Journal
of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 6 (2006) - Review
David
Toshio Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (
The present work, the culmination of
three decades of research, is divided into two parts. Part I is a revision
of The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2: A
Linguistic Investigation (JSOT 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1989) by the same author. Part II, a new addition, discusses the Chaoskampf motif in poetic texts. Since Part I represents nearly three-quarters of the total content, it
will form the basis for the major portion of this review even though its
predecessor may be known to some readers.
Part I
is on the whole very similar to the predecessor work. Structurally, the chapter
divisions remain the same, though the original final chapter of ‘Summary and
Conclusions’ has been disposed of in favour of end-of-chapter summaries.
Content-wise, discussions have been to some extent expanded and updated, but
remain otherwise substantially identical. There are seven chapters to this
part.
‘1:
The Earth in Genesis 1’ examines the roots *THW and *BHW, and
concludes that the
תֹהוּ
וָבֹהוּ of Gen. 1:2 ‘simply means “emptiness”… a desolate and
empty place,’ communicating an initial situation of ‘not yet’ (35), rather than
a condition of primeval chaos which is in need of organising, as has often been
argued.
‘2:
The Waters in Genesis 1’ evaluates the use of *THM in Biblical Hebrew,
particularly in relation to the Babylonian connection in Enūma
Eliš suggested by Hermann Gunkel
and followed by others since. The author shows that the common term for ‘sea’
in West Semitic is *YMM rather than *THM, effectively disposing
of the alluded-to mythological connection as a basis for exegesis of Genesis 1,
since the word yam does not appear in the context under examination.
Having
discussed the earth in the first chapter and the waters in the second, the
author proceeds to their interrelationship, examining it in great detail in ‘3:
The Earth-Waters-rûaḥ in
Genesis 1’ (formerly ‘The Earth-Waters Relationship in Genesis 1’), concluding
with an examination of the role of God’s in the creative process. רוּחַ is ultimately concluded to be the breath of God,
preparing for the creative utterance which immediately follows.
With
‘4: The Earth in Genesis 2’ (formerly qualified as ‘Earth in a bare state,’ now
become a subsection within the chapter), the argument moves to material from
the next Biblical chapter. Tsumura’s analysis of the structure of Gen 2:5–6
alongside the semantic interplay of שָׂדֶה
,אֶרֶץ and אֲדָמָהsuggests that
the narrative of Genesis 2 parallels that of Genesis 1 in terms of
its description of the primordial state of the earth: there being neither shrub
nor plant, and no human to till the land, that is, it being ‘unproductive in
concrete terms’ (84), is tantamount to the desolation and emptiness discussed
above.
‘5:
The Waters in Genesis 2’ takes the next logical step in the comparison, the
bulk of the discussion centring on the etymology of אֵד.
Various theories are considered and the pros and cons weighed. Ultimately,
Tsumura comes to no certain conclusion, suggesting as the least of evils that אֵדbe taken as
direct loan from Sumerian with a meaning akin to ‘water flooding out of the
subterranean ocean’ (106), a tantalising if speculative notion.
The
parallel to the first three chapters is completed in ‘6: The Earth-Waters
Relationship in Genesis 2.’ The interpretation of אֵד concluding the previous chapter is picked up and
examined for fit in terms of context—passing the test—and the term עֵדֶן comes under the
microscope, but once again without there being any conclusive resolution. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of the etymologies of Tigris and
The
final chapter of Part I, ‘7: God and the Waters,’ compares God’s
relationship with water in Genesis 1 and 2 with various extra-biblical
materials, focussing in particular on similarities and differences between the
biblical God and creator or water-related deities Hadad
(and cognates), Marduk, Ea, and El. The overview is
interesting, but in light of its brevity necessarily too superficial given the
complexity of the subject matter to be taken as in any sense definitive:
probably this is the least valuable part of the book.
Part II
comprises four chapters which examine the potentiality of Chaoskampf
as a basis for certain poetic passages. Psalms 18, 29, and 46 are discussed as
is Habakkuk 3. In each case, the author demonstrates how any
apparent connection to Chaoskampf motifs from
other ancient Near Eastern cultures relies—in his assessment—on circular
argumentation or unproven assumption at best. This part concludes with a
discussion of the use of metaphor in poetry: the use of terms such as ‘war,’
‘storm,’ and ‘flood’ are shown to be no more than metaphoric, and references to
Rahab and Leviathan, while acknowledged as having
some mythological origin, are taken as ‘simply … personification’ (192), or to
put it another way, conscious use of mythological material as metaphor but
without any intent to import (or accept) the mythology itself.
A brief summary of main points is given in the final chapter, ‘Conclusions.'
In
general, the treatment of subject matter is sophisticated and comprehensive,
comprising detailed etymological analysis of key terms through examination of
possible cognates in Ugaritic, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Phoenician, Sumerian, and even Egyptian[1] in light of various proposals and
counter-proposals that have been made and meticulous discussion of poetic
structures. The treatment is clear if somewhat technical, though the general
reader of Biblical Hebrew will certainly appreciate the main points which are
made; morphological analyses in particular are nicely balanced by an
examination of semantic ranges and consideration of discourse analysis
concerns.
The
book does suffer from certain typographic problems (particularly in headers),
and would, in my opinion, have benefited from the inclusion of an explicit
bibliography (at the end of each chapter or of the work); I understand from the
publisher that the omission was deliberate. These practical issues however do
not detract from the value of the study, which should be considered a must-read
by anyone interested in the issues tackled therein.
Karljürgen G. Feuerherm,
The completeness of the study is shown in Tsumura’s brief discussion of certain theories claiming a relationship to Egyptian words as well, which he rejects as speculative at best.