Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <george.athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Yes, Karl Randolph is right. It would be best if we considered how THWM (or,
Tehom) is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. However, at the same time, we
must allow each occurrence to have the nuance it has.
 
When we do look beyond Gen 1.2, we see that THWM is often used in opposing
parallelism with $MYM ('heavens'). Since the heavens do no seem to be divine
in Genesis, or elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it's reasonable to propose
that THWM is not seen as a divine being, but rather is a label to describe
the depths of the earth/oceans.
 
At the same time, we must recognise that in Gen 1 we have an ancient
cosmology. The juxtaposition of this account with other creation accounts
which do present THWM as divine is quite telling. That is, when Gen 1 is
contextualised in its own world, things jump out at us. Gen 1 could have
used the word YaM ('sea'), which is also divinised in other cultures (eg,
Ugaritic), but the author of Gen 1 chose THWM. This juxtaposes directly with
the THWM or Tiamat who is slain in a cosmic creative act in other ancient
creation accounts. There seems to be a deliberate connection. Furthermore,
since there is no parallelism in Gen 1.2 to oppose THWM with $MYM, it seems
reasonable to suggest that Gen 1 has deliberately chosen the word THWM to
present a specifically non-divine THWM which is nothing more than a "depth".
Thus, one is struck by the very non-conventional (from the point of view of
the ANE) creation account in which only one deity features. Thus, the THWM
is not slain, as though it were a living being, but is rather 'separated' as
a simple physical mass.
 
We should also mention the astral bodies, whose overt labels are
deliberately eschewed in Gen 1. They are not referred to as Sun, Moon, and
the names of the various stars, all of which would have been recognised as
divinities in various ANE cultures. In Gen 1 they are simply "the larger
luminary", "the smaller luminary" and the "stars" (Gen 1.16). This
de-personalisation means their 'rule' or 'domination' of the day and night
(Gen 1.18) cannot be understood as the act of a deity, but rather the
automated functions of created masses within a larger cosmos.
 
In short, it's as though the other deities which abounded in the other
creation accounts of the ANE have been deliberately frozen as inanimate in
the account of Gen 1. As inanimates, they serve as foils to reflect the
activity, initiative, creativity and sovereignty of a singular ELOHIM
("God").
 
 

Best Regards, 

GEORGE ATHAS 
Moore Theological College 
1 King St, Newtown 2042, Australia 
Ph: (+61 2) 9577 9774 


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of K Randolph
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2006 8:26 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] bara vs' bero in Genesis 1:1
Importance: Low


Hey, you two:

What this argument is missing is a reference to the more than 20 times
THWM is found in Tanakh. When taken all together, the term is used to
refer to deep places of water, Though usually found in the singular,
it is also used in the plural as THWMWT.

To suggest that this is a proper noun is not supported by the usages.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 7/10/06, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> JCR: The imagery at this point in the text is of a
> water covered land with no seas or oceans and the
> heavens (sky/space) above. As the separate oceans
> have not yet been formed there is one unified body of
> water that covers the whole land, Tehom. As there is
> only one body of water it breaks no rules of grammar
> to assign it the proper noun Tehom just as there is
> only one Jerusalem where David and Solomon ruled.
>
>
> James C. Read
> UK
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew