As can be seen none of the references to Tehom use
the definite article and so Yitzhak's claim that
Tehom was used as a proper noun holds water and is
consistent with all the extant examples in the Aleppo
codex.
However, none of the references provide an explicitly
unambiguous example of a deified usage while many
examples unambiguously and explicitly make use of
Tehom as a physical body of deep water.
The formula 'al p:ney tehom' is used several times
and therefore the Genesis 1 occurence cannot be
considered an out-of-the-ordinary reference to Tehom
with an out-of-the-ordinary proper noun syntax.
It therefore seems that Yitzhak has a good case for
cognate relationship between Tehom and Tiamat as
names for a primordial body of water but no concrete
case for cognate relationship as a name of a deity.
He also has a good case for Tehom being a proper noun
in the Tanakh but again no real case for assuming that
this the proper name of a Canaanite deity.
If we are to take the internal testimony of the usage
of the word Tehom as an indication of the way the
hebrews used and understood it then Proverbs 8:27,28
gives us strong reason to believe that Tehom was none
other than a physical body of water which was created.
This stands in stark contrast to the Enuma Elish account
where Tiamat is depicted as preexisting Marduk.
James C. Read
UK
cannot be
considered an out-of-the-ordinary reference to Tehom
with an out-of-the-ordinary proper noun syntax.
It therefore seems that Yitzhak has a good case for
cognate relationship between Tehom and Tiamat as
names for a primordial body of water but no concrete
case for cognate r