Is R)$YT even a "time" word?

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Mon Mar 25 10:08:27 EST 2002


> >I have never bought the whole Tiamat/Tehom parallel 
> >and all that.  In any such situation, one can look at the similarities 
> >and assume they are derived from each other, 
> 
> We are not necessarily deriving one from the other. 
> The important information we get is the missing 
> details in Genesis when we look at the Enuma Elish. 

The notion that Enuma Elish supplies "missing details in Genesis" is 
another assumption that I don't buy.  To show this, a definitive and 
demonstrable connection between the two in terms of where they 
came from, how they developed, how they diverged and how 
particular details came to be included or excluded from one or the 
other, must be shown.  We can't simply assume that one has 
"missing details" and the other doesn't.  Again, when a statement 
like this is made in the context of what we know regarding the two 
stories, it is pure speculation, nothing more.  You're welcome to 
assume this sort of connection, but I don't think you'll ever be able to 
provide definitive evidence for it.  So speculate away, just don't 
expect the speculation to be taken as anything more than that.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
This time, like all times, is a very good one if we but know what to do 
with it.
                  -Emerson




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list