David, stimulating as always. I have generally been inclined to not see theomachy in Gen 1, but your insights here have me rethinking elements of a text that I have put a good deal of time and thought into studying, so for that I am grateful - always fun to see things in a new light. The points you raise here have me thinking now on how the author/redactor of this text is making use of other theomachic elements in the Hebrew bible, as well as how ANE materials are being interacted with and critiqued. I would still maintain that the Gen. 1 text is more placid in its outlook, and that the difference principle in creation (light/dark, waters above/below, dry land/sea) are not combatants even as the linguistic and mythological forms of theomachy are still present. In some senses I can see an analogy from the Eucharist itself, that incorporates all of the elements of sacrifice within it, yet according to a new pattern. You're a busy guy so feel no compulsion to answer, but I do wonder how/if you see Gen. 1 making use of and renovating these more ancient motifs.
I will try--try--to forgive you for the spelling "Skulla." Ypsilon, damn it, ypsilon.
David, stimulating as always. I have generally been inclined to not see theomachy in Gen 1, but your insights here have me rethinking elements of a text that I have put a good deal of time and thought into studying, so for that I am grateful - always fun to see things in a new light. The points you raise here have me thinking now on how the author/redactor of this text is making use of other theomachic elements in the Hebrew bible, as well as how ANE materials are being interacted with and critiqued. I would still maintain that the Gen. 1 text is more placid in its outlook, and that the difference principle in creation (light/dark, waters above/below, dry land/sea) are not combatants even as the linguistic and mythological forms of theomachy are still present. In some senses I can see an analogy from the Eucharist itself, that incorporates all of the elements of sacrifice within it, yet according to a new pattern. You're a busy guy so feel no compulsion to answer, but I do wonder how/if you see Gen. 1 making use of and renovating these more ancient motifs.
Wonderful, thank you.
Re: the tanninim, are you familiar with Ellen Van Wolde's article "Why the verb bara does not mean "to create" in Genesis 1"?
Available at Academia.edu. (https://www.academia.edu/3311841/Why_the_Verb_bara_Does_Not_Mean_to_Create_in_Genesis_1.1-2.4a)
I'm not qualified to judge on the accuracy of her presentation, but the argument is certainly thought-provoking.