Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Tehom: Divine or Not Divine?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Tehom: Divine or Not Divine?
  • Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:31:51 +0100

Yitzhak:
Isaiah 51 shows that the Israelites were not ignorant of
the myths relating Tehom as the sea dragon that the
God destroyed and cut up.
END QUOTE

JCR: Your whole line of reasoning is based on your
interpretation of Isaiah 51 is correct and this in itself
lies on the assumption that your assumptions about the
Tehom/Tiamat relationship are correct. Surely you must
see how this is circular reasoning at its most evident.
There is absolutely no internal unambiguous references
that divinise Tehom whatsoever in the Tanakh. Reading
the text at face value could only ever lead the reader
to believe that Tehom is referring to the body of
water which the context evidently points to.

Yitzhak:
Again, I am not saying the reference is to the Babylonian
Tiamat, but rather to the Canaanite counterpart Tehom.
END QUOTE

JCR: Do you have any evidence of a Canaanite goddess
named Tehom? If not, this is merely speculation based
on non verifiable assumptions.

Yitzhak:
It is like me making
a reference to Snow White.
END QUOTE

JCR: No it isn't. It's like making a reference to white
snow in a foreign language in a context which makes it
clear that we are talking about the physical entity of
white snow and then a textual critic coming along and
trying to prove this foreign text was an adaptation
of Walt Disney's classic.

Yitzhak:
The reading of the Creation
account should not be seen simply as reading a historical
narrative, but of attempting to discover the differences
between the Genesis creation narrative and the then
accepted creation narrative.
END QUOTE

JCR: Surely you acknowledge that your notions of 'then
accepted creation narrative' can never be considered
more than theoretical postulation at best. It is
therefore necessary to analyse the text at face value
and use the context to understand the meaning of the
term. Using such a method it is plain to see that the
Genesis account is doing nothing more than referencing
an innate body of water. What we need to not lose sight
of is that Tiamat was named after the body of water,
*not* the other way around.

Yitzhak:
Besides the obvious similar structure between the two
verses, noted by the initial two or three words, there are
also the two verbs mxrbt and mxcbt. (The x may be a
different one in each root, though. I need to check that part).
The parallelism Rahab = Tanin is clear. But in light of the
similarity in form and structure between these two
parallelisms, we are also justified for looking for a
connection between 9b and 10a. Are Yam and Tehom
Rabbah also references to the dragon?
END QUOTE

JCR: No! Yam and Tehom are parallels just as Rahab and
the dragon are parallels. It is clear that Isaiah is
talking about bodies of water and nothing more.
Isaiah himself spoke greatly about the destruction of
lifeless idols. To suggest that he would then contradict
himself by claiming that Yam and Tehom were once living
deities is to take these references out of their larger
context in the extreme.

When we have to go to such great lengths to prove a
connection it is usually good indication that no such
connection exists.

I have listened to your arguments and at best the only
connection between Tiamat and Tehom that I can see is
that they are possible cognates that both originally
named the same concept of a body of primordial water.
We have proof that this concept was divinised in
Babylonian texts but none in Hebrew texts. The
coincidence that Tiamat was depicted as being split in
two to form the waters above and the waters below may
well be a mythological embellishment based on an oral
creation tradition that dates back as far as Adam
himself, who spoke face to face with his creator.


James C. Read
UK

















es is to take these references out of their larger
context in the extreme.

When we have to go to such great lengths to prove a
connection it is usually good indication that no such
connection exists.

I have listened to your arguments and at best the only
connection between Tiamat and Tehom that I can see is
that they are possible cognates that both originally
named the same concept of a body of primordial water.
We have proof that this concept was divinised in
Babylonian texts but none in Hebrew texts. The
coincidence that Tiamat was depicted as being split in
two to form the waters above and the waters below may





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page