel aufgrund bislang
unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (QD 134). Freiburg: Herder.
Keel, O & Zenger, E (eds.) 2002. Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten. Zu Geschichte und
Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (QD 191). Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder.
Keel, O 2007. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus
(Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4.1). 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Klingbeil, G A 1995. Ritual Space in the Ordination Ritual of Leviticus 8, JNSL
21(1), 59-82
Klingbeil, G A 1998. A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in
Leviticus 8 and Emar 369. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.
Klingbeil, G A 2003. Methods and Daily Life: Understanding the Use of Animals in
Daily Life in a Multi-Disciplinary Framework, in: Averbeck, R, Weisberg, D B &
Chavalas, M W (eds) 2003, 401-433.
Klingbeil, G A 2004. Altars, Ritual and Theology – Preliminary Thoughts on the
Importance of Cult and Ritual for a Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, VT 54,
495-515.
20 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

Klingbeil, G A 2006. “Momentaufnahmen” of Israelite Religion: The Importance of

the Communal Meal in Narrative Texts in I/II Regum and their Ritual Dimension,
ZAW 118, 22–45.
Klingbeil, G A 2007. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup
1). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Klingbeil, M G 1999. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven. God as a Warrior and as God
of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (OBO
169). Fribourg: University Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Klingbeil, M G 2008. Psalms 5: Iconography, in: DOTWPW, 621-631.
Lafont, B 1999. Sacrifices et rituales a Mari et dans la Bible, RA 93, 57-77.
Levine, B A 1963. Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals, JCS 17, 105-111
Levine, B A 1965. The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch, JAOS 85,
307-318.
Levine, B A 1983. The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and
Functional Features of the Genre, in: Meyers, C L & O’Connor, M 1983, 467-
475.
Levine, B A 2002. Ritual as Symbol: Modes of Sacrifice in Israelite Religion, in:
Gittlen, B M (ed.) 2002, 125-135.
Lustig, J (ed.) 1997. Anthropology and Egyptology. A Developing Dialogue
(Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 8) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press.
Magness, J & Gitin, S (eds) 1998. Hesed Ve-Emet. Studies in Honor of Ernest S.
Frerichs (BJS 320). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
McMahon, G 2003. Cultural Boundaries in: Beckman, G, Beal, R & McMahon, G
(eds.) 2003, 265-280.
Metzner-Nebelsick, C (ed.) 2003. Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und
Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen
Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und
Religionswissenschaft (Internationale Archäologie: Arbeits-gemeinschaft,
Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 4) Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Meyer, M & Mirecki, P (eds) 1995. Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Religions in the
Graeco-Roman World 129). Leiden: Brill.
Meyers, C L & O’Connor, M 1983. The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in
Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona
Lake: American Schools of Oriental Research/Eisenbrauns.
“MIRRORS OF THE DANCE” 21

Niehr, H 1999. Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Ritualen und Mythen in Ugarit, JNSL
25(1), 109-136.
O’Connor, D 1997, Ancient Egypt: Egyptological and Anthropological Perspectives,
in: Lustig, J (ed.) 1997, 13-24.
Pardee, D 2000. Les Textes Rituels. Fascicules 1–2 (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12). Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Prohl, I 2003. Vom Ritual zur Performance – neuere Forschungen und Perspektiven,
in: Metzner-Nebelsick, C (ed.) 2003, 201-210.
Quaegebeur, J (ed.) 1993. Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings
of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
from the 17th to the 20th April of 1991 (OLA 55). Leuven: Peeters.
Richter, K 1998. Heilige Räume, Liturgisches Jahrbuch 48(4), 249-264.
Sass, B 2007. From Maraš and Zincirli to es-: The Syro-Hittite roots of the
South Arabian table scene, in: Bickel, S et al. (eds) 2007, 293-319.
Sawyer, J F A (ed.) 1996. A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 228).
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Schroer, S & Keel, O 2005. Vom ausgehenden Mesolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit,
vol 1. of Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient. Eine
Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Fribourg: Academic Press.
Schroer, S 2008. Die Mittelbronzezeit, vol. 2 of Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels
und der Alte Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Fribourg: Academic
Press.
Schroer, S 2011. Die Spätbronzezeit, vol. 3 of Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels
und der Alte Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Fribourg: Academic
Press.
Schroer, S (ed.) 2006. Images and Gender: Contributions to the Hermeneutics of
Reading Ancient Art (OBO 220). Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Scurlock, J 2006. The Techniques of the Sacrifice of Animals in Ancient Israel and
Ancient Mesopotamia: New Insights through Comparison, Part 2, AUSS 44, 241-
264.
Sigrist, M 1993. Gestes symboliques et rituels à Emar, in: Quaegebeur, J (ed.) 1993,
381-410.
Sklar, J 2005. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (Hebrew
Bible Monographs 2) Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
22 GERALD A KLINGBEIL AND MARTIN G KLINGBEIL

Smith, J Z 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago Studies in the
History of Judaism). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, J Z 2002. Religion Up and Down, Out and In, in: Gittlen, B M (ed.) 2002, 3-
10.
Stowers, S K 1998. On the Comparison of Blood in Greek and Israelite Ritual, in:
Magness, J & Gitin, S 1998, 179-194.
Volp, R 1994. Space as Text: The Problem of Hermeneutics in Church Architecture
Studia Liturgica 24, 168-177.
Watanabe, K (ed.) 1999. Priest and Officials in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the
Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life held at the
Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokoyo) March 22-24, 1996.
Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Watts, J W 2007. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wightman, G J 2007. Sacred Spaces: Religious Architecture in the Ancient World
(ANESSup 22). Leuven/Paris: Peeters.
Wright, D P 1987. The Disposal of Impurity. Elimination Rites in the Bible and in
Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101). Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Wright, D P 2001. Ritual in Narrative. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Wyatt, N 2001. Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East (The Biblical
Seminar 85). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
Zwickel, W 2007. Der Hörneraltar auf Siegeln aus Palästina/Israel, in: Bickel, S et al.
(eds.) 2007, 269-292.