Genesis 1:1–2 and the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (Part 2): A Lexical Analysis of the Phrase תֹֹּהוּ וָָבֹֹהוּ

Introduction1

In the previous article, “Genesis 1:1–2 and the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (Part 1),” (Wilson 2023) the phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ was analyzed in order to demonstrate that the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 could correspond in meaning to the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2. This possible semantic continuity between the two words, along with their proximity to one another, strongly suggests that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 share a semantic and syntactic relationship with one another. First, Genesis 1:1 introduces God’s first creative act in the narrative. Then, Genesis 1:2 describes this initial creation of Genesis 1:1 as being in an incomplete state. The remainder of the creation narrative then describes how God shaped, molded, and added to that initial, incomplete creation of Genesis 1:1.

This interpretation of Genesis 1:1, in semantic continuity with Genesis 1:2, and within the larger context of the creation narrative, has led Christian and Jewish scholars throughout the centuries to conclude that God created the world out of nothing.2 Since Genesis 1:1 does not describe anything as being in existence before the initial creation, other than God himself, interpreters have logically concluded that God created the world ex nihilo. Thus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is an inherent theological reading of the opening verses of the Bible.

This logical and theological interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is what is known as the traditional interpretation.3 However, this interpretation is not without its recent challengers. As explained in Part 1, a growing group of scholars argue that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 cannot share a syntactical relationship with one another because a semantic discontinuity necessarily exists between the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 and the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2. Because of this discontinuity, Genesis 1:1 should not be interpreted as the first act of the creation narrative; rather, it should be interpreted as an introductory summary or title of the creation narrative. The narrative itself, they argue, does not start until Genesis 1:2, and the first act of creation in the narrative does not take place until Genesis 1:3.

This summary-statement understanding of Genesis 1:1 not only changes the interpretation of opening verse of the narrative, it also changes the theology of the narrative. If Genesis 1:1 is not the first creative act, then the opening verses of the Bible no longer support the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo because there is no description or explanation for the origin of the elements in Genesis 1:2. Barr, a proponent of the summary-statement interpretation, states,

“Creation by separation” is a good term to describe the major thrust of the passage. The main emphasis is not on a process from nothing to something, from nonexistence to existence, but on a process from confusion to distinction, from chaos to order. Some of the things created do appear to be absolutely created, as if out of nothing, like the light; others seem to “emerge naturally,” like plants, which the earth “brings forth”; others again seem to have been there from the beginning and simply to have been demarcated, like the land and sea. And the chaos of 1:2 seems to have been not just a negation of existence but to have been a source from which certain elements in the created world were drawn. . . . Second, we come back to the theme of creation out of nothing. We have seen that this is not the main theme of Genesis 1, and perhaps of any canonical Old Testament passage. In Genesis, some things, like light, are created out of nothing; others, like land and water, seem to be there already. If so, we may say that creation out of nothing is not a central affirmation of the passage. (Barr 1998, 59–60, 65)

As Part 1 stated, no verse is more central to the overall doctrine of creatio ex nihilo than Genesis 1:1, and consequently, few doctrines are more central to the theology of God. Without any explanation for the origin of the elements in Genesis 1:2, the summary-statement interpretation leaves the creation narrative wide open to a theological reading in which eternal matter coexisted with the eternal God prior to creation. Once the center-piece verse of Genesis 1:1 has been removed from the foundation of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, the doctrine quickly erodes.4 Once the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo erodes, then other categories of theology proper and general theology erode as well. Craig Carter’s statement from Part 1 is worth repeating:

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo will affect every single doctrine about nature, humanity, sin, salvation, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the nature and mission of the church, and eschatology. This is because accepting or rejecting creatio ex nihilo affects the nature of God, and the nature of God affects every single doctrine about the “all things” studied by theology “in relation to God.” The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo marks off the kind of difference that perdures (1) between God and the world, (2) between uncreated and created being, and (3) between the relations among the three Persons of the Trinity (the processions) and the relation between the Persons and creation (the missions). Without the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, we do not even have an actual doctrine of creation, at least not in the sense meant by historic Christian orthodoxy. (Carter 2021, 238)

Thesis

In the debate over the proper interpretation of Genesis 1:1, the major issue concerns the relationship between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, more specifically the relationship between the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 and the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2. Does the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 corresponds in meaning to the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2? Does the word אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:1 correspond in state to the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2? Proponents of the traditional translation answer both questions in the affirmative, while proponents of the summary-statement interpretation answer both in the negative.5 The heart of the debate in answering the former question is in the meaning of the compound phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ in Genesis 1:1. The heart of the debate in answering the latter question is in the meaning of the compound phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ in Genesis 1:2. Part 1 focused on answering the former question. The focus of this article, Part 2, will then answer the latter by analyzing the compound phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ in Genesis 1:2. Through lexical analysis, this article will demonstrate that the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:1 is a better reading of the text than the summary-statement interpretation.

A Lexical Analysis of the Phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ

One of the strongest arguments in favor of the traditional interpretation is the proximal correspondence between the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:1 and the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2. They literally and literarily occur back to back. Part 1 demonstrated that the two identical words can correspond to one another in meaning even when the former is in compound with the word שָׁמַיִם. Again, this proximal correspondence between the two identical words also suggests that there is semantic correspondence between the two verses. This is the plainest and simplest reading of the text. However, many proponents of the summary-statement interpretation still separate any kind of semantic continuity between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 by also arguing that the אֶרֶץ of 1:1 cannot correspond to the אֶרֶץ of 1:2 in state.

Summary-statement proponents use the phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ to argue that the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2 is actually in a chaotic state. Since the אֶרֶץ of 1:2 is in a chaotic state, it cannot correspond to the created אֶרֶץ of 1:1 because chaos is contrary in state to creation. Gunkel, a proponent of the summary-statement interpretation, argues, “The notion of a creation of Chaos is intrinsically contradictory and odd, for Chaos is the world before the Creation” (Gunkel 1997, 103). Childs, another proponent, also states,

[S]ince the beginning of the Christian era careful exegetes have been perplexed regarding the manner in which verse 1 should be related to verse 2. Is the chaos conceived of as being before or after the creation? Does the chaos exist independently of God’s creative activity? It is rather generally acknowledged that the suggestion of God’s first creating a chaos is a logical contradiction and must be rejected. (Childs 1960, 30)

Finally, Waltke states,

It is concluded, therefore, that though it is possible to take verse 2 as a circumstantial clause [to verse 1] on syntactical grounds, it is impossible to do so on philological grounds, and that it seems unlikely it should be so construed on theological grounds, for it makes God the Creator of disorder, darkness, and deep, a situation not tolerated in the perfect cosmos and never said to have been called into existence by the Word of God.(Waltke 1975b, 221)6

If it is impossible for the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:1 to correspond to the אֶרֶץ of 1:2 in state, then it is more likely that there is a semantic discontinuity between the two verses even if the two identical words can correspond to one another in meaning. What, however, is the rationale for arguing that the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2 is in a chaotic state? Answering this question will also help to determine the lexical validity of both interpretations, and again, the theological implications require this continued investigation.

Framing the Discussion and Giving it Context

Defining the term “chaos.” Before examining the evidence of whether the אֶרֶץ is in a chaotic state in Genesis 1:2, the term “chaos” must first be defined. Most modern speakers understand the word “chaos” to mean some kind of disorder or confusion. The term “chaos,” however, and the concepts associated with it are mostly Greek, and they can be quite different from the typical, modern understanding of the word. According to the lexicon of Liddel, Scott, and Jones (1996), the definition of the Greek word χάος refers to the original state of the universe; space or the expanse of air; the nether abyss or infinite darkness; or any vast gulf or chasm.7 Some of these Greek definitions do overlap with other modern definitions of the word, but the actual modern understanding of it as a kind of disorder or confusion actually comes from its use by the later Roman poet Ovid.8 Thus, the meaning of the term “chaos” can vary from one person to the next, especially when cultural contexts are considered. Watson aptly states,

The difficulty [with using the term “chaos” to describe a Hebrew concept] is compounded by the fact that both Greek and modern European definitions (which, of course are anyway derivative upon the Greek) are very wide-ranging and inconsistent. (Watson 2005, 13)

With such a varying definition for the term “chaos,” the main question then is how do proponents of the summary-statement interpretation define it?

The quotes from the introduction of this section suggest that summary-statement proponents seem to use at least two definitions of the term. Chaos can mean the early state of the world before creation, or it can mean disorder and confusion. The following excerpts, however, suggest that defining the term according to its usage by summary-statement proponents is much more complex. They state,

We can understand then why the state which is opposed to and precedes creation is called תהו. (Westermann 1990, 103)

[Genesis 1:2] serves to picture through its chaos, the ‘negative’ side of the creation. The creation is not contrasted with a condition of nothingness, but rather with a chaos. This reality is not a creation of God, nor is it a dualistic principle of evil independent of God. Nevertheless, the OT writer struggles to contrast the creation, not with a background of empty neutrality, but with an active chaos standing in opposition to the will of God. It is a reality which continues to exist and continues to threaten his creation. The chaos is a reality rejected by God. It forms no part of the creation, but exists nevertheless as a threatening possibility. (Childs 1960, 42)

The writer speaks out of the ordered universe of his experience in which with unerring regularity day follows night, season follows season, plants sprout and animals breed at their proper times, and water and land have their proper place. Verse 2 describes the opposite of this. It is chaos as opposed to “cosmos” (the Greek word for order). There is confusion, darkness, wetness, and wind. (Scullion 1992, 16–17)

The term tōhû is common in the vocabulary of creation. Its function is to indicate chaos in contrast to the order of creation. (Konkel 1997, 607)

formless and empty [tōhû wāḇōhû]. This phrase is an antonym [(emphasis mine)] to the “heavens and the earth,” signifying something uncreated or disordered (Jer 4:23–27). . . . Chronologically, this must describe the state of the earth prior to verse 1, as it would be a contradiction to represent the creation as formed cosmos and the earth as unformed. (Waltke 2001, 59–60)

The summary statement [in Genesis 1:1] entails that the chaos of verse 2 does not exist independently from God, but the text does not explain the connection between God and chaos. Rather, verse 2 supplies the context in order to interpret the significance of the creation—namely, Israel’s covenant-keeping God overcomes the chaos to bring about his good pleasure. The chaos “is a reality rejected by God.” . . . The inchoate dark abyss is not good because it resists life. It is a surd [evil] (i.e., irrational, such as wind or floods that destroy crops), not a theological good (such as a windmill that pumps water to nurture crops). The origin of the surd [evil] (i.e., God does not call the earth good until it is restrained by light and by land that foster human life) is as mysterious as the diabolical lying and murdering Serpent who incarnates moral evil in Genesis 3:1–5. . . . To answer the whence and why of both surd and social evils, appeal has been made to highly figurative texts such as Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 13, but these highly figurative texts do not provide a firm foundation for dogma. On the other hand, neither surd nor moral evil are presented as eternal, unlike God. Since the darkness and abyss [of Genesis 1:2] will be eliminated in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21–22), they are not eternal; their beginnings are cloaked in mystery. The absence of data is not an argument for eternal dualism. “Formless and empty” (tōhû wāḇōhû) indicate this negative, “not good,” state of the earth. Accordingly, the creation narrative is a story of redemption, of triumph of light over darkness, of land and sky over water, both of which are essential for life. (Waltke 2007, 180–181)

Based upon these and the preceding quotations, there is no explicit, uniform definition of the term “chaos” from summary-statement proponents. However, a common thread does seem to weave through their arguments and explanations. The term “chaos,” at the least, is the opposite of creation, the opposite of order. In other words, whatever is created is in the state of A, and whatever is chaotic is in the state of non-A. Chaos is a state that cannot be created because if it were, it would be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect, a logical contradiction.9 Thus, aside from the inappropriate and anachronistic application of the concept of chaos10 to the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:2, the next question to be asked is what element(s) in Genesis 1:2 cause(s) scholars to argue that this definition of chaos is a proper description of the state of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2?

Determining what makes the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2 a chaos. At the lexical level, many scholars of the summary-statement interpretation argue that it is the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ that depicts the אֶרֶץ as being in a state of chaos. Consider the following explanations:

The sound as well as the meaning of the pair of words [תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ] is awe-inspiring; the earth according to its substratum was a desolate and dead mass, in a word chaos (χάος). (Delitzsch 1888, 78)

Heb. tōhū wā-bōhū—an alliterative description of chaos, in which nothing can be distinguished or defined. Tōhū is a word which is difficult to express consistently in English: but it denotes mostly something unsubstantial, or (fig.) unreal . . . . (Driver 1904, 3–4)

“Tohuwabohu” means the formless; the primeval waters over which darkness was superimposed characterizes the chaos materially as a watery primeval element, but at the same time gives a dimensional association: t^ehōm (“sea of chaos”) is the cosmic abyss. (von Rad 1963, 47)

‘And the earth was waste and void’ (wĕhāʾāreṣ hāyĕthāh thōhû wābhōhû). The verb ‘was’ is somewhat surprising since in a nominal clause it is superfluous. What we actually have is a nominal clause of circumstantial force used to specify a condition in its proper sphere of time: ‘the earth having been chaos.’ (Childs 1960, 32)

It is therefore still legitimate to assume that the word pair tōhû wāḇōhû is ground semantically in the characteristic of menacing reality that can be represented by the term “chaos,” albeit with reservations. (Görg 2006, 571)

“Formless and empty” (tōhû wāḇōhû) indicate this negative, “not good,” state of the earth. (Waltke 2007, 181)11

Thus, based upon these explanations from summary-statement proponents, the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ is clearly the main reason for arguing that Genesis 1:2 describes the אֶרֶץ in a state of chaos.

Some proponents of the summary-statement interpretation do appeal to the other lexical elements in Genesis 1:2 to support the idea that the verse describes the אֶרֶץ in a state of chaos. For instance, Gunkel argues that the word תְּהוֹם in the second clause of Genesis 1:2 is etymologically related to the Babylonian Tiâmat,12 the primordial sea goddess of Enûma Elish who clashes with the god Marduk in a pre-creation theomachy.13 Thus, Genesis 1:2 is a remnant description of the Chaoskampf motif of Enûma Elish (Gunkel 1997, 105). Westermann, another proponent of the summary-statement interpretation, argues that the word חֹשֶׁךְ in the second clause of Genesis 1:2 refers to a much more sinister darkness that is more reflective of a pre-creation chaos (Westermann 1990, 104).14 He also argues that the phrase רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים in the third clause of Genesis 1:2 is best translated as “mighty wind” because it is also syntactically a part of the description of the chaos (Westermann 1990, 108).15 Although these elements in Genesis 1:2 might support the argument that the verse describes the אֶרֶץ in a state of chaos, it is the original attribution of this concept to the meaning of the phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ that drives this interpretation of the verse. Without identifying the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ as chaos, there is no need to interpret the words חֹשֶׁךְ ,תְהוֹם, and רוּחַ16 as elements of that chaos since they are also elements of the natural phenomena of creation and order. However, even though summary-statement proponents argue that the word pair is a description of a chaos contrary to creation, the actual data for determining the most appropriate meaning for the word pair is extremely sparse.17

The paucity of lexical data. There is little if any consensus on the etymology of the compound phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ. On the one hand, Tsumura proposes that the compound phrase is etymologically related to a possible Ugaritic phrase tu-a-bi-[ú(?)]. The proposed Ugaritic phrase is parallel to the Akkadian term nabalkutu, which he argues describes certain words like erṣetu, earth, and rēmu, womb, and may mean “to be unproductive,” not “to turn over” or “upset” as he declares that some have suggested (Tsumura 2005, 15–22). However, on the other hand, Görg argues that Tsumura’s proposal is based upon a problematic reading of tu-a-bi-[ú(?)] which itself may not even “represent an actual Ugaritic word (or syntagm)” (Görg 2006, 567). He instead proposes that the words תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ may be etymologically related to the Egyptian lexemes th3 and bh3 (Görg 2006, 567–568, 571), which mean “to deviate” (abweichen) and “to flee panic-stricken” (kopflos fliehen).18 If the compound phrase תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ in Genesis 1:2 is etymologically related to these Egyptian lexemes then its most likely meaning is that of “unstable and unformed” (haltlos und gestaltlos), which would make the compound phrase more descriptive of a chaotic state than an unproductive state (Görg 2006, 571). Tsumura (2005, 14–15), however, rejects Görg’s proposal arguing that there is no evidence that the Egyptian lexemes even have a nominalized form, nor do they occur as a hendiadys in Egyptian. Furthermore, Brown wonders how Görg can “make the semantic jump from verbal bases that imply aimless motion” to a meaning that is related to condition,—the condition of Genesis 1:2—not direction or motion (Brown 1993, 74). Brown instead proposes abandoning the etymological route and argues that the word is a farrago describing the אֶרֶץ in its early state as a “hodgepodge” (Brown 1993, 60, 74–75). Based upon these varying arguments and the lack of data, the etymological derivation of the compound phrase may never be known.

Even with respect to the individual words תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ the etymology of either is still questionable. Görg (2006, 571) states,

Attempts to find an etymology for bōhû among other Near Eastern languages have so far proved unsuccessful. Neither the name of the Sumerian deity Bau nor the figure of Baau mentioned by Philo of Byblos is semantically or etymologically relevant.

Furthermore, listing the many arguments for the etymological derivations of both תֹּהוּ and בֹּהוּ, Konkel (1997, 606) likewise states,

The nom. thw[, a possible derivation of תֹּהוּ,] may be found in the Ugar. Baal cycle in the encounter with Mot the god of death (KTU, 1.5 i 15). In describing the insatiable appetite of Mot the text uses the metaphor of lb’īm thw (CTA, 5 1.15); Gibson interprets this as the “appetite of lions (in) the waste” (CML, 68). Translating thw as “in the desert” may be compared to Job 6:18, where the streams go up battōhû, in the desert, or to Deut 32:10, where Yahweh finds Israel in the wilderness and b^etōhû, in the desert, though the Ugar. lacks the preposition. Like Mot, the Heb. compares Sheol to a devouring lion (Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5), and similarly uses the metaphor of the insatiable appetite of the lion for flesh (Deut 33:20; Hos 13:8). DeMoor translates the metaphor as the lion “craving live prey,” a paraphrase that takes thw as related to the Arab. hawiya, to desire, and analyzing [sic] it as a verbal form (cf. Aistleitner, WUS, 820). Deitrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin take thw as a scribal error for thwt (cf. KTU, 1.133) to be understood as the Heb. ta’^awâ, meaning greed or desire (536–537). Gordon does not provide a translation (UT, 19.2536). . . . The nom. bōhû may also be compared to the Phoen. goddess Baau or to the Babylonian mother goddess bau (HALAT 107). The derivation of both bōhû and tōhû is unknown [(emphasis mine)].

Many etymological suggestions for the individual words and the compound phrase have been offered, examined, accepted, and rejected, and there is still no consensus.19

The paucity of the etymological data has even caused some scholars to suggest other avenues for determining the word pair’s meaning. Commenting on the word תֹּהוּ, Youngblood states,

Since the word has no certain cognates in other languages, its meaning must be determined solely from its OT contexts. (Youngblood 1980, 964)

Brown also states,

One need not, however, take the etymological route, on which countless suggestions have been made. There are enough occurrences of tōhû in the Hebrew literature to connote “devastation” of some sort. (Brown 1993, 74)

Finally, Mathews states,

The etymology of the word [bōhû] remains a mystery, and we are left with the meaning of tōhû to clarify the sense of the couplet.

Although the etymology is also unclear for tōhû, it occurs sufficiently in the Old Testament (twenty times) to indicate its meaning. (Mathews 1996, 131)

Thus, the actual consensus seems to be that the etymological evidence is too limited for determining the meaning of both the word pair as a whole and its individual words. At best the etymological evidence can only support what the context of the Hebrew Old Testament suggests.

However, even though scholars seem to have abandoned the etymological route because of the paucity of the data, the data from the Hebrew Old Testament is also quite sparse. By itself, the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ occurs only three times in the entirety of the literature (Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23) with only Genesis 1:2 being descriptive of the creation event. To further complicate the issue, the second word of the word pair, בֹּהוּ, only occurs in these three instances. It does not occur anywhere else in the Hebrew Old Testament. Considering the rarity of בֹּהוּ, the actual means for determining the meaning of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ seems to lie solely with the word תֹּהוּ.

The word תֹּהוּ has challenges of its own as well. Aside from its three occurrences with בֹּהוּ (Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23), the word תֹּהוּ is only used 17 other times in the Hebrew Old Testament.20 However, its meaning within a given context is not so easy to ascertain. HALOT states, “The rendering of the Heb. sbst. [תֹּהוּ] is not easy for it vacillates in meaning and the meanings are not able clearly to be segregated from one another.”21 Even BDB makes the parenthetical note of “primary meaning difficult to seize.”22 Furthermore, the word is only used in three instances as a descriptor of the creation event (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:7?; Isaiah 45:18).23 Thus, even the data from the Hebrew Old Testament is extremely limited for determining the meaning of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2. Görg aptly states, “To this day the proverbial word pair tōhû wāḇōhû has not found a universally satisfactory explanation” (Görg 2006, 570). Nevertheless, summary-statement proponents are somehow able to extract from the exiguous data the complicated and technical definition of a chaos contrary to creation? The paucity of the data and the following analysis, however, suggest that the word pair requires a much simpler definition.

A Contextual and Thematic Analysis of the Word Pair

Proponents of both interpretations, the summary-statement and the traditional, frequently use the contexts of certain passage like Isaiah 34:11, Jeremiah 4:23, and Isaiah 45:18 to argue for a specific definition of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ and the word תֹּהוּ. However, the evidence for determining the meaning of the word pair and the singular word תֹּהוּ is not limited to the context alone. The word pair used in Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 also occurs within two judgment-themed oracles, as does the singular תֹּהוּ in Isaiah 24:10. These judgment-themed oracles against specific lands or city-states are common in the prophetic literature and are excellent sources of data for determining the meaning communicated by the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ and the individual תֹּהוּ. Thus, the following analysis will consider both the context and the theme of these passages.24

A contextual analysis of Isaiah 34:11. Even though the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ occurs only three times, all of its occurrences describe the state of the word אֶרֶץ. Contextually, the word pair in Isaiah 34:11 is used to describe God’s future judgment upon the land, or אֶרֶץ, of Edom. The verse states,

וִירֵשׁוּהָ קָאַ֣ת וְקִפּ֔וֹד וְיַנְשׁ֥וֹף וְעֹרֵב יִשְׁכְּנוּ־בָ֑הּ וְנָטָ֥ה עָלֶ֛יהָ קַו־תֹהוּ וְאַבְנֵי־בֹהוּ:

And the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it and the owl and the raven will dwell in it and he will stretch over it the line of tōhû and the stones of bōhû.

By itself, the verse only states that the pelican, porcupine, owl, and raven will inhabit the land, and the line of תֹּהוּ, tōhû, and the stones of בֹּהוּ, bōhû, will be stretched over it. The verse alone offers no help in determining the meaning of the word pair.

The imagery in Isaiah 34:11, however, contributes to a larger picture (34:10b–15) describing a land devoid of human habitation and oversight. It is the desolation of the land of Edom as a result of God’s judgment. The larger passage communicates this desolation in three ways. First, the usual inhabitants, such as humans and domesticated livestock, are absent from the land (Isaiah 34:10b, 12). Second, the land is reinhabited by undomesticated or wild animals (Isaiah 34:11a, 13b–15).25 Third, the land is overgrown with wild vegetation (Isaiah 34:13a).26 These three pictures describe a land that has been desolated by God’s judgment and the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ contributes to this picture.

A thematic analysis of Isaiah 34:10b–15. The desolation described in Isaiah 34:11 is actually a common motif in other judgment-themed oracles.27 Such oracles also describe this desolation as a reinhabiting of a deserted land or city by wild animals. Consider the following verses:

Isaiah 13:20–22a28

לֹא־תֵשֵׁ֣ב לָנֶ֔צַח וְלֹ֥א תִשְׁכֹּן עַד־דּ֣וֹר וָד֑וֹר וְלֹא־יַהֵ֥ל שָׁם עֲרָבִ֔י וְרֹעִים לֹא־יַרְבִּ֥צוּ שָׁם:²⁰
וְרָבְצוּ־שָׁ֣ם צִיִּ֔ים וּמָלְא֥וּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִ֑ים וְשָׁ֤כְנוּ שָׁם בְּנ֣וֹת יַעֲנָ֔ה וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ־שָׁם:²¹
וְעָנָ֤ה אִיִּים בְּאַלְמנוֹתָ֔יו וְתַנִּים בְּהֵ֣יכְלֵי עֹ֑נֶג²²

²⁰ It, [Babylon,] will not be inhabited forever nor will it be settled from generation to generation. The Arab will not pitch his tent there, nor will shepherds lay down flocks there.

²¹ But the wild beasts will lie down there, and the owls will fill their houses, and the offspring of the ostrich will dwell there, and goats will leap there.

²² Hyenas will howl in its citadels and jackals in the exquisite temples.

Jeremiah 49:3329

וְהָיְתָה חָצ֜וֹר לִמְע֥וֹן תַּנִּ֛ים שְׁמָמָה עַד־עוֹלָ֑ם לֹא־יֵשֵׁ֥ב שָׁם אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹא־יָג֥וּר בָּהּ בֶּן־אָדָם:

And Hazor will become a habitation of jackals, a desolation forever; no man will live there nor will a son of man sojourn in it.

Zephaniah 2:13b–14

וְיָשֵׂ֤ם אֶת־נִתנְוֵה לִשְׁמָמָ֔ה צִיָּה כַּמִּדְבָּר׃ וְרָבְצוּ בְתוֺכָ֤הּ עֲדָרִים כָּל־חַיְתוֺ־ג֔וֺי גַּם־קָאַת גַּם־קִפֹּ֔ד בְּכַפְתֹּרֶיהָ יָלִ֑ינוּ חֹ֣רֶב בַּסַּ֔ף כִּ֣י אַרְזָה עֵרָה׃

^13bAnd he will make Nineveh a desolation, a dryness like the wilderness. ¹⁴And all flocks of all the livestock of the nations; even the pelican and the porcupine will sleep in the tops of her pillars; a voice singing in her windows; desolation in the threshold, for he has laid bare the cedar work.

In these passages the language clearly communicates the idea that the land or city has been cleared of all its typical inhabitants and has been reinhabited with wild animals. Thus, the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Isaiah 34:11 contributes to the description of a desolation that is similarly described in the desolation motifs of Isaiah 13:20–21; Jeremiah 49:33; and Zephaniah 2:13b–14. None of these passages, however, describe the desolation as a chaos contrary to creation.

Is Isaiah 34:11 chaos contrary to creation? How then do scholars argue that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Isaiah 34:11 describes a chaos contrary to creation? Görg (2006, 570) argues,

In Isa. 34:11 the parallelism “tōhû line” and “bōhû stones” symbolizes the desolation of Edom ordained by Yahweh. This metaphor can already indicate that the two nouns belong to a sphere that stands in opposition to the ordered world. Weights and measures have their meaning within the framework of ordered everyday life. For example, in Egypt they are the subject of regulations reflecting an “administrative professional ethics.” A land becomes all the more chaotic when infected with unpredictable caprice.

Similarly, Waltke (1975a, 142) argues,

In the immediate context of 34:11, Isaiah sees the destruction of Edom. As part of his evocative imagery, he implicitly likens Edom’s destruction to the dismantling of a house to its precreated state. He predicts God’s destruction on Edom: “And He shall stretch over it the line of desolation (תהוּ, “formlessness”) and the stones of emptiness (בהוּ).” The line and stones (plummets) of the builder are employed here not for erecting a building but for dismantling it. Once again God’s judgment results in the return of the object of His wrath to its original state.30

Both of these scholars refer to the imagery reflected in the two substantives “line,” קַו, and “stone,” אֶבֶן, as a basis for their interpretations of the passage.

Neither of these scholars’ arguments, however, adequately explain how the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ describes a chaos contrary to creation. With respect to Görg’s interpretation, it is difficult to determine how he can argue that use of the word pair and the two substantives, קַו and אֶבֶן, belong to a sphere that stands in opposition to the created world. This interpretation is not suggested by the context of the passage nor by the desolation motif of judgment-themed oracles. This explanation seems to be more of a statement than an actual argument. If it is an argument, it is a non sequitur. With respect to Waltke’s argument, he does not even argue that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ describes a chaos contrary to creation in Isaiah 34:11;31 rather, he argues that the two substantives קַו and אֶבֶן describe a dismantling of the land. However, the context of the verse and the theme of the oracle are more descriptive of an emptying of the land than a dismantling. Nevertheless, even if the passage uses the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ to describe the dismantling of the land back to a state similar to that of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2, there is no evidence suggesting such a state describes a chaos contrary to creation. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that such a state is “precreative.” One could just as easily argue that Isaiah 34:11 describes the dismantling of the land of Edom back to an “initial-creative” state. One’s interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2 determines how one would perceive the alleged dismantled state of the land of Edom in Isaiah 34:11, but it doesn’t prove what the definition of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ actually is.

Summary-statement proponents do not offer any valid reasons for why or how the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ describes a chaos contrary to creation in Isaiah 34:11. Although the theme of judgment in this oracle creates a negative picture of the consequences of God’s judgment on the land of Edom, Isaiah 34:11 itself clearly parallels other passages using the desolation motif to describe a land desolate of its typical inhabitants. Tsumura aptly states, “Isa 34:11 simply means that ‘the land will become a desolation and waste so that it can no more receive inhabitants.’ From the context of the Isaiah passage it is rather difficult to see any direct connection with the Genesis creation story” (Tsumura 2005, 32). If the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ better describes the desolation of the land, אֶרֶץ, of Edom in Isaiah 34:11 than it describes a chaos contrary to creation, then it is logical to assume that the word pair describes the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2 in the same manner.

A contextual analysis of Jeremiah 4:23. The word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Jeremiah 4:23 is also used to describe God’s judgment upon the land, or אֶרֶץ, of Judah in another judgment-themed oracle. The verses states,

רָאִיתִי אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְהִנֵּה־תֹהוּ וָבֹ֑הוּ וְאֶל־הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵ֥ין אוֹרָם:

I saw the land, and behold, it was tōhû and bōhû, and I looked to the heavens and their light was not there.

By itself, the verse only describes the state of the אֶרֶץ as תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ and the state of the שָׁמַיִם as without their light, אֵין אוֹרָם. The language of the oracle does bring to mind Genesis 1:2 in which the state of the אֶרֶץ is also a darkened תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ.32

Although the verse itself does not shed any light on the meaning of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ, the context does. Both the אֶרֶץ and the שָׁמַיִם are mentioned in 4:23; however, verses 4:24–26 focus more on the description of the אֶרֶץ. Verse 4:24 describes an earthquake that shakes the mountains and the hills of the אֶרֶץ, while verses 4:25–26 describe the אֶרֶץ as devoid of human habitation. Both situations are a result of God’s judgment upon the אֶרֶץ. Thus, verses 4:24–26 is a more detailed description of the אֶרֶץ in its state of תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ. The presence of the earthquake in 4:24 can certainly portray a picture of disorder or confusion, a chaos, but no other use of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ or the word תֹּהוּ parallels with any other descriptions of an earthquake. However, the judgment of an earthquake upon a land is used in other judgment themed oracles;33 thus, it is most likely another motif of these types of oracles rather than a further description of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ. However, the contextual description of the land of Judah as devoid of normal habitation in verses 4:25–26 matches the contextual description of the land of Edom in Isaiah 34:10a–15, which again suggests that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in both passages helps to describe the אֶרֶץ as a desolation or emptiness rather than as a chaos contrary to creation.

Tsumura argues that the context of Jeremiah 4:23–26 must also relate to 4:27–28 where God’s speech concerning the land, אֶרֶץ, and the heavens, שָׁמַיִם, closely parallels what the prophet describes in 4:23–26. He states,

From a structural analysis of vv. 23–28 as a whole, it is noteworthy that the word pair “the earth” (hâʾâreṣ) and “the heavens” (haššāmayim) appears in this order both in the beginning (v. 23) and at the end (v. 28) of this section, thus functioning as an inclusio or a “frame” for the section. In other words, “(the earth is) tōhû wābōhû” // “(the heavens) are without light” in v. 23 corresponding to “(the earth) will dry up” (*ʾbl) // “(the heavens) will be dark” (*qdr) in v. 28. Here the phrase tôhû wabôhû corresponds to the verbal phrase “to dry up” and suggests the “aridness or unproductiveness” of the earth. This is in keeping with v. 27, which mentions that the “whole earth will become a desolation” (šĕmāmâ tihyeh kol-hāʾāreṣ). (Tsumura 2005, 31)

Thus, the continued, contextual description of the אֶרֶץ in 4:27–28 is that of a desolation, שְׁמָמָה (4:27) devoid or empty of its typical inhabitants. This contextual description of the אֶרֶץ in this judgment-themed oracle also fits perfectly with the desolation motif.

A thematic analysis of Jeremiah 4:23–28. The use of the desolation motif in Jeremiah in 4:23, 25–27 also parallels the use of the motif in other judgment-themed oracles. For instance, in the oracles against Judah in Isaiah 5, Babylon in Isaiah 13, and Egypt in Ezekiel 32, the motif is depicted in the following manner:

Isaiah 5:6, 9

וַאֲשִׁ͏יתֵ֣הוּ בָתָ֗שׁ לֹ֤א יִזָּמֵר וְלֹ֣א יֵעָלָ֥ה שָׁמִר וָשָׁ֑יִת וְעַ֤ל הֶעָבִים אֲצַוֶּ֔ה מֵהַמְטָֽר׃

I shall set it as a destruction, it will not be pruned and it will not be hoed, but thorns and thorn bushes will come up, and I will keep the clouds over it from raining a rain upon it.

בְּאָזְנָ֖י יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֺת אִם־לֹ֞א בָּתִּ֤ים רַבִּים֙ לְשַׁמָּ֣ה יִֽהְי֔וּ גְּדֹלִ֥ים וְטוֺבִ֖ים מֵאֵ֥ין יוֺשֵֽׁב׃

In my ears the LORD of hosts swears, “Surely many houses will become desolate, great and good houses without inhabitant.

Isaiah 13:9, 20–22

הִנֵּ֤ה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּ֔א אַכְזָרִ֥י וְעֶבְרָה וַחֲר֣וֹן אָ֑ף

לָשׂ֤וּם הָאָרֶץ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה וְחַטָּאֶיהָ יַשְׁמִ֥יד מִמֶּנָּה:

Behold the day of the LORD comes as cruel, furious, and angry to make the land a desolation, and he will exterminate its sinners from it.

לֹא־תֵשֵׁ֣ב לָנֶ֔צַח וְלֹ֥א תִשְׁכֹּן עַד־דּ֣וֹר וָד֑וֹר וְלֹא־יַהֵ֥ל שָׁם עֲרָבִ֔י וְרֹעִים לֹא־יַרְבִּ֥צוּ שָׁם:
וְרָבְצוּ־שָׁ֣ם צִיִּ֔ים וּמָלְא֥וּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִ֑ים וְשָׁ֤כְנוּ שָׁם בְּנ֣וֹת יַעֲנָ֔ה וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ־שָׁם:
וְעָנָ֤ה אִיִּים בְּאַלְמנוֹתָ֔יו וְתַנִּים בְּהֵ֣יכְלֵי עֹ֑נֶג

²⁰It[, Babylon,] will not be inhabited forever nor will it be settled from generation to generation. The Arab will not pitch his tent there, nor will shepherd lie down flocks there.

²¹But the wild beasts will lie down there, and the owls will fill their houses, and ostriches will dwell there, and goats will leap there.

²²Hyenas will howl in its citadels and jackals in the exquisite temples.

Ezekiel 32:15

בְּתִתִּי אֶת־אֶרֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם שְׁמָמָ֣ה

וּנְשַׁמָּ֗ה אֶ֚רֶץ מִמְּלֹאָ֔הּ

בְּהַכּוֹתִי אֶת־כָּל־י֣וֹשְׁבֵי בָ֑הּ

When I make the land of Egypt a desolation

and make the land desolate of its fullness

when I smite all the inhabitants in it.

The parallel use of the desolation motif in these judgment-themed oracles, however, is not the only similarity between them and Jeremiah 4.

The judgment-themed oracles of Isaiah 5, 13, and Ezekiel 32 also use two other parallel motifs. The first is that of the earthquake upon the land, used in Jeremiah 4:24, which has already been discussed, and the second is that of the darkening of the heavens, used in Jeremiah 4:23, 28. The judgment oracle against Judah in Isaiah 5 uses the judgment motifs of the earthquake upon the land (5:25) and the darkening of the heavens (5:30). The judgment oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13 also uses the motifs of the earthquake (13:13) and the darkening of the heavens (13:10).34 Finally, the oracle against Egypt in Ezekiel 32 also uses the motif of the darkening of the heavens (32:7–8), but not the motif of the earthquake. These parallels demonstrate that there are a variety of motifs the Israelite prophets used in other judgment-themed oracles, but it is the desolation motif that closely fits the use of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in both Jeremiah 4:26 and Isaiah 34:11.

Is Jeremiah 4:23 a chaos contrary to creation? How then do summary-statement proponents come to the conclusion that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ describes a chaos contrary to creation in Jeremiah 4:23? Most seem to come to this conclusion based upon the literary parallels between Jeremiah 4:23–28 and Genesis 1. Görg (2006, 571) states,

This idea [that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ stands in opposition to the created world] takes on cosmic dimensions in the vision in Jer 4:23: “I see the earth: behold—tōhû wāḇōhû.” This statement parallels a vision of the heavens devoid of lights. Thus for the word pair tōhû wāḇōhû we can claim the negative elements that are central to tōhû by itself, the perilous, menacing phenomena of tracklessness and instability. . . . It is therefore still legitimate to assume that the word pair tōhû wāḇōhû is ground semantically in the characteristic of menacing reality that can be represented by the term “chaos,” albeit with reservations. In Jer. 4:23 we may note a cosmic orientation of the expression, which envisions a “chaotic” state of the “earth” like the primordial state described in Gen. 1:2. Although the two occurrences and their contexts are literarily independent, common allusions are recognizable.

Waltke (1975a, 141) states,

Whether the vision is intended as a metaphor of Judah’s return to her precreative state, or an apocalyptic portrayal of cosmic destruction at the end time, need not be decided for our purposes. The point is that the judgment to come on the land [in Jer 4:23–26] takes the form of dismantling or undoing creation. But it obviously does not follow that the precreative state [of Genesis 1:2] itself is the result of God’s fury. . . . Here, however, we should pause and note the meaning of תהוּ ובהוּ as clarified by these two passages [(Isa 34:11 and Jer 4:23)]. We may deduce that the compound rhyming expression indicates a state of material prior to creation. The Septuagint renders the compound in Jeremiah 4:23 appropriately by οὐθέν, “nothing.” Indeed this appears to be essentially its meaning; not in the sense that material does not exist, but rather in the sense that an orderly arrangement, a creating, a cosmos, has not yet taken place.35

Finally, Konkel (1997, 607) states,

The other two occurrences of tōhû wābōhû are a description of the pre-creation chaos (Gen 1:2; Jer 4:23). It is not certain that the same cosmic type of judgment is meant in the case of Edom [in Isaiah 34:11]. It is clear, though, that Jeremiah depicts a universal and cosmic catastrophe. Jeremiah uses creation language to describe the judgment on the fruitful garden of creation as a reversal to pre-creation chaos.

Like the arguments of the word pair’s use in Isaiah 34:11, the common argument of all of these scholars is that the passage of Jeremiah 4:23–28 describes the dismantling of the אֶרֶץ of Judah back to a state similar to that of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2: the state of תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ.36 It is a reversal of creation.37 How do these scholars, however, come to the conclusion that the resulting state of this reversal is a pre-creation chaos without first assuming that such is the state of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2? There is nothing in the passage of Jeremiah 4:23–28 that suggests that the אֶרֶץ of Judah has returned to a state of both pre-creation and chaos. Again, a proponent of the traditional interpretation could just as easily counter that Jeremiah 4:23–28 describes the dismantling of the אֶרֶץ of Judah back to an “initial-creative” state rather than a “precreative” state. Furthermore, the preceding contextual and thematic analyses suggest that the state of the אֶרֶץ of Judah in Jeremiah 4:23–28 is that of a desolation rather than a chaos contrary to creation.38 Again, just because the passage may describe the dismantling of the אֶרֶץ of Judah back to a state similar to that of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2, it is not proof that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ describes a chaos contrary to creation. Such argumentation is a non sequitur. However, since both Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23 use the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ and the desolation motif as a descriptor of the אֶרֶץ of Edom and אֶרֶץ of Judah, a brief analysis of the desolation motif can offer a more detailed understanding of the word pair’s meaning.

The Desolation Motif

The desolation motif is very common in many judgment-themed oracles against specific lands or city-states.39 It is used in the judgment oracles against Ammon in Jeremiah 49; Assyria in Zephaniah 2; Babylon in Isaiah 13, 14, 50, and 51; Damascus in Amos 1; Edom in Jeremiah 49 and Ezekiel 25; Egypt in Jeremiah 46 and Ezekiel 29, 30, and 32; Gaza in Amos 1; Hazor in Jeremiah 49; Moab in Jeremiah 48 and Zephaniah 2; Nineveh in Nahum 2; Philistia in Zephaniah 2 and Zechariah 9; Syria in Isaiah 17; and against Tyre in Isaiah 23 and Ezekiel 26.

Within these judgment-themed oracles, the desolation motif exhibits five common characteristics. First, it is always applied to a specific land or city-state. In other words, it is always a pronouncement against a specific geographical location. It is certainly true that the judgment oracle is against specific people groups, but the desolation motif is always applied to their land or city. Second, the desolation motif always communicates the understanding that the land or city will be emptied of its typical inhabitants.

Jeremiah 50:3 (against Babylon)

כִּ֣י עָלָה עָלֶיהָ גּ֜וֹי מִצָּפ֗וֹן הוּא־יָשִׁ֤ית אֶת־אַרְצָהּ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה וְלֹא־יִהְיֶ֥ה יוֹשֵׁב בָּ֑הּ מֵאָדָ֥ם

וְעַד־בְּהֵמָה נָ֥דוּ הָלָכוּ:

For from the north a nation has come upon her, and it will make her land a desolation, and there will be no inhabitant in her, and from man unto beast they will flee.

Jeremiah 51:2 (against Babylon)

וְשִׁלַּחְתִּי לְבָבֶ֤ל זָרִים וְזֵר֔וּהָ וִיבֹקְקוּ אֶת־אַרְצָ֑הּ כִּי־הָי֥וּ עָלֶ֛יהָ מִסָּבִיב בְּי֥וֹם רָעָה:

And I will send to Babylon winnowers, and they will winnow her and empty her land, for they will be upon her from all around on the day of evil.

Jeremiah 51:62 (against Babylon)

וְאָמַרְתָּ֗ יְהוָה אַתָּה דִבַּ֜רְתָּ אֶל־הַמָּק֤וֹם הַזֶּה לְהַכְרִית֔וֹ לְבִלְתִּ֤י הֱיוֹת־בּוֹ

יוֹשֵׁ֔ב לְמֵאָדָם וְעַד־בְּהֵמָ֑ה כִּי־שִׁמְמ֥וֹת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה:

And say, “Lord, you yourself have said to this place that you will cut it off to be without an inhabitant in it, from man unto beast, for it will be a desolation forever.

Ezekiel 29:11 (against Egypt)

לֹ֤א תַעֲבָר־בָּהּ רֶ֣גֶל אָדָ֔ם וְרֶ֥גֶל בְּהֵמָה לֹ֣א תַעֲבָר־בָּ֑הּ וְלֹ֥א תֵשֵׁב אַרְבָּעִ֥ים שָׁנָה:

The foot of a man will not pass over it, nor will the hoof of a beast pass over it, and it will not be inhabited for forty years.

Ezekiel 32:15 (against Egypt)

בְּתִתִּי אֶת־אֶרֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם שְׁמָמָ֣ה וּנְשַׁמָּ֗ה אֶ֚רֶץ מִמְּלֹאָ֔הּ בְּהַכּוֹתִי אֶת־כָּל־י֣וֹשְׁבֵי

בָ֑הּ וְיָדְעוּ כִּי־אֲנִ֥י יְהוָה:

When I make the land of Egypt a desolation, the land will be desolate of its fullness, when I strike all the inhabitants in it, and they will know that I am the LORD.

Third, in the desolation motif, the words שַׁמָּה ,שְׁמָמָה, or similar words with the root שׁמם are most commonly used as a descriptors of the desolation.40

Isaiah 13:9 (against Babylon)

הִנֵּ֤ה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּ֔א אַכְזָרִ֥י וְעֶבְרָה וַחֲר֣וֹן אָ֑ף לָשׂ֤וּם הָאָרֶץ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה וְחַטָּאֶיהָ

יַשְׁמִ֥יד מִמֶּנָּה:

Behold, the day of the LORD comes with cruelty, fury, and burning anger to make the land a desolation, and he will exterminate its sinners from it.

Jeremiah 46:19 (against Egypt)

כְּלֵ֤י גוֹלָה עֲשִׂ֣י לָ֔ךְ יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּת־מִצְרָ֑יִם כִּי־נֹף לְשַׁמָּ֣ה תִהְיֶ֔ה וְנִצְּתָה מֵאֵ֥ין יוֹשֵׁב:

Make for yourselves vessels of exile, oh Daughter of Egypt, for Memphis will become a desolation, and it will be ruined without an inhabitant.

Jeremiah 51:43 (against Babylon)

הָי֤וּ עָרֶיהָ לְשַׁמָּ֔ה אֶרֶץ צִיָּ֣ה וַעֲרָבָ֑ה אֶ֗רֶץ לֹא־יֵשֵׁ֤ב בָּהֵן כָּל־אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹ֥ר

בָּהֵן בֶּן־אָדָם:

Its cities have become a desolation, a dry, desert land, a land in which not any man will live in them and no son of man will pass through them.

Ezekiel 29:10 (against Egypt)

לָכֵ֛ן הִנְנִ֥י אֵלֶיךָ וְאֶל־יְאֹרֶ֑יךָ וְנָתַתִּ֞י אֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֗יִם לְחָרְבוֹת חֹ֣רֶב

שְׁמָמָ֔ה מִמִּגְדֹּ֥ל סְוֵנֵה וְעַד־גְּב֥וּל כּוּשׁ:

Therefore, behold! I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a total waste and desolation from the tower of Syene unto the border of Cush.

Zephaniah 2:13 (against Assyria)

וְיֵ֤ט יָדוֹ עַל־צָפ֔וֹן וִיאַבֵּד אֶת־אַשּׁ֑וּר וְיָשֵׂ֤ם אֶת־נִינְוֵה לִשְׁמָמָ֔ה צִיָּה כַּמִּדְבָּר:

And he will stretch his hand against the north and he will cause Assyria to perish, and he will make Nineveh a desolation, dry as the wilderness.

Fourth, the desolation motif frequently uses a form of the verb יָשַׁב as an antonymic description.41

Jeremiah 48:9 (against Moab)

תְּנוּ־צִ֣יץ לְמוֹאָ֔ב כִּ֥י נָצֹא תֵּצֵ֑א וְעָרֶיהָ לְשַׁמָּ֣ה תִהְיֶ֔ינָה מֵאֵ֥ין יוֹשֵׁב בָּהֵן:

Give wings to Moab, for she will surely fly away, and her cities will become desolate without an inhabitant in them.

Jeremiah 49:18 (against Edom)

כְּמַהְפֵּכַ֞ת סְדֹ֧ם וַעֲמֹרָ֛ה וּשְׁכֵנֶיהָ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֑ה לֹא־יֵשֵׁ֥ב שָׁם אִ֔ישׁ וְלֹא־יָג֥וּר בָּהּ בֶּן־אָדָם:

“Like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah and her inhabitants,” says the Lord, “A man will not dwell there, and the son of a man will not sojourn in it.”

Jeremiah 50:13a (against Babylon)

מִקֶּ֤צֶף יְהוָה לֹ֣א תֵשֵׁ֔ב וְהָיְתָ֥ה שְׁמָמָה כֻּלָּ֑הּ

Because of the wrath of the LORD, she will not be inhabited, and she will become a complete desolation.

Jeremiah 51:37 (against Babylon)

וְהָיְתָה בָבֶל לְגַלִּ֧ים מְעוֹן־תַּנִּ֛ים שַׁמָּ֥ה וּשְׁרֵקָה מֵאֵ֥ין יוֹשֵׁב:

And Babylon will be a heap, a refuge of jackals, a desolation, and a hissing, without an inhabitant.

Zephaniah 2:5 (against Philistia)

ה֗וֹי יֹשְׁבֵ֛י חֶ֥בֶל הַיָּם גּ֣וֹי כְּרֵתִ֑ים דְּבַר־יְהוָ֣ה עֲלֵיכֶ֗ם כְּנַעַן אֶ֣רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים

וְהַאֲבַדְתִּיךְ מֵאֵ֥ין יוֹשֵׁב:

Woe, oh inhabitants of the seacoast, nation of the Kerethites, the word of the LORD is against you, Canaan, land of the Philistines, for I will cause you to perish and be without an inhabitant.

Last, the desolation motif, in which a land or city-state is desolate of its normal inhabitants, is described in multiple ways: as a place empty of its typical inhabitants, as a place overrun with wild animals, as a place overgrown with wild vegetation,42 or as a place that is like a desert.43 In Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:26, the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ, used in the desolation motif of these judgment-themed oracles, exhibits many of these same characteristics.

This understanding of the word pair is also reflected in the ancient translational paraphrases of the targumim. Consider again the treatment of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2 of Tgs. Neofiti and Onqelos:

Tg. Neof.

וארעא הוות תהיא ובהיא וצשדי מן בר נש ומן בעיד וריקנא מן כל פלחן

צמחין ומן אילנין וחשוכא פריס על אפיתהומא ורוח דרהמין מן קדם ה הוה

מנשבא על אפי מיא׃

(Grossfeld 1969, 10, 14)

And the earth was waste and unformed, desolate of man and beast, empty of plant cultivation and of trees, and darkness was spread over the surface of the waters. And the spirit of mercy from before God was blowing over the face of the waters.

(McNamara 1992, 55).

Tg. Onq.

וארעא הור צדיא וריקניא וחשוכ פריש על אפי תהומא ורוחא מן קדם יי

מנשבא על אפי מיא

(Aberback and Grossfeld 1982, 20)

And the earth was desolate and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep; and a wind from before the Lord was blowing on the face of the water.

(Aberback and Grossfeld 1982, 20).

Clearly, these early Jewish translators understood the word pair in the same manner. Thus, both contextually and thematically the word pair seems to describe a container desolate of its typical contents rather than a chaos contrary to creation. By itself the word תֹּהוּ also exhibits these same characteristics.

The Literal Sense of the Word תֹּהוּ

According to both BDB and HALOT, the word תֹּהוּ seems to be used with two major senses.44 The first major sense is more literal in nature. This use of the word describes the conditions of a physical location. This is also the sense of the word when it is used with בֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11, and Jeremiah 4:26. The following section analyzes the other occurrences of the word תֹּהוּ in this more literal sense. The second major sense in which the word is used is more figurative in nature. The figurative use of the word תֹּהוּ will be analyzed in the next section.

Deuteronomy 32:10. Deuteronomy 32:10 uses the word תֹּהוּ in a way that is consistent with the characteristics exhibited by the desolation motif. The verse states,

יִמְצָאֵהוּ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִדְבָּ֔ר וּבְתֹהוּ יְלֵ֣ל יְשִׁמֹ֑ן

He found him (Jacob/Israel) in a land of desert, in a howling tōhû of wilderness.

In this passage, the noun יְשִׁימוֹן, which is a descriptor of תֹּהוּ, describes a desert-like location. In fact, as this verse indicates, the word is a synonym of מִדְבָּר,45 which most often refers to the desert or wilderness. The word יְשִׁימוֹן is also used in other passages to describe a land that is both uninhabited and overrun by wild animals, which as the previous section demonstrates is also characteristic of the desolation motif. Consider these passages:

Psalm 107:4

תָּע֣וּ בַ֭מִּדְבָּר בִּישִׁימ֣וֹן דָּ֑רֶךְ עִ֥יר מ֜וֹשָׁ֗ב לֹ֣א מָצָאוּ:

They wandered in a desert, in a wilderness on the journey, but they found no habitable city.

Isaiah 43:20

תְּכַבְּדֵנִי חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׁדֶ֔ה תַּנִּים וּבְנ֣וֹת יַעֲנָ֑ה כִּי־נָתַתִּי בַמִּדְבָּ֜ר מַ֗יִם נְהָרוֹת בִּישִׁימֹ֔ן

לְהַשְׁקוֹת עַמִּ֥י בְחִירִי:

The beast of the field, the jackals and the offspring of the ostrich, will glorify me, for waters in the desert, rivers in the wilderness to give water to my chosen people.

Again, the imagery of the word יְשִׁימוֹן is very similar to the descriptions of lands and city-states in the desolation motif. Thus, it is not surprising that the word modifies תֹּהוּ in Deuteronomy 32:10.

Isaiah 24:10. This passage occurs in a judgment-themed oracle against the whole earth. The passage as a whole has many of the previously mentioned motifs that are common in judgment-themed oracles. It uses the motif of the earthquake (24:1b, 18b–20) and possibly the motif of the darkening of the heavens (24:23). Most importantly, however, it uses the desolation motif (24:1a, 3, 6b, 10–13). Isaiah 24:10 occurs in the desolation motif. The verse states,

נִשְׁבְּרָה קִרְיַת־תֹּ֑הוּ סֻגַּ֥ר כָּל־בַּיִת מִבּוֹא:

The city of tōhû is broken, all the houses are closed up from entering.

The verse by itself offers minimal evidence concerning its meaning, but the context of the passage and the theme offer more clarification.

Within the context and theme of the passage the word תֹּהוּ is used to describe a city that is empty of its typical inhabitants; it is a desolation. Verses 12 and 13 clearly describe the city in this way. They state,

נִשְׁאַ֥ר בָּעִיר שַׁמָּ֑ה וּשְׁאִיָּה יֻכַּת־שָׁעַר:

כִּ֣י כֹ֥ה יִהְיֶ֛ה בְּקֶ֥רֶב הָאָרֶץ בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעַמִּ֑ים כְּנֹ֣קֶף זַ֔יִת כְּעוֹלֵלֹת אִם־כָּלָ֥ה בָצִיר:

¹²Desolation is left in the city, and the gates are crushed and a ruin

¹³For thus it will be in the heart of the earth, in the midst of the people, like the shaking of an olive tree, like the gleaning when the grape harvest is complete.

The incomplete similes in this passage are clear. As a tree is bare of olives after it has been shaken, and a vineyard is bare of grapes after it has been harvested, so too is a city empty of its inhabitants after it has been desolated. Since Isaiah 24:10 occurs in a judgment-themed oracle is it not surprising that the word תֹּהוּ is used as a part of the desolation motif. Again, a simple contextual and thematic analysis demonstrates that the word תֹּהוּ, by itself, is also used to describe a place that is desolate of its typical inhabitants.

Isaiah 45:18. Because Isaiah 45:18 is very similar to Genesis 1:2, in that both passages are used in creation contexts, it is extremely helpful in understanding the meaning of the word תֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2. The passage states,

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָמַר־יְהוָה

בּוֹרֵא הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֗ים

יֹצֵר הָאָ֤רֶץ וְעֹשָׂהּ ה֣וּא כוֹנְנָ֔הּ

לֹא־תֹ֥הוּ בְרָאָהּ

לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יְצָרָ֑הּ

אֲנִ֥י יְהוָה וְאֵ֥ין עוֹד:

For thus says the LORD,

“The one who created the Heavens, He is God

The one who formed the earth and made it, He established it

He did not create it to be tōhû46

He formed it to be inhabited

I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Within the passage itself it is clear that the word תֹּהוּ is antonymically paired with לָשֶׁבֶת46 and both are a description of a physical location: the אֶרֶץ.

Again, considering the use of תֹּהוּ in the desolation motif in the passages of Isaiah 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23; and Isaiah 24:10, it is not surprising that in the only instance in which the word תֹּהוּ occurs with an antonym, the antonym is a form of the verb יָשַׁב.Again, the previous discussion demonstrates that the desolation motif frequently uses this verb as an antonymic description of the desolation.48 Tsumura (2005, 25) states,

However, tōhû here is contrasted with lāšebet in the parallelism and seems to refer rather to a place that has no habitation, like the term šĕmāmâ “desolation” (cf. Jer 4:27; Isa 24:12), ḥārēb “waste, desolate,” and ʿăzûbâ “deserted.” There is nothing in this passage that would suggest a chaotic state of the earth “which is opposed to and precedes creation.” Thus, the term tōhû here too signifies “a desert-like place” and refers to “an uninhabited place.”

Thus, the creation passage of Isaiah 45:18 is one of the strongest evidences supporting the argument that the word תֹּהוּ, rather than describing a state of chaos, describes a state of desolation, empty of inhabitants. In other words the lexical data of Isaiah 45:18 suggests that whatever is inhabited is in a state of A and whatever is תֹּהוּ, or desolate, is in a state of non-A. Thus, if a cosmological container like the אֶרֶץ is described as תֹּהוּ, it is uninhabited not chaotic. It is not a logical contradiction to argue that such a state could be created.

Other Evidences. There are three other passages that use the word תֹּהוּ in a way that is similar to the desolation motif. They describe a desert land that is devoid of habitation. Consider the following verses:

Job 6:18

יִ֭לָּ֣פְתוּ אָרְח֣וֹת דַּרְכָּ֑ם יַעֲלוּ בַתֹּ֣הוּ וְיֹאבֵדוּ:

They turn themselves from the paths of their way; they go up into the tōhû, and they perish.

Job 12:24

מֵסִ֗יר לֵ֭ב רָאשֵׁ֣י עַם־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַ֜יַּתְעֵ֗ם בְּתֹ֣הוּ לֹא־דָרֶךְ:

He who takes away the understanding of the rulers of the people of the land, and causes them to wander in the tōhû where there is no road.

Psalm 107:40

שֹׁפֵ֣ךְ בּ֭וּז עַל־נְדִיבִ֑ים וַ֜יַּתְעֵ֗ם בְּתֹ֣הוּ לֹא־דָרֶךְ:

He who pours contempt upon the nobles, and causes them to wander in the tōhû where there is no road.

In these passages the word תֹּהוּ is not used to describe a land or a city, nor is it coupled with any other words that might describe a desert land or wilderness, nor is it used in any judgment-themed oracle against a land or a city. However, the phrase לֹא־דֶרֶךְ in Job 12:24 and Psalm 107:40 and the description of wandering from the דֶּרֶךְ suggest that the word is descriptive of a wilderness in which no one travels. This meaning is consistent with the other literal uses of the word when it describes a desolation.

Most scholars who argue that תֹּהוּ describes a chaos in Genesis 1:2 agree that its use in the preceding verses refers to some kind of desert wasteland (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907, s.v., “תֹּהוּ”; Youngblood 1980, 964; Westermann 1990, 102; Konkel 1997, 607; Waltke 2007, 181 n. 16). Görg (2006, 568), however, disagrees stating,

Clearly these words refer not to literal exile in a wasteland but to the disorientated bewilderment of those stripped of understanding by God. The prepositional compound appears with the article in Job 6:18, where a caravan that turns aside from its course (v. 18a) is described as wandering battōhû—again, the text does not refer to the wilderness simply as a geological phenomenon; this straying leads to death.

The problem with this analysis is that the literal sense of the word is being used to denote an abstract thought. This does not mean that the abstract thought of disoriented bewilderment should not be applied to the passage using the word תֹּהוּ, but it is the literal meaning that defines the figurative idea expressed in these passages, not vice versa. Again, the most basic, literal meaning of the word תֹּהוּ is that of a desolate place devoid of habitation. This fits its meaning in all of the passages in which it is used as a substantive and as a modifier describing certain geographical locations.

The Figurative Sense of the Word תֹּהוּ

Again, the second major sense in which the word תֹּהוּ is used is more figurative in nature. In such passages as 1 Samuel 12:21; Job 26:7; Isaiah 29:21; 40:17, 23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 49:4; and 59:4, the word תֹּהוּ has a meaning of “emptiness” or “nothingness” (Kohler, Baumgartner, and Stamm 2001, s.v., “תֹּהוּ”) and is synonymously parallel with such terms as בְּלִי־מָה (nothing), אֶפֶס (nothing), הֶבֶל (vanity), and רִיק (emptiness) in Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:17 and 49:4 (Westermann 1990, 103, and Görg 2006, 569). Delitzsch (1888, 78) uses the more figurative definition of the word תֹּהוּ to argue that it describes a chaos in Genesis 1:2. He states,

The chaos, as which the developing earth existed, embraced also the heaven which was developing with and for it. The substance of the תהו ובהו is left undefined; תהו is the synonym of אַיִִן, אֶֶפֶסֶ, בְּלְִמִָיהָ, הֶֶבֶֶל, and the like, and is therefore a purely negative notion.49

The figurative uses of תֹּהוּ can certainly portray a negative picture that may reach such an abstract level that it could be a description of a “chaos.” However, there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the figurative meaning of the word תֹּהוּ should be applied to its usage in Genesis 1:2. The uses of the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11; and Jeremiah 4:23 describe a physical, geographical location much like the word תֹּהוּ does in its more literal uses. There is no evidence to suggest that the word pair in Genesis 1:2 should take on the figurative meaning of תֹּהוּ.

Furthermore, even though the figurative meaning of תֹּהוּ creates a negative abstraction, as Delitzsch observes, there is no reason to assume that such an abstract meaning carries over into the literal meaning. It is much more likely that the literal meaning of תֹּהוּ, describing a desolation without inhabitants, influences its figurative meaning, describing what is empty, vain, or worthless, since the literal meaning is drawn from personal experience (Westermann 1990, 103). Consider also the adjective רֵיק, a cognate of רִיק which occurs in parallel with one of the figurative uses of תֹּהוּ. Like תֹּהוּ, the word רֵיק also has both a literal meaning, describing what is empty, and a figurative meaning, describing what is worthless or vain (Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1907, s.v., “רֵיק”). No one would argue that the literal use of the word רֵיק in Genesis 37:24 is descriptive of a terrible, menacing pit, בּוֹר, on account of the figurative sense of the word רֵיק in Judges 9:4; 2 Samuel 6:20; and Proverbs 12:11. The same should also apply to תֹּהוּ. There is no good reason to assume that the figurative meaning of תֹּהוּ influences its literal meaning in Genesis 1:2 or any other passage in which it is used literally.

Other Arguments

Because of the interpretive and theological implications involved in defining the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ as a chaos contrary to creation, many proponents of the traditional interpretation legitimately argue that the word pair describes the אֶרֶץ as being in a more neutral state (Mathews 1996, 143–144; Ouro 1998, 276; Rooker 1992, 320–322; and Sailhamer 1990, 24–25). Even some proponents of the summary-statement interpretation are not convinced that the word pair in Genesis 1:2 describes the אֶרֶץ as a chaos contrary to creation. Young, for instance, states, “It would probably be wise to abandon the term ‘chaos’ as a designation of the conditions set forth in verse two. The three-fold statement of circumstances in itself seems to imply order” (Young 1959,145).50 Tsumura also states,

In conclusion, the phrase tōhû wābōhû in Gen 1:2, which is traditionally translated into English “without form and void” (RSV) or the like, simply means “emptiness” and refers to the earth, which was a desolate and empty place, “an unproductive and uninhabited place.” As Westermann notes, “creation and the world are to be understood always from the viewpoint of or in the context of human experience.” In other words, to communicate the subject of creation meaningfully to human beings, one must use the language and literary forms known to them. In order to give the background information to the audience in this verse, the author uses experiential language explaining the initial situation of the earth as “not yet.” (Tsumura 2005, 35)51

Finally, Walton (2009, 51–52) states,

Based on the above assessment of the beginning state as it is presented in Genesis, we are now in a position to compare it to what we find in the ancient world. In the ancient Near East the precosmic condition is neither an abstraction (“Chaos”) nor a personified adversary.52

Waltke, however, argues that the word תֹּהוּ is frequently used in a negative sense, which should be considered in the case of Genesis 1:2. He states,

David Toshio Tsumura says, “The phrase [tōhû wāḇōhû] in Gen 1:2 has nothing to do with chaos and simply means ‘emptiness,’” which he defines as “an unproductive and uninhabited place.” But he fails to note adequately that tōhû always connotes something terrible, eerie. Even in Job 26:7 it connotes a state that effects awe. To capture both the negative denotation and connotation of tōhû, “chaos” is more apt than emptiness.” (Waltke 2007, 181 n. 16)

Thus, according to Waltke’s argument, it seems that the problem for those who do not recognize Genesis 1:2 to be a description of chaos is that they do not perceive just how negative a description תֹּהוּ, tōhû, can be. The problem with this argument, however, is that it injects more subjectivity into the debate than objectivity. Since scholars of either position argue that תֹּהוּ either does or does not describe a chaos from the same passages, it seems odd to argue that one side does not view תֹּהוּ negatively enough. Should not the context of each passage determine how negative the term should be viewed? While it is a possibility that the literal use of תֹּהוּ describes something negative in Genesis 1:2 and other passages, there is nothing in the previous analysis of the evidence suggesting that תֹּהוּ is so negative that it describes a chaos contrary to creation. The bridge between what is negative and what is a chaos contrary to creation is simply not there. Furthermore, there is nothing in the previous analysis suggesting that God could not create the אֶרֶץ in this manner. Such an interpretation is neither a logical nor theological contradiction. A plain and simple reading of the contextual and thematic evidences clearly demonstrates that the word pair תֹּהוּ/בֹּהוּ in Genesis 1:2 describes the אֶרֶץ as being in a state of desolation, empty of inhabitants.

Conclusion

Based upon the preceding lexical analysis, summary-statement proponents cannot argue that it is logically contradictory for the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2 to correspond to the אֶרֶץ of 1:1 in state simply because it is described as being תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ. There is no evidence to suggest that the word pair describes a chaos contrary to creation. In fact, the contextual and thematic evidences clearly demonstrate that the word pair describes a desolation empty of inhabitants. Again, the close proximity of the two identical words in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 strongly suggests that they do correspond to one another in state. Thus, as previously suggested, in order for the summary-statement interpretation to be sustainable and more probable than the traditional interpretation, the two words must not be able to correspond to one another. Nevertheless, the previous discussion demonstrates that there is no reason they should not.

As Part 1 demonstrated, if Genesis 1:1 narrates the creation of only the cosmological containers of the שָׁמַיִם and the אֶרֶץ, then, as Part 2 demonstrates, the description of the אֶרֶץ in Genesis 1:2 as תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ substantiates such an interpretation. The word pair describes the cosmological container of the אֶרֶץ as a desolation, empty of inhabitants.53 This interpretation works with the proximal correspondence of the two occurrences of אֶרֶץ, not against it. Thus, if there is a semantic correspondence between the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:1 and the אֶרֶץ of Genesis 1:2, then there is semantic and syntactic correspondence between the two verses as well, and if there is semantic and syntactic correspondence between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, then the summary-statement interpretation is unlikely.

The majority of scholars from both the Christian and Jewish traditions have long appraised the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2 as the clearest reading of the text. According to this interpretation, Genesis 1:1 describes the first act of creation, but Genesis 1:2 then describes that initial creation as being in an incomplete state. This initial, incomplete state of creation, however, sets the tone for the rest of the creation narrative where the context shows that the initially, incomplete creation is increasingly shaped, molded, and populated until it reaches a completed state on the sixth day as explained in the summary statement of Genesis 2:1. Thus, with the traditional interpretation, everything in the creation narrative is explicitly described as being created by God, and there is nothing in the narrative that is already in existence when God begins creating. It is because of this traditional interpretation that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is a logical and theological inference drawn from these opening verses of the Bible, and these lexical analyses of Part 1 and Part 2 have demonstrated that traditional interpreters and theologians are on a sure lexical footing when arguing for it.

References

Aberback, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. trans. 1982. Targum Onkelos to Genesis. Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House.

Barr, James. 1998. “Was Everything That God Created Really Good?” In God in the Fray: A Tribute to Walter Brueggemann. Edited by Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal, 55–65. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1907. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Brown, William P. 1993. Structure, Role, and Ideology in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Genesis 1:1-2:3. Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series no. 132. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.

Carter, Craig A. 2021. Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Childs, Brevard S. 1960. Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology, First Series no. 27. Chatham, UK: W. and J. MacKay and Co.

Delitzsch. Franz 1888. A New Commentary on Genesis. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh, UK: T. and T. Clark.

Driver, S. R. 1904. The Book of Genesis. 2nd ed. Westminster Commentaries. London, UK: Methuen and Co.

Fishbane, Michael. 1971. “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13: A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (April): 151–167.

Görg, Manfred. 2006. “תֹּהוּ (tōhû).” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans.

Grossfeld, Bernard. 1969. “A Commentary on the Text of a New Palestinian Targum (Codex Neofiti I) on Genesis I-XXV.” Ph.D. diss. The Johns Hopkins University.

Gunkel, Hermann. 1997. Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Konkel, A. H. 1997. “בֹּהוּ.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Luzzatto, S. D. 1998. The Book of Genesis: A Commentary by ShaDaL (S. D. Luzzatto). Translated by Daniel A. Klein. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc.

Mathews, Kenneth A. 1996. The New American Commentary. Genesis 1–11:26. An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 1A. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers.

McNamara, Martin, trans. 1992. The Aramaic Bible. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Vol. 1A. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press.

Ouro, Roberto. 1998. “The Earth of Genesis 1:2: Abiotic or Chaotic? Part I.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 35, no. 2 (Autumn): 259–276.

Rooker, Mark F. 1992. “Genesis 1:1–3: Creation or Re-Creation? Part 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (July): 316–323.

Sailhamer, John H. 1990. Genesis. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 2. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 3–248. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Scullion, John J. 1992. Genesis: A Commentary for Students, Teachers, and Preachers. Old Testament Studies. Vol. 6. Collegeville, Minnesotta: The Liturgical Press.

Tertullian. 1885. Against Hermogenes. Translated by D. Holmes. American ed. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Buffalo, New York: Christian Literature.

Tsumura, David Toshio. 2005. Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

von Rad, Gerhard. 1963. Genesis: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Rev. Translated by John H. Marks. The Old Testament Library. London, UK: SCM Press Ltd.

Waltke, Bruce K. 1975a. “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part II: The Restitution Theory.” Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 526 (April): 136–144.

Waltke, Bruce K. 1975b. “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1–3, Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory.” Bibliotheca Sacra 132, no. 527 (July): 216–228.

Waltke, Bruce K. 2001. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Waltke, Bruce K. 2007. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Walton, John H. 2008. “Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order out of Disorder after Chaoskampf.” Calvin Theological Journal 43, no. 1: 48–63.

Walton, John H. 2009. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Watson, Rebecca S. 2005. Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of “Chaos” in the Hebrew Bible. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlich Wissenschaft, Band 341. Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter.

Westermann, Claus. 1990. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House.

Wilson, Joshua. 2018a “Linguistic Traits of Hebrew Relator Nouns and Their Implications for Translating Genesis 1:1.” Answers Research Journal 11 (February 28): 1–21. https://answersresearchjournal.org/hebrew-relator-nouns-translating-genesis-1/.

Wilson, Joshua. 2018b.“Syntactical Features of Hebrew Genitive Clauses and Their Implications for Translating Genesis 1:1.” Answers Research Journal 11 (December 19): 341–358. https://answersresearchjournal.org/hebrew-genitive-clauses/.

Wilson, Joshua. 2023. “Genesis 1:1–2 and the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (Part 1): A Lexical Analysis of the Phrase אֵת הַשָּמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.” Answers Research Journal 16 (June 7): 265–281. https://answersresearchjournal.org/genesis/genesis-doctrine-creatio-ex-nihilo-1/.

Young, Edward J. 1959. “The Relation of the First Verse of Genesis One to Verses Two and Three.” Westminster Theological Journal 21 (May): 133–146.

Young, Edward J. 1961. “The Interpretation of Genesis 1:2.” Westminster Theological Journal 23, no. 2 (May): 151–178.

Youngblood, Ronald F. 1980. “תֹּהוּ (tōhû) confusion.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press.