Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Dear George,

I would go further to indicate that throughout the Tanakh there is a 
deliberate
attempt to make the so-called "gods" of the nations as nothing more than the
vain imaginations of created man's heart. It is quite striking in Genesis 1 
that
the contrast of Elohim versus the created world. In fact, if one is to look at
the Pentateuch especially Exodus, there is a deliberate attack on the 
polytheism
of the world versus that of the Hebrews God. Joshua, Judges, I Samuel (after 
the
Ark is captured) and Elijah fought the same battle in the 8th Century BC. 
Isaiah
and Jeremiah seriously condemned the fashioning of wood into an idol of one's
own making.

Furthermore, I think more needs to be done as Dahood as shown that Ugaritic 
and
Hebrew are close cognates. This is especially helpful in understanding some of
the hapax legomena in Psalms and elsewhere.

Since Genesis 1 are prose (narrative) one must resist the temptation to treat
the passages as poetry. Treating Genesis 1 as prose limits properly the way 
the
passage can be translated and exegeted since the genre and context demand it 
be
treated as such. We   must allow for differences in how the ANE and Hebrew
cosmogony. Treating Genesis 1 as poetry allows for to much eisegesis and
unlimited use of allegory. When one looks at the way the chapter is developed,
it becomes obvious that the first three day describe the formation of the
heavens paralleling the phrase "formless" in verse 2; and that the second 
three
days describe the filling of the earth paralleling "empty" in verse 2. (TWOT,
Volume II, tohu, article by Ronald F. Youngblood, refers to a book by W. H.
Griffith Thomas, Genesis - A Devotional Commentary, page 29 in which he refers
to the phrase, "without form and void," (formless and empty) as a hendiadys 
and
is used to preserve something of the Hebrew phrase. It also provides a nice
literary structure to the chapter as it shows that the first three days record
that the "heavens and earth receiving their "form" while the
last three days show the filling-up of their emptiness. The article then
discusses the relationship of Genesis 1:2 to Isaiah 45:18.

En Xristwi,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Athas" <george.athas AT moore.edu.au>
To: "'K Randolph'" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>; <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 06:51 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Tehom: Divine or Not Divine?


> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of
Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!