Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> >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.  

Do you understand what Genesis 1:2 is about from the 
text itself? Can you tell me why tehom is mentioned 
in the text? Can you tell from the text why the wind 
is present? A cursory reading of the Enuma Elisha 
answers all these questions. If you allow that the 
two accounts are related, one needs to face how they 
are related: when one version is apparently cryptic 
and the other is not, it is common to elucidate the 
one with the other.

>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.  

This sounds like you want something you'd never ask 
for the gospels. You can't show a definitive and 
demonstrable connection between them, yet I'd bet 
you are to some degree a supporter of something like 
a two document theory or analogous approach.

>We can't simply assume that one has 
>"missing details" and the other doesn't.  

We need to read the stories to see what they say. If 
you understand Gen 1:2 perfectly without any help 
then I think you have more knowledge on the verse 
than most other people.

>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.  

This just means that you don't agree with the 
connextion I make through the common material, a 
connection which seem to me to be far beyond 
speculation. Speculation is to say that br'$yt 
means "in the beginning of time", ie import 
meaning.

>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.

You want evidence that you can't provide for many 
of the accepted positions in normative Christianity. 
You want too much, and probably cannot face your 
own criteria.


Ian