Ugarit

[Meh Gerbil]

Lao Tzu,

I was only trying to get to the idea that one's starting assumptions will play a rather large role in how one views FirstFloor's excellent presentation of data.
Apparently we aren't allowed to go there, which despite your fantasies, doesn't ruffle my feathers - it merely reminds me why I usually don't discuss these things anymore.

I'll leave the discussion to those willing to adhere to the numerous assumptions necessary for interpreting the data in the 'correct' way.

If you need me I'll be out behind the woodshed smoking varves with Trout.

[Juvenal]

... FirstFloor's excellent presentation ...

Oh dude. I don't know much about double-F, but I'm quite sure he's not capable of this OP. (In fact, neither am I.) This is ShowMeProof's thread.

[Meh Gerbil]

Oh dude. I don't know much about double-F, but I'm quite sure he's not capable of this OP. (In fact, neither am I.) This is ShowMeProof's thread.

Oh dear... my apologies to the both of them.

[showmeproof]

El was also the common Semitic word for God. To show that El meant God in the sense that you say it is (Western Semitic pantheon head God) provide some clear examples of where it cannot mean God in the generic sense. God Almighty isn't one unless El Elyon is a proper name for one of those deities. The usage in Genesis 16:13 implies a generic sense.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/hwview.cgi?n=410
As for Hess, see here
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...6-f6f499fc2d69

El was the common Semitic word for God and Elohim can be a concretized abstract plural to denote Deity (Joel S. Burnett gives a good account of this in Reassessing the Biblical Elohim). There are many factors to consider, including grammar, the particular people in a specific time and place sitz im leben, context within the literary document, etc. I'll give two clear examples; Genesis 14:19-21 "And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He blessed [Abram] and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" ...Abram said to the king of Sodom (not Salem)" I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High (El Elyon), maker of heaven and earth..." Melchizedek isn't a priest of a generic god (you can't be a priest of a description), and there appears that the writer of this book knew that, because he has Abram interject Lord (YHWH) prior to El Elyon; even though Exodus 6:2-3 has YHWH speaking to Moses saying he didn't reveal himself to Abram by the name YHWH. A second example is Genesis 33:20 "There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel" El is the God of Israel. If, as you suggest, that this is generic then Jacob erected and named an altar to a generic god and this monotheist didn't mind which god was worshiped here. Remember that Schechem was in the land of Canaan.

Did you have a specific place within that forum that you meant to make a point about Hess? The more frequently used example from Hess on this issue is on William Lane Craig's website Reasonable Faith.

As far as I know, the text doesn't say gods. It says sons of God. Deut 14:1 says who these people are.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...14&version=NIV (N.B. the word translated "children" is literally "sons")
(N.B Doesn't the Bible teach monolatry ?)

I quoted the NRSV; you quoted the NIV. More importantly for this discussion, both the Septuagint and the Qumran scrolls read sons of god in verse nine whereas the Masoretic text reads sons of Israel; I am in agreement with Emanuel Tov that the Masoretic 'sons of Israel' is a theological gloss.

I have not read Stark, and will not engage in discussion about his exegesis until I have read his work.

See this excellent article by Glenn Miller
http://www.christianthinktank.com/gilgy08.html
Similar cultures display similar motifs and themes. So? The imagery utilized is central. The more likely thing to have happened is that the Israelites heard this imagery (or had it in their own culture) and decided to use it to worship YHWH instead of other gods.
I don't think that this means that Canaanite religion was central to the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. It just means that they liked the imagery they heard.

Interesting article. Note that this is dealing with Chaoskampf mainly in the creation account in Genesis. He is interested in cosmogony. A few quick notes: The connection is made when all three Storm, Sea, and Dragon are coupled together...because they utilize the names and/or characteristics of the deities involved in the West Semitic Combat Myth. YHWH and Baal are interchangeable as the Storm God, Yam or Sea is the antagonist and is often manifest in the Dragon; more specifically the fleeing and twisting serpent (these are used verbatim in the bible to discuss Leviathan. Yahweh took on characteristics of both EL, and there is a lack of polemic against EL in the Bible, but he also took on much of the characteristics of Baal. YHWH is a conglomeration. Peal off the layers of YHWH which were originally associated with El or Baal and what is left?

How is Job 26 dealing with creation btw?

Sorry, Job 38. The binding of the Sea is coupled with creation.

[damanar]

Interesting article. Note that this is dealing with Chaoskampf mainly in the creation account in Genesis. He is interested in cosmogony. A few quick notes: The connection is made when all three Storm, Sea, and Dragon are coupled together...because they utilize the names and/or characteristics of the deities involved in the West Semitic Combat Myth. YHWH and Baal are interchangeable as the Storm God, Yam or Sea is the antagonist and is often manifest in the Dragon; more specifically the fleeing and twisting serpent (these are used verbatim in the bible to discuss Leviathan. Yahweh took on characteristics of both EL, and there is a lack of polemic against EL in the Bible, but he also took on much of the characteristics of Baal. YHWH is a conglomeration. Peal off the layers of YHWH which were originally associated with El or Baal and what is left?

Thanks for posting this, you are far better read on this than I, but I took a lot of similarities in the characteristics of Baal and Jesus, Particularly with the sacrifice of Baal and his triumph over Mot. That would be New Testament lore as a derivative of Caanonite.

Have you read anything on this comparison/suggested readings?

[showmeproof]

Thanks for posting this, you are far better read on this than I, but I took a lot of similarities in the characteristics of Baal and Jesus, Particularly with the sacrifice of Baal and his triumph over Mot. That would be New Testament lore as a derivative of Caanonite.

Have you read anything on this comparison/suggested readings?

First and foremost, in regards to your query, one must recognize the importance of Apocalyptic in Christian theology; Jesus himself went about preaching the good news and warn people to repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near. Secondly, one must take into account that the Jewish Apocalyptic genre of the first couple centuries C.E. is very broad and extends beyond what we have in the Bible. Thirdly, the imagery repeatedly calls upon old motifs. Interestingly, these motifs do hearken back to the format of the Combat Myth.

As an example, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54 "When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: "Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? utilizes Isaiah 25:6-8 and which is further elaborated in Isaiah 27:1.

In Canannite literature (here I will be quoting from Stories from Ancient Canaan by Coogan and Smith) Mot (Death) in threatening Baal, says "When you killed Litan (Leviathan), the Fleeing Serpent, finished off the Twisting Serpent, the seven-headed monster, the heavens withered and weakened, like the folds of your robe...Now you must descend into the throat of El's son, Death...One lip to the earth, one lip to the heavens, his tongue to the stars..." Baal descends into the Pit one day passes, then two, then Death is defeated by Anat and is processed like grain. Upon his resurrection Baal is restored to his royal throne, the seat of his dominion.

In 1 Cor. 15:54 Mot/Death, the infamous swallower of gods and men becomes swallowed.

Also take Luke's account in consideration, The idea of the Virgin Birth is associated with the titles "son of the Most High and Son of God and with Jesus' claim upon the Davidic throne (Luke 1:32-35); Do not forget the imagery behind the Davidic Throne Psalm 89 "For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord, a God feared in the council of the holy ones...You rule the raging of the Sea; when its waves rise, you still them. You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm...I have found my servant David; with my holy oil I have anointed him, my hand shall always remain with him; my arm also shall strengthen him...I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers"

A very good, nuanced, and challenging discussion regarding the sacrifice of Jesus, and other 'Beloved Son(s)', can be found in The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son by Jon D. Levenson.

[Quantum Weirdness]

El was the common Semitic word for God and Elohim can be a concretized abstract plural to denote Deity (Joel S. Burnett gives a good account of this in Reassessing the Biblical Elohim). There are many factors to consider, including grammar, the particular people in a specific time and place sitz im leben, context within the literary document, etc. I'll give two clear examples; Genesis 14:19-21 "And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He blessed [Abram] and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" ...Abram said to the king of Sodom (not Salem)" I have sworn to the Lord, God Most High (El Elyon), maker of heaven and earth..." Melchizedek isn't a priest of a generic god (you can't be a priest of a description), and there appears that the writer of this book knew that, because he has Abram interject Lord (YHWH) prior to El Elyon; even though Exodus 6:2-3 has YHWH speaking to Moses saying he didn't reveal himself to Abram by the name YHWH. A second example is Genesis 33:20 "There he erected an altar and called it El-Elohe-Israel" El is the God of Israel. If, as you suggest, that this is generic then Jacob erected and named an altar to a generic god and this monotheist didn't mind which god was worshiped here. Remember that Schechem was in the land of Canaan.

Ok they're not generic but they are not proper names. They're descriptive titles of a Deity, not the Deity's actual name. Like Adonai. That's why YHWH modifies EL Elyon in verse 22. Why can't you be a priest of God Most High where God Most high is just a title for YHWH? Does being a daughter of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:5) imply that Pharaoh is a proper name as opposed to being a title? Does being a servant of Her Majesty imply that Her Majesty is a proper name as opposed to being a title?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+2&version=YLT

Did you have a specific place within that forum that you meant to make a point about Hess? The more frequently used example from Hess on this issue is on William Lane Craig's website Reasonable Faith.

This was an argument against the positon that Exodus 6 shows that the name YHWH was not known before that point.
I'll quote it specifically.
"Exodus 6:2c–3 appears to be a straightforward assertion that the patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh. Most translations are similar to the following:

“I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My name Yahweh I did not make Myself known to them.”

But the Hebrew text, as Francis I. Andersen points out, contains a case of noncontiguous parallelism that translators have not recognized: “I am Yahweh...and my name is Yahweh.” The “not” is therefore assertative in a rhetorical question rather than a simple negative, and it should not be connected to what precedes it (1974:102). In fact, the whole text is set in a poetic, parallel structure beyond what Andersen notes (see fig. 1).

The text does not assert that the patriarchs had never heard of Yahweh or only knew of El Shaddai, although it does say that God showed them the meaning of his name El Shaddai. El Shaddai is preceded by the b essentiae, which implies that God filled the name with special significance for them when He made a covenant with them and promised the land of Canaan as their inheritance (v. 4). Now He is going to fill the name Yahweh with significance (“And My name is Yahweh”) in the even greater deliverance of the Exodus (v. 5). Even so, the text stresses the continuity between the revelation to the patriarchs and the revelation of the Exodus rather than any discontinuity (“Did I not make Myself known to them?”). Andersen’s comments are to the point:

“There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites” (1974:102).

Figure 1

The Structure of Exodus 6:2c–3

A I am Yahweh.

B And I made myself known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai.

A’ And My name is Yahweh;

B’ Did I not make Myself known to them?" End Quote
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...6-f6f499fc2d69

I quoted the NRSV; you quoted the NIV. More importantly for this discussion, both the Septuagint and the Qumran scrolls read sons of god in verse nine whereas the Masoretic text reads sons of Israel; I am in agreement with Emanuel Tov that the Masoretic 'sons of Israel' is a theological gloss.

Yeah it is an explanatory note based on Deut 14:1. Since it uses the language of the writer to interpret the language of the writer, this gloss is likely correct in explaining what sons of God meant. (BTW I think these sons of God are the sons of Exodus 1:5 which are 70 in number agreeing with Genesis 11)

I have not read Stark, and will not engage in discussion about his exegesis until I have read his work. .

The argument was against polytheism in Deut 32:8-9.

Interesting article. Note that this is dealing with Chaoskampf mainly in the creation account in Genesis. He is interested in cosmogony. A few quick notes: The connection is made when all three Storm, Sea, and Dragon are coupled together...because they utilize the names and/or characteristics of the deities involved in the West Semitic Combat Myth. YHWH and Baal are interchangeable as the Storm God, Yam or Sea is the antagonist and is often manifest in the Dragon; more specifically the fleeing and twisting serpent (these are used verbatim in the bible to discuss Leviathan. Yahweh took on characteristics of both EL, and there is a lack of polemic against EL in the Bible, but he also took on much of the characteristics of Baal. YHWH is a conglomeration. Peal off the layers of YHWH which were originally associated with El or Baal and what is left?

Once again, just because similar imagery is used doesn't mean that one deity came from another. How do we know that YHWH took on these characteristics as time went on as opposed to originally having them? How do you establish the existence of "layers"?

Sorry, Job 38. The binding of the Sea is coupled with creation.

Where? Job 38:8-11 fit up better with Genesis 1:9-10 and Proverbs 8:29 as opposed to being some "battle".

[showmeproof]

Ok they're not generic but they are not proper names. They're descriptive titles of a Deity, not the Deity's actual name. Like Adonai. That's why YHWH modifies EL Elyon in verse 22. Why can't you be a priest of God Most High where God Most high is just a title for YHWH?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+2&version=YLT

If the patriarchs lived in the Late Bronze Age and in the Levant, El would have been known to them as a proper name of a specific god as well as with its generic use. The El of Canaanite religion revealed himself in oracular dreams, lived in a tent/tabernacle on a mountain at the source of the rivers, blessed aging patriarchs with heirs, and had titles like Creator of Creatures, Father of the Gods, Father of Mankind, Eternal One. These are consonant with the use of EL and YHWH within the Hebrew Bible. Do you think it improbable that individuals in Canaan during the late Bronze Age would associate El Shaddai, El Elyon etc. with El? Did all such occurrences really mean Yahweh? Could it have meant Yahweh at that specific time and place?

I agree Elyon is a title, but it is used in combination with EL as well as YHWH. EL and YHWH became equated and were used interchangeably in the Iron Age. In the Late Bronze Age it is an entirely different story. By the Bible's own account Abram was an alien in the land of Canaan...what would make you think that the King of Salem in the Bronze Age worshiped Yahweh?

This was an argument against the positon that Exodus 6 shows that the name YHWH was not known before that point.
I'll quote it specifically.
Figure 1

The Structure of Exodus 6:2c–3
A I am Yahweh.
B And I made myself known to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai.
A’ And My name is Yahweh;
B’ Did I not make Myself known to them?" End Quote
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...6-f6f499fc2d69

This breakdown still supports that God was known by two names; in fact, this verse is a clarification that they, El Shaddai and YHWH, are one and the same. I am not arguing that the Israelites worshiped two different deities; on the contrary El and YHWH were already equated in the Iron Age (the earliest writings of the Hebrew Bible). However, what is interesting is understanding who EL was prior to the conflation. Who El was in the Bronze Age. Who El was in a specific time and place. The Ugaritic texts provide us extra-biblical evidence of El and other gods that predate the Bible. We obviously disagree that the Israelites used El as a proper name; I think there is abundant evidence whereas you only think of El as a title of Yahweh. Historically speaking, how far back do you, and what evidence do you use to support it, trace back the worship of YHWH?

Yeah it is an explanatory note based on Deut 14:1. Since it uses the language of the writer to interpret the language of the writer, this gloss is likely correct in explaining what sons of God meant. (BTW I think these sons of God are the sons of Exodus 1:5 which are 70 in number agreeing with Genesis 11)

It surely explains what the sons of god meant at a certain time (most specifically at the time of the Masoretic text was written 1000 C.E.), but not what it meant in its earliest use. I think the original meaning refers to the sons of EL; other gods. This is evident in explicitly calling them gods, sons of Elyon, in Psalm 82.

Once again, just because similar imagery is used doesn't mean that one deity came from another. How do we know that YHWH took on these characteristics as time went on as opposed to originally having them? How do you establish the existence of "layers"?

Similar imagery certainly means that it was appropriate to use even though it was associated with other gods. You establish the existence of layers by comparing the archaeological and literary record. We have records of other gods with these specific characteristics prior to YHWH. We have records of how this imagery was used by the Israelites. Could evidence be found where YHWH was an entity worshiped with these characteristics prior to our current evidence; sure and it would be fascinating. As it stands the evidence supports that YHWH is imbued with Baal's storm imagery and his defeat of Sea (Yam)/River (Nahar)/Leviathan (Lotan) and Death (Mot).

[showmeproof]

Thanks for posting this, you are far better read on this than I, but I took a lot of similarities in the characteristics of Baal and Jesus, Particularly with the sacrifice of Baal and his triumph over Mot. That would be New Testament lore as a derivative of Caanonite.

Have you read anything on this comparison/suggested readings?

Forgot other suggested readings for this.

The Apocalyptic Imagination by J.J. Collins
He that Cometh by Sigmund Mowinckel
King and Messiah as Son of God by Adela Yarbro Collins and J.J. Collins
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son by Jon D. Levenson
also, in Slaying the Dragon, Bernard Batto in an afterword deals specifically with the New Testament (I'll take a look at his bibliography for that chapter to see if there are other good suggested readings that aren't too technical)

[damanar]

Forgot other suggested readings for this.

The Apocalyptic Imagination by J.J. Collins
He that Cometh by Sigmund Mowinckel
King and Messiah as Son of God by Adela Yarbro Collins and J.J. Collins
The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son by Jon D. Levenson
also, in Slaying the Dragon, Bernard Batto in an afterword deals specifically with the New Testament (I'll take a look at his bibliography for that chapter to see if there are other good suggested readings that aren't too technical)

Thanks, that definitely gives me a starting point. I, too, find the evolution of religions fascinating.

[Abigail]

The text does not assert that the patriarchs had never heard of Yahweh or only knew of El Shaddai, although it does say that God showed them the meaning of his name El Shaddai. El Shaddai is preceded by the b essentiae, which implies that God filled the name with special significance for them when He made a covenant with them and promised the land of Canaan as their inheritance (v. 4). Now He is going to fill the name Yahweh with significance (“And My name is Yahweh”) in the even greater deliverance of the Exodus (v. 5). Even so, the text stresses the continuity between the revelation to the patriarchs and the revelation of the Exodus rather than any discontinuity (“Did I not make Myself known to them?”). Andersen’s comments are to the point:

“There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites” (1974:102).

Yes, I would agree with this.

Whatever gods were in the Canaanite pantheon, there would be some overlap with the God of the Bible in descriptions and acts because of the very nature of the way things are. However in the pantheon these are all separate entities (gods) whereas the God of Israel - by definition - contains within Himself all the (good)functions that any god of the pantheon might have had. For example they have a head of the gods and God by definition is head so here we have a 'natural' overlap. The difference is that God gives proof that he is these things by His acts. Abraham knows God as God Most High, God Almighty and this is shown by God making him victorious in battle and giving him a son with Sarah etc. The fact that Abraham calls Him Lord seems consistent with Abraham knowing that all the functions are contained in God. To Moses God reveals Himself specifically as Yahweh because it is in that capacity He is going to do mighty deeds by deliverance from captivity in Egypt and escalating to Jesus' delivering us from sin and death. The imagery in Psalm 74:13-14 can be seen in light of their deliverence from Egypt. God dividing the sea and then letting it fall back over the chariots (sea monsters - not a great leap of logic for them to think of battle transport in this way when you look at imagery on pictures on Phonecian coins of ships with dragon looking heads) and crushing 'the heads of Leviathan' as the death of the eldest sons of the Egyptians (Egyptian headress depicted serpents). It also foreshadows the phrophecy of Christ as given in Genesis 3:15. These seem adequate to explain the imagery.

[showmeproof]

Yes, I would agree with this.

The difference is that God gives proof that he is these things by His acts. The imagery in Psalm 74:13-14 can be seen in light of their deliverence from Egypt. God dividing the sea and then letting it fall back over the chariots (sea monsters - not a great leap of logic for them to think of battle transport in this way when you look at imagery on pictures on Phonecian coins of ships with dragon looking heads) and crushing 'the heads of Leviathan' as the death of the eldest sons of the Egyptians (Egyptian headress depicted serpents). It also foreshadows the phrophecy of Christ as given in Genesis 3:15. These seem adequate to explain the imagery.

Many acts of God, especially the ones called upon for God to remember, awake, or repeat, are written in the structure of the Combat Myth. Yes, Psalm 74 is recalling the Exodus by utilizing the Combat Myth. There are few theologically more important stories in the Hebrew Bible than the Exodus; why would it be explained in terms that is reminiscent of Baal's victory over the Sea and Leviathan...especially if Baal was a foreign and unacceptable god. YHWH's greatest deeds are remembered in terms of Baal's victory. That is significant. It would be like remembering Jesus' greatest deeds in terms of Satan's deeds. (Quite literally, as Baal is lumped into the figure that we know as Satan)

The dragon imagery has nothing to do with the Egyptian uraei. --For imagery I suggest Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel by Keel and Uehlinger.

When would you date the Exodus?

[robrecht]

Ugaritic. I never got around to learning Ugaritic but some of my closest friends did. And Akkadian, which is much more difficult. I did study Moabite, though, which is very easy. As a Christian who loves the Jewish scriptures, which are also Christian scriptures, there is no reason to fear these ancient texts that cast some light on the background of our scriptures. That is all. Carry on.

[showmeproof]

Ugaritic. I never got around to learning Ugaritic but some of my closest friends did. And Akkadian, which is much more difficult. I did study Moabite, though, which is very easy. As a Christian who loves the Jewish scriptures, which are also Christian scriptures, there is no reason to fear these ancient texts that cast some light on the background of our scriptures. That is all. Carry on.

I only know how to pick up on some of the more common transliterations, after having read so much. I have not read one of the available grammars. I am fascinated in the texts, quite apart from the content, in that they are alphabetic cuneiform and utilize much of the same poetic meter as early Hebrew. While Proto-Canaanite is most probably older, there are only inscriptions and not a literary corpus (so far). Dennis Pardee's book The Ugaritic Texts and the Origin of West Semitic Literary Composition is very insightful. The Ugaritic Texts provide us the first known alphabetic literature.

Pardee states, "Ugaritic is linguistically archaic...it is demonstrably more closely related to the Canaanite languages than to Aramaic or to Arabic, though its archaic phonology and morphology show significant similarities with both proto-Aramaic and Arabic. They dynasty on the throne of Ugarit was of Amorite origin as is indicated by the onomastic tradition, but we know nothing of the geographical origin of the new dynasty. On this precarious basis, we might expect the culture of Ugarit to show similarities with taht of their Amorite forebears as well as with that of their linguistic cousins, the Canaanites." (pg 25)

[Abigail]

Many acts of God, especially the ones called upon for God to remember, awake, or repeat, are written in the structure of the Combat Myth. Yes, Psalm 74 is recalling the Exodus by utilizing the Combat Myth. There are few theologically more important stories in the Hebrew Bible than the Exodus; why would it be explained in terms that is reminiscent of Baal's victory over the Sea and Leviathan...especially if Baal was a foreign and unacceptable god. YHWH's greatest deeds are remembered in terms of Baal's victory. That is significant. It would be like remembering Jesus' greatest deeds in terms of Satan's deeds. (Quite literally, as Baal is lumped into the figure that we know as Satan)

Yes the Exodus was very significant and especially significant in my opinion is the connection of the name Yahweh to the deliverance of Israel from bondage. However Noah's flood is also significant - here we have the defeat of violent mankind. Also the account of Babel. In these we have sea and storm and vanquishing of lethal opponents and people who want to replace God with themselves. These are common stories to a time before God called Abraham and so it is not so unlikely that there will be common themes and accounts. Further the location of people will often dictate the imagery they use and in the case of serpents and dragons these seem to have universal appeal as images of power and fear etc. I think you are making a mistake to assume that anyone else using these motifs is a worshipper of the Canaanite gods. My opinion is that these people do have a common root but that their witness of God had become corrupted and this resulted in systems like the Canaanite pantheon which would have been a synthesis of everything and more. There were obviously some who kept truth (Melchizedek). So then it was not Baal who had victory over Sea but God. Should God not use the imagery because someone set up a statue called Baal and attributed God's acts to it.

The dragon imagery has nothing to do with the Egyptian uraei. --For imagery I suggest Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel by Keel and Uehlinger.

When would you date the Exodus?

Dragon is an image of speed and strength ie a killing machine