Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Using "Chaos" in Articulating the Relationship of God and Creation in God's Creative Activity Eric Michael Vail Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Biblical Studies Commons Recommended Citation 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 trans carnate 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