THE EARTH OF GENESIS 1 : 2 ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC ?
As the third and final part of the study of Gen 1:2, this article seeks to analyze the impact of the phrase ruah ‘lohim merahepet al p’ne hammayim on the question of the state of the earth as depicted in this verse. Gunkel, along with other scholars after him, assumed that ruah ‘lohim refers to winds that Marduk sends against Tiamat. Others have postulated that this phrase refers to divine creative activity. To reach my conclusion, I will analyze the phrase and its use in the Hebrew Bible and in languages cognate to Hebrew.
Using "Chaos" in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God's Creative Activity
USING “CHAOS” IN ARTICULATING THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD AND CREATION IN GOD’S CREATIVE ACTIVITY Eric M. Vail, B.A., M.Div. Marquette University, 2009 Out of dialogue with Old Testament studies and the sciences, there has been a ri s in recent years in the use of “chaos” language by theologians in their articu lation of a theology of creation. There has been little uniformity in how the word is used among the fields, or even within some fields—especially by biblical scholars doing anci ent Near East comparative studies. Under the umbrella of this popular terminology, some idea s have found refuge whose theological implications warrant evaluation. Within this dissertation the range of ideas that fall under “chaos” withi n the physical sciences, Old Testament studies, and theology is identified and evaluat ed. However, the more focused evaluation is on the appropriateness of the choice to apply the term to particular circumstances, whether that is entropy or unpredictabi lity in science or the tohu wabohu and tehom of Genesis 1:2 in biblical studies. Choosing the term “chaos” as a label reflects an interpretation of the data and shapes subseque nt thinking and speaking about the data. As much as reflect the world (the facts), it constr ues a world/worldview in which scholars work in their fields. The implications of the ideas that have been developed under “chaos” are evaluated herein, but it is the initial application of the term to the data that is the root issue which receives the great er focus. After critiquing the current uses of “chaos” in the physical sciences, in interpretations of Genesis 1 by scholars such as Jon D. Levenson, and in the creation theologies of contemporary theologians like Catherine Keller, an alterna tive grammar of creatio ex nihilo and God’s relationship to creation is proposed. This framework builds upon the pneumatology of Lyle Dabney—in which he develops the language of “possibility” and the Spirit operating “trans”-creation—by developing the i dea of the Word operating transcarnate to creation. It is within this framework that it is suggested that “chaos” be used as a label for circumstances where any part of cre ation expresses itself discordantly with God and neighbor, both with whom God makes possible for it to participate in loving community.
Early Missionaries and the Ethnolinguistic Factor During the ‘Invention of Tribalism’ in Zimbabwe
There is evidence from across the disciplines that at least some of the contemporary regional names of African tribes, dialects and languages are fairly recent inventions in historical terms. This article offers some evidence from Zimbabwe to show that missionary linguistic politics were an important factor in this process. The South African linguist Clement Doke was brought in to resolve conflicts about the orthography of Shona. His Report on the Unification of the Shona Dialects (1931) shows how the language politics of the Christian denominations, which were also the factions within the umbrella organization the Southern Rhodesia Missionary Conference, contributed quite significantly to the creation and promotion of Zezuru, Karanga and Manyika as the main groupings of dialects in the central area which Doke later accommodated in a unified orthography of a unified language that was given the name Shona. While vocabulary from Ndau was to be incorporated, words from the Korekore group in the north were to be discouraged, and Kalanga in the West was allowed to be subsumed under Ndebele. Writing about sixty years later, Ranger focusses more closely on the Manyika and takes his discussion to the 1940s, but he also mentions that the Rhodesian Front government of the 1960s and 1970s deliberately incited tribalism between the Shona and the Ndebele, while at the same time magnifying the differences between the regional divisions of the Shona, which were, in turn, played against one another as constituent clans. It would appear then that, for the indigenous Africans, the price of Christianity, Western education and a new perception of language unity was the creation of regional ethnic identities that were at least potentially antagonistic and open to political manipulation. Through many decades of rather unnecessary intellectual justification, and as a result of the collective colonial experience through the churches, the schools and the workplaces, these imposed identities, and the myths and sentiments that are associated with them, have become fixed in the collective mind of Africa, and the modern nation states of the continent now seem to be stuck with them. Missionaries played a very significant role in creating this scenario because they were mainly responsible for fixing the ethnolinguistic maps of the African colonies during the early phase of European occupation. To a significant degree, these maps have remained intact and have continued to influence African research scholarship.