thm - tiamat??

Bearpecs at Bearpecs at
Sat Aug 4 21:03:47 EDT 2001

In a message dated 8/3/01 8:15:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
iangoldsmith1969 at writes:
> This conclusion would be diametrically opposed to the
> views of any monotheistic authors of the Hebrew texts.
> Anathema is not too strong a word for such.
> If, as is suggested by many 'JEDP+' theorists, and
> this work was composed much later than is
> traditionally accepted, 

There are two falacies in this argument.
1.  The connection of tehom to Tiamat may be real but not conscious to the 
biblical author(s) in the same way that even the most vehemently monotheistic 
of us aren't bothered by "Thursday" even though it really means "Thor's day".
2.  Source criticism does not preclude portions of texts being very ancient.  
The creation stories in fact were acknowledged as such even by Wellhausen.  
The point of source criticism is that the text *as we have it now* was 
compiled much later than was traditionally thought.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list