Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (review)

Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 150 Reviews So does Albertz make it impossible to undertake a von Rad-type of theology of the Old Testament? This would mean returning to the premise that everything can revert to central unifying theological themes with the core belief in a God who acLc; throughout the process of history in a gradual and unveiling way. Is such an understanding of the origin and development of the faith of the Old Testament. in a coherent and dialectical sense. really possible? Probably not: Albertz's perception of Israelite religion accords far better with the fragmentary and ideological nature of the texts. Although his approach may produce less clear and conclusive results. it is undoubtedly a more acute understanding of the nature of Israelite religion as it has been transmitted through the history of tradition. This is overall an excellent study. enhanced by a clear and empathetic translation by John Bowden. Those who find that the analysis in Volume I accords with their own judgments should also tum to Volume II (From the Exile to the Maccabees. The Old Testament Library, 1994) for a similar depiction of the tensions and conflicts within the more neglected period of post-exilic religion. One small but substantial point to be noted with regard to Volume I: indices of biblical references. subjects, and authors are only given at the back of Volume II. This irritating omission should be remedied at the first available reprint, if only by way of repeating the extensive indices in Volume II in Volume I. It seems a shame to mar such a stimulating study by such a basic omission. Susan E. Gillingham Worcester College Oxford OX} 2HB England CREATION ACCOUNTS IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND IN THE BIBLE. By Richard J. Clifford. CBQMS 26. Pp. xiii + 220. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association. Paper, $9.00. Richard J. Clifford states his intentions succinctly in the Preface to this important synthesis of "creation accounts" (that is, cosmogonies, rather than the many references to creation) from a variety of ancient Near Eastern cultures. Clifford surveys texts in Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Canaanite, and Hebrew, linking the texts to the advanced work in each specialization . The ground has been covered before, but Clifford's measured Hebrew Studies 37 (1996) 151 Reviews judgments inspire the confidence of the reader; the author does not try to squeeze the varied cosmogonies into a single tradition. He offers no new or radical theories, but the surveys in Part One (the non-biblical traditions) allow him to extend the biblical material in Part Two beyond the usual concentration on Genesis 1-11. Particularly important, in Clifford's view, are the cosmogonies in Psalms, Second Isaiah, and wisdom literature. He is careful to point out that the biblical texts are not necessarily superior to the other traditions. In most cases, he is also careful not to extend his interpretations beyond the evidence, which is (e.g., the Canaanite literary texts) notoriously fragmentary and difficult to interpret. His book is recommended to the specialist and non-specialist (with some background in biblical scholarship) alike as an introduction to creation accounts that may have influenced biblical cosmogonies. Clifford devotes so much space to Sumerologist Jan Van Dijk's distinction between two rival traditions in Sumerian literature that it seems Clifford is laying the groundwork for a reading of biblical cosmogonies from that perspective. Van Dijk has argued for a deep division between the Nippur and Eridu traditions in Sumerian literature, one emphasizing the god Enlil, cosmic motifs (especially the marriage of the great Above and the great Below), and creation seen as emersio (that is, the emergence of humanity, plantlike) from the earth; the second centering on the activities of Enid, whose chthonic formatio-humans formed in clay by Enkicreates the universe from underground waters without a sacred marriage. Van Dijk's theory is powerful, though not accepted by all Sumerologists, and is difficult to sustain in later Mesopotamian texts like the influential Enuma Elish, where the two Sumerian traditions may have been (deliberately) combined in the Akkadian text. Clifford is wise not to extend the Sumerian distinctions to later literature, especially the Bible. Similarly, he points out diverse...