Tohu Va Bohu

Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co.
KG
Tohu wa-Bohu , Primordial Elements and Creatio ex Nihilo
Author(s): Menahem Kister
Source: Jewish Studies Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (2007), pp. 229-256
Published by: Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753438
Accessed: 23-10-2015 10:39 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co. KG is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish Studies Quarterly
.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:39:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Primordial
Elements
Tohuwa-Bohu,
and Creatioex Nihilo*
MenahemKister
of theHebrewwordstohuwa-bohuin Genesis1:2
Manyinterpretations
in ancienttimes.Thesewords,as wellas theGreekwords
weresuggested
wereoftenconceivedof
bywhichtheywererenderedin theSeptuagint,
as relatedto thetheologicalproblemof creation:was theworldcreated
out of Matter(ex hyles)or out of nothing
out of primordial
elements,
(ex nihilo)!
of the
ancientinterpretations
In Part I of thisarticle,the different
the
until
from
the
Second
tohu
wa-bohu
words
Hebrew
Templeperiod
late Roman period are discussed.Severalaspectsare involvedin the
of theexpressiontohuwa-bohu:on
renderings
analysisof thedifferent
theone hand,thelexical-etymological
aspect,thecontextofGenesis1:2,
the occurrenceof the wordbohuin otherbiblicalverses,and, on the
otherhand, cosmologicalideas and theologicalnotionsrelatedto the
elementsor ex nihiloin thewritquestionof creationout of primordial
In PartII
and
laterJewishliterature.
of
the
Second
Templeperiod
ings
of my article,the emergenceof the theologicalnotion accordingto
elementsis discussed.
whichtheworldwas notcreatedout of primordial
Genesis 1:2 is found,as we
Evidenceto thisapproachin interpreting
shallsee below,as earlyas the secondcenturyBCE (theBook of Jubilees). The firstcenturyCE suppliesus withthe firstevidenceforconnectingthisversewiththenotionof creationout of Matter(Philo). In
PartIII, I willtryto tracetheuse of theancientJewishinterpretations
as well as in theworksof some
of thisversein laterJewishliterature
* Some of the ideas expressedin this articlefirstappeared in a Hebrew article
publishedin Issues in TalmudicResearch(ed. Y. Sussmann;Jerusalem:Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities,2001), 28-65. The essentialtheses of this articlewere
presentedin a lectureat Cambridge'sFacultyof Divinityon 16.2.04, at a joint meeting
of the PatristicSeminarand the Seminarin Hebrew,Jewishand Early ChristianStudies. The articlewas presentedat PrincetonUniversity,
Departmentof Religionand
Programin JudaicStudies,on 29.3.06.
Volume 14 (2007) pp. 229-256
JewishStudiesQuarterly,
Mohr Siebeck- ISSN 0944-5706
230
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
Patristicwriters(especiallyOrigen,Tertullian,Ephrem)
contemporary
and of theiropponents,who use it as a polemicalargumenteitherfor
or againstcreatioex nihilo.
The lexical-exegetical
implicaanalysisofPartI has someunexpected
tionsfortheredactionof theBook ofEnochand itssources.The discusbetweenPalestinianexegetical
sion in Part II mayimplya relationship
and Philo,betweenexegesisand polemicin rabbinicliterature,
traditions
of rabbis,ChurchFathersand pagans.The reand betweenstatements
and Christianargumentsand the light
the
Jewish
between
lationship
one of themajor issuesof PartIII.
is
indeed
each
other
shed
on
they
of some
The variouspartsof thearticlesupplyevidenceto theantiquity
It seemsthatmuchof therabbinicaggadicmaterial
rabbinictraditions.
in theSecondTempleperiod.To
alreadyexisting
goes back to traditions
be sure,ancienttraditionsprobablygainednew meaningsin new contexts.Our subjectsuppliesa test-casethroughwhichit can be demonstratedthatthe rabbinictraditionsdiscussedare not the productof a
rabbinicredactorinfluenced
byChristiandoctrines(as sugfifth-century
antebutrathercontinueancientJewishinterpretation,
gestedrecently),
in order
is not written
The presentarticle,however,
datingChristianity.
thethesisemergesfromthedetailed
to provethisgeneralthesis;rather,
discussionof Jewishand Christianmaterialsfortheirown sake.
I
Genesis1:1-3 openswiththewords:
-|tpminminn nrrnriam (2) . run ^ ma n*vma (1)
nain (3) .dwi *ao*?nsmo dtx mm Dinn*jd^v
*m , :D*n*?K
.
and allow forseveralinterpretaThese sentencespose manydifficulties

is lexical:the meaningof the word-pair
tions.1One of the difficulties
in biblicalHebrewin divergent
The wordtohuwas current
tohuwa-bohu.
whereasthewordbohuoccursin theBibleonlyas a
sensesand contexts,
componentof theexpressiontohuwa-bohuin Isaiah 34:11and Jeremiah
utterdesolation(thelatterseemsto alludeto a
4:23,passagesdescribing
1 Many of theancientinterpretations
of theseversesweresurveyedand thoroughly
undpalszur Kosmologiedes hellenistischen
discussedby H. F. Weiss,Untersuchungen
Judentum
tinischen
(TUGAL 97; Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1966). In thisarticlesome
additional exegeticalmaterialnot analyzed by Weiss will be discussed,and some
sourcesalreadydiscussedby himwillbe consideredfroma different
angle,withsomeconclusions.
whatdifferent
(2007)
Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo
23 1
In Genpassageverysimilarto Genesis1:2,as notedbycommentators).2

in
the
most
ancient
biblical
was
rendered
the
translation,
esis, expression
"unseen(perhapsbeas ,
theSeptuagint,3
cause it was covered[eitherby darkness4or by water5])and unconThe Jewish
Aramaictargumim
structed."6
(Onkelos,7Fragment
Targum,8
as "the
renderthisexpression
PseudoNeofiti,9
Jonathan10)
unanimously
land was desolateand empty"(Kapm/K'Jpi-nXHX),11as does theSathistranslation
maritanAramaictargum}1
(M'T'takento
Etymologically,
and fitsthe
mean"desolate,"and 13 as "empty")is ratherplausible,13
2 For our discussionit does not matterwhetherthe passage in Jeremiahalludes to
Y. Hoffman,"The FirstCreation
Genesis 1:2 or to a similarsource;see,mostrecently,
Story:Canonical and DiachronicalAspects,"in: HenningGrafReventlowand Y. Hoffman (eds.), Creationin Jewishand ChristianTradition(London: SheffieldAcademic
Press,2002; JSOTS 319) 45^7; J.T. A. G. M. van Rooiten,"Back to Chaos: The RelationshipbetweenJeremiah4:23-26 and Genesis 1," in G. H. van Kooten (ed.), The
CreationofHeavenand Earth:Re-interpretations
of Genesis1 in theContextofJudaism,
and ModernPhysics(Leiden: Brill,2005) 21-30.
AncientPhilosophy,
Christianity,
3 For a detaileddiscussion,see M. Alexandre,Le Commencement
du livreGenseIV: La versiongrequede la Septanteet sa rception(Christianismeantique 3; Paris:
Beauchesne,1988), 76-80.
4 Thus Josephus,Antiquities,
1:27.
5 Thus Basil, Hexameron,2:1.
6 Note GenesisRabbah 10:2 (ed. Theodor-Albeck,p. 75). Accordingto thissource,
of
theearthis coveredby tohuwa-bohuas a vesselcoveredby water.This is reminiscent
as
(because it is covered;see n. 5) and .(Was it interpreted
relatedto the words,vessel?)Could the midrashbe influenced(perhapsindirectly)by the Septuagint?
7 A. Sperber,The Bible in Aramaic(Leiden: Brill,1992), 1.
8 M. Klein, The Fragment-Targum
to the Pentateuchaccordingto theirExtant
Sources(Rome: BiblicalInstitute,1980; Analectabblica 76) 43, 126
9 A. Diez macho, Neophyti1: TargumPalestinensems. de la Biblioteca Vaticana
Cientficas,1968) 3.
(Madrid : Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones
10D. Rieder,TargumJonathanben Uziel on the Pentateuch(Jerusalem:American
AcademyforJewishResearch,1974) 1.
11 The
mannerin Neofitiand
renderingof Onkelos is elaboratedin a midrash-Mke
the otherPalestiniantargumim
(e. g., <"P373*?Dp> XJpm <NW3^3 )> WIY) in the
MS V).
Fragment-Targum
12A. Tal, The SamaritanTargumof thePentateuch:A CriticalEdition(Tel-Aviv:Tel
AvivUniversity,
1980), 2-3. The best Manuscript(J) is damaged here,but it is reconstructedby Tal as 7 ("was desolate") on the basis of the importantmedievaldicof the word tohuin Genesis 1:2 accordingto this
tionary,Ha-melits.Otherrenderings
dictionaryare the synonymword (root DW) and the Hebrew inn. The late
recensionof MS A has "apm ("desolate and empty"),as in the Jewishtargumim.
13In biblicalHebrewinn meansdesolation,desert(e. g., Deuteronomy32:10). One
of themeaningsof therootbhyin Arabicis "be empty"(see, e. g., BDB, 96), hencethe
of thetargumicrendering
K*3pn as theaccuratetranslationof the Hebrew
plausibility
1. Otheretymologiessuggestedseem less plausible (but discussingthis problemis
beyondthe scope of the presentarticle.)
232
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
ofdesolationin Isaiah and Jeremiah

as well.14
Accordingto
descriptions
thestate
thesetranslations,
thewordsimi inn wouldthenbe describing
is combinedwithan alterof theearthafteritscreation.This rendering
nativeone,namelymn Xin*O.Clearly,thewordsXTm KTin
but it shouldbe reare the Aramaiccognatesof the Hebrewwords,15
chose participleforms,
markedthatunlikethe Hebrew,the targumim
clearthatthesewordsdescribethestateof the
thusmakingit definitely
"hermood"). In GenesisRabbah.2:2 (ed. Theoearth(or,forthatmatter,
to theearth,meanboth
dor-Albeck,15) thewords,referring
therootbhybeinginterpreted
amazed" and "frightened,"
"bewildered,
as a synonymof bhl {GenesisRabbah 2:4 [TheodorAlbeck, 16-17]),16
formsinJewish,
Chriscan takeseveralvarying
and theseinterpretations
tianand Gnosticwritings.
As we shall see below,anotherancienttextthatmusthaveassumed
thestateof theearth
of 1as wordsdescribing
theinterpretation
is theBook of Jubilees(2:2-3): all the otherprimordialelementsmentionedin Genesis1:2 are mentionedin thispassageas beingcreatedby
and thereason
God on thefirstday,withtheexceptionof tohuwa-bohu,
14In Isaiah 34:11 the
meaningcan onlybe 'desolation.'This is probablyhow Jerare certainthatin
emiah4:23 shouldbe interpreted.
Interestingly,
manycommentators
Jeremiah4:23 "chaos primeval"or "formlesswaste" is described(the formeris the
Translatranslationof tohuwa-bohuin thispassage byJ.Bright,Jeremiah:
Introduction,
tionand Notes[GardenCityNY: Doubleday,1965;AB] 30; thelatter- byW. L. Hollaon theBook of theProphetJeremiahChapters1-25
day,Jeremiah1: A Commentary
[Philadelphia:Fortress,1986; Hermeneia]143. These translationsimportinto the text
of tohuwa-bohuin Genesis 1:2, which,as we shall
a different
of Jeremiah
interpretation
of
see, is documentedmuch later,if at all, in Jewishliterature.
(Note the reservations
withIntroduction
and Commentary
1 - 20: A New Translation
J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah
[NewYork:Doubleday,1999]357,butevenforhima "literalreturnto tohuwa-bohu"is
identicalwith"chaos"!)
15It is not
clear,however,whethertheword could be used in genuine
entirely
Aramaic,not as a caique of the Hebrew
16This
of the rootbhlis mentionedtwice:firstin a historicalallegointerpretation
of Genesis 1:2, in which wa-bohuis relatedto )7' i^na*");
rical interpretation
describedin the
secondlyin the storyconcerningben Zoma, wherehe is deliberately
and fiV^naa 13*.
same termsas the verseswithwhichhe is occupied:11"T1J7
This meaningmay easily be read into the second parable in GenesisRabbah 2:2, acbecause of the punishmentthatshe would
cordingto whichthe earthwas frightened
bear due to Adam's sin. Moreover,this sense of the root bhyis the clue to Origen's
of theHebrewmeaning"terraautemstupidaquadam eratadmiratione,"and
rendering
Gnosticparallelscitedby J.C. M. van Winden,"Terraautemstupida
theilluminating
quadam erat admiratione,"in: idem,Arche:A Collectionof PatristicStudies(Leiden:
is not to be soughtin "gnosticJews
Brill,1997), 107-15.The clue to Origen'srendering
or JewishChristianswho explainedthe rabbinicrenderingof Genesis 1:2 in a gnostic
is a nuanceof theJewish
way,"as suggestedby van Winden(115); ratherthisrendering
explanationof bohuas fear;a numinousfearof God, whichin some gnosticpassages
receiveda gnosticinterpretation.
(2007)
233
fortheabsenceis no doubtthat- similarto theSeptuagint,

the targu- theywerenot interpreted
mimand otherexegeticaltraditions
by the
elements.17
authorof theBook ofJubileesas primordial
Two passagesin the"Book ofWatchers"includedin 1 Enochare also
instructive:
AndI sawa deepabyss()... AndbeyondthatabyssI sawa place
whichhad no firmament
of theheavenabove,and no foundation
of earth
beneathit: therewas no waterupon it,and no birds,butit was a waste
()and horrible
place... I saw theresevenstarslikegreatburning
mountains
. .. The angelsaid to me:... : This place is theend of heaven
and earth:thishas becomea prisonforthestarsofheavenand thehostof
heaven.. . And He ... boundthemtillthetimewhentheirguiltshouldbe
fortenthousandyears.(18:11-16)
consummated,
AndI proceeded
to theunconstructed
(place;).
I saw neither
And I saw theresomething
horrible:
a heavenabovenor a
founded
andhorrible
earth,butan unconstructed
()
firmly
in it,like
place.And thereI saw sevenstarsof theheavenboundtogether
and burning
withfire... Thensaid Uriel... : These are of
greatmountains
of thestarsof heaven,whichhavetransgressed
thenumber
thecommandmentoftheLord,and areboundheretilltenthousandyears'.(21:1-6)18
A shortnoteon thetranslation
is essential:thewordtranslated
"unconin 21:1 is thesamerareGreekwordthatrendersbohuin the
structed"19
to Genesis1:2.20Some scholarshavenotedin passingthatwe
Septuagint
of Enoch'stourin tohuand in bohu.21
haveherea description
Basically,
theunderstanding
of tohuwa-bohu
is ofdesolatecosmicsitesbeyondthe
The notionthattheseare twosites,existing
universe.
beyondheavenand
17VanderKammakesthe
followingobservation:"Note, too, thatin Jubileesnothingbut God precedescreation,sinceit lacks any mentionof tohuwa-bohu(1:2)" (J.C.
VanderKam,"Genesis 1 in Jubilees2," DSD 1 [1994] 306; does VanderKamassume
that tohuwa-bohuis chaotic matter?).This observationshould be emended:tohuwabohuare not mentionedsimplybecause theywerenot interpreted
as substance(s).
18Translation
accordingto R. H. Charles,The Book of Enoch (Oxford:Clarendon
Press,1893),89-92, withsome alterations.
19There is no reason whatsoeverto assume that the author had
any conception
similarto "chaos," as theGreekis translatedintoEnglishand Frenchin severaltranslations(Charles,The Book of Enoch,92; E. Isaac in OTP 1.24 n. a; M. A. Knibb,in H.
F .D. Sparks,The ApocryphalOld Testament[Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1984]
209 n. 2; G. W.E. Nickelsburg,
1 Enoch1 (Minneapolis:Fortress,2001) 297; A. Caquot,
/ Hnochin: A. Dupont-Sommerand M. Philonenko(eds.), La Bible: critsintertestamentaires
(Paris: Gallimard,1987) 459.
20The Ge'ez translationeska (makn) kheba albo tu
za-yetgabbar(M. A. Knibb,
The EthiopieBook of Enoch (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1978) 1.74 may be translated
"to a place wheretherewas nothingmade" (Knibb, The EthiopieBook of Enoch,
2.107), or, perhaps,"wherenothingwas fashioned,constructed,"a renderingof the
rareGreekword.
234
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
of thetwositesand their
earth,is peculiarto 1 Enoch.The descriptions
function
are so similar,thatchapter21 is usuallytakenas a doubletof
chapter18.22It seemsto me ratherplausiblethata redactor(was it the
beforehimtwodescripredactorof theBook of theWatchers?),
finding
differentiated
betweenthem
desolation
tionsof outworldly,
primordial
desolate
tohu
and
Enoch
as
two
bohu,places
visiting
places,
bydepicting
as similarin theirview as in theirnames' pronunciation
(or, alternaone
for
the
same
reason).23The tripto
tively,duplicating description
tohuand thetripto bohuare separatedin 1 Enochin its presentform.
The duplicationtookplace,then,priorto thelastredactionof theBook
at least,tohuand bohuwereplaces of utter
of Enoch.For theredactor,
desolationoutsidetheworld.
as wellas otherprimorAccordingto thesepassages,tohuwa-bohu,
dial elementsmentionedin Genesis 1:2, existbeyondthe edges of the
universe;tohuwa-bohuwerenot replacedby God's creation,butrather
conceivednot only in termsof time
pushed by it, and are therefore
(beforethe creationof the world)but also in termsof space (beyond
of 1 Enochis correct,it anticipatesa
Creation).If thisinterpretation
"tohuis a greenlinethatencompassesthewhole
tannaitic
interpretation:
world,out of whichdarknessproceeds. . . Bohu - this means stones
coveredwithmud thatare sunkin theabyss(Dinn), fromwhichwater
""
proceeds"yvx' xjp uaatp V?o DîJ/n*?d "^^ 1*? inn
d* raxv pav Dinm mypwan maVioan *V?x im ... (BT
we read thattheworldsare
Hagiga 12a).24In SederKabbahdi-Breshit
21Most recently,
Nickelsburg,1 Enoch 1, 298. Caquot (/ Hnoch,493; note also
496), who thoughtthatthe words"waste and horrible"are a paraphraseof tohuwabohu,missedthe point.
22E.
g., Charles(The Book of Enoch,87) states:"[Chapter]xviii,12-16 [is] a duplicate accountof xxi, 1-6," buthe assumesthatthereasonforthisis thatchapters17-19
are "foreignto therestof thissection."(See also his noteson pages 89-90, 92). Usually
1 Enochchapters17-19 are considereda distinctunitin theBook of Watchers,whichis
thefirstbook in theEnochiccompilationentitled1 Enoch.Chapters17-19 haveseveral
duplicationsin chapters21-25; see recentlyK. Coblenz Bautch,A Studyof the Geographyof 1 Enoch 17-19: "No One Has Seen WhatI Have Seen" (Leiden: Brill,2003;
SJSJ81)13-23.
23Coblenz Bautchin herGeography
refrainsfromdealingwiththerelationof these
of Genesis 1:2, althoughthis line has
chapterswith the cosmologicalinterpretation
been suggestedbefore(see above n. 21).
24A similarsourcewas knownin Palestine,as maybe demonstrated
by thewording
of the poet Qalir: no*- yjr ^ naV?s ,mno Dtrmm itrrninn mm oinm
(f ' ) 31?,"Abyss,and tohuwa-bohuand darknessand windhe concealed,
thefundament"(for
stonescoveredwithmud He sank and pavedin orderto strengthen
tohu as the fundamentof earthsee below,n. 27, fromtheworksof an earlierPalestinian poet, Yose ben Yose); Cf also: Dinn 'vmo ,"VlDKa
(Pinhas,
, t"ll7Da
piyyut for Shemini 'Atseret;Sh. Elizur, The Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Pinhas
(2007)
235
surrounded
by mud(*), and beyondthisthereis an abyss,tohu,and
darkness.25
The lattersourceis consideredlate26(althoughithas ancient
origins),but thepointcrucialto our discussionis made by theearliest
C. E.?),
century
paytanknownby name,Yose ben Yose (Palestine,fifth
of earth(imra
who statesthattohuand tempestare the fundaments
my031),27and by anotherancientpaytan,Yanai, who
^ 1
*75M
inn
*?yn^^V "the earthis fixedon tohuand wind."28
says
The emphasison the role of windsin fixingtheearthfindsits closest
of the
parallelin 1 Enoch18:1,wherethewindssupportthefoundation
earth.We haveherea continuouslineofcosmologicalspeculations(that
may,of course,varyin details)from1 Enochto the latermidrashim.
in these
thewordtohuin Genesis1:2was similarly
Moreover,
interpreted
textsin lightofthecosmologicalspeculations.
To be sure,theinterpretain theTalmudowesmuchto Isaiah 34:11, and perhapsto
tionsuggested
other(non-Jewish?)
cosmicdescriptions,29
buttheverynotionthattohu
and bohu(as wellas DTHD)30
existbeyondtheuniverseappearsto be very
ancient.Accordingto the latersources,tohuand bohu are positively
and Commentaries
ha-Kohen:CriticalEdition,Introduction
WorldUnion of
[Jerusalem:
JewishStudies,2004]478). Both poets use thewordmîS in a similarcontextto the
one in the BabylonianTalmud,althoughtheydo not deriveit fromtheTalmud.Their
in contentand in form,fromthebaraytain
sourcemighthavebeen somewhatdifferent,
the BabylonianTalmud.
25Seder Rabbah di-Breshit,
ed. S. A. Wertheimer,
Batei Midrashot(Jerusalem:Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1950) 1.31-32,29 (the latteris relatedto BT Hagigah 12a).
26The workSeder Rabbah di-Breshit
certainlyhas ratherancientsources.Thus, the
nan 1731?
)is alreadyalludedto
descriptionoitehom in it ("HW"TVVhvh
by Qalir (ip'ayna mnn TIW ^ tfVrtfa,S. Elizur, Rabbi El'azar Birabbi Kiliri
:Mekize Nirdamim,2000] 173).
HymniPentecostales[Jerusalem
27Atta Konanta,8 (A.
Mirsky,Yose ben Yose: Poems [2nded., Jerusalem:Mosad
TV a
D*n*7J7
Bialik,1991] 179); cf.also AzkirGevurot,13, 15 (Mirski,129): 7*711
f?n 'JD103 n^DKI ima ... mJ70aiimna 3or . These statements
maybe compared to BT Hagigah 12b; see also Qalir (above, n. 24).
28. . Rabinowitz,The LiturgicalPoems Rabbi Yanai (Jerusalem:Mosad Biaof
betweenYanai's Poem and Seder Rabbahdi-Breshit
has
lik, 1985) 1.416.The similarity
been noted by Ginzberg(L. Ginzberg,"Additionalnotes," in I. Davidson, Mahzor
Yanmai[New York: JewishTheological Seminary,1919, 50 n. V]. Ginzberg'snote is
citedby Wertheimer,
Batte Midrashot,1.29.
29Thus M. Joel,Blickein die Religionsgeschichte
zu Anfangdes zweitenschristlichen
Jahrhunderts
(Breslau: Schottlaender,
1880) 1.142,followed(withthe additionof problematicsuggestions)by A. Altmann,"GnosticThemesin RabbinicCosmology,"in I.
Epsteinet al. (eds.),Essays inHonourof the VeryRev.Dr.J.H. Hertz(London: Edward
Goldston,1942) 20-28.
30
Accordingto the BabylonianTalmud,the abyss(or ratherthe stonesin it) is the
place fromwhichwaterproceeds.This seemsto be thesenseof / Enoch 17:7 (although
the wordingis ambiguous;see C. Bautch, Geography,
94-95). As is well known,the
wordtehomwas used in the HebrewBible both as a primordialelementand also as a
wordrelatedto waterafterthecreation.
236
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
whilein 1 Enochwe haveno clue that

relatedto theexistinguniverse,
haveanyfuncthesesitesofutterdesolationand outworldly
punishment
world.We cannotdeducefromthesesourceswhen,
tionfortheinhabited
accordingto the author,theseelementsoriginated,and whetherthey
wereconceivedof as created.
and perhapsof primordial
Anotheraspectof tohuwa-bohu,
elements,
is revealedin the Qumran scrolls.31The righteous'enemiesin the
im1?!inn*?
war are describedin thewar scroll:Dnpittfn
eschatological
and
Drrrcya
*?d
v*?K)
15:9-10),
itznrm
(1QM
(1QM 17:4),[nan]piwn
we
read:
the
bad
the
of
the
wicked,
angels,
patrons
concerning
nanpi[Bm]V*?K)ir^nrr '(1QM 13:12). This means that
tohu wa-bohu,togetherwith darkness(and probablyalso tehom),32
wereconceivedof as the originsof evil.33Althoughdarknesscombats
createdbyGod. It is
God's reign,accordingto thescrolls,it is certainly
thattehomwas createdby God.34The exactmeaning
written
explicitly
of tohuwa-bohu,
accordingto 1QM 17:4,is unclear(butwe mayrather
safelyassumethatit is notjust "desolation"or "emptiness").The relain a verydifferent
elementsto evilis also documented
tionofprimordial
to David in theBiblicalAntiqattributed
pieceof work,an incantation
ities,a book composedprobablyat the end of the firstcenturyCE,
accordingto whichthe evil spiritis said to be createdby echo in the
chaos (or: theabyss)35(60:3). The meaningseemsto be thatevil spirits
elements.
whenGod's word36metprimordial
originated
31Other Qumranicpassages (see D. BornerKlein, "Tohu und Bohu: Zur Auslevon Gen 1, 2a," Henoch 15 [1993],7-8) in whichthewordtohuoccurs
gungsgeschichte
are ratherirrelevantto the exegesisof Genesis 1:2. A tinyfragmentfromQumran
thistextis too fragmentary
reads: in]m 1 D1j?3 [ (4Q303, line 5). Unfortunately,
of the wordstohuwa-bohu
to draw fromit any reliableconclusionsof the significance
forits author.
32The abyss (Dinn) is associatedwith ,and VlKtt(lQHa 9:17, 31-32,
18:33-34).
33Some scholarscontendthatfortheauthorof theGenesissource(P), theprimordial elementsin Genesis 1:2 representevil, and the chapteris deliberatelya part of
some sortof dualism;see Weinfeld,"God the Creator,"121-22; I. Knohl, The Divine
Symphony:The Bible's Many Voices(Philadelphia:JPS,2003), 11-19. I have not been
convincedthatthe biblicaltextshould necessarilybe read thisway.It is by no means
to some primordialentity
clear,anyway,thatin Genesis tohuwa-bohu"is a reference
15, myemphasis).
(Knohl, Symphony,
34ronoaim nmran ... mammd**narroa nrunannx(iqh* y:ii-i4); ct.

also rnmnnaiD*o*a*?idi oy onma o-ia (lQHa 5:14-15).
35See the plausibleemendationsuggestedby Jacobson(H. Jacobson,A CommenBiblicarum[Leiden: Brill,1996] 1178-79).

taryon Pseudo-Philo'sLiber Antiquitatum
36Hence the stresson the silencebeforethe creationof the worldin the preceding
verse(60:2).
(2007)
237
thatoccursin rabbinicliterature
Accordingto anotherinterpretation
in antiquity),
tohuwa-bohuis an
dominant
was
not
(butthat
necessarily
substance(probablynotchaos),whichcoveredthe
unknownprimordial
earth{LeviticusKabbah6:6 [ed.Margulies,146];cf.also CanticleRabbah
late date.
is documentedonlyat a relatively
1:9).37This interpretation
which
words
tohu
of
the
to
another
wa-bohu,
interpretation
According
in Late Antiquity(ifnot earlier),theexpression
existedsimultaneously
This traditionoccursin Samarwater".38
imi 1means"(primordial)
to thegreatSamaritanpoet
In a poem attributed
itan poeticwritings.
"He
created
thelandout ofthewater
we
read:
CE),
century
Marqe (fifth
of tohu
The understanding
of tohuwa-bohu"(1*a niW*?*)39
water"explainsa passagein a prosecomposiwa-bohuas "(primordial)
to Marqe, in whichit is relatedthatwhentheNile was
tionattributed
37The concept that the earth will returnto the desolate state beforeits creation
as referin Jeremiah4:23-25 (theseversescould be interpreted
occursratherexplicitly
ringto theend of days). The occurrenceof the rareexpressiontohuwa-bohuin Isaiah
thatthe finaldesolationof Israel's enemy
34:11 lendsitselfeasilyto the interpretation
is relatedto the returnof primordialelementsof desolation. The word JUln in
CanticlesRabbah 1:9 indicatesthattheworldwillreturnto be tohuwa-bohubymelting.
A synonymous
expressionreads DHp ]1 Kpnw1?n*7*?31 Ko1?... Ko1?"!1K (Apozur Kosmologie,124). The "silence"
calypseof Baruch3:7; see Weiss, Untersuchungen
beforethecreationof theworld(i. e., beforeGod's wordwas uttered)occursas a term
also in the BiblicalAntiquities60:2 (silentium)and in 4 Ezra 6:39. The word is
also a Gnosticterm.See P. Bogaert,Apocalypsede Baruch(SC 145; Paris: Cerf,1969),
Biblicarum,1174-75; M. E. Stone, FourthEzra
13; H. Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum
(Minneapolis: Fortress,1990), 184. It should be added that npinwa is an ancient
Samaritantermforthe timebeforecreation(thus: jxna 'jÔ 1? 5 npintPD,
"in the silenceyou have sowed words,and creaturescame out," Marqe [fifthcentury
CE], poem no. 2 in Ben-Hayyim'scollectionof Samaritanpoems; see Z. Ben-Hayyim,
The Literaryand Oral Traditionof Hebrewand AramaicamongsttheSamaritans,III/2:
Recitationof Prayersand Hymns[Jerusalem:
Academyof theHebrewLanguage,1967]
147 (cf.also ibid. 151); npinWQTm"D *?yUVpl nxp, "(God), thefirstone who stood
on the foundationof silence,"ibid., Marqe no. 7, Ben-Hayyim,Literaryand Oral
Tradition,181). Ben-Hayyimfollowsan old Arabic translationof these passages (in
and translates*("nothing").Tal goes
whichnpinWE is renderedby Arabic 0*737),
as faras to translatethisnoun as "inn, abyss(the statebeforethecreation)"but also
"primaevalsilence(beforethewordYHY);" thelatterpartof Tal's definitionseemsto
mm DâinnnmDâv^n pTWn [Exobe thecorrectone. (See also: mini mm 0*71271
dus Rabbah29:9]). A laterSamaritansourcein TibatMarqe (4.32 [196b-197a],ed. BenHayyim,258) states that creaturescome from"silence" and returnto it, and this
"silence" of the end of days is symbolizedby the Sabbath. In this passage, the root
pntPdoes not merelymean "silence,"but rather"not doing,refrainfromdoing."
JOenesis l:za would probablybe interpreted:and the earth was (covered by)
primordialwater".
39Poem no. 6 of Marqe in Ben Hayyim'scollection(Literaryand Oral Tradition,
172. Cf. also: "He gathersthe waterof tohuwa-bohu,as He pleases in His dominion"
(na1?^1?'am in inm inn *a was; Marqe 13, Ben Hayyim, Literaryand Oral Tradition,211).
238
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
"killed"(i. e., whenitswaterbecameblood,Exodus 7:19-25),therivers

Gihonand Hideqel,not succeedingto floodtheland of Egypt,criedto
God, "the creatorof tohuwa-bohu,"( ;3) to avengethe
to Nanna,theson
we readin a poemattributed
Nile's blood.40Similarly,
of water(i. e.,
the
foundation
find
tohu
we
"Indeed
of Marqe:
wa-bohu,
out ofit:
drew
creatures
who
craftsman
the
and
water), God,
primordial
full
and theyreturned
He sentHis wordsintothewaterof tohuwa-bohu,
of creatures"(ma f?m max WTK)nw 3 irm inn rnpwa
irs/inrna mn * n^tr^nm 1?).41 It is
statedin thispoem (as it is in TibatMarqe) thatGod is
also explicitly
who createdprimordialwater.42
thecraftsman
Marqe and Nanna thus
stressthat God created tohu wa-bohu,and this is identifiedwith
is assumedby a Hebrewpiyyut,Az beThis interpretation
"water".43
ein kol, composed in Late Antiquity,whichreads: *? mm mn
1?,44a clear allusion to the verse VTW^V D*aa mpan (Psalms
104:3); the equation tohuwa-bohuand "water"is evident.According
to the same piyyut,tohuwa-bohuwerenot onlyset over the sky,but
werealso rolledaway (nnVtt) to the depthof the sea (nVma mn)
and hiddenin theabyss(mainna mm mn &).Tohuwa-bohudid
the
to determine
It is difficult
notdisappear;theysurroundtheworld.45
of
is influenced
extentto whichthisinterpretation
by theidentification
chaoswithwaterin theHellenisticworld.46
tohuwa-bohuare at the foundaAccordingto some interpretations,
tionof Creation.It seemsthataccordingto thisview,God createdthe
and abominableelements(Rav, R. Huna in
worldout of theseinferior
the name of Bar Kappara, GenesisRabbah 1:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck,
40Z. Ben-Hayyim,Tibat Marqe: A Collectionof SamaritanMidrashim(Jerusalem:
Israel Academyof Sciencesand Humanities,1988) 76.
41 Ben Hayyim, Literaryand Oral Tradition,
269.
42 Ben Hayyim, Literaryand Oral Tradition,
271.
4JThe bohu is the originol wateraccordingto ol nagigan iza, wnereastonuis
relatedto darkness.
44Y. Yahalom, PriestlyPalestinianPoetry:A NarrativeLiturgyjor the Day oj
Atonement
(Jerusalem:Magnes, 1996) 67.
45 Is thephrase"earthformedout of waterand by water"(2 Pet 3:5) relatedto this
interpretation?
46J.Ternus,"Chaos," RAC 2 (1954) 1032.
47The expositionof GenesisRabbah runs: "Normally,if a human king builds his
palace on the site of sewersand garbage and bad odours, and a person who comes
theresays,'This palace is built on the site of sewersand garbage and bad odours,'
would he not be offending[the king]?!So too, if any person comes and says, This
world was createdfromtohuand bohu and darkness,'is he not offending[God]?!"
This parable also appears in the PalestinianTalmud, but not in the same context:
"R. Judahthe Patriarch(Rabbi's grandson)asked R. Samuel bar Nahmani: 'What is
(2007)
239
3]).47These primordialelementsmay or may not be the "chaos" of

Hellenisticspeculations.An interpretation
accordingto whichthe expressiontohuwa-bohuis equatedwithchaosis foundin theteachingof
the meaningof "Extol Him who rides the clouds; the Lord is His name (1W';
Psalms 68:5)?'" He answered:'There is no place whichis not His residence...' He
the versethus,but
said to him: 'Your teacher,R. Eleazar, would not have interpreted
rather[!!] a king who builds his palace on the site of sewersand garbage and bad
odours ..., so too anyonewho says thatin thebeginningtheworldwas waterin water
offends[God]'" (PT Hagigah2:1 [77c]).This text,as it is,is unintelligible
and shouldbe
emendedaccordingto its parallel in GenesisRabbah 12:10 (p. 108). This textbegins
but thencontinues:"He replied:'...I asked R. Eleazar and he did not intersimilarly,
pretit (i. e., the wordsloti?3) so, but 'by Yah (73), the Lord createdworlds(
O'Viy)' (Isaiah 26:4) - by thesetwo letters(yod he) did the Holy one, blessedbe He,
createHis world ...'" Thus, the correctreadingin the PalestinianTalmud should be:
oViymtwn rnaVi*avin-di nvnix<n^n>x p v - -^ '
<D*Viy ' 3 -iK3Vtan "Your teacher,R. Eleazar, would not have interit), 'by thesetwo letters[i. e., yod he] were
pretedtheversethus,but rather(interpreted
createdtwoworlds- thisworldand theworldto come,as it is written,
"by Yah" (^),
theLord createdworlds,'"or a similartextto thesame effect.It seemsthatthetextwas
shortenedand thisendingdisappearedbecause it had occurredonlyseverallinesabove,
in the same sugia (commenting
on the same mishnaicunit);see also Z. W. Rabinowitz,
Sha'arei ToratEretz Yisra'el[Jerusalem:
Weiss,1950],320. The parable of the kingin
the PalestinianTalmud should certainlynot be attributedto R. Eleazar (contrastUrbach, The Sages, 775, n. 54). It does not referto the precedingsentences,and is not
(as it is in GenesisRabbah). Rather,its
directlyconnectedwithRav's interpretation
contextseemsto be theevaluationof interpreting
ma'ase bereshit,
thebiblicalaccounts
of Creation(fora similaranalysissee now Ch. Milikowsky,
"On the Formulationand
Transmissionof BereshitRabba and the Yerushalmi:Questions of Redaction,TextCriticismand LiteraryRelationships,"JQR 92 [2002],532-542. Unlike Milikowsky,
I
assumethattheproblemin thetextof thePalestinianTalmudis due to a textualerror
ratherthanto redaction).- Philo also demonstrates
a desireto refrainfromdenigrating
the primordialmatter.In his parable,he says of the architect:"who, observingthe
favourableclimateand the convenientpositionof the site..." (De opificiomundi,17)
and in his moral we read: "He grudgednot a share in his own excellentnatureto an
existencewhichhas of itselfnothing
fair and lovely,whileit is capable of becomingall
things.For of itself,it was withoutorder,withoutquality,withoutsoul... but it was
and undergoing
a completechangeto thebest,theverycontrary
capableof turning
ofall
these,to order,quality,life,correspondence,
likeness,perfectadjustment,to
identity,
to all thatis characteristic
of themoreexcellentmodel." (ibid.,21-22; transharmony,
lated by F. H. Colson, Philo in Ten Volumes[London: WilliamHeinemann,1981] 9). Philo took care to balance his negativecharacterization
of the primordialmatter
and statedthatalthoughtherewas no beautyin it,it was not degraded.(Interestingly,
in bothparables,of Philo and of GenesisRabbah 1:5,primordialmatteris comparedto
theplace on whichultimately
thecityor the palace is built.)- Assumingpre-existence
of matter(see GenesisRabbah, 1:5 [p. 3]) in a monotheistic
systemnecessarilyresultsin
theimportanceof Mattercomparedto thatof the Creator(cf.Basil, Hexminimizing
ameron2.1). However,theresultof thisprocessis thedenigrationof thematerialworld
and consequentlyof its Creator,as indeed the Gnostic theoriesprove.The dialectical
theologicaldynamicobservedby Rav - thatextollingGod leads to a denigrationof
God - is appositeto the problemof evaluatingpre-existent
Matter,althoughit is far
fromclear thatRav was referring
to thisissue.
240
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
the Ophites,accordingto Ireneus.They teachthat"the elementswere

separatedfromeach other,viz.,water,darkness,theabyss,chaos,above
whichtheydeclaretheSpiritwas borne."48"Chaos" hereis theequivalentof tohuwa-bohuin Genesis1: 2.
SymmachusrendersGenesis 1:2a by
, "and the earthbecameunwroughtand indiscriminate."49
this"indiscriminate"
(mixture)is a phase in
Accordingto Symmachus,
the existenceof earth,and thusSymmachusmighthave in mindthat
whichis labeled"the two creationstheory"(i. e., the theoryaccording
of whichHe lateron created
to whichGod createdfirstchaoticmatter,
and organizedtheuniverse).Theodotionand Aquilas rendertheexpressiontohuwa-bohu
()and quitedifferently:
The difference
and
betweentheserenderings
respectively.50
thoseof theSeptuagintis evident.DevorahDimanthas arguedthatthe
of the Septuagintto thoseof Theodotionand
shiftfromtherendering
Aquila reflectsthe emergenceof the conceptionof creatioex nihilo:
of the Templehas the
Dimantarguesthat"onlyafterthe destruction
(theological)atmospherechanged(i. e., the notionof creatioex nihilo
has emerged- M. K.) ... Aquilas, Symmachosand Theodotionwere
of the
theirtranslations
all of the same periodof timeand therefore
It maytherefore
be assumed
verseseemto belongto thatatmosphere.
of
thatthethreeof themdesiredto changethe Old Greektranslation
our versecompletelyin orderto emphasizethat the creationof the
matter."51
Suchsuggestions
worldwas ex nihiloand notfromprimordial
Weiss.52
It
should
be noted,anyhavealreadybeen strongly
rejectedby
for
the
11
1
is
much
that
the
use
of
older,as it
phrase
way,
of Jeremiah
4:23. The senoccursalreadyin theSeptuaginttranslation
tenceirm 1nam fnxn rmTina is renderedin theSeptuagint:48 Ireneus,AgainstHereseis, 1.28 (Sancti IreniLibros quinqueadversushaereses
ed. W.W. Harvey [Cambridge: Typis Academicis, 1857] 227; English translation:
ANF I, 354).
49 Salvesen noted a
Homilies(6:3); see A. Salvesen,
parallel in Pseudo-Clementine
Symmachusin thePentateuch(JSS Monographs15; Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,1991), 1-2.
50F. Field, OrigenisHexaplorumquae supersunt,7; J.W. Wevers,Genesis,Septuaginta: Vetus TestamentumGraecum 1 (Gttingen:Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,1974),
75.
51D. Dimant, "A
Fragmentof a Lost Targumin the Light of the Septuagint,"
Studiesin Bible and Exegesis3 (1993), 12-30,especially129 (in Hebrew).
52Weiss, Untersuchungen,
74. The word ("nothing")rendersin the Septuagintotheroccurrencesof the Hebrewword1 in the senseof thingsof no value (for
havebeen arguedthatthe
instance1 Samuel 12:21; Isaiah 40:17, 23); it could therefore
of Theodotionand Aquila reflecta translationtechniqueratherthan theorenderings
althoughthisdoes not seem to me verylikely.
logical thinking,
(2007)
241
.The wordstandshereforthe
twowordstohuwa-bohu.53Sincetheword does not fitthecontextoftheversein Jeremiah,
and therefore
can hardlybe a paraphrase,
I
believethatthetranslator
of Jeremiah
in theSeptuagintalreadyunderstood tohuwa-bohuin thesamewayas Theodotion,and thatthisinterof Genesis 1:2 is reflected
in his rendering
of
pretation(or translation)
If thissuggestion
Jeremiah.
is correct,we mustconsiderably
back
push
thedate of theexegeticaltraditionrecordedin Theodotionand Aquila.
The Hexaplaricrendering
of bothtohuand belima(Job26:7) by
has also beennotedbyHahnhart,who remarks:"themeaningof
is open. It can be understoodeitheras a definition
of thatwhichwas
forthecreatoror as designating
creationas thefirstact."54
pre-existent
It seemsinadequateto concludefromtheserenderings
thattheirauthors
believedin creatioex nihiloin the strictsense;yetthe comparisonof
Theodotionand Aquila to theSeptuaginton theone handand to Symmachuson theotherhand is illuminating.
II
At thispointwe mustaddressanotherdifficulty
posedbyGenesis1:1-3,
eleperhapsa moreprofoundone: does Genesis1:2 describeprimordial
ments,suchas darknessand abyss,whichexistedbeforecreation?How
are theseelementsrelatedto God, i. e., are theyeternal,coexistent
with
createdbyGod? The wordingofthebiblical
God, or weretheseelements
versesdoes not giveus a reasonforchoosingthelatter.To be sure,the
beliefin primordialelementsfromwhichthe Cosmos has emerged,or
was created,is sharedby manycultures.Yet, the idea thatprimordial
elementscoexistedwithGod (fromwhichit followsthatGod was not
theonlyeternalentitybeforeCreation)maybe potentially
moreproblematicfora monotheistic
The
author
of
does
Genesis,however,
religion.
not give us a clue about the way in whichhe coped withthis subtle
theologicalquestion,ifhe recognizedit at all.
Otherbiblicalversesmakedifferent
thusDeutero-Isaiah
statements;
speaksof God as -|Wn*mm 1 (Isaiah 45:7). Is thisversea reac53I have consideredit
unlikelythat the Septuagintwas based on a textlacking
eitherthe word bohu or the word tohu(in my articlementionedin the asterisknote,
thisis also the preference
of van Ruiten,"Back to Chaos,"
64, n. 135). Independently,
22 n. 2 .
54R. Hanhart,"The Traditionof the
Septuagintin the Lightof EarlierTraditions
and SubsequentInfluences,"in G. Brookeet al. (ed.), Septuagint,Scrolls,and Cognate
(Atlanta,Ga.: ScholarsPress,1992), 366-68.
Writings
242
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
is it
tionto thestoryof creationin Genesis1, as has been suggested,55
based on a different
accountof creation,or is it a reactionto Zoroasof stutriandualisticideas? Be thatas it may,at least forgenerations
dentsof the Bible,who had beforethemboth versesas a part of the
foranotherreading
Isaiah 45:7 could serveas a trigger
Holy Scriptures,
of Genesis 1:2, accordingto whichtheelementsmentionedin Genesis
1:2 werecreatedby God.
In theBook ofJubileeswe read:
Foron thefirst
dayHe createdtheheavensthatareabove,theearth,the
whoservebeforeHim,namelytheangels... the
and all thespirits
waters,
in
whichHe prepared
and dawnand lightand theevening
darkness
depths,
did He makeon thefirstday.
... forsevengreatcreations
His knowledge56
(2:2-3)
The motiveforadding the creationof all the elementsmentionedin
Genesis 1:1-2 to God's creationon the firstday is the feelingthatit
elements.
mustbe emphasizedthattherewereno uncreatedprimordial
The existenceof uncreatedelementswas feltby theauthorof theBook
to be a theologicalproblem.Exegeticalproblemsin Genesis1
ofJubilees
statedthatdarknesswas created
or Isaiah 45:7,57in whichit is explicitly
to the emergenceof thisexegeticalline
by God could also contribute
(althoughwe haveno good evidenceforthis).
ratherirrelevant
forour study,will
One detailthatmaylook,at first,
mentioned
here.
The Book of
and shouldbe
turnout to be significant,
firstday,
created
on
the
total
number
of
seven
Jubileesgivesthe
things
butincludesalso "dawn"and "evening"in thelistof thethingscreated
on thefirstday.
As has beennoticed,Philohas a striking
parallelto thepassagein the
Book of Jubileesconcerningthe thingscreatedon the firstday.58He
writes:
55Thus M. Weinfeld,"God the Creatorin Gen. 1 and in the Prophecyof Second
Isaiah," Tarbiz37 (1968)123 (in Hebrew).
56The sentence darkness. . . His knowledge is translatedaccordingto a Hebrew
fragmentof the Book of Jubileesdiscoveredin Qumran (4Q216 V, 4-11); see J.C.
VanderKam and IT. Milik, "4Q216," QumranCave 4. VIII: ParabiblicalTexts,Part
I, DJD 13 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994), 13-16. The Ethiopietextof Jubilees is somewhatdifferent
(J.C. VanderKam, The Book ofjubilees [Louvain: Peeters,
1989; CSCO 510 = SJE 87] 7-8).
57
of theBible(CambridgeMass.: HarvardUniverCompareJ.L. Kugel, Traditions
sityPress,1998) 60-63.
58A. Epstein,"Le Livredes Jubils,Philonet le MidraschTadsch?RE J 21 (1890),
83-85. Cf.M. Schwabe,"Philo's De opiflciomundi45 (I, 4, 20ff.),"Yediotha-Makhon
le-Madde'eha-Yahadut,2 (1925), 81 n. 1 (in Hebrew).
(2007)
243
First,then,the Makermade an incorporeal

heaven,and an invisible
earth,and theessentialformof air and void.To theone he gavethename
of'Darkness,'sincetheairwhenleftto itself,
is black.The otherhe named
and vastdepths.Next(He
'abyss,'forthevoid is a regionof immensity
essenceof waterand life-breath
and, to crownall,
made)theincorporeal
oflight.Thisagain,theseventh
in order,59
was an incorporeal
dispattern,
cernible
whichwereto
onlybythemind,of thesunand of all luminaries
comeintoexistence
heaven.{De opificio
mundi29).
throughout
Philodoes notdiscussherethecreationofmaterialworld,butratherthe
creationof thefirstIdeas. It is clear,however,thatthispassage representsthesameexegetical-theological
traditionfoundin theBook of Jubilees.Philoreflects
herea midrash
thaton thefirstdayGod createdthe
thatin
darkness,thedepths,thewaterand thewind,notwithstanding
Genesis 1:2 it is not writtenthattheseelementswerecreated.Those
elementsreceivein Philo's passage a philosophicalinterpretation,
but
notto theextentthatitneatlyfitsparadigmssuchas thefourelements.60
In thesepassagesofPhilo,we encounter
an ambiguity
similarto theone
in theBook ofJubilees:Philo emphasizesthenumbersevenon theone
hand,buton theotherhandhe adds to thesesevenideas createdon the
firstday"themeasureoftime"( ),theideas ofmorningand evening{De opificiomundi35). Philo and theBook of Jubilees
share,then,not onlytheseventhingscreatedon thefirstday,but also
the same ambiguity
concerningtwo additionalmembersin the list of
created
on
the
firstday.If thesetwocreations("dawn" and "evethings
and
ning,""morning evening"in theBook ofJubileesand PhilorespecGod createdninethingson thefirstday.
tively)are numbered,
A rabbinicparallelhas also beennoted:
RavJudahsaidinthenameofRav:Tenthings
werecreated
onthefirst
day,
andthesearethey:heavenandearth,tohu,
windand
bohu,lightanddarkness,
themeasure
ofdayandthemeasureofnight.{BT Hagigah12a).61
water,
In thisearlyamoraicsaying(thirdcentury
CE) itis stated,inverysimilar
languageto thatof Philo,that"themeasureof day and themeasureof
59The count is thus:heaven,earth,darkness,
depth,wind,water,light;see below.
60I fully
agree withDavid Runia's statement:"even the conclusionthatPhilo introducesheretheformsof thefourelementsis doubtful."(D. Rumia,Philo of Alexandria On the Creationof the Cosmos accordingto Moses (Leiden: Brill,2001) 172. I
attributeit,however,to themidrashictraditionon whichPhilo based his philosophical
discussionin thispassage.
61See above,n. 58. For a moreelaborated
studyof thehistoryof thistraditionand
its connectionto the Book of Jubileessee M. Kister,"AggadicTraditionsand Exegeticalmethodsin the Literatureof the Second TemplePeriod and in MidrashicLiterature,"HigayonVYonah: New Aspectsin the Studyof Midrash,Aggadahand Piyutin
Honorof Prof Yona Fraenkel(Jerusalem:Magnes,2007) 241^5 (in Hebrew).
244
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
night"werecreatedon thefirstday.The listcontains,unliketheBookof

Jubilees
and Philo,tohuwa-bohu,
butsurprisingly
lackstheabyss(tehom).
The additionof tohuwa-bohuto thelistis easyto explain:above,in the
firstsectionof thisarticle,we saw thattheexpressiontohuwa-bohuhad
beeninterpreted
eitheras thestateof theearth(thustheSeptuagint,
the
several
midrashim
and
also
the
Book
or
as
a
targumim,
of Jubilees)
priin theBookofEnochand explicitly
mordialentity(apparently
in several
The omissionof tehomin all thetextwitnesses
ofBT Hagiga
midrashim).
is puzzling.A carefuland detailedcomparisonof theparallelpassages
- tohuwa-bohu
revealsthatthereasonfortheadditionoftwomembers
to thelist,and theomissionof tehom,is due to thefactthatthecreated
in pairsand thattheirsumtotalneededto be ten.
thingswerenumbered
The omissionis not a deliberate,calculatedone but rathercaused by
of thetextat a veryearlystage(sinceit is attested
corrupttransmission
in all themanuscripts
of theTalmudto thispassage).
A similartraditionis foundin Pirqede-RabbiEliezer ch. 3:
werecreatedon thefirst
Eightthings
day,and thesearethey:heavenand
tohuand bohu,windand water.
. . Somesay:also
earth,lightand darkness,
dayand night.
Thisis thesamelistas in theTalmud(includingtheomissionof tehom),
but the two last membersare distinguished
here fromthe list of the
othereightcreations.This is reminiscent
of the listof sevencreations
to whichtwowereadded in theBook ofJubileesand in Philo.62It may
wellbe thatthewordingof Pirqede-RabbiEliezer represents
an older
formof the tradition,whichwas altereddue to the influenceof the
BabylonianTalmud(or of thetraditionrecordedin it).
For our studyit is important
to notethatthefoursources- namely
the Book of Jubilees,Philo,the sayingin the BabylonianTalmudand
Pirqede-RabbiEliezer - sharenot onlythegeneralnotionthattheelementsmentionedin Genesis 1:2 werecreatedby God, but also similar
featuresthatare likewiseexpressed(namelythenumbersevenand the
additionof "measureof day and measureof night,"or "dawnand eveone tradition.
Thereare no
ning,"to thelist).All ofthesesourcesreflect
tracesthatthistraditionhad polemicalovertones.
62Some
manuscriptslack thewords"Some say". It could be arguedthatthisis an
additionaccordingto the BabylonianTalmud. The sentenceoccurs,however,in good
textwitnessesof Pirqe de-RabbiEliezer (Yemenitemanuscripts,
a Genizah fragment)
as well as in a poem by thepaaytan Re'uven writtenabout the middleof the eleventh
centuryCE (citedfromMa'agarim [above,n. 63]): ,1?TlWiOnUV2 , "DH
mim ma mrp" ip d*i mm imxi imn -|nm m*o n*ni Dâwn :nnnw onm
"T^V 3"H^TTr1?*73fryTU'*1?
on UV nrai ."-|tmn(accordingto Ma'agarim,the
electronicconcordanceof the HistoricalDictionary).
(2007)
245
Bar Kappara taughtthatheavenand earth,mentioned

in Genesis1:1,
werecreatedout oftheelementsmentioned
inverse1:2 {GenesisRabbah
1:5 [ed. TheodorAlbeck,3]). On the otherhand, Rabban Gamali'el
of the versessugarguedvehemently
againsta similarinterpretation
him
to
a
Rabbah
1:9
Algested
by philosopher(Genesis
[ed. TheodorThis
conversation
will
be
the
of
our
discussion
beck,8).
below,
subject
sectionIII. The notionthatthe primordialelementswerecreatedby
God was not a well-established
doctrinein Judaismformanycenturies.
More generalstatements
are foundin HellenisticJewishwritings
of
theSecondTempleperiod.The authoroftheSecondBookofMaccabees
statesthatGod "made heavenand earthout of thingsnon-existent
(
)"(2 Maccabees7:28), "buthere,again,thequestionmaybe
raised ... whetherthe 'thingsnon-existent'
are absolutelyor relatively
as Wolfsonputs it.63In otherwords:the thingsare not
non-existent,"
consideredexistent
beforetheyare formed,
butthisdoes notnecessarily
meanthattheauthorbelievedin thedoctrineof creatioex nihiloin the
strictsense.Philo'swritings64
pose a similarproblemforthestudentsof
thePhiloniccorpus.65
It is not quite clearhow Philo reconciledGreek
withhis monistic-monotheistic
thinking
emphasis.66
Similarstatements
occur in the Syriac Apocalypseof Baruch21:4
("the one who in thebeginningof theworldcalled thatwhichdid not
63H.A. Wolfson,Philo
(Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1962), 1.303.
64 See thereferences
givenbyG. May,Creatioex nihilo:TheDoctrineof 'Creationout
ofNothing'inEarlyChristianThought(Edinburgh: & Clark, 1994) 16 nn. 65-67.
65J.A. Goldstein,//Maccabees: A New TranslationwithIntroduction
and Commentary(New York: Doubleday, 1983) 307-15; idem, "CreationEx Nihilo:Recantations
and Restatements,"
JJS,38 (1987), 188-89; D. Winston,"The Book of Wisdom'sTheoryof Cosmogony,"Historyof Religions11 (1971), 185-202,especially187-191 (the
citedsentenceis on p. 191); idem.,"CreationEx NihiloRevisted:A Replyto Jonathan
Goldstein,"JJS,37 (1986), 91; May, Creatioex nihilo;J.C.O'Neil, "How Early is the
doctrineof 'Creatioex nihilo'?",JTS 53 (2002) 449-65 (and therea surveyof scholarship). For an interesting
parallelin rabbinicliteratureforthe argumentfromcreation
see M. Kister,"Law, Moralityand Rhetoricin Some Sayings
concerningresurrection,
of Jesus,"in J.L. Kugel (ed.), Studiesin AncientMidrash(CambridgeMass.: Harvard
Press,2001) 147.
University
66See, e. Wolfson,Philo 1.300-316,D. Winston,"The Book of Wisdom's
g.,
Theory
of Cosmogony,"HR 11 (1971), 185-202'; idem,Philo of Alexandria:The ContemplativeLife,The Giants,and Selections(London: SPCK, 1981) 7-13 (and notes,302-5);
May, Creatio ex nihilo,9-21, A.M. Wolters,"Creatio ex nihilo in Philo," in WE.
Hellema (ed.), HellenizationRevisited:Shapinga ChristianResponsewithintheGrecoRoman World(Lanham: Universityof America, 1994), 107-124. The solution suggested in this article,that we must accept inconsistenciesin Philo, is plausible,but
theassumptionthat"thedoctrine[ofcreatioex nihilo-. .] is implicitin thebiblical
accountof creation"(121) and thattheissue is a testforPhilo's commitment
to Jewish
and biblicaltheology(110) are not correct.
246
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
exist")and 48:8 ("and withthewordyou bringto lifethatwhichdoes

notexist").An abstractwordingis foundin a Samaritansource,perhaps
fromthefifth
centuryCE, whichreads:"You createdtheworldwithout
You
anypartner. drewfromit creaturesfromwheretherewas nothing"
as it is,thisstatement
is
nx*?n).67
(n^7 1] "rm*?7!D
Interesting
in 2 Maccabees.
as ambiguousas thestatement
to note thatthe emphasisthatGod made the
It seemsworthwhile
worldout of nothingis sharedby sourcesof different
provenancesuch
as Philo, the Apocalypseof Baruch,2 Maccabees and the Samaritan
sources.Evenifone assumesthattheydid nothavein mindthedoctrine
ofcreatioex nihiloin thestrictsense,one mustconcludethattheynonethelessfelttheneed to stressGod's roleas an absolutecreator.68
The problemof the role of matter(as such) in creationcan be formulatedonlyin therealmofGreekphilosophicaldiscourse.69
According
to the Wisdomof Solomon,God "createdthe worldout of formless
matter"(11:17). In an earlytreatiseof Philo thisproblemis connected
to theexegeticalproblemof Genesis1:2. He writes:
thatunadorned
matter
has beenturnedintothecosPlatorecognized...
mos...Forthesewerethefirst
causes,fromwhichalso thecosmoscameinto
oftheJews,
darkness
Moses,described
water,
being.Sincealso thelawgiver
beforethecosmoscameintobeing.ButPlato
andtheabyssas beingpresent
ThaestheMilesian- ofwater...etc.(De providentia
1.22).70
spokeofmatter,
in Genesis1:2
mentioned
herethattheprimordial
elements
Philoaffirms
elements
are equivalentto thePlatonic"matter"and to theprimordial
Philodid notdeveloptheexegetical
ofseveralotherGreekphilosophers.
potentialof De providentia1.22 in his laterworks,and this passage
cannot be easily harmonizedwithDe opificiomundi29, cited above
1.22
(p. 243).71Althoughisolatedin thePhilonicuvre,De providentia
in thatit is theearliestevidenceof thenew twistthatthe
is significant
problemof primordialelementsin creationhas taken:it becomesthe
problemof creationout of matter.Philo assumesin thispassage that
matter.Once the equation between
Genesis 1:2 describespre-existent
67Marqe, poem no. 10 in Ben-Hayyim'scollection(Literaryand Oral Tradition,
197). On the doctrineof creationin Samaritansources,see Weiss, Untersuchungen,
129-133.
68Compare May, Creatioex nihilo,21-22.
69The difference
betweenthe creationof primordialelementsand the creationof
matterin generalshouldnot be overlooked.It could be easilyarguedthatGod created
the abyss,the waterand the otherprimordialelementout of non-createdmatter.
70Accordingto Runia's translationfromthe Armenian(D. Runia, Philo of Alexandriaand the Timaeusof Plato (Leiden: Brill,1986), 119-20.
71See Runia, Philo of Alexandriaand the Timaeus,156-57.
(2007)
247
elementsand matterwas made,theold solution(of the

theprimordial
could
BookofJubilees),
accordingto whichGod createdthoseelements,
of
doctrine
to
the
be "translated"almostautomatically
philosophical
we
shall
in
Philo's
but
as
not
done
nihilo.12
It
was
ex
creatio
works,
see thisis exactlywhathappenedin earlyChristianliterature.
presently
Ill
In GenesisRabah 1:9 (p. 8) we read:
askedRabbanGamalielsayingto him:"YourGod
A certain
philosopher
whichaswas indeeda greatartist,butsurelyHe foundgood pigments73
sistedHim."He [RabbanGamaliel]saidto him,"Whatwerethey?"He [the
said, "Tohu,bohu,darkness,water,wind,and the depth
philosopher]
(mnn)." He [RabbanGamaliel]said to him:"Woeto you,"he exclaimed.
in connection
withall of them.
"The term'creation'is used by Scripture
/makepeaceandcreateevil(Isaiah
tohuandbohu(itis written):
Concerning
formlightand createdarkness'
darkness(it is written)
45:7);concerning
'PraiseHim,heavensofheavensand
water(itis written)
(ibid.);concerning
yewatersthatareabovetheheavensandthewater'why?'ForitwasHe who
wind(it is
thattheybe created'(Psalms145:4-5);concerning
commanded
themountains
andcreatesthewind'(Amos
'Behold,He whoforms
written)
'Whentherewereno depths,I
thedepth(it is written)
4:13); (concerning)
forth'"(Proverbs
was brought
8:24).
historicalconclusions
Primafacie, one should not draw far-reaching
fromthisisolatedstory,as fromany otherstoryin rabbinicliterature:
thename
thewordingof suchstorieschangedduringoral transmission,
of one rabbicould be replacedby another,and we knownothingabout
of theargument.
thecircumstances
Urbach believesthat in Rabban Gamaliel's reply"thereis a clear
rejectionof theconceptionof thecreationof theworldout of uncreated
was. However,he notonly
matter.
We do notknowwhothephilosopher
to findsupbutevenattempts
maintainsthedoctrineof eternalmatter,
portforit in the Bible; hencea JewishsectarianCp) is probablyreferredto."74Winston,however,
argues:"Rabban GamalielIPs formula72To reconcilethisdoctrinewiththe ancientGreek philosophicalassumptionthat
"nothingcomes out of nothing"is, of course,a heavyphilosophicaltask.
73In Hebrew:sayyar... sammanim.For the termscompare TanhumaNaso 4; Ps.Melito in Syriac (ed. W. Cureton,SpicilegiumSyriacum[London, 1855] p. 26*). The
wordsayyarmeans literallyhe who makes forms(sar sura), as in Mekhiltade-Rabbi
307 (ed. Finkelstein,
Yishma'elShira 8 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin,144); SifreDeuteronomy
344).
74Urbach, The Sages, 188.
248
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
tioncame onlyundertheimpactof a polemicwithsomeonewho was

to thephilosopher,
attributed
The formulation
undoubtedly
gnostic."75
"He foundgood pigmentswhichassistedHim," does not supportthe
idea thathe was a Gnostic,since one would hardlyexpecta Gnostic
to describematteras "good." Indeed,it is ofteninadequateto draw
fromthe wordingof an opponentpresentedin a midsuch inferences
thereare otherreasonsto
demonstrated,
but,as willbe presently
rash;76
assumethattheopponentwas not a Gnostic.77
The philosopherpresenteda two-partargument:(a) God is to be
who createswiththehelp of existingmaterials;
likenedto a craftsman
of Genesis1:2.
and (b) It is possibleto learnthisfromtheformulation
Both parts of this argumentcan be foundin a lengthydiscourseof
by Eusebius.Thus wroteOrigen:78
Origen,whichhas beenpreserved
hecannotadmit
ofhumanartists,
because
Ifitis difficult
to anyonethat,
worldwithout
theexisting
thatGod furnished
anysubstra()
make
can a statuary
sinceneither
ofunoriginated
tum()
matter,
nor a
withouttimber,
his properworkwithoutbronze,nor a carpenter
we mustquestionhim. ..
builderwithout
stones,79
75D. Winston,"The Book of Wisdom's Theoryof Cosmogony,"Historyof Religions 11 (1971), 185-202, especially187-191 (the cited sentenceis on p. 191); idem.,
"CreationEx NihiloRevisted:A Replyto JonathanGoldstein,"JJS,37 (1986), 91. For
a different
opinion,see JonathanGoldstein,"Creation Ex Nihilo: Recantationsand
JJS,38 (1987), 188-89.
Restatements,"
76Clearly,it was not the philosopherwho chose the expression,but the midrash,
This is, of course,truewithregardto
whichhas reachedus aftera long transmission.
in generaland to everydetail of rabbinictraditions,
thewordingin talmudicliterature
can be established.
unlessits originality
77Winston
arguesthattheuse of theverbsiyyeameans"activelyassisted[intheact
of creation],"and thatit was particularlythisuse by the "philosopher"thataroused
Rabban Gamaliel's anger (see Winston,"Theory of Cosmogony,"191 n. 20; idem,
"Creationex Nihilo" 91), but see Goldstein'sconclusiverebuttal,(Goldstein,"Creationex Nihilo," 189).
78Origenapparentlywrotethispassage in his commentary
to Genesiswhichis no
longerextant.It is preservedin Eusebius,PraeparatoEvanglica,VII, 20 (ed. . Mras,
GCS 43/1[Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1954],pp. 402-403). The Englishtranslationused
EusebiiPamphiliEvangelicaepraeparationis
is E. H. Gifford,
(Oxford:ClarendonPress,
du Com1903),363-64. For an analysisof thispassage see H. Crouzel,"Un fragment
mentairesurla Gense d'Origeneet la crationde la matire partirdu nant,"Agathe
inonoredi UgoBianchi(d. G. S. Gasparro;Rome: BretschElpis: Studistorico-religiosi
neider,1994), 417-25 (Dr. Clemens Leonhard, in the name of Harald Buchinger,
broughtthisdiscussionof Origen'spassage to myattention).
79The same idea is expressedat theconclusionof Origen'sargument:"In answerto
those who compare the fact that no workmanmakes anythingwithoutmaterial,we
mustsay thattheyare comparingdissimilarcases." The argumentseemsto be tackled
II.4 (pp. 26-27). He arguesagainst
alreadyby Theophilusof Antioch,Ad Autolycum,
those who compare God to a craftsmanand deduce fromthiscomparisonthat God
matter:"Whatwouldbe remarkableifGod made theworld
musthaveused pre-existent
(2007)
249
At thispointOrigenembarkson a longphilosophicaldebate,whichhe
as follows:
summarizes
inanswerto thosewho,becauseitis said,
suffice
Thisthenwillat present
andunarranged"
"Andtheearthwasinvisible
(Genesis1:2 LXX), thinkthat
material
substance
)is unoriginated
(
of
and theend ofOrigen'sdiscourserevealthearguments
The beginning
and (b) thededuchisopponent:(a) theanalogyto a humancraftsman
is rathercloseto the
tionfromGenesis1:2.80Thisdoubleargumentation
in
Genesis
Kabbah.
It
of
the
should,
however,be
saying
philosopher
notedthatOrigen'sargumentis purelyphilosophical,whereasRabban
continuesalongtheancient,
Gamaliel'sdiscussionwiththephilosopher
linesof theargument
thecreationof primordial
well-known
concerning
elements.
Fromthecourseof Origen'slongdiscussionit is clearthathis
opponentwas nota Gnostic.Bothhe and hisopponentagreeon a great
numberof assumptionsthat were totallyunacceptableto Gnostics.
it followsthathis opponentdid notconsider
(FromOrigen'sarguments
and thathe did not regardthegod of creationas infermatteras evil,81
ior to thesupremegod. It is also clearthattheopponentdid not attriin Genesis1:2.) Indeed,the
buteanyactiveroleto themattermentioned
in lightof thecraftsman
of matter,
anaveryproofforthepre-existence
logy,was alreadystatedby Cotta in a lostpartof On theNatureof the
Godsof Cicero,as an argument
againstStoic philosophy:
itis notprobablethatthematerial
substance
fromwhich
First,therefore,
was createdbydivineprovidence,
butthatit has and
all thingsare derived
thecarpenter
when
has had a forceand natureof its own.As therefore
maketimber
butemploys
thatwhich
aboutto builda housedoesnothimself
and thesamewiththemodellerand hiswax,so your
has beenprepared,
divineprovidence
oughtto havebeen suppliedwithmatternot made by
out of pre-existent
matter( )?Even a humancraftsman,
whenhe
obtainsmaterialfromsomeone,makeswhateverhe wishesout of it." In thisparagraph,
Theophilusarguesagainstphilosophicalsystems(Stoics,Epicureansand Platonistsare
mentioned;see the references
integratedin Grant's translationof Theophilus).
80For a refutation
of similaropponents,see Basil Hexameron,2:2: "But thecorruptersof truth,who . . . distortat will the meaningof the Holy Scriptures,
pretendthat
thesewords( )mean matter.For it is matter,theysay,
whichfromitsnatureis withoutformand invisible...The povertyof humanexperience
has deceivedthesereasoners.Each of our craftsis exercisedupon some specialmatterthe art of the smithupon iron,thatof the carpenteron wood... Such is the idea that
theymake forthemselvesof the divinework." (tr. BlomfieldJackson,NPNF 8 [Peabody,Mass.: Hendrickson,1994]59). Basil argues:"He (i. e., God) is not the inventor
of figures,
but thecreatoreven of the essence() of being"(2.3; ET 60); compare
the termsayyarused in GenesisRabbah (cf. above,n. 73).
81See also Crouzel,"Un
424.
fragment,"
250
Kister
Menahem
JSQ 14
was notmadebygod,earth,
Butifmatter
itselfbutgivento it ready-made.
airand firealso werenotmadebygod.82
water,
As for
to the argumentin GenesisRabbah is striking.
The similarity
a
he
was
whether
determine
to
is
hard
it
pagan
Origen'sopponent,
based his argument
who,forthepurposesof thepolemic,83
philosopher
on Genesis1:2,or a Christianwho had acceptedphilosophicalassumptheBibleaccordingto them.Be thatas itmay,in a
tionsand interpreted
laterperiod,JuliantheApostatesoughtsupportin thisverseforpolyand interprets
in polemicswithJewsand Christians,
theisticarguments
AfterJulianquotesthefirstversesof
to matter.
Genesis1:2 as referring
Genesishe continues:
Mosesdoesnotsaythatthedeepwascreatedby
In all this,youobserve,
light
God, or thedarknessor thewaters.Andyet,aftersayingconcerning
thatGod orderedit to be,and it was,surelyhe oughtto havegoneon to
speakofnightalso,and thedeepand thewaters.Butofthemhe saysnota
at all... It followsthat,
wordto implythattheywerenotalreadyexisting
butis
thatis incorporeal,
ofnothing
to Moses,God is thecreator
according
existed
that
matter
of
the
(
already
disposer
only
form'
andwithout
).Forthewords,'Andtheearthwas invisible
matter.84
this
of
as
the
God
...
introduce
1:2
disposer
(Genesis LXX)
of Rabban Gamaliel,"The term'creation'is used by
The formulation
an answerto Juin connectionwithall of them,"constitutes
Scripture
to Genesis
lian'sobjection.The wordingof Ephremin hisCommentary
or notthetermcreawhichwas created,whether
is similar:"Everything
we-'en la ktiva)
it ( 'enktivabritheh
tionis used by Scriptureregarding
was createdin thesesix day."85
of
In thesepassages,we can see illuminating
parallelsto thestatement
of theChurchFathers
thephilosopherin GenesisRabbah.The writings
82This passage is no longerextant,but is quoted by Lactantius(Institutiones
divinae, II, 3, 2). Englishtranslationaccordingto H. Rackham,Cicero- De NaturaDeorbetweenthe formaum,(LCL; London, 1967), 385. There is a recognizablesimilarity
in Origen's
tionof theargumentin thepassage fromCicero and thecounter-arguments
philosophicaldiscussion(I do not attemptto decide againstwhom preciselyOrigen's
argumentswereaimed).
83Crouzel ("Un fragment,"
419) arguesthatthecitationfromthe Bible by Ongen s
opponentindicatesthatthe latter'sargumentswerenot directlyaimed at pagan philosophers,but ratheragainstChristianswho had had a philosophicaleducation.
84Julian,Againstthe Galileans,49D-E, and see also 96E regardingthe 'spiritof
God.' (The Worksof the EmperorJulian,III, pp. 330-333). Halevi has pointed out
in GenesisRabbah;see A. A. Halevi
to thecontroversy
theparallelof Julian'sstatement
1973],17 (in
[Haifa: Haifa University,
ba-aggadale-ormeqorotyevaniyyim
(Parshiyyot
Hebrew).
85Sancti EphraemSyri in Genesimet in Exodumcommentaru
1.5 (ed. K.-M. lonneau; Louvain: Peeters,1955; CSCO, 152 = Sc. Syr.71) 10.
(2007)
251
also supplyus withan exactparallelto a proofsimilarto thatofRabban

Gamalielin his answerto thephilosopher,
to theeffectthatthethings
listedin Genesis1:2 werecreatedby God. This parallel,broughtto my
attention
bymystudentDr. ClemensLeonhard,can be foundin a statementof Tertullianat thebeginning
of thethirdcenturyCE. Tertullian
makes his statementagainstHermogenes,a hereticwho rejectedthe
doctrineof creatioex nihilo}6Tertulliansays:
It is therefore
becauseof suchpersons,thatScripture
in otherpassages
teachesus ofthecreation
oftheindividual
parts.You haveWisdomsaying,
'Butbeforethedepthswas I brought
8:24 LXX) in order
forth,'
(Proverbs
thatyou maybelievethatthedepthswerealso 'broughtforth'- thatis,
created... Of darkness,
indeed,theLord Himself
byIsaiahsays, formed
thelight,
andI createddarkness.'
(Isaiah45:7LXX). Ofthewindalso Amos
thethunder,
and creates(condit)thewind,and
says,'He thatstrengthens
declaresHis Annointed
untomen;'(Amos4:13 LXX) thusshowingthat
thatwindwas createdwhichwas reckoned
withtheformation
of theearth,
whichwaswaftedoverthewaters,
and animating
balancingand refreshing
all things:not,as somesuppose,meaningGod Himselfby thespirit...In
likemannerthesame Wisdomsaysof thewaters,'Also whenHe made
fountains
strong(firmos
ponebat),thingswhichare underthe sky,I was
themalongwithHim.'(Proverbs
8:28-30LXX)87
(modulans)
fashioning
The greatsimilarity
betweenthetwotexts,Tertullianand GenesisRabbah,is clearnotonlyfromthemannerin whichtheproofsaregiven,but
also fromthe author'schoice of proof-texts.
The proof-texts
brought
fromProverbs8:24,Isaiah 45:7 and Amos4:13 are identical.The fourth
is different
in the two sources(and problematicin both of
proof-text
them).The connectionof Amos 4:13 to the subjectis of interestin
both Tertullianand GenesisRabbah:DTI*7X
1 is interpreted
in both
textsas meaningwind,as Tertullianclearlysays in thispassage (an
whichcontradicts
whathe sayselsewhere!).88
The connecinterpretation
tionbetweenthismidrashictraditionand RabbanGamaliel'sanswerto
thephilosopheris clear.
86Tertullianclaims,
perhapswithoutjustification,that Hermogenes'rejectionof
this doctrinestemmedprincipallyfrom(Stoic?) philosophers.(Contra Hermogenem,
I, 1, ed. A. Kroymann;Turnholt,1954 [CCSL 1] 397). On the linksbetweenHermogenes' argumentsand HellenisticJudaismsee May, Creatioex nihilo,144 (including
GenesisRabah 1:9).
87Tertullian,Contra
Hermogenem,I, 32 (p. 424). Translationaccording to D.
Holmes,ANF, 3 (eds. A. Robertsand J. Donaldson; Grand Rapids, Michigen:Eerdmans,1986),495-96. The wordmodulansin the Latin textof Tertullianis a translation
of the Greek in the Septuagint.
88On the contradictionin Tertullian,see: P. Nautin, "Gense 1, 1-2 de Justin
des premiersversetsde la Gense(ed. A. CaOrigene,"in: In Principo:Interpretations
the contradictionto
quot; Paris, 1973) 83. Nautin seems to be correctin attributing
252
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
In GenesisKabbah,a proof-text
is broughtforthecreationof tohuwain those sourcesas some entity.Philo and
bohu,whichis interpreted
Tertulliandid not have to botherthemselves
withfindinga proof-text
forthe creationof tohuwa-bohu,because in the texttheyused, the
thewordstohuwa-bohuare rendered:"And the earthwas
Septuagint,
unseenand unconstructed."
On theotherhand,Tertullian,
likeall who
reliedon theGreekBible,was forcedto facetheSeptuagint'sstatement
that"theearthwas unseenand unconstructed,"
whichservedas an imof Origen's
portanttextualproofforhis adversaries(see thestatement
opponent).Accordingto GenesisRabbah,thephilosopherrefersto the
Hebrewtext;to refutehim,RabbanGamaliel'sargument
uses theverse
"I makepeace and createevil"(Isaiah 45:7). The equationof "evil"and
tohuwa-bohu
is implicit,
butclear.89
We havealreadyseenabove(section
as earlyas theDead
I) thattheexpressiontohuwa-bohuwas interpreted
could thusbe
Sea scrollsas relatedto evil.RabbanGamaliel'sargument
as pursuingthisexegeticalline.However,it maywellbe that
interpreted
thewords"I makepeace and createevil"werechosenas theproof-text
continuation
of thephrase"I formlight
becausetheyare theimmediate
in Genesis
and createdarkness"whichis broughtas thenextproof-text
Kabbah.Accordingto thishypothesis,
thephilosopher'squestion,as it
did not includea questionabout tohuwawas originallyformulated,
bohu(in accordancewithan earlyexegeticaltraditionof thesewords,
attestedin Hebrew,Aramaicand Greeksources,Palestinianand nonPalestinian,as seen above in sectionI); whenthecomponenttohuwabohu was added because of anotherexegeticaltraditioninterpreting
thesewordsas substances,theclosestversealreadyused in theexposiin thispassage is also
sources.Tertullian'sinterpretation
Tertullian'suse of different
not necessarilydependenton Jewishtradition
foundin Christiancircles,and therefore
(see Ginzberg,Legendsof theJews,V, 7, n. 15; R. B. Ter Haar Romeny,A Syrianin
Greek Dress [Louvain: Peeters, 1997], 175-183, especially 181-183). See also S. P.
Brock,"The Ruah Elohimof Gen 1, 2 and itsReceptionHistoryin theSyriacChurch",
P.-M.
in J.-M.Auwersand A. Wnin(eds.), Lectureset relectures
de la Bible: Festschrift
Press,1999) 327-349. The assumption
Bogaert(BETL 144; Leuven: Leuven University
thattheruah 'elohimis windcan be foundin GenesisKabbah2:4 (p. 17); see also M. M.
Kasher's notesin his TorahShelemah,I (reprintJerusalem,1992),57, 302 (in Hebrew).
This assumptionis evidentin thepiyyuteAzB'einKol, 73, lines88-89): "You storedup
thatwhichhovers[i. e., thewind]in its fourdirectionsby measureand by weight[...]."
theallusionto Job28:25,
The reference
to thefourwindsof theworldand particularly
"When He fixedthe weightof the winds,and set the measureof thewaters,"leave no
doubt thatthe "spiritof God hoveringover the waters"(Genesis 1:2) is being interpretedas "wind".
89In an ancientquotationof thismidrash(CambridgeGenizah collection,T-S Ar
19.144),Isaiah 34:11 (wheretohuand bohuare mentioned)is citedbeforeIsaiah 45:7.
This maywell,however,be a secondaryreading.
(2007)
253
to fillthegap.
tion,Isaiah 45:7,couldbe extended,almostmechanically,
counterbalance
for
but
it
is
at
least
a
on
this
I do not insist
hypothesis,
from
the
conclusions
which
would
draw
the otherview,
far-reaching
expositionof Isaiah 45:7b in thistradition.
Anotherinteresting
parallelto thedisputebetweenRabbanGamaliel
The parallelis foundin
has beennotedbyWeiss.90
and thephilosopher
cent.CE). He is arguingagainsta
a workofNemesiusofEmessa(fourth
certainApolinarius:
thatGod createdheavenandearthoutoftheabyss,
suggests
Apolinarius
theabyssas comingintobeing( )
forMosesdid notmention
inthecreation
oftheworld.Butitis saidinJob:"He whomakestheabyss".
all theotherthingscameinto
thatout of it,as out of Matter,
He suggests
PG 40.628B)
being...(Nemesiusof Emessa,De naturahominis,
remarksthatthe polemichereis the same as in Rabban
Weissrightly
and we mayadd thatit is
Gamaliel's disputewiththe "philosopher,"
similarto thearguments
(and thewording)in thepassagesof Tertullian
and theoppois problematic,
and Ephremcitedabove.The proof-text
of theopponent- who is relatbutboththeargument
nentis different,
elementsas such- and
ingto "matter"in generalratherthanprimordial
are thesame.
itsrefutation
In a stimulating
article,Maren Miehoffsuggeststhe followingthesis
withTertullian's):91
(aftercomparingRabban Gamaliel'sargument
withthePhilosopher
his
Rabban
encounter
Thestoryof [i.e.,
Gamaliel's]
statements
to Gamalielwhichhe
is,I suggest,
attributing
pseudepigraphic,
froma latertimehas retroachimself
nevermade.A discoursestemming
beenassociatedwithhisperson.It was nottheTannaiticrabbi,who
tively
a philosopher
encountered
pleadingforcreatioex hyles,Instead,Amoraic
and
creatioex nihilotheology
withtheChristian
teachers
becamefamiliar
ideas
between"orthodox"and "heretical"
a similardichotomy
constructed
in theirowncommunity
...92
forthestoryin Genesis
thattheAmoraicscholarsresponsible
It emerges
Rabbah1:9 musthavebeen familiarwithChristianexegesis... Amoraic
whichoriginally
servedtodefinetheidena discourse,
scholarsappropriated
Rabearlierforms
ofChristianity...
Churchvis--vis
tityofthecrystallizing
binicscholarsoutlinedthe contoursof a proto-orthodox
synagogathat
wouldstandbesidetheecclesia.93
90Weiss.Untersuchungen,
158-59.
91 M. R. NiehofT,
"Creatioex Nihilo,Theologyin GenesisRabbahin Lightof Christian Exegesis",HTR 99 (2005) 37-64. I thankDr. NiehofTforshowingme her article
priorto its publication.
92NiehofT,"Creatio",49.
93NiehofT,"Creatio", 54.
254
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
are closelyrelated,as she explicitly

Niehoffsarguments
states,to Neusto thefinalredactionthan
moreimportance
ner'sattitudeto "attribute
to individual,possiblymuchearliertraditions"and to Neusner'sdereactionto the
mand that"GenesisKabbah be read as a systemmatic
the
otherhand,
On
in
the
Roman
Empire."94
changes
revolutionary
her articleis writtenin lightof the new approachaccordingto which
with
theformer
Judaismwas a sisterreligionto Christianity,
interacting
so
to
while
thelatterand ofteninfluenced
it,
speak,
walkingtogether,
by
in "the way(s) thatneverparted."It should be emphasized,however,
but
was notjust derivedfromsuchpresuppositions,
thatherargument
ratherbased on heranalysisof theJewishand Christiantexts.
generalattiDealing withthevalidityof each of theaforementioned
tudesis,ofcourse,farbeyondthescope of thisstudy.NiehofFsanalysis
of thisspecifictextsuggestswhatseemsat firstto be a neatsolutionto
of creatioex nihiloin rabbinicJudaism.
theproblemof thedevelopment
rethatancientJewishwritings
I triedto demonstrate
Above,however,
and thatthisis documenferredto thecreationof primordial
elements,
sincethesecondcentury
issueof religiousthinkers
ted as an important
wereborrowedand
BCE (theBook ofJubilees).EarlyJewisharguments
in thedoctrinal-philosophical
adaptedby ChurchFathersas arguments
issue of creatioex nihilo.Withouttheevidenceof theBook of Jubilees
of Genesis 1:2 and interpretation
forthe antiquityof thissensitivity
the
in
turn
to
understand
us
evidencethatenables
exegeticalcontextof
more
could
be
one
as
traditions
other
easilyinclinedto
(such Philo)
issue
The
solution.95
Niehoffs
may therefore
presentspecific
accept
and a caveatalso forothercases,forwhich
serveas a modesttest-case,
of theviewsfromSecondTemple
we do nothappento haveinformation
period.96
94Niehoff,"Creatio",45.
95Niehoffis rightin pointingout theuse ot Aramaicas indicatingthatthe storyin
the questionis whetherthisis onlya colouringof the
itsextantformis post-tannaitic;
as maywell be thecase, or whetherthisis an indicationthatthe storyis
transmission,
On theotherhand,herargumentthattheword"painter",applied to
pseudepigraphic.
God in GenesisRabbah,is similarto paintingimageryin Tertullian'streatisewhereit is
applied to his opponent(52-53) is not convincing;her argumentfrom"the curse formula in the thirdperson" (54) is untenable,forthisis the idiomaticway of expressing
Niehoffsanalysisof the othertwo passages fromGenesis
cursesin rabbinicliterature.
I believe,but the scope of the presentarticledoes not
Rabbah is also unconvincing,
allow to deal withher argumentsone by one.
96This does not mean, of course,that Christianity,
and Christianexegesis,could
to a sage in rabbinicliterature
not influencerabbinicJudaism,or thatany attribution
should be takenalwaysat face value.
(2007)
255
A major questionthatemergesis: were the argumentsof Rabban

Gamalielmoldedas a polemicagainstpaganphilosophers?
WereTertullian's arguments
moldedby his polemicwithHermogenes?
The polemical dimensionis certainly
much
felt
in
both
the
tradition
concernvery
Rabban
in
Gamaliel
and
the
Christian
One
could
have
ing
writings.
arrived
at
the
conclusion
that
the
were
motivated
easily
arguments
by
polemics.Such a conclusion,however,seemsto be false.The ancient
traditionof the Book of Jubileesimpliesthatthisis not the case: the
argumentthatall theelementsmentionedin Genesis 1:2 werecreated
by God on the firstday is attestedcenturiesbeforeRabban Gamaliel
and Tertullianin an intrinsic
Jewishcontextthatdoes not betrayany
theonlynoveltyin RabbanGamaliel's
polemicalovertones.
Apparently,
answerwas the biblicalproof-texts,
and they,too, may not have been
new.One of them,theassertionthatGod createddarknessaccordingto
Isaiah 45:7, was accessibleto anyonewho read the Bible carefullyin
and thisversealone could serveas a "proof" thatall the
Antiquity,
elements
in Genesis1:2 werecreatedbyGod, likedarkness;97
mentioned
the supplyof separateproof-texts
foreveryelementmentionedin this
verseis mainly,
so it seems,a matterof elegance.Whereasin thewriting
of theChurchFathersit is clearthatthedisputewas about theroleof
matterin creationand thedoctrineof creatioex nihilo,in themidrash
the philosopher'sargument(whichin all probability
was preoccupied
withthesameproblem)was typically
terms,as relatputin non-abstract
thediscussionof theancient
elements,
ingto theprimordial
continuing
problemalreadydealtwithin theBook ofJubilees.
Whenthe ancientsolutionwas adapted forpolemicalusage,in the
tradition
RabbanGamaliel'spolemicwitha certain(pagan?)
concerning
the
midrash
in whichitappearsdoes notconveytheagen"philosopher,"
da of thephilosopher.
Boththeargument
of thephilosopherin Genesis
Rabbahand theanswerof RabbanGamalielcan be foundalmostverbatimin thewriting
of twoearlyChurchFathersin thesecond-third
centuriesCE, Origenand Tertullian,as demonstrated
above. Those two
Christianthinkersdeal withthe philosophicalproblemof creatioex
nihilo,albeit against different
opponents.An examinationof this
midrashwithinthereligio-cultural
contextof theperiodcan contribute
97Cf.
Ephraem's argument:"The heavens,the earth,fire,wind and water were
created ex nihilo{men la medem)as Scripturetestifies... Fire, water and wind it is not said of
althoughit is not said of themthat theywere created,nevertheless
themthattheywerenot created.Thereforetheywerecreatedex nihilo{menla medem)
to
just as the heavensand the earth were createdex nihilo"(Ephrem, Commentary
Genesis,1.14,d. Tonneau, 16; apparentlyan argumentagainstBar-Daisan).
256
MenahemKister
JSQ 14
to its interpretation.
Such an examinationelucidatestheclose connectionbetweencontemporary
Jewish
and Christiansystems
ofthought.As
we haveseen,thearguments
weremoldedin SecondTempleJudaism,
as
as
the
second
and
occur
in
the
Book
Jubilees
BCE,
early
century
they
of
and are reflected
(in a different
guise)in a Philonicpassage.The argumentsthatservedJewsand Christiansso wellin theirpolemicagainst
opponentshad beencreatedbecauseof an intrinsic
exegeticaland theoout
of
1
Genesis
:2.
This
ancient
traditioncould
logicalproblemarising
fitverywellintoa debatewitha philosopher,
a
perhaps pagan one,who
1:2
Genesis
as
a
proof-text
brought
againstthe JewishGod being a
creatorratherthan "the disposerof matterthat alreadyexisted,"in
of God's powercould be answered
Julian'swords.Such diminishing
immediately
by the sages by a readyargumentthatwas in theirstock
forcenturies,althoughnot exactlya responseto the same question.
Otherdoctrinesof creatioex hylescould be similarly
answeredbyChristiansof thesame era.
Was therea doctrineof creatioex nihiloin ancientJudaism;and if
therewas sucha doctrine,
whenand in whichcirclesdid itemerge?How
was it related,ifat all, to theemergence
of thisdoctrinein Christianity?
It is verydifficult,
to answerthesequestions
probablyevenimpossible,
We can, however,
of exegeappropriately.
sagelytracethedevelopment
in Jewish
ticaland theologicalarguments
and Christiantextsand see the
in thiscase
commonheritageof thetworeligionsand itstransformation
It is notincidental
that
(as in manyothers)fromJudaismto Christianity.
the theologicalquestionlacks an answer,but fruitful
reserachcan be
and transformation
of traditions
conductedconcerning
thetransmission
theformer
is something
thatwe
and ideas in Judaismand Christianity:
wantto know,puttingthequestionin our terms;thelatteris whatthe
sourcescan tellus.

Tohu Va Bohu

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tohu Va Bohu

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Co.

and allow forseveralinterpretaThese sentencespose manydifficulties

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

In Genpassageverysimilarto Genesis1:2,as notedbycommentators).2

ofdesolationin Isaiah and Jeremiah

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

fortheabsenceis no doubtthat- similarto theSeptuagint,

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

whilein 1 Enochwe haveno clue that

34ronoaim nmran ... mammd**narroa nrunannx(iqh* y:ii-i4); ct.

35See the plausibleemendationsuggestedby Jacobson(H. Jacobson,A CommenBiblicarum[Leiden: Brill,1996] 1178-79).

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

"killed"(i. e., whenitswaterbecameblood,Exodus 7:19-25),therivers

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

3]).47These primordialelementsmay or may not be the "chaos" of

oViymtwn rnaVi*avin-di nvnix<n^n>x p v - -^ '

the Ophites,accordingto Ireneus.They teachthat"the elementswere

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

First,then,the Makermade an incorporeal

night"werecreatedon thefirstday.The listcontains,unliketheBookof

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

Bar Kappara taughtthatheavenand earth,mentioned

exist")and 48:8 ("and withthewordyou bringto lifethatwhichdoes

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

elementsand matterwas made,theold solution(of the

tioncame onlyundertheimpactof a polemicwithsomeonewho was

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

also supplyus withan exactparallelto a proofsimilarto thatofRabban

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

are closelyrelated,as she explicitly

Tohuwa-Bohu,PrimordialElementsand Creatioex Nihilo

A major questionthatemergesis: were the argumentsof Rabban

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi