Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com>]

Hi Karl,

You said, "There is no chaos mentioned in Genesis 1. In that one element
alone, it already contradicts other ANE cosmologies that start with chaos.
The first verse starts with God, and his first action in creation. The
second verse states the state of one just created object  The third verse
the second act of creation, and so forth. There is no pattern of creation,
de-creation and re-creation. That is just not supported by the text
analyzed in its linguistic elements."

I just don't think you're giving sufficient attention to the description in
v. 2.  I know you have your own definition for some of these words.  But
when the only other time the terms tohu and bohu occur together in the
Hebrew Bible at Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23, both pictures of total devastation,
chaos, the world turned topsy-turvy, I just find it very hard to understand
the use of these terms in Gen 1:2 to be descriving some neutral, initial
stage of creation by God.  Rather, it makes much more sense, both
linguistically, and biblically-theologically, and within the ANE context,
to understand v. 2 as a description of what the conditions were like when
God began the process of creation.

As for the rest of your email, you confuse things by talking about medieval
cosmology.  Medieval cosmology plays no part at all in my understanding of
Gen 1; but ANE cosmology plays a huge part, and the historical evidence
argues that as far as the basic "cosmography" is concerned, Israel's
picture of the structure of the universe was of a piece with its ANE
neighbors.

Let me throw one more thing in here.  In previous posts I brought Ecc 1:5
into the discussion, and how the author at that point describes
three movements of the sun:  it rises, it sets, and it hurries back to
where it rises again.  This corresponds perfectly with the ancient
geocentric understanding of the sun as a sphere which makes it way around
the earth, rather than with the heliocentric one that sees earth making its
orbrit around the sun.  Both times you said this was eisegesis and not in
the text, but gave no alternative explanation  So what is your translation
of Ecc 1:5?  How do you understand what the author is saying?  Right now,
as I see it, it fits well within the context of Ecc 1, which describes the
circularity of nature and human existence, and shows the sun as
participating in that same circularity.  And it also fits in the context of
ANE geocentrism.  So, how would you explain it alternatively?

Blessings,

Jerry Shepherd
Taylor Seminary
Edmonton, Alberta

Jerry Shepherd
jshepherd53 AT gmail.com