"Chaos" in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God's Creative Activity

344 Pages·2016·1.63 MB·English

MMaarrqquueettttee UUnniivveerrssiittyy
ee--PPuubblliiccaattiioonnss@@MMaarrqquueettttee
Dissertations, Theses, and Professional
Dissertations (1934 -)
Projects
UUssiinngg ""CChhaaooss"" iinn AArrttiiccuullaattiinngg tthhee RReellaattiioonnsshhiipp ooff GGoodd aanndd CCrreeaattiioonn
iinn GGoodd''ss CCrreeaattiivvee AAccttiivviittyy
Eric Michael Vail
Marquette University
Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Vail, Eric Michael, "Using "Chaos" in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God's Creative
Activity" (2009). Dissertations (1934 -). 5.
https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/5
USING “CHAOS” IN ARTICULATING
THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD
AND CREATION IN GOD’S
CREATIVE ACTIVITY

by
Eric M. Vail, B.A., M.Div.

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School,
Marquette University,
in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
December 2009
ABSTRACT
USING “CHAOS” IN ARTICULATING
THE RELATIONSHIP OF GOD
AND CREATION IN GOD’S
CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Eric M. Vail, B.A., M.Div.

Marquette University, 2009

Out of dialogue with Old Testament studies and the sciences, there has been a rise
in recent years in the use of “chaos” language by theologians in their articulation of a
theology of creation. There has been little uniformity in how the word is used among the
fields, or even within some fields—especially by biblical scholars doing ancient Near
East comparative studies. Under the umbrella of this popular terminology, some ideas
have found refuge whose theological implications warrant evaluation.

Within this dissertation the range of ideas that fall under “chaos” within the
physical sciences, Old Testament studies, and theology is identified and evaluated.
However, the more focused evaluation is on the appropriateness of the choice to apply
the term to particular circumstances, whether that is entropy or unpredictability in science
or the tohu wabohu and tehom of Genesis 1:2 in biblical studies. Choosing the term
“chaos” as a label reflects an interpretation of the data and shapes subsequent thinking
and speaking about the data. As much as reflect the world (the facts), it construes a
world/worldview in which scholars work in their fields. The implications of the ideas
that have been developed under “chaos” are evaluated herein, but it is the initial
application of the term to the data that is the root issue which receives the greater focus.

After critiquing the current uses of “chaos” in the physical sciences, in
interpretations of Genesis 1 by scholars such as Jon D. Levenson, and in the creation
theologies of contemporary theologians like Catherine Keller, an alternative grammar of
creatio ex nihilo and God’s relationship to creation is proposed. This framework builds
upon the pneumatology of Lyle Dabney—in which he develops the language of
“possibility” and the Spirit operating “trans”-creation—by developing the idea of the
Word operating transcarnate to creation. It is within this framework that it is suggested
that “chaos” be used as a label for circumstances where any part of creation expresses
itself discordantly with God and neighbor, both with whom God makes possible for it to
participate in loving community.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Eric M. Vail, B.A., M.Div.

In any type of personal expression, there are fingerprints all over it of our
relationships with others and our history of experiences. It leaves me asking whether
anyone can be excluded, past or present, from being acknowledged for the part he or she
played in shaping this project. There are some, nevertheless, more immediate to this
work who deserve special mention.
I would like to thank my advisor and dissertation director Dr. Lyle Dabney for his
shaping of my thinking from coursework onward, as well as for both taking an interest in
this project and asking some key questions through this process that pushed me along. I
would like to thank Dr. Ralph Del Colle and Rev. Philip Rossi, S.J. for stretching me in
my time at Marquette and for continuing to work with me from my coursework all the
way through this process. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Sharon Pace and Dr. Deirdre
Dempsey. Dr. Pace has been prodding me on my interpretation of Scripture from my
coursework into this project, for which I am grateful even though the timing did not work
for her to be on my board. Thanks to Dr. Dempsey for her interest in my work and
willingness to join the board on such short notice.
The support I have received from the community of scholars here at Marquette
and the Department of Theology has been such a blessing. It is such a joy to work among
people who sincerely love God and live the faith they wrestle to put into words.
In this process of doctoral studies, it is impossible to say enough thanks to my
family. My first and highest thanks must go to my wife Carrie who has walked with me
iii
every day. She has worked and sacrificed much to put me through two graduate
programs; she has given me a great gift to be able to focus on my studies. She, with my
two sons Dalan and Rowan, have so often held me up and pushed me on in the times I
have been discouraged. I am grateful to my parents for their encouragement and counsel,
as well as their willingness to read an early draft of this dissertation with their editor’s
eyes.
I am grateful to my local faith community at Milwaukee First Church of the
Nazarene for embodying what it means to be the family of God during these years here in
Milwaukee. In addition, the Office of University Apartments and Off-campus Student
Services here at Marquette deserves many thanks for taking a chance on employing a
married doctoral student with children; they have been a great community with which to
be involved and provided my family a much higher quality of living the past three years
than we ever could have had otherwise. Lastly, I want to thank Dr. Thomas Jay Oord for
his helpful comments on the penultimate draft of this dissertation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................ii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................….....................1

A. Some Background Concerning Recent “Chaos” Language in
Christian Theology and the Problem at Hand……………………………..1

1. Current Interest in “Chaos” Language in Biblical Studies
and Science-Theology Dialogue………………………………1

2. Some Recent History behind the Interest in “Chaos”…………2

3. Unsettledness Concerning Creation Theology within the
Theological Milieu into which “Chaos” Notions Are
Being Considered……………………………………………...6

4. A Problem Needing Consideration……………………………7

5. Present Status of the Problem…………………………………9

B. The Place of this Dissertation in the Conversation…………………...19

1. What this Dissertation Hopes to Accomplish Relative to
the Problem…………………………………………..………19

2. Approach……………………………………………………..21

3. Cases that Will be Made……………………………………..27

4. Relation of these Positions to Others Previous………………29

II. SHIFTING CONTEXTS: INVESTIGATING THE HISTORY
OF CREATION THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURE’S ROLE IN THE
CONVERSATION, AND SCIENCE'S USE OF “CHAOS”…………32

A. Introduction…………………………………………………………..32

B. The Creationist Tradition…………………………………………….33

1. Key Components of the Creationist Tradition……………….33

2. Jewish Heritage………………………………………………36
v

3. Earliest Church……………………………………………….37

4. Earliest Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo……………………….38

5. Middle Ages………………………………………………….41

6. The Renaissance Forward……………………………………49

7. A Glimpse of the Present…………………………………….58

a. Listening to Some Shifts in Science’s View…………62

b. Addressing Uses of “Chaos” in Science……………..68

C. The Relationship of the Doctrine of Creation to the Presiding
Philosophy or Worldview of the Day………………………………..75

1. Dependence…………………………………………………..75

2. Polemical or Reactionary Articulation of the Creationist
Tradition……………………………………………………...76

3. Transitions in Conceptualizations of God and God’s
Relationship to Creation…………………………………......78

D. The Relationship of Biblical Interpretation and the Doctrine of
Creation………………………………………………………………79

E. Common Difficulties within the Creationist Tradition………………85

F. Summary……………………………………………………………..88

III. GROWING DEBATE AROUND “CHAOS” LANGUAGE
IN BIBLICAL STUDIES: CONTRASTING POSITIONS
BETWEEN JON D. LEVENSON AND
DAVID T. TSUMURA…………………………………………………..….90

A. Introduction…………………………………………………………..90

B. Jon D. Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil: the
Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence………………………………91

1. Levenson’s Reasons for Writing Creation and the
Persistence of Evil…….……………………………………...91
vi
2. Levenson’s Presuppositions and Stated Method……….…….92

3. Levenson’s Outline and Claims………………………….…..95

a. Levenson’s Framework for Understanding
Creation………………………………………………96

b. Levenson’s Interpretation of Genesis 1……………...99

c. Levenson’s Link Between Creation and
Covenant………………………………………...….107

4. An Evaluation and Critique of Levenson……………….…..109

a. Presuppositions in framing the material.…………...109

b. An ANE Combat-as-Creation Myth or Distinct
Combat Myths and Creation Myths in the
ANE?..........................................................................112

c. Looking Again at the Dynamics in the Narrative
of Enuma elish……..…….…………………………114

d. Framing the Reading of Images…………………….118

i. Choosing an Interpretive Lens…..…..……...118

ii. Looking for the Function of Images in
the Context of the Whole Work………...…..124

e. Reading Chaos into the Priestly Cosmography:
Genesis 1:1—2:3……………………………….…...128

f. Undesirable Theological Implications………….…..130

5. Levenson’s Laudable Ideas…………………………………135

C. David T. Tsumura’s Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal
of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament…………………...139

1. The Questions Tsumura Seeks to Answer in Creation
and Destruction……………………………………………..139

2. Distinguishing Tsumura’s Methodology from Those
Whom He Critiques…………………………………….…..140
vii
a. Tsumura’s Synchronic Approach…………………..140

b. Tsumura’s View of Gunkel’s Legacy of
Diachronic and Typological Methods………………142

c. The Contrasts in Observations of ANE Traditions
Based on These Methodologies…………………….143

3. Tsumura’s Interpretation of Genesis 1:1—2:3……………..144

a. Tohu Wabohu……………………………………….144

i. Tohu…………………………………….…..145

ii. Bohu…………………………………….…..147

iii. Tohu Wabohu……………………………….148

b. Tehom and Other Terms for Waters………….……..151

c. Ruach Elohim……………………………………….156

4. Critique……………………………………………………..157

5. Laudable Ideas……………………………………….……..160

D. Moving Forward: Interpreting Genesis 1…………………….……..161

1. Looking at the Broader Literary Unit: Genesis 1—11.……..161

2. Interpreting Genesis 1………………………………………164

E. Summary……………………………………………………………175

IV. CATHERINE KELLER’S TEHOMIC THEOLOGY: A
THEOLOGY OF BECOMING……………………………….………….178

A. Introduction…………………………………………………………178

B. Catherine Keller’s Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming.…..180

1. Keller’s Tehomic Hermeneutic……………………………..180

2. Tehom: The Site of Becoming……………………….……..181

3. Becoming……………………………………………….…..183
viii

4. The Divine………………………………………………….191

a. “Elohim” and “God”………………………………..191

b. Ruach and the Tehomic Trinity…………………….194

C. Analysis……………………………………………………………..197

1. Keller’s Laudable Ideas…………………………………….197

2. Critique……………………………………………………..203

D. Summary……………………………………………………………208

V. DEFINING CHAOS IN A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK……..210

A. Introduction…………………………………………………………210

B. The Uses of “Chaos” Being Avoided………………………………211

C. Proposed Framework in which to Define “Chaos”…………………215

1. Adapting the Pneumatology of Lyle Dabney……………….215

a. Some Key Features of Lyle Dabney’s
Pneumatology………………………………………215

b. An Adaptation to Dabney’s Proposal: Looking
Again at the Second Person…………………….…..222

2. Clarifying the Relationship of This Position with
Panentheism…………………………………………….…..226

3. Describing God’s Creative Activity in Conversation
with Genesis 1………………………………………………230

4. A Creatio Ex Nihilo through the Possibility of
Creation’s Self-Expression rather than
Divine Fiat …………………………………………………232

5. Birth and Maturation……………………………….………240

a. Infancy………………………………………….…..243

b. Growing Up(s)………………………………….…..244