Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

Yitzhak:
1) hamayim does not mean "the two waters."  The -ayim
ending is due not to the dual being used, but to the
last root letter being -y, the root being a two letter "my".
In function, the word acts as a sort of "aggregate plural"
in that it is a plural ("mayim rabbim") and yet cannot
take a number because it is already aggregate.  You don't
see "mayim )exad" or "(&rim mayim".  So there also can't
be "two" mayim.  In fact, in the above definition, you are
using an English nuance (waters = body of water) which
is probably not valid in Hebrew.
END QUOTE

JCR: Fair enough! I had always been lead to believe 
that both mayim and shamayim were dual forms. In any 
case the exact meaning of the plurality seems to have 
little to no bearing on the point at hand.

Yitzhak:
2) There is no reason to believe there is a parallelism.
Just the use of the two words "(l pny" does not mean that
the two objects are the same.
END QUOTE

JCR: This is not the only reason to believe a parallel. 
The fact that Tehom is a known synonym of deep water is 
a fairly strong indication as well.

Yitzhak:
We might have been
justified in arguing this given poetry, but this is prose.
END QUOTE

I'm not quite so sure that the normal clear division 
between poetry and prose can be counted for Genesis 
creation account. It is prose in the sense that it 
claims to recount creation in the order it happened 
and also in the sense that it is a part of a larger 
text which is certainly prose. But as for the content, 
I think it is quite clear that there are strong 
poetic elements in this text to the point where it 
almost seems clear that while the author did intend 
us to understand that elohim created everything in 
this order and then rested on the 'seventh day' it is 
dubious whether the author actually intended us to 
understand that all of this really happened in seven 
literal 24 hour periods. Not least because Elohim's 
day of rest from creation is still ongoing more than 
6000 years later.

The repeated formula of wayhiy erev wayhiy boqer is 
definitely poetic in nature as are the formulaic 
references to day numbers. The earth's original form 
of tohu webohu is not only poetic but also rythmic. 
The elucidation of tohu webohu conditions being 
addressed in the first 3 days and the second 3 days is 
also highly poetic in nature. Therefore, while it is 
clear that this piece is prose it is also clear that 
this prose is poetic in nature (if that makes any sense).
;-)
Therefore, it is not really justifiable to outrule the 
possibilty of parallelisms on the basis of labelling 
this work 'prose' especially when the suspected 
parallelism uses not only the same formula but also 
contains two known synonyms.

Yitzhak:
Also, a parallelism
generally requires us to look for equivalence on all items
of the parallelism.  Thus, in this case we should ask if
"ruax )elohim" = "xo$ek".
END QUOTE

JCR: Yes. I was conscious of this before posting and 
had a feeling you might bring this up. I'm not altogether 
sure that your hard and fast understanding of parallelisms 
is altogether justifiable and I am sure that if anyone 
here has the time and energy it would be simple enough to find parallelisms 
that do not completely follow 
your notions of such strict rules for parallelisms.
However, if you were forced to find the parallel 
between ruach elohim and koshekh then I suppose their 
commonality would be their intangability to the human 
eye. This may be a bit of a shot in the koshekh, though. 
:-D

Anyway, the fact remains that the reference in question 
rests slap bang in the middle of a description of the 
primordial heavens and earth.

'Now the earth was unshaped and empty. There was darkness
on Tehom's surface and Elohim's breath was flying about 
on the waters' surface'

Tehom, if it is a proper noun and not just a grammatical 
exception, only makes sense as a reference to a physical 
entity/place in such a context.

Let's just suppose for one minute that all of your 
assumptions are correct. 

a) Tehom is a proper noun
b) Tehom is a cognate of Tiamat
c) Enuma Elish is older than Genesis 1
d) The author of Genesis 1 used Enuma Elish as a source
e) The author hoped to monotheise the whole account

Even if we do accept as factual all of these unprovable 
assumptions (I accept that a and b have a good case) 
the fact still remains in light of assumption e that 
the author had no problem with using this word in this 
context without ruining the monotheistic creation theme 
and therefore it is clear that his intentional use of 
Tehom was as a reference to a primordial body of water 
which then covered the as yet unformed unfilled earth. 
This is undeniable.


James C. Read
UK





















Let's just suppose for one minute that all of your 
assumptions are correct. 

a) Tehom is a proper noun
b) Tehom is a cognate of Tiamat
c) Enuma Elish is older than Genesis 1
d) The author of Genesis 1 used Enuma Elish as a source
e) The author hoped to monotheise the whole account

Even if we do accept as factual all of these unprovable
assumptions (I accept that a and b have a good case)
the fact still remains in light of assumption e that