Copyright © 1999 by
THE EARTH OF GENESIS 1:2
ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC?
PART II
ROBERTO OURO
1. Hosek and ‘al ~ pene in Gen 1:2
Etymology
of *hsk
Before specifically considering the
Hebrew term tehom
in the OT and
in the literature of the ANE, we analyze the
Hebrew words hosek
and
‘al-pene in Gen 1:2. Hosek is a masculine singular
noun that means
"darkness, obscurity,"1 "darkness,"2
"darkness, obscurity,"3 "Finsternis
kosmich,"4 "oscuridad, tinieblas, lobreguez, sombra."5
Words similar to the Heb root hsk exist in
Phoenician, Punic, biblical
and extrabiblical
Aramaic, as well as in later Semitic languages. This root
does not appear in Ugaritic
and Akkadian texts. In the MT the verb only
appears in the Qal
form "to be/come to be dark" and Hiphil
"make dark,
darken." The noun hosek means "darkness,
obscurity." The derived nouns
include haseka "darkness," mahsak "dark, secret
place," and the adjective
hasok "dark."
The root appears 112 times in the
OT, once in Aramaic (Dan 2:22).
The
verb appears 17 times (11 x in Qal and 6x in Hiphil). The noun hosek
appears 79 times, haseka 8 times, mahsak 7 times,
and the adjective only
once (Prov 22:29).6
In Egyptian, the term for darkness
is kkw, in
Sumerian it is kukku,
1 BDB, 365.
2 W. L. Holladay, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989), 119.
3 E. Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for
Readers
of English (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 236.
4 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and
J. J. Stamm, eds., Hebraisches and Aramdisches
Lexikon zum Alien Testament (KBS) (Leiden: Brill, 1967-1994), 1:347.
5 L. A. Schokel, Diccionario Biblico Hebreo-Espanol
(Madrid: Trotta, 1994), 286.
6 TDOT, 5:245.
39
40 SEMINARY
STUDIES 37 (SPRING 1999)
which is represented by the double writing of the
sign GI6, which means
"black" and "night."7
In the Targums
and in Talmudic and Midrashic
literature hosek is interpreted as "darkness."8
In Gen 1:2 hosek is used to refer to the
primeval "darkness" that
covered the world. In Gen 1:3ff, God created
light and "separated the light
from the darkness." The separation is conceived
both in spatial and
temporal terms. In Gen 1:5 God "called the
darkness night."9 This name
is more than an act of identification; by naming darkness
God
characterized it and expressed its
nature and even indicated his control
over it.10 God, who created light and
darkness as separate entities, on the
fourth day of creation put them under the
"laws" of the heavenly lights
which separated "light from darkness" (Gen
1:18).11
The function of darkness in the
cosmos is later explained in texts such
as Ps 104:20, where the function of the light and
the darkness is to indicate
the amount of time for the everyday life routine of
animals and human
beings.12 In many texts, hosek is equivalent or parallel
to "night" (Josh 2:5;
Job
17:12; 24:16; Ps 104:20). The word appears more times in Job, Psalms,
and Isaiah than in all of the other biblical books
together.13
The OT emphasizes that darkness is under
God's control (2 Sam 22:2;
Ps
18:2 [28]; Job 1:8; Isa 42:16; Jer
13:16). The ninth plague of
(Exod 10:21-23) illustrates: "So Moses stretched out
his hand toward the
sky, and total darkness [hosek-‘apela] covered
all
This
event was extraordinary since Pharaoh, the son and the
representative of the sun-god, was
considered the source of light for his
country. The darkness directly attacked the
great sun-god of
Another
example of God's power over darkness occurs in the desert when
the Lord used darkness to protect his people (Exod 14:20; Josh 24:7).15
7 Ibid.,
246-247.
8
M. Jastrow, A
Dictionary of the Targumin, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalami, and the
Midrashic Literature (New York: Title, 1943), 511.
9 TWOT, 1:331.
10 N. H. Ridderbos, "Genesis i.1 and 2," in Studies on the Book of Genesis, ed. Berend
Gemser, Oudtestamentische Studien, v. 12
(Leiden: Brill, 1958), 239. This author notes that
God
gave a name to darkness and discusses the importance of giving a name in the
OT.
11 TWOT, 1:331.
12 TDOT, 5:249.
13 TWOT, 1:331.
14 A11 scriptural texts are taken
from the New International Version (
Zondervan,
1978).
15 TDOT, 5:249-250.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS
1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 41
Past studies tended to see in
Genesis 1 an antagonism between light
and darkness, the scheme of Marduk's
fight against the monster of chaos
that is described in the Babylonian creation myth.16
It must be emphasized
that nowhere in the OT is mention made of a battle
or dualism between
light and darkness. Neither is the primeval ocean or
darkness considered
a chaotic power or mythical enemy of God. God is
the creator of both
light and darkness (Isa
45:7); his kindness transcends the antithesis of light
and darkness (Ps 139:12).17
E. J. Young indicates that darkness
in Gen 1:2 was merely one
characteristic of the unformed earth.
Man could not live in darkness, and the
first step in making the earth habitable was the
removal of darkness.18
Moreover,
Young presents the theological meaning of darkness by stating that
God
named the darkness, just as he did light. Both are therefore good and
well-pleasing to him; both are
created, and both serve his purpose, making up
the day. Thus, darkness is recognized in Genesis 1
as a positive good for man.19
In a recent study about darkness in
Gen 1:2, based on the text rather
than on past exegesis, Nicolas Wyatt proposes some
interesting points: (1)
The
literary structure of the verse is important to the interpretation and
the meaning of hosek; therefore,
"darkness" corresponds in some way to
ruah 'elohim "God's
spirit."20 (2) If ruah ‘elohim denotes some divine
quality, hosek must denote some similar quality; an example is Ps
18:1,
where darkness appears as the place of invisibility
and possibly the place
of the Deity (see Deut 4:11, 23, where darkness
seems to be the
appropriate environment for the divine voice);
darkness is a figure of
invisibility.21
(3) The logical structure of the verse implies the
initial stages
of the Deity's self-revelation: it is an unusual
account of a theophany. Gen
1:2
refers to God's invisibility in the context of a primeval cosmogony.22
In short, the term hosek
"darkness" refers to an uninhabited Earth,
where human beings could not live until God created
light. Furthermore,
the logical structure of the verse implies the
Deity's self-revelation, an
unusual account of a theophany.
16 H. Gunkel,
Schopfung and Chaos in Urzeit
and Endzeit (1895), 3-120; cf. also C.
Westermann, Genesis
1-11:A Commentary, trans. J. J. Scullion
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984),104.
17 TDOT, 1:157.
18 E. J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (
1979), 35 n. 33.
19 Ibid, 21, 35
n. 33.
20
Nicolas Wyatt, "The Darkness of Genesis 1:2," VT 43 (1993): 546.
21
Ibid, 547-548. Cf. also I. Blythin, "A note on
Genesis 1.2," VT 12 (1962): 121.
22 Ibid, 550-552.
42 SEMINARY
STUDIES 37 (SPRING 1999)
‘al
~ pene
‘al~pene is a preposition +
masculine plural noun construct which means
"face ... surface, upon
the face of the deep,"23 "face = visible side:
surface, pene
tehom, pene hammayim,24
"face, surface,"' "superficie
de las aguas."26
In Hebrew, as in other Semitic
languages, the noun appears only in plural.
Panim is one of the most
frequent words in the OT, appearing more than 2100
times. However, in the vast majority of the texts panim is joined
to a preposition
(which may be le,
min or ‘al) thus making a new prepositional expression. In
many such texts the nominal meaning
("face") has been lost.27
Panim, especially when related to
concepts such as country, land, sea,
and sky, means "surface," mainly in the
construction ‘al~pene.
The
preposition ‘al~pene related to concepts such as ‘adama
"land, ground";
‘eres "land, country"; mayim "water" (Gen
1:2); tehom
"primeval abyss"
(Gen 1:2) means "on (the surface of)"
or "towards (the surface)."28 This
construction is important in
determining the etymology and the meaning
of the Hebrew word tehom.
2. Etymology of *thm
The Hebrew word tehom in Gen 1:2 is
translated into English as
"deep." In the Greek LXX it is translated a]bussoj "abyss.28
Tehom is a feminine
singular noun that means "primeval ocean,
deep,29 "deep sea, primeval ocean,"30
"’Urmeer, Urflut,’ als ein der
Schopfung voransgehendes Element,"31 "oceano, abismo, sima, manantial.
Especialmente el oceano
primordial, abisal, en parse subterraneo,
que
23 BDB, 816,
819.
24
25 Klein, 513-514. It is related
to the Phoenician Mnp (= face), see Z. S.
Harris, A
Grammar of the
Phoenician Language
(New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1936),
137;
Ugaritic pnm
(= into); Akkadian panu (= face, surface); Syriac xtynp
(= side).
26 Schockel, 793. Translation: "surface of the
ocean - surface of the waters."
27 E. Jenni
and C. Westermann, Diccionario Teologico Manual
trans. R. Godoy (Madrid: Cristiandad, 1985), 2:548-549.
28 Ibid.,
2:561, 563.
28 A. Rahlfs,
Septuaginta
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979).
29 BDB, 1063;
30 Klein, 693.
31 KBS, 1558.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS
1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 43
aflora en
su use en plural), . . . superficie
Tehom is the Hebrew
form of the Semitic word *tiham-(at)
"sea,"
which in Akkadian appears
as the usual term for "sea" ti’amtum (later
tamtu).33 In the Targums, as well as the Talmudic and the Midrashic
literature, tehom is interpreted as "deep, depth,
interior of the earth."34
The construct relation between ‘al~pene and tehom
(as well as e’al~pene
and hammayim) contributes to the determination of the meaning of
tehom.35
Arguing
against taking tehom
as a personified being, A. Heidel points out:
If tehom were here
treated as a mythological entity, the expression "face"
would have
to be taken literally; but this would obviously lead to absurdity.
For why should there be darkness only
on the face of tehom
and not over
the entire
body? "On the face of the deep" is here used interchangeably with
"On the face
of the waters," which we meet at the end of the same verse.
The one expression is as free from
mythological connotation as is the
other."
Thus
the expression ‘al-pene
tehom, "on the surface of the tehom,"
indicates
that it does not refer to a mythical being but to the mass of
waters."
Supposed Babylonian
Origin of tehom
B. W. Anderson, among others,
assumes that there is some kind of
relationship or linguistic
dependence between the Babylonian Tiamat and the
Hebrew
tehom.38
Scholars who followed Gunkel have maintained that the
32 Schockel, 792. Translation: "ocean, abyss,
chasm, spring. Especially the primeval,
abyssal ocean which is partly underground, and
outcroppings in lakes, wells, springs, and is
present in seas and rivers (hence its use in
plural) ... surface of the ocean."
33 Jenni
and Westermann, 2:1286.
34 Jastrow, 1648.
35 See B. K. Waltke
and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (
Part
1," AUSS 36 (1998): 259-276.
Paul Jouon and T. Muraoka
indicate: "A noun can be
used in close conjunction with another noun to
express a notion of possession, of belonging,
etc.... The genitival relationship is expressed by
the close phonetic union of the two nouns, the
first of which is said to be constructed on the second.... The two nouns put in a genitival
relationship form a compact unit,
and theoretically nothing must separate them" (A Grammar of
Biblical Hebrew, Subsidia Biblica
14/1,11 [
1991],1:275; 2:463). Finally, C. L. Seow
points out: "The words in such a construct chain are
thought
to be so closely related that they are read as if they constituted one long
word" (A Grammar
for Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed. [
36 A. Heidel,
The Babylonian Genesis, 2d ed. (
1951), 99.
37 Jenni
and Westermann, 2:2190.
38 B. W.
44
SEMINARY STUDIES 37
(SPRING 1999)
author of Genesis borrowed the Babylonian name Tiamat and
demythologized
it. But, as Tsumura points out, if the Hebrew tehom
were an Akkadian loan-
word, it should have a phonetic similarity to ti’amat.38 In fact, there is
no
example of Northwestern Semitic borrowing Akkadian /'/ as /h/.39 Moreover,
it is phonologically impossible for the Hebrew tehom
to be borrowed from the
Akkadian Tiamat with an intervocalic /h/, which tends to disappear in
Hebrew
(e.g.,
/h/ of the definite article /ha-/ in
the intervocalic position).40
Therefore, tehom cannot
linguistically derive from Tiamat since the second
consonant of Ti’amat, which is the laryngeal alef, disappears in Akkadian in
the
intervocalic position and would not
be manufactured as a borrowed word. This
occurs, for instance, in the Akkadian
Ba'al which becomes Bel.41
All this suggests that Tiamat and tehom
must come from a common
Semitic
root *thm.42 The same root is the base for the Babylonian tamtu
and also appears as the Arabic tihamatu or tihama, a name applied to the
coastline of
or "abyss."" The root simply refers
to deep waters and this meaning was
in the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 15-40; see H. Gunkel, "Influence of Babylonian
Mythology upon the Biblical Creation
Story," in Creation in the Old
Testament, ed. B. W.
38 D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2,
JSOT Supplement Series 83
(Sheffield:
JSOT,1989), 46. Tsumura maintains that the Hebrew form
that we should expect
would be similar to *ti’amat < ti’omat > te’omat which would
later change into *te’oma(h) with a
loss of the final /t/, but never tehom with a loss of
the whole feminine morpheme /-at/.
39 Ibid.
40 Heidel
affirms: "But to derive tehom from Tiamat is grammatically
impossible,
because the former has a masculine, the latter a
feminine, ending. As a loan-word from
Ti’amat, tehom would need a feminine
ending, in accordance with the laws of derivation
from Babylonian in Hebrew. Moreover, it would have
no h.... Had Ti’amat been taken
over into Hebrew, it would either have been left as
it was or it would have been changed to
ti’ama or te’ama, with
the feminine ending a, but it would not have become tehom. As far
as the system of Semitic grammar is concerned, tehom
represents an older and more original
formation than does Ti'amat, since the feminine is
formed from the masculine, by the
addition of the feminine ending, which in
Babylonian and Assyrian appears, in its full form,
as -at"
(Babylonian Genesis, 100, n. 58). Cf.
also Westermann, 105. This author, agreeing with
Heidel, adds that there is general consensus on the
opinion that tehom
and Ti'amat
come
from a common Semitic root, and that the appearance
of tehom
in Gen 1:2 is not an
argument to demonstrate the direct dependence of
the Genesis story on the Enuma elish.
41 TWOT, 2:966.
42 Heidel, 100.
43 U. Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From
Adam to Noah (
Magnes, 1989), 23-24.
44 Heidel,
101; see also Westermann, 105.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS
1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 45
maintained in Hebrew as a name for water in the
deep ocean.45 Thus, the
popular position that the Hebrew tehom
was borrowed from the
Babylonian
divine name Tiamat,
to which it is mythologically related,
lacks any basis.46
Well-known Assyriologists
such as W. G. Lambert, T. Jacobsen, and
A.
W. Sjoberg have discussed the supposed connection
between Genesis
1 and the Enuma elish. These scholars doubt
the influence of
living along the Mediterranean coast; instead, they
see a strong influence
of that region on Mesopotamia.47 W. G.
Lambert pointed out that the
watery beginning of Genesis is not an evidence of some
Mesopotamian
influence.48 Moreover, he saw no
clear evidence of conflict or battle as
a prelude to God's division of the cosmic waters.49
T. Jacobsen also
maintains that the story of the battle between the
thunderstorm god and
the sea originated on the Mediterranean coast, and
from there moved
eastward toward Babylon.50
Furthermore, in some ancient
Mesopotamian creation accounts, the
sea is not personified and has nothing to do with
conflict. In those
traditions, the creation of the cosmos is not
connected to the death of a
dragon as it is in the Enuma elish.51 Tsumura concludes that since some
accounts never associated the creation of the
cosmos to the theme of the
conflict, there is no reason to accept that the
earlier stage, without the
conflict-creation connection, evolved
into a later stage with this
connection.52 Frankly, the
evolutionary process should be reversed: from
an earlier stage with the mythological conflict-creation
connection to a
45 TWOT, 2:966.
46 See also Tsumura, 47.
47 A. W. Sjoberg,
"Eve and the Chameleon," in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient
Palestinian Life and
Literature in Honor of G.
48 W. G. Lambert, "A New
Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis," in I
Studied Inscriptions
from Before the Flood.- Ancient Near Eastern,
Literary, and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis
1-11,
ed. R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and
Theological
Study 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 96-113,
especially 103.
49 Lambert,
96-109.
50 T. Jacobsen, "The
51 Tsumura quotes as an example a
bilingual version of the "Creation of the World by
Marduk," which belongs to the Neo-Babylonian
period and describes the creation of the
cosmos without mentioning any theme of conflict or
battle. In this myth, the initial
circumstances of the world are
described simply as "all the earth was sea" (49).
52 Ibid.
46 SEMINARY STUDIES 37 (SPRING
1999)
more recent stage without the mythological conflict-creation connection.
In conclusion, the Hebrew term tehom
is simply a variant of the
common Semitic root *thm "ocean," and there
is no relation between the
account of Genesis and the mythology of Chaoskampf.
Supposed Canaanite
Origin of tehom
Since the discovery of the Ugaritic myths, a Canaanite origin for the
conflict between Yahweh and the sea dragons has
been widely
propounded. This motif is thought to be related to
creation and is
proposed as a basis of a supposed Chaoskampf in Gen
1:2.
Recently, J. Day stated that Gen 1:2
was a demythologization of an
original myth of Chaoskampf coming from the
ancient Canaan.53 He
suggested that the term tehom can be traced
back to the early Canaanite
dragon myth.54 Therefore, he understands
the Hebrew term tehom
as a
depersonification of the Canaanite
mythological divine name.55
However, scholars have pointed out
that the myth of the Baal-Yam
conflict in the existing Ugaritic
texts is not related to the creation of the
cosmos;56 the storm god Baal is
not a creator-god as is Marduk in the
Enuma elish.57 In the Baal cycle there is no evidence that
he creates the
cosmos from the bodies of defeated monsters as does
Marduk.58 In Ugaritic
mythology, El is the creator-god; as the creator
of humanity he is called
"Father
of humanity.”59 No other god fulfills any role in the
creation of
the cosmos.60
Finally, if the account of the
creation in Genesis were a
demythologization of a Canaanite dragon
myth, the term yam "sea"
should appear at the beginning of the account, but
this term does not
53 J. Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth
in the
Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985), 53.
54 Ibid.,
50.
55 Ibid.
56 M. S. Smith,
"Interpreting the Baal Cycle," UF
18 (1986): 319f; J. H. Gronbaek, "Baal's
57 Tsumura, 64.
58 J C.L. Gibson, "The
Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle," Or 53 (1984): 212, n. 16.
59 C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1965), 19.483;
J.
C. De Moor, "El, The Creator," in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H.
Gordon,
ed. G. Rendsburg et al.
(New York: KTAV, 1980), 171-187; Tsumura, 144-148.
60 See also P. D. Miller, Jr.,
"El, the Creator of Earth," BASOR
239 (1980): 43-46.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS
1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 47
appear until Gen 1:10, in the plural form yammim.61 As Tsumura points
out, if the Hebrew term tehom came from a
Canaanite divine name and
was later depersonified,
the term would be something like *tahom. There
is no evidence that the term tehom in Gen 1:2 is a depersonification of a
Canaanite mythological deity.
3. *Thm in the Old
Testament
The term tehom appears 36 times
in the OT, 22 in singular and 14 in
plural.62 This Hebrew term appears without an article in all
texts but Isa
63:13
(singular) and Ps 106:9 (plural).63 Tehom always means a flood of
water or ocean (abyss); there is no type of
personification. The word
appears in a context of creation" with no
mythical reference.65 The word
is used to designate a phenomenon of nature.66
Many times tehom
is
parallel to mayim "water"67
or yam "sea.68
Tehom also means
"deep waters, depth" as in Ps 107:26: "They
mounted up to the heavens and went down to the
depths." Translated as
"depth" it acquires in some contexts the meaning of
"abyss or depth" that
threatens human existence.69
The depth of the ocean is also
presented as bottomless. Thus, tehom
is conceived in some texts as a source of
blessing.70 The texts that consider
tehom a source of blessing
make it impossible to believe that the basic
61Tsumura, 62,
65.
62 See A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of
the Old Testament (
Sefer,1990),1219-1220. The 22 texts in singular are: Gen 1:2;
7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Deut 33:13; Job
28:14;
38:16, 30; 41:24; Pss 36:7; 42:8 (2x); 104:6; Prov 8:27, 28; Isa 51:10; Ezek
26:19; 31:4,
15;
Amos 7:4; Jonah 2:6; Hab 3:10.
63 Ibid, 1220.
The 14 texts in plural are: Exod 15:5, 8; Deut 8:7; Pss 33:7; 71:20; 77:17;
78:15;
106:9; 107:26; 135:6; 148:7; Prov 3:20; 8:24; Isa 63:13.
64 Job 38:16; Pss
33:7; 104:6; Prov 3:30; 8:24, 27-28.
65 Westermann, 105.
66 Job 38:30: "when the
waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is
frozen?"; tehom is, in this instance, the mass of water
that freezes due to intense cold.
67 Exod
15:8; Ps 77:17; Ezek 26:19; 31:4; Jonah 2:6; Hab
3:10.
68 Job 28:14; 38:16; Pss 106:9; 135:6; Isa 51:10.
69 Exod
15:5; Neh 9:11; Job 41:23; Pss
68:23; 69:3, 16; 88:7; 107:24; Jonah 2:4; Mic 7:19;
Zech
1:8;
10:11; "marine depth" Isa 44:27;
"depths" Pss 69:3, 15; 130:1; Isa 51:10; Ezek 27:34. Tehom
has
this meaning in the song of the Sea in Exod 15:5, where the destruction of the
Egyptians is
described: "the deep waters have covered
them; they sank to the depths like a stone."
70 Gen 49:25: "blessings of
the deep that lies below"; Deut 8:7; 33:13; Ps 78:15; Ezek 31:4.
48 SEMINARY
STUDIES 37 (SPRING 1999)
meaning of the Hebrew term is a "hostile
mythical power.,71
In some texts, tehom refers to
"subterranean water," as in Deut 8:7: "a land
with streams and pools of water, with springs
flowing in the valleys and hills."
This
is a description of the
springs fed by subterranean waters. We find a
similar picture of tehom
in Ezek
31:4:
"The waters nourished it, deep springs made it grow tall; their streams
flowed all around its base and sent their channels to
all the trees of the field."
The texts generally used to explain
the term tehom
are Gen 1:2 and
the verses related to the flood (Gen 7:11; 8:2).
Before considering the word
in the flood story, it must be noted that H. Gunkel had a powerful
influence on the exegesis of these verses through
his Schopfung and Chaos
in Urzeit and Endzeit (1895). In that work he
derived the term directly
from the Babylonian Tiamat,
the mythical being and the feminine
principle of chaos, thus maintaining a basically
mythical meaning. Hasel
has rightly pointed out that this direct derivation
is unsustainable, for in
the OT tehom never refers to a mythical figure.72
Gen 7:11 notes that nibqe’u kkol~ma’yenot
tehom rabbah
wa'a rubbot hassamayim
niptahu, "all the springs of the great deep burst
forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were
opened." The verb baqa’
appears here in the Niphal
perfect 3 plural common; it means "burst
open,"73 "be split, break
out,"74 "to split, to break forth,"75
"was cleft, was
split, was broken into,"76 "sich spalten,
hervorbrechen."77 This verb
frequently appears in the biblical literature in
connection with the
outflowing or expulsion of water.78
In Gen 7:11the phrase refers to the
breaking open of the crust of the earth to let
subterranean waters flow in
unusual quantity.79 The parallelism
in Gen 7:11b is marked by a precise
71 Jenni
and Westermann, 2:1290.
72 G. F. Hasel,
"The Fountains of the Great Deep," Origins 1 (1974): 69; Jenni and
Westermann, 2:1290.
73 BDB, 132.
74
D.J.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
(Sheffield:
Press,
1995), 2:249.
75
76 Klein, 81.
Ugar.
bq’ (= to cleave, to split), Arab. facqa’a (= he
knocked out, it burst,
exploded), ba’aja (= it cleft, split).
77 KBS, 143.
78 Exod
14:16, 21; Judg 15:19; Neh
9:11; Job 28:10; Pss 74:15; 78:13, 15; Prov 3:20; Isa
35:6;
43:12; 48:21.
79 Hasel, 70.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS
1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 49
chiastic structure.80 In short, when considering the Hebrew
terminology
and the literary structure of Gen 7:11b, it is
evident that the bursting
forth of the waters from the springs of the
"great deep" refers to the
splitting open of springs of subterranean waters.81
The Hebrew of Gen 8:2 is similar to
that of Gen 7:11b in
terminology, structure, and meaning.82
The two Niphal verbs in 8:2
(wayyissakeru
"had been closed" and wayyikkale’ "had been kept back")
indicate the end of the impact of the waters on
the earth; in the chiasm
they correspond to each other both grammatically,
with the two Niphal
verbs of Gen 7:11b (nibqe’u "burst
forth" and niptahu
“were opened”),
and semantically, with the inversion of the
phenomenon that begins with
the flood in Gen 7:11b (nibe’u, a "burst
forth" and niptahu
"were opened")
and ends in Gen 8:2 (wayyissakeru "had
been closed" and wayyikkale’ "had
been kept back").83 The quadruple use
of the verb in passive voice
80 A nibqe’u burst forth
B kkol~ma ‘yenot tehom rabbah
all the springs of the great deep
B' wa’arubbot hassamayim and the floodgates of the heavens
A' niptahu were opened
The chiastic structure A:B:B':A'
indicates that the waters below the surface of the earth
flowed (were expelled) in the same way that the waters
on the earth fell (were thrown). In
B:
B' there is a pair of words which are common parallels in biblical literature, tehom //
hassamayim (Gen 49:25; Deut 33:13;
Ps 107:26; Prov 8:27). But above all there is
phonological, grammatical, and
semantic equivalence between nibgqe’u // niptahu (Job
32:19;
Num 16:31b-32a; Isa 41:18), rabbah // rubbot (see J. S. Kselman, "A Note on Gen
7:11,"
CBQ 35 (1973): 491-493); and between, nibqe’ ukkol ~ma’yenat tehom rabbah \\
wa’a rubbot hassamayim
niptahu, verb +subject \\subject +verb(\\ antithetical
parallelism).
See
also A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical
Parallelism (
Press, 1985), 107].
81 Hasel, 71.
82 "Now the springs of the
deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and
the rain had stopped falling from the sky."
A wayyissakeru
now had been closed
B ma’ yenot tehom the springs of the deep
B' wa’a rubbot hassamayim and the
floodgates of the heavens
A' wayyikkale’ had been kept back
The
verb "had been closed" corresponds to "had been kept back"
(A:A'); "the springs of the
deep" correspond to "the floodgates of the
heavens" (B:B'). The chiastic parallelism indicates
that the waters below the surface of the earth
stopped flowing (being expelled) just as the
waters on the earth stopped falling (being thrown).
The same pair of parallel words appears
as in Gen 7:l lb tehom // hassamayim. Above
all there is a phonological, grammatical, and
semantic
equivalence between wayyissakeru
// wayyikkale’ and between ma’ yenot tehom
\\
wa’arubbot hassamayim wayyikkale’, verb+subject
\\ subject+verb (\\ antithetical
parallelism).
83
50 SEMINARY
STUDIES 37 (SPRING 1999)
indicates clearly that the flood was not a caprice
of nature, but that both
its beginning and end were divinely ordered and
controlled.84 The Hebrew
terminology and literary structure of Gen 8:2 give
it a meaning similar to
that of Gen 7:11b: the splitting. open
of springs of subterranean waters is
envisaged.85
Thus, not even here is tehom used in a mythical sense.
The word
designates subterranean water that breaks the
surface of the earth, thus
producing the catastrophe.86 In a
similar way, modern scholarship
understands the use of the term in Gen 1:2 is widely
understood as "ocean,
abyss, deep waters," therefore, as purely
physical. Tehom
is matter; it has no
personality or autonomy; it is not an opposing or turbulent
power. There is
no evidence of demythologization of a mythical
concept of tehom.87 Jenni and
Westermann conclude their discussion of tehom
by pointing out that "if one
wishes to establish the theological meaning of tehom,
one must conclude that
tehom in the OT does not
refer to a power hostile to God as was formerly
believed, is not personified, and has no mythical
function.88
4. *Thm
in Ancient Near Eastern Literature
The Ugaritic term
equivalent to the Hebrew term tehom is thm which
appears in Ugaritic
literature in parallel with ym. It also appears in the
dual form thmtm, "the two abysses," and in the plural form thmt.89 The
basic meaning is the same as in Hebrew, "ocean,
abyss.90
84 Ibid
85 Hasel, 71.
86 See
also Jenni and Westermann,
2:129 1.
87 See M. Alexandre,
Le Commencement du
Livre Genese I-V
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1988),
81;
P. Beauchamp, Creation et Separation
(Paris: Desclee de Brouwer,
1969),164,- Cassuto, 24;
Hamilton, 110-11, n. 25; D. Kidner,
Genesis (Leicester: Inter-Varsity,
1967), 45; K. A.
Mathews,
Genesis 1-11:26 (Broadman
and Holman, 1996), 133-134;
Cosmos (Atlanta: Scholars,
1985),18-,A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (
1988),
107; N. M. Sarna, Genesis,
JPS Torah Commentary (
Society,
1989), 6; idem, Understanding Genesis
(New York: Schoken, 1970),22;
Stadelmann,
14;
G. von Rad, El Libro del Genesis (Salamanca: Sigueme,
1988), 58-59; G. J. Wenham,
Genesis 1-15, WBC (Waco, TX: Word,
1987), 16; Westermann, 105-106; Young, 34-35.
88 Jenni and Westermann, 2:129 1.
89 See Gordon, where the word
appears in Ugaritic texts: singular, 174; dual, 245,
248-
249; plural, 3. See M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen
Texte aus
90 Gordon, 497. See also S. Segert, A Basic
Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (
thmtm is "(primeval)
Ocean, Deep."
THE EARTH OF GENESIS 1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 51
Thm appears in the cycle of "Shachar and Shalim and the
Gracious
Gods"(Ugaritic
text 23:30).
The parallel use of ym
and thm is
evident.
[30] [il . ys] i . gp ym [El went out] to the shore of the sea
wysgd. gp. thm and advanced to the shore of the ocean.91
Del
Olmo Lete points out that
the Ugaritic thm is a cognate of the
Hebrew
tehom
and translates the word as "oceano.”92
The plural thmt appears twice. Line 3 c 22
of "The
reads:
[22] thmt. ‘mn. kbkbm
of the oceans to the stars.93
The
other example appears in the cycle of Aqhat (17 VI
12)-
[12] [ ] mh g’t.
thmt. brq [ ]
the ocean(s) the lightning.94
The dual thmtm is found in the cycle of "The Palace of
Baal" (4 IV
22)
[22] qrb. apq. thmtm amid the springs of the two oceans.95
It
also appears in the cycle of Aqhat (Ugaritic text 19 45):
[45] bl. sr’. thmtm without watering by the
two deeps.96
Other ANE languages use forms of the thm root to
describe a large
body of water. The Akkadian
ti’amtum or
tamtum also
means "sea" or
"ocean" in the earliest texts, dated before the Enuma elish.97 In the
Babylonian
account of the flood, the Atra-Hasis epic, the expression "the
barrier of the sea" (nahbala tiamtim) appears 6 times. In turn, tiamta
"sea"
is used in parallel to naram "river," with a
common meaning for both.98
91 J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2d ed.
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978),
124.
92 G.
this he agrees with Gibson, 159; cf. Del Olmo Lete, 635. In his study,
this author notes also
the occurrences of the plural thmt
and the dual thmtm.
93 Gibson, 49.
94 Ibid, 108.
95 Ibid.,
59.
96 Ibid, 115.
97
D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2,
JSOT Supplement Series
83 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 55. Tsumura quotes the
example from an ancient Akkadian
text in which the term tiamtim
is used in its common meaning "sea, ocean":
Lagaski atima tiamtim in’ar (SAG.GIS.RA) he
vanquished Lagas as far as the sea
kakki (gis TUKUL-gi)-su in tiamtim imassi He
washed his weapons in the sea.
98 Ibid.
52 SEMINARY STUDIES 37 (SPRING
1999)
In
Eblaite ti-‘a-ma-tum commonly means "sea" or
"ocean."99
The evidence indicates that the Ugaritic term thm is a cognate of Hebrew
term tehom and both mean "ocean." In
addition, cognate words from other
ANE
languages have the same meaning and come from a common root, *thm.100
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the OT and the Ancient Near
Eastern Literature
indicate that the term tehom in Gen 1:2 must
be interpreted as a lifeless
part of the cosmos, a part of the created world, a
purely physical concept.
Tehom is matter; it has no
personality or autonomy and it is not an
antagonistic and turbulent power.
The "ocean/ abyss" opposes no
resistance to God's creating activity.101
Certainly there is no evidence that
the
term tehom,
as used in Gen 1:2, refers at all to a conflict between a
monster of the chaos and a creator-god.102
There is no evidence of a mythical concept in tehom.
Therefore, it is
impossible to speak about a demythification
of a mythical being in Gen
1:2.
The author of Genesis 1 applies this term in a nonmythical and
depersonified way.
The Hebrew term tehom in Gen 1:2 has
an antimythical function, to
oppose the mythical cosmologies of the peoples of the
ANE. This
antimythical function is confirmed
by the clause in Gen 1:2c, "the Spirit
of God was hovering over the waters." Here
there is no fighting, battle,
or conflict. The presence of the Deity moves
quietly and controls the
"waters," the "ocean, abyss" to show his power
over the recently created
elements of nature. This interpretation is
further confirmed in the
following verses, particularly in Gen 1:6-10 where
God "separates water
from water" (v. 6); then says, "let the
water under the sky be gathered" (v.
9);
and calls the "gathered waters" by the name "seas"(v. 10).
The whole
process concludes in v.10: "and God saw
that it was good." All that God
does on the surface of the waters and the ocean is
good. These two
elements are lifeless; they do not offer
resistance or conflict to his creative
99 Ibid., 56.
100 Huehnergard points out that the form or root thm would be /tahamatu/
"the deep."
J.
Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in
Syllabic Transcription, HSS 32 (
1987).
Huehnergard shows the relation of thm
and the Sumerian: [AN-tu4] = Hurrian: [a]s-
[t]e-a-ni-wi = Ugaritic: ta-a-ma-tu, (184-185).
101 See G. F. Hasel, "The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis 1
in Relation to
Ancient
Near Eastern Parallels," AUSS 10
(1972): 6, n. 10.
102 For a detailed discussion of
the relation between tehom
and the Sumerian, Babylonian,
and Egyptian cosmogonies, see G. F. Hasel, "The Polemic Nature of the Genesis
Cosmogony,"
EQ 46 (1974): 81-102.
THE EARTH OF GENESIS 1:2: ABIOTIC OR CHAOTIC? 53
fiat; they respond to his
words, orders, acts, and organization with
absolute submission. All this is contrary to what
happens in the
mythologies of the ANE, where creation is
characterized by conflict or
battle between powers (or gods) of nature.
In short, the description of tehom in Gen 1:2 does
not derive from the
influence of any Ancient Near Eastern mythology
but it is based on the
Hebrew
conception of the world which explicitly rejects the mythological
notions of surrounding nations.103
103 Stadelmann
agrees: "The subsequent acts of creating the heavenly bodies manifest the
same
antimythical view as we have noted
in the cosmological presuppositions of the Priestly writer"
(17).
On the distinction between the Hebrew conception of
the world and that of other peoples of
the ANE, see ibid., 178ff.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
SDA Theological
Berrien Springs
http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: