Yahweh, Creation, and the Cosmic Battle

February 2, 2010
Category: BioLogos Features

Yahweh, Creation, and the Cosmic Battle

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

What is the biblical view of creation? We typically look to Genesis 1-2 to answer this question, but other Old Testament passages have something to say about this, too. Israel’s understanding of creation shows how indebted they were to current notions in the ancient world.

One of the ways the Old Testament describes creation is through a conflict between Yahweh and the sea (or “waters” or one of the sea monsters, Leviathan or Rahab). Sea is a symbol of chaos, and so Yahweh’s victory in the conflict establishes order. He is the creator, the supreme power. Israel’s proper response is awe and praise.

The Israelites were not alone in thinking this way. The “cosmic battle” motif is prominent in other creation texts from the ancient Near East. For example, in the famous Babylonian creation story Enuma Elish, the god Marduk defeats the goddess Tiamat, who represents the sea. He then cuts her carcass in half and makes sky and earth from the pieces. Thus he becomes head god of the Babylonians, which results in praise and homage. Likewise, in another creation story, the Canaanite god Baal defeats the sea god Yam (Hebrew yam means sea) with similar results.

The Israelites clearly connected with this way of describing creation. Some examples are the following:

  • Psalm 104:7: “at your rebuke the waters fled.” This is not talking about low tide at the beach. Without raising a hand, the waters scampered away and were defeated.

  • Psalm 89:9-10: Yahweh rules “over the surging sea (yam)” and “crushed Rahab.”

  • Job 9:13: the “cohorts of Rahab cowered” at Yahweh’s feet.

  • Psalm 74:13-14: Yahweh “split open sea (yam)…broke the heads of the monster in the waters…crushed the heads of Leviathan.”

  • Psalm 77:16, when the waters saw God coming, they went into a panic attack: they “writhed and convulsed.”

It is clear that Israel’s understanding of creation included a “cosmic battle” where Yahweh is victorious over the sea. But some are not convinced, because Psalms and Job are “just poetry.” Poetry tends to use colorful metaphors and images, so some claim that Psalms or Job don’t tell us what Israel “really” thought about creation. “Sure, some psalms talk about Leviathan and Rahab and the sea going into a panic attack, but that is ‘just poetry.’ If you want the straight scoop, go to Genesis 1-3. No cosmic battle there. Just sober history.”

It’s not quite as neat as that.

First, wholly apart from the cosmic battle motif, Genesis 1-3 has problems of its own for literalists. There, too, Israel’s stories indisputably bear the marks of ancient Near Eastern influence. But leaving that larger issue to the side, the cosmic battle motif is very much in the background of Genesis 1, even if it is muted.

God “splits the waters in two” in vv. 6-7, and so separates the waters above and below. In v. 9 he divides the waters below to form the land. Also, in 1:2 God hovers over “the deep,” which is tehom in Hebrew and is similar to the word Tiamat in Enuma Elish. In fact, Genesis 1:21 even mentions that God created the “great sea monsters” (another Hebrew word tanninim, taken from Canaanite mythology).

There is no actual battle in Genesis 1. The “deep” and the waters are not gods but inanimate objects. The sea monsters are not foes but created by God. But that does not mean that Genesis 1 escapes the cultural influence as we saw above. Rather, scholars understand the cosmic battle to be muted in Genesis 1 to emphasize God’s unquestioned supremacy.

Second, “poetry” is not some lesser form of literature that tolerates nonsense. The Israelites did not think, “Well, it is just poetry so we can say some whacky things we would never dare say in narrative.” The opposite is the case. The Psalms were used in worship. The presence of the cosmic battle motif in Psalms actually tells us how important this notion was to them for praising the Lord. He is worthy of praise in part because of the defeat of his ancient “foes.” That is how the Israelites understood it.

Third, the cosmic battle motif is not just in poetic texts. For example, Ezekiel’s prophecies against Egypt use this motif. Pharaoh (Hophra, 589-570 B.C.) will fare no better than the ancient sea monster (Ezekiel 29:3-5; 32:2-8; there is a lot of other creation imagery in these passages).

Likewise, the entire Exodus narrative is one big “cosmic battle” scene, something Isaiah brings out as well (the topic of my next post). In fact, if you look at the context of the last two psalms cited above (74 and 77), you will see cosmic battle language describing the splitting of the Red Sea. Deliverance from Egypt was another cosmic battle victory for Yahweh. This motif gets a lot of mileage in the Old Testament.

The cosmic battle motif is just one angle from which to glimpse the “biblical view of creation.” I do not believe that the cosmos was created by Yahweh beating up the sea or slicing up sea monsters, nor should anyone else. But this is how the Israelites talked about creation in a number of places.

When it comes to the science/faith discussion, the presence of the cosmic battle motif in the Old Testament should send us a strong signal: don’t expect the Old Testament to inform, let alone guide the scientific investigation of origins. If we approach the Old Testament expecting from it a “literal,” “historical,” “accurate” account of creation, we will (1) misrepresent reality in the name of faith, and (2) miss the theology that the biblical authors were so intent on putting there.

The more we grasp Israel’s understanding of creation, the less likely we will be to expect from the Old Testament things it was never intended to deliver. We will learn to ask their questions first before we ask ours. This is the proper way to respect Scripture as God’s word.

Filed Under:
science, religion, creation, God, Christianity, Genesis, myth, chaos, Psalms, poetry, ancient Israel, interpretation, faith, Bible, Scripture

Share |

Comments (32)
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.


  1. p.d. roman - #3805

    February 2nd 2010

    the “point” to human existence is to ether transcend our born humanness via “love as Yahweh s Son Yash’wa said to love- as He loves- PERFECTLY “


    and in the doing become beings existing ” like the angels” -


    or to staying fully human and thus inherit the grave-


    as all ” non-perfectly loving and faithless ” creatures must.


    we have the will to freely chose one or the other.


    peace and good and tons o’love

    >o

  2. Ben Smith - #3808

    February 2nd 2010

    Very good article! I took a class on religion and evolution last semester and we talked about some of the many common points between the biblical creation stories and other tales like Enuma Elish. I hadn’t heard this comparison yet, but it was very interesting.

  3. Taido - #3812

    February 2nd 2010

    Dr. Enns,
    As always, great insights.  One thought on Genesis 1 and how it may allude to other ANE creation accounts.  You briefly mention that the writer of Genesis “mutes” the cosmic battle motif to underscore the supremacy of God.  I wonder if you could play that out a little more.  Is it that the author is making an effort to subvert rival understandings of creation.  Something along the lines of “you may have thought it was like this (dragons and gods battling and so on), when in fact it was much different than that.”  Is it possible that the writer is suggesting that not only is God supreme over sea gods, monsters, tiamat, etc…  but also and maybe more importantly, the Hebrew way of understanding reality is superior to the competing worldview of surrounding nations. 
    I well realize that the point of Genesis 1 isn’t an attempt to give a blow by blow account of how it “really” happened.  But rather that Genesis 1-3 is affirming (potentially in mythic terms) certain truths about God and man.
    However, I am interested in understanding how the author’s tacit allusions to other creation accounts plays into the overall structure of what he/she’s trying to accomplish in the opening chapters of Genesis.

  4. Samuel Sutter - #3813

    February 2nd 2010

    Good summary, I’ve often remembered this reflection from class and tried to find it in my old notes - thanks for putting in one place.

  5. Glen Davidson - #3814

    February 2nd 2010

    The Flood is the return of chaos, too, as the waters under the earth inundate the land and its order.  God is firmly in charge, but the waters that were there at creation are ready to bring back chaos at God’s discretion.

    Part of the problem with literalism is that it really stands against understanding what was written in the way it was really meant.  Although, I wonder how close we’ll ever be to truly understanding the meaning of the Bible.

    Glen Davidson
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  6. MF - #3820

    February 2nd 2010

    Dr. Enns,

    I want to agree with your overall point, but I don’t find the sea and battle passages you cited to be obviously related to creation itself. To take one example, Psalm 77:11-20 seems to me to be describing (yes, poetically) God’s salvation of his people, particularly alluding to the Exodus from Egypt—not creation.

    Likewise, the references to Rahab (a mythical sea-monster which the Talmud refers to as “master of the sea” [akin to our “king of the jungle”?]) demonstrate God’s potency and prowess, but why should we conclude that these are specifically creation battles? Is there intra-textual evidence that I’m missing?

  7. Pete Enns - #3840

    February 2nd 2010

    Thanks for your comments, all. Taido, good question. I think the two options you give may not be mutually exclusive—I would be hard pressed to try to decide between them. As for the author’s tacit allusions to the other creation accounts, it may be more a matter of using the only vocabulary really available to him.  Glen, you are right, of course: the flood is return to a non-ordered, chaotic, uninhabitable cosmos—which makes Noah the “first, second Adam,” a motif that extends throughout the OT implicitly and is picked up by Paul in Rom 5 and i Cor 15. MF, you are correct, and I say as much in my post. I will look at this more in the next post or two. Briefly put, Israel describes the exodus as an “instantiation” of the cosmic battle. That is what in several important passages the two are described almost as one. It is not either/or but both and. Samuel, nice to hear from you grin

  8. Jeremiah Duomai - #3865

    February 3rd 2010

    Thanks for the nicely written article.


    Jeremiah Duomai
    New Delhi, India.

  9. Norm - #3876

    February 3rd 2010

    What is the biblical view of creation?

    IMO the simple biblical answer to this question is indeed answered within the confines of the scriptures themselves.  The creation account has a decreation account found in Revelation 21 in which the New Heavens and Earth are reformed but this time without the “Sea”.  The “Sea” is the symbolic separation within the Old Covenant H & E of the Gentiles and its removal indicates that there will no longer be a Gentile/Jew separation in the New H & E. In Rev 21:23 we see that the Sun and Moon are decreated and no longer in use for the New H & E in which Christ is the Light. In Gen 1 the Sun and Moon were created for “signs and seasons” which comported with the Old Covenant usage of them for worship purposes (Col 2:16).

    The Bible IMO is simply concerned with the origination of God’s covenant people and their redemption from the confines of the Old H & E to the Messianic New H & E. If we stay within that framework then the pieces all seem to come together. Therefore Gen 1 appears as simply a broad 7 Day Temple creation account dealing with God’s people (Jews) and creatures (Gentiles) and culminates with their new recreation as one in the Image of God through Christ (Eph 2:19-22).

  10. Greg - #3880

    February 3rd 2010

    Norm, appreciated your comments.  Reminds me of reading I’ve done on Preterism, and the idea that the Bible isn’t describing the beginning or the end of creation, but rather a covenantal transition.  And I agree, this view makes the whole thing easier to understand and fit together.

  11. Norm - #3885

    February 3rd 2010

    Greg,

    Yes I believe a past fulfillment of the New Heavens and Earth is the end game and not a fiery physical destruction of the cosmos or planet earth in Rev 21. This seems appropriate because the language is similar to what we find in Ezekiel 47 concerning the river and tree of life and the healing of the Nations. This is all prophetic messianic language IMO and is strongly reflected in Second Temple Judaism literature which has often been lost over time. As an example it would be instructive to read in Enoch a section called the “Dream Visions and the book of Weeks. Notice especially the animal imagery made clear to represent the Gentile Nations also found in Gen 1.

    Enoch 89: And those 33 sheep were all white, and their wool was abundant and clean. And all that had been destroyed and dispersed, and all the beasts of the field, and all the birds of the heaven, assembled in that house, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to 34 His house.

    Enoch 93:16 And the FIRST HEAVEN SHALL DEPART AND PASS AWAY, And a new heaven shall appear, And all the powers of the heavens shall give sevenfold light 17 And after that there will be many weeks without number for ever,

  12. Greg - #3941

    February 4th 2010

    So, is it possible that what we have in the Genesis creation accounts, in addition to being a mythological treatment of the origin of all things, is really just a Hebrew tradition of the origins of their own people?  This would help draw together several loose ends, i.e. the presence of other people on earth during Adam’s time, (who was Cain afraid would find and kill him? and where were wives found for Cain and Seth?) and also the insistence of young-earth creationists on a 6,000 year time-frame for creation.  So, going back 6,000 years doesn’t get you anywhere near the beginning of all things, but perhaps approximates the historic origins of the Hebrew line?

    Just a thought.

  13. Norm - #3947

    February 4th 2010

    Greg,

    That is an interesting question. I will give you my opinion on this at this time. It seems that the ANE application to the Hebrews biblical literature has some limitations on how it should be applied. The Hebrew appear to have developed their own proprietary approach that was certainly imbued with the ANE background but it was not a limiting or deciding factor upon their theology or did it guide their own independent development as much as recent scholarship seem to think.  Dr Enns in his book “Inspiration and Incarnation” has some good background material that I believe is quiet helpful starting on around page 50 concerning this subject.

    It seems that the Hebrews actually junked the mythological adaptation except to produce some theological themes found in Gen 1-11. Even there they have their own agenda and it doesn’t really resonate with the ancient myths. I think we have to keep in mind that Genesis is a highly detailed and structured piece of literature that appears to come out of the late 1st Temple period and when studied illustrates more of a propensity toward the messianic purpose than to an actual historical one.

  14. Norm - #3949

    February 4th 2010

    Greg,


    Another point that I want to make is that the NT helps define Genesis for us to an extent to see that they were reading it more symbolically than we would and Paul explicitly applies it to their time of Christ and the development of the New World. Notice below how Paul clearly establishes that the two should be one flesh should be applied to Christ and the church. IF the NT Jews were reading Genesis symbolically then this throws a monkey wrench in the Literal view and the Mythological viewpoint.

    Eph 5:30-32 …  because we are members of his body.  “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”  (32)  THIS MYSTERY is profound, and I AM SAYING that IT REFERS TO CHRIST and the church.

    Regarding Adam as the first of the Covenant people, you might find some of Ann Hill’s thinking helpful in establishing why she believes that Adam was created from humanity. Check her articles out on the ASA web site.
    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Hill.pdf

    Here is another ASA author (Peter Rust) who agrees with Hill on Adam and a link to one of his articles.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7049/is_3_60/ai_n28562901/?tag=content;col1

  15. Greg - #3951

    February 4th 2010

    Norm,
    thanks for your thoughts.  I will check out the material from Hill and Rust.

  16. Mark Edward - #3983

    February 5th 2010

    The timing of this article is perfect. I literally just started noticing (Feb 4 2010) these repeated motifs of God “fighting” the sea/leviathan/rahab, did a Google search to see if anyone else ever noticed this, and hey, I find an article written just two days ago that explains it to me in amazing clarity.

  17. Pete Enns - #3990

    February 5th 2010

    Thank you all for your comments. Sorry I haven’t been able to engage more—not that you need me grin

    Some interesting theological observations here. Norm, re: #3876, I would only add that what we read “within the confines of Scripture” still need to be understood within the cultural contexts. Being “confined” to Scripture does not mean we can stay wholly within Scripture to understand it. Not sure if I am addressing your intention, but that is the impression I am getting.

  18. Norm - #4001

    February 5th 2010

    Dr. Enns,

    I am a strong proponent of yours and Dr. Walton’s work so I definitely look to the cultural aspect but IMO the theological intent of the scriptures is the stronger glue that binds them all together. We know that culturally the Jews didn’t grasp the symbolic nature of the message of the Messiah and in fact the premise of the Remnant (minority) faithful is posited as those who understood its spiritual implication instead of its physical dimensions culturally. The contrast between a literal Physical and symbolical spiritual reading appears to have been the bane of properly understanding the scriptures from the ancient Jew to the modern literal fundamentalist of today.

    IMO the church has been unduly influenced gradually over time with a reversion back to the physical and has lost the essence of the Second Temple theological spiritual and it shows in our cultural climate. I’m hoping that works like yours and Walton’s will begin to help alleviate those tendencies.  I especially appreciate your pointing out the environment of the Second Temple Period and its influence upon the first century church

  19. Tony - #4045

    February 7th 2010

    My question is why, if God inspired these texts is there any hint of influence from these other ancient religions? Also I hear people often say that to not look beyond a literal meaning of the Bible is to miss the deep theological message contained within the text. I would just ask, well what is the meaning? What meaning could there possibly be in allowing these myths into the text? As someone who doesn’t know much about the Old Testament these are things I’ve always been curious about, and a reason why I’ve had a hard time taking these texts seriously. I’m not saying the text cannot contain allegory, metaphor etc., I just don’t understand the point of allowing things that are obviously false to be inserted into the text, or the need for borrowing from other myths. It certainly seem as though the ancient readers and the author took them literally.

  20. Pete Enns - #4137

    February 8th 2010

    Tony, I think by and large they did take these things literally and they were saying something of powerful theological significance by them. When modern readers focus on the mythic overtones of Genesis, say, they can neglect to see the powerful theology that those images conveyed for the ancient readers. For example—and I know this is brief—Gen 1 is certainly interacting with ANE creation myths in order to say something about their God in that environment and the message is basically this: “THIS God is worthy of worship, not the other gods. He is worthy of worship because he ordered chaos THIS way.” Of course, Gen 1 is just one part of an argument that extends throughout the Pentateuch as a whole: “Yahweh is worthy of worship. He is the creator and the redeemer.” That twin theological statements are communicated through the ancient idiom. And they are not “borrowing” from other myths, as if they had a choice “Let’s see, should we speak in our cultural idiom or not?” They were speaking in the only way they could—and the uniqueness of their God shone through anyway—sort of like Jesus and the incarnation.

  21. Pete Enns - #4138

    February 8th 2010

    Norm, I would say that it is through the cultural that we understand the theological intent.

  22. Jon - #4142

    February 9th 2010

    This adds nothing to the conversation, but I just wanted to thank you all for keeping your comments waaayyyy more civil and thoughtful than most of the comments tend to be on this blog. 

    It’s especially pleasing since I suspect the issues about evolution and origins wouldn’t matter to most people if they had an understanding of scripture similar to what Enns is promoting.

  23. Norm - #4179

    February 9th 2010

    Dr. Enns,

    Thanks for the reply again. I really feel a little intimidated even addressing you with your extensive knowledge base but oh well let me stick my foot in my mouth.  smile

    It seems that in the environment of the Jews we have something of a theological cultural mishmash. There are the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians and finally the remnant Christians coming out of them along with the believing Gentiles. 

    It’s obvious that not all of these seemed to be instep with the scriptures according to Jesus and the Apostles so trying to sort them out culturally seems somewhat problematic although they would all have similarities. It also seems that all of them would read the scriptures from a different perspective.

    I would appreciate any thoughts on this if you have the opportunity.

  24. John Mulholland - #4479

    February 14th 2010

    Prof. Enns,
    I am sure that I am not alone in being a naive reader of the Old Testament, esp. Genesis.  For the longest time, I took Genesis 1-2 at face value - they are the beginning of the story, so someone back then wrote this material.  Well now I know enough to understand that this is not the case, that in fact all of Geneis was written long after the events, after the Israelites became an established people sometime after their escape from Egypt.

    What is the current best guess on when Geneis was wriitten?  This might help all of us who are mere neophytes at best to more ably interact with ideas about the influence of ancient near eastern [ ANE ] myths and beliefs, and the theological goals of the author/s of Genesis and other early OT books as they sought to help the people of Israel understand the ways of JHWH.

  25. Pete Enns - #4552

    February 15th 2010

    John, There is some flux about some issues re: the Pentateuch in general and Genesis in particular, but the general consensus is that the Genesis we have did not reach its final form until at least the exilic period and perhaps later. The reasons for this are too involved for a blog comment, but they involve a matrix of issues that include things like Hebrew grammar. More specifically, the first creation account (Gen 1) reflects a set of concerns that biblical scholars after more than 200 years of research assign to a so-called “priestly” author writing in light of the Babylonian Exile. The bottom line is that biblical scholars are quite consistent in seeing how Gen 1 was written for purposes of Israel’s self-defintion among national crisis—hence the polemic dimension of Gen 1. The primeval history as a whole is an exercise in self-defnition, where the Adam story, for example, is a “proto-history” of Israel. Having said that, i realize I answered one question and raised 50 more so I’ll stop.  wink

  26. John Mulholland - #4565

    February 16th 2010

    Prof. Enns,
    Thank you for that very helpful comment, including actually its brevity. 

    Again, I admit to long held naivete -  the Bible virtually fell out of the sky fully formed, and then a little later,  that people went off to a monastery somewhere in the Holy Land, wrote their book, went home, and that book was automatically added to the Biblical canon.  I have grown up a little from such views, but not by very much.  Some Jewish friends, for example, seem to have a dramatically different understanding of the development of the Bible.

    Help me understand a little about interactions WITHIN Jewish culture and belief,  as the Bible takes shape.  Speak a little to the pt that Norm made above about the “mishmash”  of Pharisees, Saducees, Essenees, Herodians and whatever others there are.  What part did they and the differences they represent play in the development of the Bible, not just in its reading and interpretation?  Or were their differences of only small importance in the face of the opposition of the nations and groups that were a frequent threat to the Israelites?  In short, what part would such differences WITHIN Judaism have played in the development of Genesis and other themes of the Bible?

  27. zalos - #6029

    March 7th 2010

    Hello, I’m having a lot of difficulties in understanding the goal of Creation? I’m new to the Christian faith and I hear in church that “God created us in order to worship Him”. But this implies God not being the ultimate perfect Being, because He needed something. Can somebody please elaborate? Thanks.

  28. BK - #6123

    March 7th 2010

    I am so glad to see this discussion and the high quality of many of the contributions. It is wonderful that these issues are being treated more thoroughly from the hermeneutical view point, at the layman’s level. However, as we engage in ever so stimulating discussions on these matters of faith, science and biblical interpretation, we must also remember facts like the following:

    -  Forty-two million adult Americans can’t read.
    -  Fifty million adult Americans are limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level or can only recognize a  few printed words.

    It is truly a marvel that the message of the Scriptures can surmount all our often feeble and always limited attempts at interpretation and effect such a profound work on whosoever will. This phenomenon, it seems to me, is in the same category as the human/divine nature of the Scripture that Dr. Enns illustrates in I&I. “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” As important and interesting as our hermeneutical adventures are, when it comes to the divine reasons that the Scriptures were given, we are all in the same boat with the modern non-reader and the ancient writer of Scripture “hampered” by a lack of wonderful knowledge that our science provides.

  29. Libby Boulter - #6993

    March 16th 2010

    Hi Pete,
    Thanks for this.  I had forgotten why Biblical scholars think there’s a cosmic battle background to Gen 1-2, so I’m glad to have this info.

    Just two minor comments/questions.
    1) I don’t know what the usage/background of the Hebrew word tehom is, but Tiamat is the absolute state of the run of the mill Akkadian word for sea, tâmtu.  (Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.)  And out of all the Mesopotamian myths out there, the goddess Tiamat occurs only in Enuma Elish, which many (most?) Assyriologists date these days to the 12th c. BC—quite late for Mesopotamia.  Does the word tehom occur in the Bible only in cosmic battle scenes?

    2) From what I remember of the biblical view of the world, couldn’t the “splitting” in Genesis just refer to the fact that there are waters above and below, and they had to get that way somehow, without necessarily implying violence?

    So, I agree there must have been some cosmic battle against the sea motif in at least 3 places in the ANE, and I think the other verses you cited are evidence of that, but is it certain that there’s reference to a cosmic battle, muted or not, in the Genesis story?

  30. Big Mike - #8629

    April 4th 2010

    Dear Pete and Libby

    Where did you both get the ridiculous idea; that Tiamat is a goddess? Certainly not from the Enuma Elish as the author went to great pains to show that Tiamat was NOT a goddess.

  31. Bryan Hodge - #12063

    May 2nd 2010

    I’m just now making my way through the very insightful posts and comments, but wanted to address this point:

    “But leaving that larger issue to the side, the cosmic battle motif is very much in the background of Genesis 1, even if it is muted.”

    The only cosmogony, in my slowly fading ability to recollect of course,  in the ancient Near East that evidences the chaoskampf motif is Ee. There are tons of cosmogonies, but that is the only one with this idea that I can remember (unless you include theogonies like the Dunnu Theogony). It is possible that Gen 1 is interacting with it, but not definitively so. All cosmogonies have splitting of chaotic waters, the formation of some sort of barrier to hold them back, the luminaries, etc. I addressed this in my MA thesis at Trinity. The question of tehom/tiamat was addressed by Tsumura in his dissertation and later publications as well. I think chaoskampf for the Hebrew Bible starts in Gen 3. Chapters 1-2 seem to be completely absent of the idea. I’m specifically speaking, of course, of the cosmic battle between conflicting beings. The idea that God overcomes chaos through His ordering the universe is evident from Gen 1ff.

  32. Evan - #15012

    May 25th 2010

    Pete, I might just be grasping at straws here, but do you think this has any connection with the “Christus Victor” view of the atonement? Could the early Christians be working from the same motif as the one suggested above? I think there could be some connection, at least.

    • Add Your Comment

    • Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.

    • You have 1250 characters remaining.