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.
The Pattern of Creation in Genesis, Chapter 1
HE study of the cosmogony of Genesis, chapter 1, is commonly limited to a discussion of the similarities which are thought to obtain between it and Babylonian conceptions of creation. Yet it is not improbable that the author of Genesis 1 was also acquainted with the distinctive features of other Near Eastern cosmogonies. In examining the pattern of creation which he presents we notice that he starts from the conception of a preexistent chaos' (tohu wabohu) of darkness and deep (tehom). The first step in the direction of an ordered cosmos was the creation of light, with the consequent distinction of day and night. Then followed the separating of the primeval waters into upper and lower strata by the intervention of the firmament of heaven. The lower waters, concentrating into one mass, became the sea and at length dry land or earth appeared. The earth in turn brought forth vegetation. Next in order of creation were the luminaries, sun, moon and stars. Aquatic creatures and birds then appeared, after which we read of the development of land animals. Finally, the human species, male and female, came into being (Gen. 1:1-27). In order to estimate the extent to which this account of creation may be said to reflect Babylonian influence we will consider the Babylonian conception of creation as it appears in the document known as Enfima elish. This poem consists of seven tablets which, though written at varying dates between the sixth and tenth centuries B.C., contain material which is considerably older.2 The primary object of the poem was the celebration of the exploits by which Marduk attained to the supreme place in the Babylonian pantheon,3 but the purpose of the author could not be achieved without expressing some view of the cosmogonic process, as the following extracts show: